Last week: 6-2 Year to date picks against the spread (ATS): Official picks: 37-31-1. Total picks ATS: 41-31-1
Recap: Grumbling: Loved the Giants, didn’t add to last weeks picks on Monday. Liked the Rams and Dallas a lot (But only because Dallas was getting 3.5, and not 3, since figured there was still a goo chance the game would be close and they would blow it at the end, which naturally is what happened), but usually don’t do this piece until late Saturday or Sunday. Woulda Coulda Shoulda. Had I added them all it probably would have been reversed. So, since am doing this week’s, quickly and without too much commentary, they’ll probably all lose:
Picks: 3 official. 1 extra:
Bears +4 (at Vikings)
Look for the possible upset. Though not an official pick here of Chicago however; the line was 5.5, and at 4 this is an iffier pick. (So naturally, since I’m not officially making the pick, the Bears will win. Though since am tallying unofficial picks (4-0 so far), who knows.)
Ravens +7 (v. Chiefs)
Baltimore’s kept almost every game close this season. Granted, they don’t have a QB any more, but they sill have a very good head coach. Chiefs are hot, but they showed frailty earlier in the year, and even if they don’t again, Baltimore’s not the easiest place to play.
Giants +5 (at Panthers)
The Giants can beat any team in the league, including the Panthers. Too bad they don’t have someone actually helping them manage end game strategy decisions. (They actually botched last Monday as well, though this time, unlike in other instances this season, they didn’t also wind up losing as a result.)
But the call here is that the Giants, who also have a very suspect (but smart and turnover hungry) defense, and iffy O line play, still pull off the upset.
Though who knows with these Panthers – they’re playing better and better; and, most impressively of all, and the reason for their success – are playing as a team. And thus there’s still a decent chance they solidly outplay the Giants (remember the Eagles, who aren’t the Panthers, did it earlier in the year as well).
But more likely it’s a good game, and the Giants do it once again – that is, beat an unbeaten team late in the year.
Denver +6.5 (at Steelers)
Pittsburgh is playing out of its mind right now. And, like the Seahawks, is one of those teams who don’t have a great record, but that no one wants to face in the playoffs if they make it in.
Simultaneously, the near labeling of Brock Osweiler as a big improvement over an obviously injury riddled and slowed Peyton Manning, may have been a little too premature, (When the Broncos won with Peyton it was because of the defense and in spite of Peyton, but when they won with Brock, yeah, what a great QB, or so some of the proverbs went. But it’s not as simple as that.)
Denver’s also missing some safeties, but their defense is still staunch, and this is a great test to see what they can do.
They’re still a great team – even with Gary Kubiak as head coach. (Remember Kubiak’s long and largely unsuccessful tenure in Houston, finally turning them into a very strong team before immediately turning it around to lose 14 almost close ones in a row to close out the brief “strong team” period at 2-14.) And they might even be better than Pittsburgh. Though again right now it looks like maybe not.
But they are getting 6.5 points here. This is an excessive volume if the game, despite Pitt’s blazing offense – and if so possibly in part because of Denver’s D – stays close.
Late in the season isn’t exactly a good time to pick a lot of underdogs, as teams become more and more who they are, and often what we expect. But this is the week of the underdog. Either that, or it’s the week of really bad picks. Thus:
1. Washington Redskins +3.5 at Chicago Bears
Skins stink on the road. But they surprise.
Pick: Redskins
2. Detroit Lions (-3) at St Louis Rams
St. Louis has to win just enough so that we keep suffering from the mass delusion that Jeff Fisher is a good head coach. Plus, the Lions are probably past their embarassment now about getting nearly their entire top level staff fired, and having their 90 year owner publicly calling them out to the world.
Even if they did then finally blow an otherwise season sweep of the Packers, by an ill timed (if also bad call) facemask and ensuing longest Hail Mary for the win in the entire history of the NFL.
Pick: Rams
3. Seattle (+11) at Baltimore Ravens
Jimmy Clausen has had such a bad career it’s kind of hard to realize he wasn’t drafted by the Cleveland Browns in the first round. (Carolina, 2nd round, 2010)
But Baltimore’s not a bad team, and shouldn’t be an 11 point dog at home to anybody even if Elmer Fudd or Brian Billick were playing quarterback.
Okay, if either of those two were, maybe they should be; but not with an actual NFL backup, even an iffy one.
Incidentally, Clausen played for the Bears earlier this season, against these same Seahawks in week 3: He passed for 63 total yards, and the Bears lost 26-0.
Also, Albert Breer should be forced to sit in an alternate universe and carefully watch the Seahawks’ entire 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons, with a boilerplate average starting QB at the helm, instead of Russell Wilson. Then rewrite this piece, which, verbatim, has the following absurd lead in, from NFL.Com: “One-time game manger Russell Wilson has become a major driver of his team’s success.” (Though in fairness, game manger might be a much larger step up from game manager than I had always assumed it to be, and thus the lead in less ridiculous.)
Pick: Ravens
4. San Diego Chargers (+11) at Kansas City Chiefs
Philip Rivers, unless he stays sick and doesn’t play (not anticipated) sometimes pulls games out of a hat in December. Chiefs are playing well, but might sleep a little on this team that has fallen miserably.
It’s a division game, and the spread is a bit over the top given the unpredictability between division rivals, even if the Chargers are badly banged up.
Pick: Chargers
5. Oakland Raiders (+6.5) at Denver Broncos
Hard to imagine this same Oakland team that has finally settled in to lower mid level mediocrity is going to beat the same team that recently beat the Patriots, and that a few weeks back also dominated the Packers like they were a farm club. But they will.
Pick: Oakland
6. San Francisco 49ers (+1.5) at Cleveland Browns
Be better if Kevin Patra were held to a year of eating fruitarian drinks, whatever those are, but he probably won’t have to, as Johnny Football’s only incompletion, and turnover, is during his one drop back where he pulls a beer out of his side pocket and doesn’t get the top off and the whole can fully guzzled before being sacked and stripped of the ball (and beer can).
Ha ha we can joke all we want, beer drinking quarterbacks are a serious NFL quarterback problem. As are the Browns.
Pick: Browns
7. Atlanta Falcons (+7.5) at Carolina Panthers
The Panthers, despite the ludicrous “Riverboat Ron” nickname, used to sometimes outplay the Falcons as huge underdogs and then lose at the end because they liked punting on 4th and short past midfield with a small lead when a mere 1st down wins the game outright.
Now the Panthers are genuinely better. A lot better. And they will lose: Probably by being afraid of playing to win at the end (and blowing their perfect season), and so Matt Ryan gets a chance to beat them again. And does.
Pick: Falcons
8. New Orleans (+4.5) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers;
The Saints party like it’s 1999.
Wait, the Saints only won 3 games in 1999, Mike Ditka’s last season as head coach there. While the Bucs lost in the last minute of the NFC Championship game on a controversial replay.
So maybe after the game.
Pick: Saints. If not, maybe the Saints should bring back Rob Ryan, and consider getting some new defensive players instead of a new coordinator. Or both.
Last week: 1-1 Unofficial picks: 0-0 (See last paragraph last weeks picks.) Year to date picks against the spread (ATS): Official picks: 29-26-1. Total picks ATS: 33-26-1
Recap: Last week went with the Cowboys. Against an undefeated team whose coach probably asked them why they were 10-0 and undefeated in almost 365 days regular season if go back to last year, yet still not even a favorite (and in some places an underdog) against a debacle 3-7 team who’s not even very good at home. Which probably get then pretty riled. And rightly so.
This quote from a silly comedy movie, and tweeted by Tony Romo, inspired:
This flick, a sort of far softer (and much nicer) “pulp fiction,” relied on an inspirational book which wouldn’t support a team like the Cowboys, who have made excuses (Romo’s not playing!) but would support a team like the Vikings, who don’t.
Picks:
1. Seattle Seahawks (-2.5) at Minnesota Vikings:
3 points would be a more comfortable line here, since this game does involve a team that came within a 2nd & goal from the 1 yard line of winning its second Super Bowl in a row last year, and finished out the 2012 season by almost going to the championship game. A club now with its back up against the wall. But so far it’s not quite been the same team; while the Vikings have been quietly growing. This game will show whether that growth has continued.
Pick: Vikings
2 Arizona Cardinals (-3.5) at St. Louis Rams
Sure the Rams might win, in, of course, true recent history Jeff FIsher fashion. The Jekyll and Hyde Rams, a moniker that’s been fitting since Fisher took over.
Now that they’re all but out of the playoff race, and can’t harm the Cardinals chances too badly even by beating them, they might yet win again and sweep. They outplayed the Cardinals (but lost) one of the two games last year and beat them by 2 points earlier this one.
The Cardinals remember that, and don’t like it. But the Rams seem to play this team well. They may again, but they’re still a a largely up and down but fairly mediocre team with no offense, and a defense that still doesn’t always tackle correctly. And going up against one of the best teams in the NFL, coming into the game knowing they will get the Rams best shot – which given the Rams history is a lot different than the Rams frequent mediocre ones.
And while beating the Cardinals seems to unfortunately define the Rams season for them – and why in part they’re a scary team for the Cardinals to play right now – keep in mind this is now Jeff Fisher’s 20th season as an NFL head coach. It’s included only 6 playoff appearances, and a Rams team that each year continues to do no better than the quick spike in improvement from its prior dismal depths it showed the first year Fisher, now in year four, took over.
Pick: Cardinals
3. Carolina Panthers (-6.5) at New Orleans Saints
And then there were none.
Pick: Saints
4. Denver Broncos (-5.5) at San Diego Chargers
Denver’s a very strong football team, but new QB Brock Osweiler is still somewhat unknown; and Denver’s also getting a lot of publicity off of beating an injury riddled Patriots team in a game they were solidly losing until near the end. And injury riddled or not, under QB Philip Rivers the Chargers have typically played pretty good football late in the season.
Pick: Chargers
5. Indianapolis Colts (+9) At Pittsburgh Steelers
The way the Steelers have been playing, it’s hard to see them losing. Particularly considering the easier schedule the more questionable, and normally almost entirely Andrew Luck led Colts – now still playing with a so far successful but not taking the stats column by storm 40 year old quarterback – has had. But 9 points is still too many for a game that is far from a near lock.
Recap: Last week started a new edition to (ironically) improve the ATS record: Separately labeled picks of some worth and fun, yet perhaps not as strong as the “best” – many of which had been losing and dragging down what would have been a well above .500 ATS year to date. Thus broke the “best” picks into official picks, and added the rest as “fun picks.”
What irony, as the fun picks swept the field, while the “best” went a whopping 0-1-1 as the Redskins, with nearly everything going wrong, were pummeled by Carolina; and as a Rex Ryan coached team that still doesn’t know how to win a game against Bill Belichick that his team easily could have, didn’t even keep it as tight score wise as the game really was.
That result was, in part, courtesy of a field goal smacking the right post that would have veered inside and not in front if but an inch or two to the left. (But then had it done so, but for an “inch or two” to the right, it would have missed, instead of giving the Bills 3 more points and the Patriots worse field position); and then courtesy of, amazingly, giving up an ensuing TD drive in an astoundingly low 46 remaining first half seconds – 62 total yards as a result of the favorable post missed field goal position or not.
That spectacularly rapid TD drive, when all the Bills had to do was hold the Patriots for three quarters of a minute, was also given up to a team their defense had corralled, if not dominated, the entire half; not just stopping them cold on most series, but having given up only a measly 3 points, on the Patriots very opening drive. (And one kept alive by a defensive hold on a 3rd and 9 at that.)
Naturally, the last 4 picks, for the first time labeled unofficial “fun” picks, went an easy 4-0: As the Bengals, but for an AJ Green step an inch or two too far right – thus hitting and stepping on instead of bouncing off inside the pylon – would have won outright; and a bad Bengals decision on a 3rd and 2 to go for a long shot TD throw (that still almost worked but for that pylon dance) in combination with the ensuing 4th & 2 field goal decision to “tie” a game with plenty of time left for an always predictably aggressive Arizona team to easily win it when needing not a TD but just a field goal – and if not, still have a 50-50 chance in overtime, helped the Bengals lose by 3 at the buzzer. And they still covered the spread after blowing the game by not fully contemplatingthe entirety of end game strategy, as well as a close call on a non TD that didn’t go their way.
While Detroit, in a pick em game, won at home 18-13 (the line used last week for this pick, in explanation, was “surprise surprise“); the Texans, as 4 point underdogs, won outright by 7; and the Cowboys – as 2 point favorites on the road (where they have been playing better than at home for a while now) courtesy of the Tony Romo is back effect – won 24-14.
1. Carolina Panthers (pick ’em) at Dallas Cowboys
This is funny: But for a playoff game last year, the Panthers have not lost a real football game in about 361 days. Meanwhile the Cowboys, who were 8-0 on the road yet only 4-4 at home last year, and who would be 0-5 at home and 2-3 on the road (instead of 1-4 and 2-3, for a miserable 3-7 overall record) this one but for an outright, purposeful, gift by the Giants, as well as, separately, the referees, in week one. Yet the Cowboys aren’t even an underdog.
Good teams don’t fall apart, whether they still “give effort” or not. (And why wouldn’t any athlete – let alone ones being paid millions of dollars – give effort; that’s what sport is for, particularly when there’s the overriding goal of winning the game driving all effort and play.) And the Cowboys did fall apart a little without their quarterback, losing 7 straight.
Still, common perception semi dissing the Panthers’ accomplishments here notwithstanding, the Cowboys will likely win.
Why? We’ll let actor Tom Berenger explain, courtesy of none other than Tony Romo (who actually tweeted this last week before his first game back):
Pick: Cowboys Incidentally, if the Cowboys don’t win, it won’t be for lack of a good game. But because the Panthers — realizing that having just blown out the Redskins to remain undefeated at 10-0, and having not lost a regular season game in almost a year, still aren’t even favored against a (from their perspective) miserable 3-7 ball club — play angrier than hornets.
2. Chicago Bears (+8) at Green Bay Packers
Though there’s apparently no direct evidence of it this time, it looks like before last week’s win at the then division leading Vikings, QB Aaron Rodgers told his once again seemingly struggling team, R-E-L-A-X.
From early last season, before the Packers turned it on:
Still, as with the Lions, it’s getting embarrassing already how often the Bears lose to the Packers in the modern NFL era. Enough of this, perhaps the Bears are saying: and certainly new head coach John Fox, with an improving team, has to be helping to promote the idea.
Whether the Bears can do what the Lions managed to sneakily do two weeks ago in what was up to that point the most “surprise” upset of the season, remains to be seen. But they may stop this longer term trend of Green Bay blowouts at home, while the expected rain may murk up things even more:
Pick: Bears
Unofficial “fun pick”
Cancelled, game already started
Lions (-2) Maybe the Eagles will get it together this week, maybe they won’t. The casual call here is they won’t or, more oddly, the Lions – in a season that was earlier falling apart, will; and uncharacteristically, will do so on Thanksgiving Day no less. Update: Didn’t finish this piece and it’s almost 1:00 EST, have no idea of the status of the Lions game, but since it’s already started (plus the line appears to now be Lions – 3, making it an even harder pick) can’t include it as a pick. Second update: Still finishing this up and finally looked at the halftime score about a half hour ago, and “groan,” the Lions are pummelling the Eagles. Naturally.
Recap: I was pissed about the sh*tty 24-22 record. I know it’s over .500 and many ATS pick lists aren’t, and picking isn’t strategy, the main focus of the work here. But whatever, now that we can officially write “no bueno” in football columns, it’s still much less bueno.
So, truth be told, last week I wanted to go x wins zero losses already. Picked four games that were solid picks, and only four games – and thought was going to, and be 28-22 entering this week: Chicago, Washington, Kansas City, and most of all, the New York Giants. All of whom covered the spread and then some.
With the Bears winning in a big upset – and by a huge margin at that, and the Giants managing once again to lose a game they should have won, by not understanding the most basic mechanics of the clock.
Then, to make matters worse, after gifting the Patriots a key 40 seconds, the Giants did it again, between the two decisions – the awful first one and the more subtle but still obvious second one – making sure to leave the Patriots about 1:48 instead of about :28 seconds after the Giants kicked off with a one score lead.
They did it the second time by throwing a very quick fade with 2:06 on the clock, and so ensuring that the two minute warning wasn’t hit (even with Odell Beckham’s very elongated end zone catch/non catch that added another two seconds of clock runoff), thus saving the Patriots their last timeout once again. (That wasn’t nearly as bad as the first one, since at that point they need to score the TD, while on the play before the issue was making sure to get the first down and at all costs don’t stop the clock; and they instead throw a lower probability long pass and one right to the sidelines.)
Plus by having thrown to the “lower chance of a complete and higher change of a clock stopping incomplete” 5 yard line instead of the far easier 17 or 18 yard line (then again, more importantly, doing so to the sidelines so the clock was stopped anyway even with a completion), the Giants couldn’t even save themselves by getting a first down and running the clock down to near nothing before kicking the chip shot field goal.
For picking games purposes, the Giants were getting 7.5 points of course. But that’s secondary to the game, which the Giants should have won. (Plus last week’s against the spread piece had a rare title theme: “Patriots Giants” version, it read.)
Then, I reasoned, “ah, no one reads these picks” (forgetting that’s besides the point). Worse, I also reasoned “I’m 24-22 regardless of the foolish picks added late, other picks I forgot to add, bizarre endings in a few, so why would I go 4-0. does it really matter if no one reads?” So I added two close calls, for additional “fun.”
Dallas, and Cleveland. Dallas lost. And while of course Tony Romo now has the world, or at least Owner Jerry Jones, singing in the shower again my honeymoon faith in Browns coach Mike Pettine, ks over. And this question, also posed last week:
“So will we see the Browns who played the Steelers tough last year both times… or the Browns of old, who repeatedly get plastered by the Steelers almost every time? ”
Has now been answered.
Then, this. Calling the Texans upset of the Bengals. Building credibility, right? Tweet it out; own it; at least offer the pick for those interested, as 10.5 was a huge spread to over come for a win, far too big for the game, and an easy move to 5-2 on the week (29-24 is oh so much better looking than 28-24, isn’t it? It at least looks better.)
The minute I ran out the door in a rush, not hitting send on that tweet the second time, I figured the Texans would probably win. Bold move calling out an upset straight up no one was seeing, then last second don’t do; of course it happens.
It’s been like that with tweets calls this year.
So, while all picks were always “serious,” there is now a double downed effort to be more efficient and disciplined in these picks, from here on out, this season and beyond.
So, that was a pretty boring read, but real, and honest.
Am running the table this week, because only two official picks: It’s a tough week, and the secret is out of the bag on Chicago now not being a laugher like last year.
1. Buffalo Rex Ryans (usually referred to as the Bills, at +7.5) at New England Patriots
I’ll own this pick regardless. And I hate giving a qualifier – because the last time I picked the Bills over the Patriots my qualifiers as to why they might lose were far better than the pick – but the fact is Rex Rayan is not the very strong head coach I thought he was: I was wrong on Ryan. He had the potential, but he keeps making some of the same fundamental mistakes.
After week one and the Colts beatdown, that Bills team appeared to think it was the end all be all.
They then played the Patriots and lost soundly.
Now after beating the Jets, they seemed to again (though as the Patriots game has loomed in closer, it might have softend some this time around.) More telling, while unlike some in the media who seem to disparage Ryan’s press conferences, I like that he keeps them interesting and tries to be real. But his being “dumped” by a “a hot girl” who now calls you and you won’t call back was suggestive of a misplaced bitterness, lack of perspective, and misfocus.
Sure, wish the Jets had kept you, but talking about being dumped by a hot girl after they gave you six full years, four in a row with nary a playoff appearance, and as far away as ever – questioanble managament support or not – the last year?
It’s a business, there are 32 NFL head coaches in the whole U.S., Rex got more than his opportunity, and is now being paid $25 million plus or some such figure to coach again; and in the same division no less. Plus, Rex, that hot girl Jets isn’t calling you, so your analogy was awful as well as a little ridiculous, and but for a bunch of turnovers your team probably would have lost to the Jets.
Also, all this time off from practice as “reward” Ryan keeps giving his players the last couple of weeks belies the fact that practicing is still part of sport – a good thing; football, still as a paid entity, only created by our such interest in it, but still thus a profession and a very highly paid one; and champions like practicing more, not less, to improve their craft.
If the Bills had beaten every team this year by four touchdowns, okay, take a trip to the beach. “It’s not fair to the other teams for us to practice so much.”
But that’s not the case. In fact, quite the opposite: there’s considerable room for improvement and learning – not to mention, in a league where I constantly see players winded, and also after missed tackles getting up slowly off the turf during relevant ongoing play – very needed improved conditioning opportunity.
That said, the Bills should win this game. There’s a decent chance they won’t because Rex simply isn’t a good enough coach yet (and if anything seems to have regressed a little), and the team is not as good as the Patriots. But if ever there was a game crying out for a division equalizer, it’s this one.
The Patriots have been too dominant, are littered with injury, and winning on character and coaching. (And a last week a little gift of bad strategy play by the Giants; then after yet another uncharacteristic Brady breakdown in the game, the drop of a game ending interception.)
The Bills, their coach’s prattle aside, are hungry, lost earlier in the year to the Patriots in this key divisional matchup, need the game, have the talent to win it, are on a national stage, and get to play the Super Bowl champs.
If they are yet any kind of a team, this is their game of the season. After Monday Night, unless they lose a close one because Brady was phenomenal again even in the face of a non stop pass rush, we’ll know if they are yet any kind of team.
Rex (until he apparently got upset with the Jets for dumping him like a “hot girl” who he thinks now wants him back), has also it seems wanted to beat the Patriots more than anything ever since he became a head coach. And now, in a key divisional matchup, in solid but very vulnerable playoff race contention with a few other teams starting to come on strong, it once again really matters. And Ryan’s been pretty good at getting his teams fired up to play the Patriots.
The Patriots are vulnerable, they know it, and know they will be lucky to escape 10-0. The Bills have the ability to beat them if they come in and play like they’re trying to unseat the world champs, and come in with fire, but humility: realizing, as Vikings HC Mike Zimmer said – yelling it, even – about his team now leading the division (and keep in mind the Bills are FOUR games back from their own division lead) “It doesn’t mean anything,” and big whoop, at 5-4 and a squeaky heavy turnover aided win versus the somewhat stumbling Jets, they haven’t done anything yet.
Whether Rex, being hung up on hot girls/NFL teams not calling him back or not, can hep them achieve it, remains to be seen. Taking all these days off, while champions like the Patriots continue to work despite now a lot more injury bad luck than the Bills, doesn’t help.
But this, as was the Giants game, is the game for the Patriots to lose. The fact they didn’t lose that one gave them a freebie. The Bills should take advantage and make sure they get the loss this time.
Pick Bills.
2. Washington Redskins (+7.5) at Carolina Panthers
Carolina is good, and their record is impressive, but it’s not a diss to point out who they have played, with one of the easier schedules in the NFL so far. Again, it doesn’t mean they aren’t very legitimate, it’s just something to factor in.
Meanwhile, the up and down Saints seemed to have made the same mistake last week a lot of analysts did – that is, assume the Redskins were a poor football team, which they aren’t. (Though if the Saints did, somewhat surprisingly after being unseated at home as a large favorite against the previously one win Titans.)
The Panthers probably won’t just assume the Redskins are bad after that Saints game, and have shown the ability to dispatch of teams who are not as good as them – and the Redskins still certaintly qualify here.
And when the Redskins went into Atlanta as a 8 point (before falling to a 7 to 6 point) underdog in week 5 (getting hooked on a very iffy nearly half the field p/i call that all but gave them the 7 point TD with the traditional referee end zone pass intereference 1st and goal at the 1 assist in order to help ultimately knock the game into overtime.), the Falcons, as it turns out were at the begininng of a coming down heavily to earth streak, ready to lose 3 of their next four. That ain’t the Panthers.
But this also ain’t the same Redskins, and it still will be hard for the Panthers to get as up for them as the Packers, however problematic the Packers have been of late.
Once again, despite common perception, the Redskins (and once again, so long as Kirk Cousins is past that melt down stage of his career, or otherwise goes another game without coming unraveled – though that Panthers defense could provoke it) could easily win this game. And the Panthers, though dispatching a lot of teams by a two score margin (in part because of good turnover differentials) , tend not to blow teams out. So 7 points is simply far too many.
The Redskins may also very well easily win the game outright.
Pick: Redskins
Upset picks:
Bills Redskins
Close calls, not official picks:
Texans (+4) – they’re still in the division and even WC race Bengals (+4.5) – they don’t become chopped liver by losing one game just bc it was low scoring instead of high scoring (meaing D gave up a lot of points) Detroit (pick ’em): surprise surprise Cowboys (-2) – but bigger battle than it appears, and Dolphins are right in the WC race if win, if lose probably are falling out.
Recap: Putting aside the lousy record, last week’s calls weren’t too awful. The Cowboys probably lost to the Eagles on a beautiful (for the defense) Matt Cassel pick-six whose harm in an otherwise close game is hard to overestimate: The Cowboys had the ball, then were receiving the kickoff to get the ball again after Cassel’s TD pass to the defense, so it’s a “pure” 7 points – unlike after an offensive score where a team adds 7 to its side, but loses possession of the ball to the other team as part of the bargain.
And the Cowboys had been on the Eagles 36 yard line. So aside from the unrelated fluke of a great ensuing great kickoff return by Lucky Whitehead, they also lost a net of 42-44 yards average of key middle field position, as well as the 7 full points, on Cassel’s smooth move.
The Redskins, getting 14, lost by 17, in part because of a sudden plague of dropped passes. (Though while still being slightly random, those do count as being “what the team is.”) And the Colts won outright.
The one real bad pick was the same as week 8 – the Dolphins. Prescient words:
Hard to imagine [the Dolphins can actually beat the same Bills who trounced them earlier]. And based on the type of response the Dolphins showed in the Patriots game two Thursday Nights ago (see above), they are not that team.
Here’s a vote that on this I’m wrong (usually though it’s reading the tea leaves of players’ attitude and character on the field that’s most telling, but am deferring to new or interim head coach Dan Campbell until they fall flat again).
Woops. Bad deferment.
Watch the Dolphins now upset the Eagles – a reasonable possibility given that expectations are low again, and the Dolphins have shown that under Dan Campbell they can turn it on.
But they’ve also shown they’re still lousy, and essentially the same team, while the Eagles may finally be morphing into a very solid club that also needs a home win. (QB Sam Bradford is also getting less and less jittery the further away he moves from his umpteenth season ending injury.)
Also forgot to include the Bears Chargers. (Though in fairness was going to pick the Browns getting 13.5 at the Bengals for week 8 TNF – a spread they still would have missed by 1/2 a point if Browns DT Randy Starks in an at that point very close game hadn’t mind-numbingly lined up offsides on what turned out to be an utterly failed 4th down play, which instead of giving the Browns the ball gave the Bengals a 1st down at the Browns 3 yard line, and essentially 7 points. Though did call the Jets to win this Thursday – just rarely get to picks by Thursday’s game.)
And forgot to include the 49ers, a pick I loved, since they’re not bad at home, Atlanta is a bad road team crossing the country, and has played middling teams close the past several games. And the 49ers wound up winning outright. (In part because the Falcons Dan Quinn, like a lot of head coaches, doesn’t really “get” end game structural strategy situations.)
Picks:
1. Chicago Bears (+6.5) at St. Louis Rams
The Bears have been playing increasingly decent football, while the Rams may have finally turned the corner after a few years of flirting with becoming a very good team.
But until otherwise established, this consistently Jekyll and Hyde team shouldn’t be favored by nearly a TD against a decent, possibly up and coming team: Even with the possible to likely return off three key starters – DL Robert Quinn, S T.J. McDonald, and (rookie) RT Rob Havenstein – though that does make it a closer call.
If the Rams do win this game solidly and fairly easily, they may have turned that corner (finally); as they have shown increasing signs already. But it’s still an if. And even if they have, the Bears may put up a decent battle anyway; though if the Rams have turned that corner, it’s less likely. So it could be Rams 26 – 9, in which case the Rams, given the last several games, might finally be a strong contender in that division, but:
Pick: Bears, possible surprise upset. But that’s only banking on the fact that Jeff Fisher’s an overrated coach, not the fact he’s still a decent enough coach, with a lot of young talent and a team that from trades and bad records has now had a horde of high draft picks for years running.
2. New Orleans Saints (pick) at Washington Redskins
How are the Saints, considered a good team, still a pick em game, even if a road game, against Washington, considered a bad team?
In part because too much may be being placed on the Saints loss at home versus the Titans (and a still underrated rookie Marcus Mariota at QB, coming back from injury, and a quick head coaching change bounce) – making this an absolute must win for the Saints against a middling opponent.
And in part because the Redskins aren’t a bad team, and they will likely be healthier in their secondary than they’ve been since starting out week 3. (And their number one WR, out most of the season but active last week, may be a bit healthier – and certainly has to play lights out after grabbing his head coach’s chest the other day and giving him a “purple nurple.” (You just can’t do that to your head coach, who then says he expects a big game out of you, and not then light it up some.))
That makes this a tough game, and probably one of the better games of the week, in terms of the hidden story lines and real football, though it’s not getting much coverage.
QB Kirk Cousins simply can’t follow up his half fun but half kind of seemingly thin skinned “you like that!” scream with a bad loss at the Patriots (although he did have 7 dropped passes by his receivers in the game) followed then by a home loss, can he?
Pick: Redskins
3. Kansas City Chiefs (+4.5) at Denver Broncos.
This line is a little ridiculous. It opened at around 6.5 to 7, which is pretty high considering the rivalry, early season expectations, and the Chiefs mild rebound to 3-5.
Now it’s at 4.5 – a huge drop – and barely the 3 a home team gets in an otherwise “tie” game just by virtue of being the home club. And this for a team that but for a desperate Colts team would not only be unbeaten entering week 10, but is one game past removed from a dominant beat down of the previously unbeaten Green Bay Packers.
The Chiefs are also without arguably their best offensive player (and, since in a game that was otherwise going into overtime he fumbled the game away early in the season against the Broncos, the one with perhaps the most direct motivation for redemption): RB Jamaal Charles, who doesn’t run; he floats, glides, dances, with an instinct and balance for the game and its movement that can’t be taught.
So how are they now only 4.5 points? Conventional wisdom seems to be they may beat the Broncos. Conventional wisdom (except when fairly lopsided) is often not right on football, but may be here. It’s the Chiefs season on the line, and they still have the players to beat the Broncos. (Still, this would seem to be the insiders line as well, which doesn’t explain how the line opened so high, except for possible expectations that the public might not see it that way.)
And while the Chiefs showed poor resiliency and what appeared to be on field “heart” against the Packers after that debacle against the Broncos in week 2 (they not only got crushed scorewise until it was late in the game and meaningless, even in a key nationally televised game they showed listlessness, and poor body language), and then continued to spiral downward after that, enough time has passed since that, helped by some victories, they may not respond the same way this time.
4.5 is a pretty tight line for such a poor team missing it’s key offensive player on the road against a nearly unbeaten (and solid nearly unbeaten) team. But this game is likely to be close. And the Broncos are without half of their key cornerback tandem, and one of their better pass rushers in Demarcus Ware.
The Chiefs “should” win or battle it close enough to make it a 3 or 4 point game. Beyond that, with the breakdown they showed at the Packers and beyond, it’s hard to say.
Pick: Chiefs, possible to likely upset
4. New England Patriots (-7.5) at New York Giants
It’s a game of the News. But never mind the oddity that of 32 different teams in the NFL these two have met in the Super Bowl twice in the recent past (or that those two times are barely the only times the Giants even made the playoffs under that entire stretch), the Giants also won both.
That is, Brady and Belichick have been to a remarkable 6 Super Bowls together. They’re 4-2. The two losses are both to the giant slayers – the New York Giants. Who in that first Super Bowl not only beat New England, but ruined the first perfect season since the 1972 Dolphins (back when teams played a 14 game regular season schedule), with the at that point 18-0 Patriots one game away from accomplishing what no NFL team has ever accomplished: A perfect 19-0.
The Patriots may say they don’t care about a perfect season this year, but no doubt they do. But in the type of interesting storyline twist that seems to occur often in the NFL, this so far perfect season could once again be ruined by the Giants:
Different teams, but the four main principals, Bill, Tom, Tom and Eli, remain. And while the Patriots hardly need a reason to stay vigilant for any road game this season, they know Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin seem to be able, for whatever reason, to play them well, and are perfectly capable of beating them; and despite some defensive breakdowns and injuries, seem to be playing a little better this year again.
Anything can happen this game. The Giants defense has given up about 422 yards per outing – hardly a good number for a “good team,” and ranking at the bottom of the league. (Even worse than the 414 per game Saints, who the Giants gave away a game to in week 8 by deciding to fask mask a ball carrier at mid field with seconds left on the clock – when the ball carrier wasn’t even allowed to advance the ball, and had himself made a big mistake by even trying to, in a key end game unfolding that was barely covered, yet ultimately and freakishly decided the game.)
But they also actively try for and create turnovers, and may figure out a way to take away some of those quick slants and underneath routes that Brady is so good at quickly unloading – a talent which has enabled the Patriots to easily weather the loss of what now amounts to just about half plus of their overall offensive line.
And 7.5 points on the road against a team who can easily beat them is a lot of points for any team, even the 2015 New England Patriots on a sort of “post deflate gate rampage.” Though really, given the fact that this is the Giants, it’s also just as much about the fact that the Giants may win; and simply because it’s Giants Patriots, there’s a good chance this game itself may be closer, in which case a touchdown and a half point is a lot.
Pick: Giants
5. Cleveland Browns (+6) at Pittsburgh Steelers
Until last year Cleveland had lost to Ben Rothlisberger something like 17 of the last 18 times, or something absurd like that. Ben’s not playing this game, but the Steelers are still good. And unlike the Browns, still in the thick of the race, and need this division game.
Meanwhile the Browns don’t seem to recognize the potential high value of draft picks relative to the salary cap. The numbers are structured, so if a high or even mid (or low) round pick plays great, a team gets a value return that but for flukes rarely happens once a player gets past his rookie contract.
So picking a quarterback in the first round, then deciding to sit him for year two even when the team is essentially out of any meaningful playoff race – after a total of 85 NFL passes (in like three games by the time it was evident that was the team’s goal regardless unless McNown literally couldn’t play) for even a good 36 year old career backup, is a debacle of a move.
And it doesn’t matter how much otherwise so far decent enough head coach Mike Pettine loves 36 year old Josh McCown or hates aforesaid number one pick Johnny Manziel. If that’s the case they shouldn’t have drafted him. And in a losing season are simply wasting opportunity and possible upside value, with little downside, by refusing to play him until forced into it, by McCown acknowledging that not only is it painful to throw, it’s painful for him to even put his shirt on due to rib and shoulder injuries.
“It’s okay though – The Browns have done so well on QBs since reentering the league in 1999 (starting just a mere 23 different ones so far), they get a pass on this bungling fiasco.” Which they may get rescued from anyway by mere happenstance. Or not.
So will we see the Browns who played the Steelers tough last year both times (winning once and rallying furiously to tie and then ultimately lose by 3 in the other), or the Browns of old, who repeatedly get plastered by the Steelers almost every time?
While QB Manziel is once again a wild card (he played well early versus the Bengals last week, and then after a bad helmet to helmet hit on a pretty gutsy first down scramble attempt, coincidence or not, played poorly for the rest of the game), this is still a Mike Pettine team, the Steelers are not the Bengals – and certainly aren’t without Rothlisberger – and if the Browns are not to be the same debacle they’ve been for years and years running (though they may well, once again, be just that), they’ll battle and make this a real football game at least.
Though making it more challenging for them, they’ll have to do it without two of their better defensive players in Safety Donte Whitner and cornerback Joe Haden – once one of the leagues premier defenders – once again. Guard Joe Botonio will also be out; with a rookie (C. Erving), who reportedly hasn’t looked very good in his limited snaps so far, slated in to take his place.
Pick: Browns. Pettine may not be good with structural QB decisions, but he can otherwise coach and get a team to play. If he can’t, he should be out of there. All this talk of teams needing stability is a partial myth. What they need are good coaches, and there’s a world of possible candidates out there, and only 32 positions in the entire country. (Good teams “have stability” because good teams don’t need to change head coaches.)
6. Dallas Cowboys (+1) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Before the season started, the Cowboys said they were acting like a championship team because they thought they were one, and would be more likely to stay one if they acted that way.
They’ve now lost 6 straight games and are 2-6, and would be 1-7 if both the Giants and the referees, independently, hadn’t all but handed the Cowboys the game in week 1.
They kick a fourth field goal from just outside the 8 yard line on a 4th and long 2 in the 4th quarter against the Seahawks to take a 12-10 lead – as if helping to ensure that it stays a 1 score game even if they can add another now otherwise key additional field goal, and likely the easiest kind for an almost always clutch Russell Wilson to pull out at the end (which of course he did, easily), is a good move – to thus ultimately lose 13-12.
Their backup QB has a “good game” when he only throws one pick, although it was a pick-six that not only lost them a full 7 points, but also nearly half of the football field of field position on top of that as of the time of the pick (*see above).
Owner Jerry Jones, in response to their recent “history of apparent off field domestic violence and anger issues” acquisition literally strikes a clipboard from a coaches hand in another outburst of anger in full view of public cameras, points out in response that he’s a “team leader”….
Meanwhile, the Cowboys, who couldn’t intercept a morse code transmission if it was spelled out for them in block letters, have almost no turnovers, and a good defense that otherwise simply apparently doesn’t try to strip the ball – besides of course not tackling by aiming one’s shoulder into a player and hoping he falls, the single most important thing to do on defense.
Number one overall draft pick Jameis Winston of the Bucs, meanwhile, while playing very poorly in preseason and somewhat poorly early on in the season, is starting to validate all of those prognistications interestingly proclaiming they liked what “Winston will be.”
But after four games without a Winston pick, the odds even out and the turnover challenged Cowboys somehow pick up a few in this game and come out with a victory. Then they get Romo the sharp, relaxed, charming, down to earth more intelligent than he acts all American humble good guy and goofy in a good way choirboy back, and they start winning and suprisingly make a run for it. While in private a not quite delusional Jerry Jones – or somebody, maybe Jason Garrett – insists that Greg Hardy start indulging in some behind the scenes but serious emotionally shifting anger management and self control counseling.
Pick: Cowboys. America’s team, almost perfectly, to the letter.
Last week recap: Pick of the Dolphins at +9 was one of the more miserable picks of this season – in hindsight anyway.
And I’m still not giving enough weight to the idea I’ve nevertheless been saying since the season started: the Patriots, and Tom Brady in particular, are on a rampage, feeling slighted over the offseason Deflategate scandal; something which the league, apparently, has gone so off its rocker on as to compare it – an issue of slightly deflated football that refs handle on every play – to Chicaco Black Sox players alleged purposeful throwing of the 1919 World Series.
Maybe I should have listened to Heath Evans, who played for Belichick, and was on the roster when the Dolphins came into Foxboro in week 3 of the 2008 season (at 0-2, and 1-15 the year before) and demolished the Patriots:
I did include the entirety of his apparently spot on hyperbole in last week’s week 8 picks – just had too much naive faith that the Dolphins would play with a hunger and intensity; not have four players continually back up on 3rd and16 runs, then just wait right at the first down marker so the Patriots were almost assured of making the first down.
I couldn’t even tweet the game I got so far behind spending so long analyzing a series of plays early on where the Dolphins – not out of laziness, but fear andhorribletechniques – literally gave the Patriots key first downs on their opening drive.
And, frankly, maybe a little bit out of laziness and not being in professional athlete shape as well. I never got paid, but have been in professional athlete shape, and there is no doubt, I don’t care WHAT the players are saying; they do not practice enough.
And this for a now Dan Campbell led team that was supposed to have gotten intense in its drills.
You don’t have to go out and break bones in practice. But it’s professional sports; you should be in professional athlete shape. Playing hard and popping up quickly off the turf is not hard for anyone with good endurance capability, who trains properly.
Not doing so, by two players (the first who missed the tackle, and one of the same culprits in the above described earlier 3rd and 16 fiasco, and another getting blocked on the sidelines), allowed an ensuing opening Patriots drive short pass to some dude known as “Gronk” to score an easy 47 yard touchdown gallop down the left sidelines, running right past where the second of the two waslackadaisically spinning off his block “well away from the play” until he saw Gronk about to race right past him. And it was all downhill from there.
That said, the Cowboys last week, at a silly +6, took the game down to the wire; but barring some luck all but gave away any real strong chance when late in the game they kicked their fourth field goal of the contest (a contest they were to predictably lose 13-12), on a 4th and long 2 from a little outside the eight yard line.
Not gonna go into it too much here, but teams essentially don’t get the math of close to the end zone short yardage field goal situations; particularly late in games where going up by 2 points against Russell Wilson and the Seahawks, versus possibly continuing to trail by 1 (and handing the ball over on their 8 yard line) – versus the value of a good shot at making it a 5 or even better 7 point margin late, so that Wilson needs a touchdown not a field goal to simply win and if you make your two point conversion will only be playing for the tie in such a case, meaning their winning chances will be halved – is fairly trivial.
There was actually almost a quarter left to play, and the analysis gets more complicated: But even going up by 5, if there is more subsequent scoring, allows you to be able to win on a late field goal alone – far easier to do, particularly if in defensive battles between two good defensive teams such as in this game – if the Seahawks go ahead with a TD (and either neglect to try or fail on a two point conversion try). And it also allows you to possibly extend your lead to 8 (meaning your opponent will only win one quarter of the time they even do score the touchdown to potentially tie the game with the last score of regulation) or even better make the two point conversion and thus go up by 10, on a late field goal, etc, etc.
Put simply, the taking of 3 points, given the strategic structure of the game there, doesn’t do that much to increase their overall chances. On the other hand, getting the TD – if they possibly can get it (and already being inside the 10, with a short yardage opportunity to get a new set of downs starting at the 6 yard line or better is a fairly strong possibility) – does substantially increase their chances.
It’s like some teams can’t see past the score at the moment, and only worry about the illogical but easy to grasp possibility of “going for the conversion and failing, and later losing by, gasp, 3 points or less,” while failing to recognize that what they do here will affect how their opponent plays and the end game unfolds, and more importantly the missed opportunity that was far greater on average that they gave up, in terms of their ultimate likelihood of winning the contest; which is what matters.
Most such calls (though the Cowboys are particularly bad at it) are so off base it’s a caricature of good strategy. But if it was that obvious, a professional football organization in a close scoring defensive game against a top notch fourth quarter comeback team and in particular quarterback (and right now, with injuries, lacking one themselves), wouldn’t kick their fourth relatively short short field goal of the game on a 4th and long 2 from their opponents 8.5 yard line just to take a measly 12-10 lead.
Did proclaim last week (wrongly, as it turns out) that the Broncos had a slight edge: in hindsight they had more than that, holding Aaron Rodgers to 77 yards passing (something like 20 fewer than Matt Cassel put up in that aforesaid Seahawks battle), in a contest that but for a few well timed and at times questionable penalty calls keeping drives alive (although yardage after the penalties was legit); could have been closer to 29-0 Broncos. And picked them to win outright: Which part they did do, just far more convincingly than predicted.
Lastly, it was not an official pick, but last week’s picks also ended with an “upset alert” regarding the Colts at Panthers, including:
…in a close game – if the Colts can play well enough to keep it close – the edge, at least based on history, undoubtedly still goes to the Colts.
And out of desperation, and a sort of “nothing to lose at this point but one more crappy game” [sort of approach by] Andrew Luck, who thus just plays, yet focuses more and tries less – if he sees it that way and can find what he had before – they may just show it.
Well, Luck didn’t play that way, until the fourth quarter when the team was down 17 points. When he did play that way. (At least for a while, then he seemed to somewhat tighten up again and, while still better than earlier in the game still wasn’t quite the same as he was late in razor tight contests in his first three years in the league, although a random deflection (and good hands by Panthers LB Luke Kuechly) on a nice pass breakup in overtime is ultimately what lost them the game; which at that point, with both teams having kicked a field goal in overtime and possession belonging to the Colts, had slightly favored the Colts.)
So the Colts, as it turned out, did almost pull off the upset; and didn’t win. It was the Panthers who won, and yet another close game, uncharacteristically, and possibly in a sign of growth of the team. (And Newton, who late in the game – ignore stats – played near lights out and relaxed, with a look of control and calm on his face – even retaining it when a picture perfect on a rope low arc easy catch TD bomb that likely would have won them the game anyway, was dropped by Ted Ginn.)
But it wasn’t an official pick against the spread, so it doesn’t count unfortunately.
Picks this week:
1. Washington Redskins (+14) at New England Patriots
It’s not clear Brady “lied” to Goodell in the Deflategate saga, and often assumption becomes conflated with fact today.
But here, it does seem at least as if his statement that an undefeated season is “the furthest thing from anybody’s mind” is a bit of a white lie, if diplomatic and focus oriented.
That is, Brady should probably say what he in fact did say. And the players, even if they want to go undefeated, should try to think it; to focus on the present and on their best effort and performance every week, as it it comes up.
Brady knows that, and most communications to the press about competitiveness should serve that purpose first and foremost – i.e., trying to win, not giving one’s deep down and somewhat irrelevant wishes on an ultimate W-L record.
And as noted, the Patriots are on a rampage. This is a team that in general is also focused anyway: they don’t tend to have “trap” games.
But they might not have the same focus for the Skins that they had for the Dolphins, who after a mere two weeks were suddenly reannointed as some type of team on a monster roll. (Which was probably perfect as far as Belichick was concerned, making it easy to convey to his team to get super focused for the game.)
But this Redskins team is a better football team than many people think. And the NFC East is not a “lousy” division. (On the other hand, the AFC South is, as it has been for a while.)
It’s not a great division; it has four somewhat to possibly decently competitive teams, almost any one of which at this point could easily turn the corner and become a strong team.
This includes the Redskins, who have been playing without key starters for much of the season.
They get speedy and likely number one WR DeSean Jackson back this week. TE Jordan Reed, though he didn’t miss too much time with a concussion, will have gotten additional rest. C Kory Lichtensteiger, who has also missed several games, will be a game time decison. OLB Ryan Kerrigan did tear something in his hand last game that was surgically repaired, and is likely to play, though this could limit him a little.
Most importantly both of the team’s top two CBs have been out since early in the season: DeAngelo Hall played in the first three games, Chris Culliver played in three of the first four. Neither has played since.
Hall, with an injured toe, doesn’t sound like he’s 100%, which given that toes matter (balance, push, cuts), isn’t a great thing; but it seems as if he’s more likely to play than not. Culliver’s also still officially questionable, but didn’t practice Thursday, nor, reportedly, Friday – not good signs, but one never knows.
CB Bashaud Breeland, though dinged up a bit the last few games, has played in them all with the exception of week one. He’s also questionable, and like Hall practiced on a limited basis – although it doesn’t appear this was due to major injury limitations rather than simple precaution, but like Hall he is also not near a sure thing to play.
On balance the Redskins are still likely to have at least two of their top three CBs for the game though; which, if so, would be an improvement. (And Keenan Robinson, who’s been reasonably effective in coverage as a linebacker, though listed as questionable, has stated he will assuredly play). As would be the addition of Jackson on offense.
This team is not taking this game as the (here, somewhat humorous, however) joke many others may be taking it as, and while right now the Patriots are playing lights out, if the Redskins come in with fire, they may test the Pats a bit.
The key here is that the Redskins are not the bad team they’re perceived to be. Why they are not is not clear, but what is clear from watching their film is they aren’t all that bad.
The Patriots O line continues to be banged up, with Logan Mankins traded and their center out prior to week one (and placed on IR shortly thereafter, although he was just reactivated in the last 24 hours), left tackle Nate Solder placed in IR a few weeks ago, and injuries continuing to creep up on the remaining lineman.
But Brady is getting rid of the ball so quickly, and the young rookies seeing a lot of action are seemingly getting good coaching and improving, that it hasn’t seemed to matter much.
This could be an interesting game, though some of it will depend on whether the Redskins do get some players back, and if they are in sufficient playing shape and relatively healthy enough to perform.
This one – as with nearly any Patriot game this season at home – could be a blowout. Or it could be a scary close game for the Patriots; but even a strong performance by the Patriots could still only be an 8 to 13 point victory (or even less).
Needless to say, for it to be a good game Skins quarterback Kirk Cousins has to be in his good QB play mode, not his occasional semi meltdown mode.
While he racked it up for fantasy players last week in a big comeback win versus the Buccaneers, and maybe got a little too excited (if playfully) about it – indicating a possible sensitivity to questions about his play (never good for a QB) – at least it may have taken the pressure off of him for a little bit.
That is fired up though.
But who knows with KC. A good game versus Brady could vault him back into possible “good NFL quarterback status” (or a shocker upset, even higher), until later in the season when a slew of bad and overly apprehensive worry driven decisions reappears – if it does.
Pick: Redskins
2. Denver Broncos (-5.5) at Indianapolis Colts
Last year in the playoffs the best pure QB to ever play the game (regular season, what he is able to do from the line of scrimmage pre and post snap), in the twilight of his career, and slowed by injury and nerve damage, faced the most likely contender to be the next greatest – until this season reared its ugly non Luck head – and the new guard beat the old. (Before going on to Foxboro and getting throunced with both slightly deflated and non deflated footballs, by – if the postseason is proportionately weighed – arguably the greatest; although it’s hard to measure with only one, and very successful, head coach.)
Surely the Broncos want revenge, and are more than capable of exacting it. Especially against a not very good Colts team, wherein a few of their defensive backs continue to take awful tackling angles, and the offense doesn’t seem to do much better.
Including a quarterback who isn’t broadly scanning the field, is locking down on his decisions, and appears to be aiming or guiding the ball.
But this is the Colts. And Andrew Luck. He says he’s healthy. And if he stops aiming the ball, and just relaxes while simultaneously focusing without attention to result (as he did for a while in the fourth quarter against the Panthers last week) he can be a phenomenal quarterback. And when he plays like that, at home, getting points, he can potentially beat any team.
Maybe not easily, particularly with an iffy team around him – and for this game possibly missing his game time decision top WR T.Y. Hilton. But this Colts team is too interesting to dismiss as a near 6 point underdog at home against a team, revenge minded or not, coming off of a big game against a previously undefeated team and powerhouse in which they had the embarassment of being undefeated, playing at home to a poor road team, and being tagged as the underdog.
Pick: Colts
3. Philadelphia Eagles (-3) at Dallas Cowboys
Just several months ago not enough people were satirizing the Bills for voluntarily taking on Matt Cassel for a five million dollar salary and the needless loss of an upcoming 5th round draft pick, now many are saying Cassel is no better than the just a tad over half a million dollar a year salary Brandon Weeden that he has replaced.
The Eagles might explode at any moment. At least that’s the perception: Chip Kelly’s system and all, and as they have shown in the past, if not consistently enough late. But they also seem to show signs of it even this season. And they have to be reeling at the fact that last year the Cowboys beat them late to help keep them out of the playoffs. And then this year, as underdogs, the Cowboys came in and beat them (and without Romo for some of the game, as it was the game he broke his collarbone in), for what was the Cowboys only real win of the season.
That is, had the Giants not, to use the highly technical term, made an especially bonehead decision right at the end of their week one matchup, or the referees not missed a call that the NFL subsequently announced to have been a mistake by said referees, the Cowboys would be 1-6 and not 2-5. (Almost assuredly in the first case, assuredly in the second.)
And the Cowboys aren’t even a good home team.
That said, this is their last stand. (Unless they are buying the popular koolaid that 9-7 or even possibly 8-8 will be a lock to win the division, rather than simply a good shot at it given the standings at this moment – and even then they’re still in a world of hurt if they lose.)
And if they play as they did against Seattle, and not just assume they can beat the Eagles, but pay attention to the fact they’ve lost 5 straight and should be 1-6, and that the Eagles trounced the Giants who lead the division (and gave away the game to the Saints at the end last week in a boondoggleofplays almost no one much talked about), and almost beat the Falcons in Atlanta while the Falcons ran up and down the field on the Cowboys here in Dallas after falling behind early, etc., and that the home team has lost the last 5 games in a row between these two teams, and so they need to play harder as if they have the home disadvantage, they will win.
The Cowboys have a potentially powerful defense, seem to know how to play the Eagles reasonably well, Matt Cassel “could” play a good game (well, that one might be pushing it), and the Eagles still aren’t fully meshing – though that also might be changing.
Pick: Cowboys, who should win outright. So long as they recognize that they’re the road team.
4. St. Louis Rams (+1) at Minnesota Vikings
The line is saying the Rams here. Has this Jekyll and Hyde team of the past three years finally turned the corner it seemed to have almost gotten past several times now?
If so they have a decent edge in this game.
If not the Vikings have more of an edge.
Averaging that out, without trying to deciper what the Rams are (they were my “creative” don’t just go with the obvious favorite pick to win the division this season, but a few of those picks got out of hand so maybe they should go unmentioned), gives a slight edge to the home team in a non divisional game.
That said if the Rams are going to win the division or even make the playoffs, they probably need to win this game. The Seahawks are in their division. And the Cardinals, right now a game and a half ahead at 6-2, are still hot, and seemingly not letting up.
This is a pretty interesting game, since while the Vikings can afford a loss a little bit more than the Rams, they face a really tough schedule up ahead, and if they lose this one, may also not yet be for real.
I thought it was a bad draft pick for the Rams to take Todd Gurley. This is based on the fact that the Rams have made several ill thought out draft decisions in the last few years based on the facts that existed at the time of the draft, and simply going on the fact that they liked him (I hadn’t evaluated his play or come to a conclusion about his potential); he was injured; and taking a running back at number ten overall and especially coming off a major knee knee injury should only be done if the player clearly, and outside of his college system/offensive line blocking, shows unusual ability and talent.
Gurley apparently did, and it was a good pick. And this is the Gurley Adrian Peterson Bowl. Whether that gives AP any extra motivation or not, who knows. Regardless, that Rams team, and in particular that defense, still has the potential to be very strong.
Are they finally getting there?
Here’s a vote of low confidence on competition committee Jeff Fisher’s record, simply because he says he clearly understands the “what is and isn’t a catch” rule, and almostassuredly doesn’t:
Fisher says he understands the catch rule.
Then Fisher says “you have to complete the catch when going to the ground”; which is the only thing that is already a given in this rule anyway: with the two real issues being “when do you have to” (meaning the catch was not yet completed before hitting the ground, and not answered by Fisher or anyone else for that matter), as if the most important consideration and by far the most botched out on the field part of this issue in live calls and replay reviews doesn’t even exist), and “what does completing it mean” (answered in a way by Fisher that contradicted the way referees have been explaining and interpreting it).
Still, for a head coach considered so strong, yet who has only made the playoffs 6 times out of 19 full seasons (a poor record given the long head coaching tenure and fact that 37.5% of teams make it every year), this has to be the year right? And thus, likely, this may be the game. I’ll root for them, but:
Pick: Vikings
5. Miami Dolphins (+3) at the Buffalo Bills
It’s hard to imagine a team that can be trounced by another team as badly as the Dolphins were early in the season by the Bills, can actually turn around and beat that team. And based on the type of response the Dolphins showed in the Patriots game two Thursday Nights ago (see above), they are not that team.
Here’s a vote that on this I’m wrong (usually though it’s reading the tea leaves of players attitude and character on the field that is the most telling, but am deferring to new or interim head coach Dan Campbell until they fall flat again).
Rex Ryan still hasn’t lost a press conference; and, as his team should, and can be better than it is, and has a bad taste in their mouth (as should the Dolphins, both from TNF and their last Bills matchup), they can be better. And they’re coming off a bye, and teams do win a little bit more off of byes.
But let’s see if Dan Campbell’s fire works after a devastating loss, and toward a team that earlier also thoroughly embarassed them and led more than anything else to their prior head coach’s firing. If it doesn’t work here, it doesn’t work.
Remember though that tell tale sign of Dolphins playing scared of the Patriots, backing up on 3rd down runs, waiting at the first down marker, popping up slowly after blocks or tackle attempts, and responding poorly to the game going south – hopefully these aren’t prescient words for this game, but we’ll see. Reluctantly:
10-6 Carolina Panthers lead the Indianapolis Colts, week 8, 2015 NFL season, Monday Night Football. Steady rain.
After an incomplete pass the Panthers have the ball just inside the Colts 44 yard line, and need to get to the Colts 42 for a first down. 11:20 remains, third quarter.
It’s fourth down.
If the Panthers get stopped the Colts get possession; probably right around the Colts own 43 or 44 yard line.
If the Panthers punt the Colts also get possession, just better field position – probably starting from about their own 10 or 12 on average, but barring a fluke, anywhere between the 1 and 20 yard line.
It does make sense therefore to give up a two yard chance at keeping the ball, getting a first down, and getting that ball just about an average first down (10-15 yards) from the Panthers scoring range.
Because extra possessions in football don’t matter that much. And extra possessions in football that also start in fantastic field position – here on your opponent’s side of the, their 42 yard line or better – matter even less.
But possibly giving your opponent field position that won’t be nearly as good for your team (relative to a punt), and, versus the “election” to punt here, represents a possession that your opponent was going to get anyway?
So the Panthers can’t take such a chance at such a terrible thing happening, even though making 2 yards (here just under 2 yards) for a first down “isn’t exactly” a probability long shot.
All the points of the last three paragraphs are true. In fantasy land.
If by their own strategic decisions the Panthers want to actually increase their chances of winning the game, and not instead increase their opponent’s chances, then the points of the last three paragraphs are close to absurd: Which, strategically, is what this nevertheless, ho hum, barely questioned, and rather routine decision to punt here, in fact is.
The odd thing is that on some level, many players probably know this – or at least do to some extent. They may not consciously argue it: But go ahead and bring the Panthers out to try that 4th and 2, and measure the Colts heart rates. Then measure their heart rates when the Panthers suddenly switch and change their minds, and bring out the punting unit.
Whew, there will be big signs of relief. The Colts will be starting out with the ball fairly deep on their side, of course (or at least most likely), but at least they will be getting the ball they were just in serious fear of losing.
And not only that, but as if not more importantly, if they didn’t get the ball, their opponents would have it, and their opponents would have a 1st down, and their opponents would have a 1st down scrap yardage from long field goal range (iffy in the heavy rain), and an average 1st down (10+ yards) and scrap yardage from good field goal range, and a few short throws to the end zone.
Whew.
So good thing those Panthers punted.
For the Colts. As the decision by a team to punt under such circumstances helps their opponents chances of winning the game, and hurts their own, and is normally made out of an almost ridiculously misguided fear driven strategic misassessment.
And fear of what. That it would be “bad” to be stopped?
The only reason that things that happen that are “bad” – and hence to be afraid of – are in fact even “bad” in the first place in in terms of play outcome (injury aside), in a football game, is that they decrease your chances of winning. (For instance; If throwing interceptions helped your team’s chances of winning, then throwing interceptions would be a good thing, not a bad thing.)
So fearing something that increases your chances of winning, because it “could” work out poorly (just like the game itself, or to some extent, almost any play in football), is not only meaningless, but irrational.
But it’s happening, right now, in the NFL, and has been, for years and years and still is, even with “analytics” creeping into the game.
Picked Redskins (they won the game by only a point);
. Browns (staying loyal to preseason prediction of Bills making playoffs, while not staying loyal to Rams preseason prediction of making playoffs: both backfired, as the Rams trounced the Browns, and Bills lost at the end);
Cowboys, making the wrong call on the Giants a second week in a row. (After picking them to upset the Cowboys week 1, which they shouldhave, and the Bills in week 4, which they did);
Eagles, buying into the “they’re starting out slow but have just turned it around” idea for some reason, with, really no evidence (some luck and a bad performance by the Giants in week 6 isn’t turning it around), other than the lame fact that when first taking over what was for him a brand new team, Chip Kelly had started out 1-3;
And, again, the Bills, staying with the sinking ship of that prediction and worsening an already bad ATS record. (Yeah, I know above 500 is “good.” Whatever, but not really.)
In the game on the road in London (the once and future London Jaguars “home” stadium for the contest), the Bills fell behind 27-3. Then were up 31-27 late.
Then, on 3rd and 15 with 3:04 left from their own 47 yard line, a Blake Bortles pass fell incomplete.
But as is often the case in the National Football Penalty Flag League (charmingly often referred to as the National Football League), a questionable pass interference penalty was called, where to make matters worse, cornerback Nickell Robey was going for the ball as well.
This penalty wasn’t nearly as game changing as many. The reality is that while it was for 17 yards and a 1st down at the Buffalo 36 yard line rather than a 4th and 15 for Jacksonville from their own 47, the Bills still gave up what was the winning touchdown. And did so on the next two plays alone.
In fact they gave up a touchdown so fast that, along with their three timeouts still remaining, at 2:16 they had more than enough time for a strong two minute drill winning touchdown drive.
Not only did they botch it, they were slow on the drive and quickly burned their timeouts, which – in case they got stopped quickly (which they did) – they should have saved; that way they stood a good chance of getting the ball back again and if so could have had a 30 – 45 second shot at getting into long field goal range for the tie. But they didn’t do that either, and the Jaguars kneeled a few times, and that was that.
So, bad penalty or not, the Bills lost legitimately. And bad penalties are a part of football.
So to make up for last week’s miserable week, this week will sweep the table. Making this easier will be the fact, that (for now, at least, maybe some will be added before Sunday game time), the “table” will only be two picks. (Update: 3 picks)
Both could easily be big upsets. And one of the two is tonight, in what has quickly become a time honored tradition that some players apparently dislike, but the league itself, commercial telecast networks, and many fans, like a lot: Thursday Night Football.
1. Miami Dolphins (+9) at New England Patriots
The Pariots rampage continues. Plus, they remember what an at the time 0-2 Miami Dolphins team (coming off a 1-15 year) did to them in September, 2008, ending their 21 game regular season win streak in the process. This:
Never mind that Matt Cassel was the quarterback in that game, Cassel still piloted them to an 11-5 record. And the Patriots don’t make excuses.
But the Patriots are somewhat playing that way anyway; and if the Dolphins are now for real under new interim head coach Dan Campbell, this is the game they would play as hard as any,
It’s by no means a lock. The Dolphins might now think they are good and simply assume they can do it rather than play with maximum intensity and focus at all moments, or simply make mistakes against a formidable team; a team that almost never loses at home, and a team that is laser beam focused, and that Belichick not only has the recent scary Dolphins buzz to use as well as the still motivating offseason marring Deflategate “scandal,” but that 2008 dismantlement of the Patriots by the Dolphins in Foxboro, as further motivation.
But this should be a tightly fought division matchup. And for the Dolphins, it’s their closest thing to a Super Bowl in quite a while.
Pick: Dolphins
2. Seattle Seahawks (-6) at Dallas Cowboys
It’s hard to pick the Cowboys to win outright here – Russell Wilson’s record at pulling out close games, and games in general, is just too good. (Often he carries that team a lot more than stats indicate, creating plays where none exist, and turning losses into key yardage and first downs with well timed scrambles.)
The Seahawks remember that the Cowboys beat them last year in Seattle (one of the only two teams to do so in Russell Wilson’s first three years in the league, until the Panthers did so two weeks ago.)
And this Seahawks team has been championship caliber for a few years now, and need to win this game.
While the Cowboys, in falling apart after losing their star quarterback Tony Romo and receiver Dez Bryant, have shown that despite what they confidently said pre season, they are not.
The Cowboys will at least try to play like it this game, and in terms of caliber of players, they aren’t outmatched. And while they haven’t been a particularly good home team, Seattle is a much better home team than on the road
This one should be a close Dallas loss, or an outright win.
Pick: Cowboys
3. Green Bay Packers (-3) at Denver Broncos
This game could go either way. And frankly the 3 points Denver is getting probably don’t matter much: Go back and study Aaron Rodgers’ record, he has won less than his fair share of 3 point games.
He has won some close ones, of course. But also notice his record even in games won by 7 points or less – 24-22 – and compare it with his record in games won by more than 7 points – 55-15. There has to be some natural difference here, as games that are closer in score were on average more up in the air with regard to outcome and therefore more likely to be lost in the first place, but the margin here is pretty steep.
Peyton Manning acknowledged weeks ago he barely has feeling in a parts of his fingers. On his throwing hand. He’s clearly not the QB he was, or even close.
This is not news of course. But Manning is still like having an offensive coordinator who’s great at making line reads and adjustments, out there as a team’s QB.
He also demands the best of his players – at least he has, and usually gotten it, in the past.
The Packers are a better football team right now. But their road record under Aaron Rodgers barely scrapes .500
The one scary stat is that Rodgers hasn’t beaten a team with a winning record, on the road, since December of ’12.
That stat has to end; and why not now, with his team clicking on all cyclinders, against a team that really isn’t nearly as dominant as the Packers are, and could easily have several losses.
But the odds are slightly against them here. Rodgers and the Packers faced a very good defense early on in the Seahawks, and solidly outplayed them. But the game was at home. (They also did it last year in the NFC championship game on the road, in a game they should have won. Against those same Seahawks.) Can they do it again?
Interesting game, no doubt. And it’s too bad the points probably won’t matter in this one, since getting 3-3.5 extra for a home team that probably has a slight edge in the game would otherwise be an easy call.
Pick: Broncos, with a slight edge to win outright.
Upset alert: Not an official pick, and the points are also irrelevant in this possible big upset game as well. But in the second half of the Saints game last week, where through some bad luck and bad play the Colts had fallen behind 27-0, and thus with relatively “little to lose” and yet a big challenge on the table, there were suddenly some glimpses of at least a little of the old Andrew Luck. (Aka the relatively new in the league Andrew Luck, who now may be suffering a hint of the 2012 two best college QB prospects to come out in 10 years syndrome, one that after his rookie year hit RG3 like a rock): He read the field, moved his eyes, head, made quicker, better decisions and tighter throws, and played far more relaxed and natural.
He didn’t play like this in the first half, where he seemed to play somewhat poorly, as he has much of the season. With tight feet, frozen reads, some questionable decisions, and imprecise throws.
And this Colts team doesn’t know how to tackle – not that that’s all that unusual. But they are also not very good at it even when executing half correctly – which is more unusual, and harder to overcome.
And in the fourth quarter, once the Colts pulled within two touchdowns of an outright win, their comeback last week did get quickly stifled, as the Saints bore down again, and the Colts didn’t look as Colts teams of fourth quarters past.
Plus, on the flip side, the Panthers have some serious team unity going on this season, and that makes them very competitive, and hard to play against.
But Andrew Luck once had the ability to pull out almost any game in the NFL. (That is, at least unless it happened to be in a stadium now named after a razor shaving company, and with a guy taking snaps on the opposite side of the ball who’s pretty well known; though integrity of the game (never mind integrity of the process, or the higher importance of not making presumptions and conflating them with fact) aside, one does wonder how at 38 and without “deflated” footballs, Tom Brady has managed to effectively all but dominate the league.)
This game is so lopsided in favor of the Panthers that Luck may just play like he started to in the second half of the Saints game, and his team may follow suit.
That said – and it’s no doubt an “if,” not a “will” – Luck is (or at least was) easily as good as anybody in the NFL at winning close games: Including yes, the master himself, TB.
The Panthers, on the other hand have been extremely poor at it.
Though they finally managed to accomplish it in week six against the Seahawks – a team that had come from behind late to win close games, in Carolina against the Panthers, each of the last three regular seasons.
Thus they are seemingly getting better. And with such a good overall record, and now having pulled off the close game comeback to none other than the Seahawks up in their dome, will probably be more relaxed about close games now as well. Plus, they’re home, which, undefeated atop the division, can help with both energy motivation from the crowd – particularly in a non divisional game matchup – and noise control.
But in a close game – if the Colts can play well enough to keep it close – the edge, at least based on history, undoubtedly still goes to the Colts.
And out of desperation and a sort of nothing to lose at this point but one more crappy game Andrew Luck, who thus just plays yet focuses more and tries less – if he sees it that way and can find what he had before – they may just show it.
It may be what we expect; a good team at home who wants to stay atop their division and at least this year go into the playoffs with some home games and a bye, easily defeating a relatively poor team in a nationally televised game. But it may also not be.
True, one never knows with the all over the board St. Louis Rams (have they finally turned that corner they’ve been trying and at times seem to slide around now for almost three years??); but of all the seemingly lopsided games, this is the one most primed for an upset. And it’s on Monday Night.
Last week recap: Despite a probable laughing gas affect that caused the Colts to line up and snap a fourth down conversion try from their own 37 yard line – one where just in case it wasn’t already a bad idea, they literally had no one lined up to block (making it perhaps the first scene when “Must see to be Believed Bloopers I, the Football movie” comes out) – the Colts pick was at least okay in hindsight.
Andrew Luck is still not throwing the ball as well as he has historically, however.
And again, their was that “play” – two Colts lining up and literally snapping the ball from their own 37 on 4th and 3, with several Patriots defenders standing right there – and zero blockers – as if it was some sort of zany broadway Confederacy of Dunces theatrical football play.
More importantly, however, the Patriots surreptitiously put a layer of carbonated air on the field whenever they had possession, leading to less gravity drag and higher scoring. (But the Colts – and thus Roger Goodell – still don’t suspect anything.)
The laughing gas byproduct of the procedure, at least according to top neurophysicists, also altered the Colts’ routine circuitry – wonderfully trying a hand at much needed NFL strategy situation creativity, but doing so in among the most boneheaded and counter productive strategic fashions imaginable – and leading to the aforementioned non fake “fake” 4th down punt boondoggle where viewers might have reasonably thought they were watching post modernism football theatre, instead of a real matchup.
The Panthers getting 7 points was an easier pick. The Seahawks almost never lose at home,and those bad cats from Carolina had not only been beaten in last year’s playoffs by those bad Seattle birds, but for some reason have played them the last 3 (and now, including this year, the last 4) regular seasons running; each time, prior to this year, in Carolina, with late game Carolina leads, and each time leading to a close Carolina loss.
Not this time. Go Cam. Not Kam and Company. Cam.
Re the atrocious Monday night (Giants) pick: Who knows what’s going to happen with the Eli Coughlin mix: This team can pop out of nowhere and win Super Bowls, and it can play poorly. The Giants are the real wild card team of the NFL.
In that rather remarkable week 1 game, that faint ray of hope then turned into a Cowboys win – given an ensuing super soft Giants defense that practically begged for the Cowboys to march down the field on it; as if losing a game that no way should have been lost, so long as they didn’t risk some long shot fluke of a 60 yard play.
But the Giants didn’t just play with far too much cushion for the basic field math of the situation, they also played soft overall, looking sometimes a little lethargic, and frequently non focused both to the ball and their gaps, especially on the earlier and middle part of the drive.
Then they got a break that should have saved them however, when a bad shotgun snap with only seconds remaining could have easily ended the context, but Tony “Zen” Romo calmly snatched it up first try, flipped the laces, and easily found Jason Witten for the winning touchdown.
And now the Cowboys, fresh off a 3 game and no Romo no star WR Dez Bryant (and relatively sub par play regardless) losing streak, limp into New York to face the same Giants; although they will have most of their firepower on defense at the ready for this game.
Which brings us to….week 7 picks.
1. Dallas Cowboys (+3) at New York Giants
Brandon Weeden is pissed about being benched: It’s understandable, from a competitive wanting to play perspective. But take that away and the team in theory at least could be mildly pissed if Weeden wasn’t benched, since the fact he’s 0-11 in his last 11 starts is clearly related to the fact he played poorly in several of them, and more importantly, repeatedly struggled to find good movement in the pocket to avoid rushers, find receivers, buy time, make better decisions, etc.
That said, if the Cowboys expect Matt Cassel to be their savior, that’s a mistake. (Update: for this game he wound up being the savior for the Giants defense; though when he wasn’t finding Giants defenders at really bad times, he did make some nice throws.)
Hopefully, the Cowboys can just get him to play as a competent backup (which is what he is), and try to recognize the fact that, if they can’t win games without their star quarterback, they’re not a very good team. And before the season they said they were a very good team.
Foolishly, I keep believing them week in and week out, though now probably don’t. But with the Yin and the Yang of Giants football, and the fun this game would be if the Cowboys win again (even if this pick number 1 of week 7 is also official foolish pick number 1 this week, which it probably is) “easy call”: Cowboys in an upset, before the Giants regroup and either go into their proverbial slide or under the radar late season run toward a likely Super Bowl victory. (Which would also be helped if Victor Cruz’s mysterious calf injury can somehow heal – maybe he should get some of that advanced gadgetry Brandon Marshall uses, or at least a masseuse. And Jason Pierre-Paul can still play football after a fireworks related index finger and tip of the old thumb loss.)
Pick: Cowboys
2. New York Jets (+9) at the New England Patriots
Seriously, a division game involving two good teams, with a 9 point spread?
Oh yea, the reigning Super Bowl champ Patriots are on a rampage. But they may not trot out their trusty invisible surface anti gravity psi deflate carbonator machine; being, if just momentarily, perhaps sated at beating the Colts: The very team – with a huge assist from a multiple federal judge ruling arbitrary and capricious Roger Goodell – responsible at helping to bring the wonderful latest gate in American history lore into the NFL offseason forefront.
And while there’s no Rex Ryan there to get his team hyped into thinking that playing the Patriots is like the Super Bowl, the Jets may be somewhat hyped anyway, being that they’re playing the defending SB champs and long time division foe that’s won way more than it’s fair share against the Jets as well. And the current Jets are a better team than most of the ones Rex fielded.
Here’s to near genuis level quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick not having one of his occasional turnover meltdowns – always a possibility since Fitzpatrick doesn’t have the same natural ability as a lot of QBs, and tries to make to up for it with more intensity and calculated risk, while not simultaneously making a higher proportion of bungling mistakes (as he did early in his career, but has learned to somewhat corral).
Good article here by NFL Spin Zone on some of the key Patriots injuries, along with additional information, particularly regarding their offensive line; although I’m not sure the injuries will hurt the Patriots that much (and they also largely haven’t yet), as the team plays better football than most because they practice better.
This line is still way too high though, and there is a solid possiblity of an upset here.
Pick: Jets. In, frankly one of the best and most interesting matchups of the year; though whether that remains the case after the fact, remains to be seen.
3. Philadelphia Eagles (+3) at Carolina Panthers
Okay, I would never wager on football. Far be it for me to even contemplate such a notion. (However, “gaming” on football player statss because – as the normal looking sports buff on the commercials assures us thirty times and hour – practically everyone wins, is different.) But I had a friend who happened to be in Vegas last week and he owed me four Papa Johns pizzas.
So to finally clean the slate I asked him to put down 25 bucks on the Steelers, Panthers and Giants to win by 3 or more each. It paid 2370, and 50 pizzas on the Chargers +11 combined with the 49ers and, once again, Giants, to win. It paid 1100 pizzas.
The Chargers came within 3 yards of tying the game at the end, and the 49ers, in a game they very well could have lost (and in a very interesting fourth quarter no less), won by five.
And, incredibly, despite Carson Palmer carving up yardage over the middle of the field like a thanksgiving turkey (offset by some uncharacteristically turkey like play closer to the end zone), the Steelers, sprung from a somewhat too chill and this year very inaccurate Michael Vick, by virtue of a fortuitous hamstring pull, turned to their third string QB Landry Jones and managed to win, and by 12 points no less, 25-13.
And the Panthers managed to win by 4: In Seattle, where practically nobody wins. Except Seattle. (And, recently, almost, the also almost still winless and not very happy Lions.).
Naturally, at that point I knew the Giants had no chance.
But what does that have to do with this game? Everything: The Panthers were practically laughed at to win the division by this silly Harvard Sports Collective study. Despite winning it the past two seasons. But now they sit at 5-0.
Still, it will be hard to match the intensity of last week. And since Chip Kelly managed to turn the team around from a similar slow start in 2013 – though he was new to a previously struggling club at that point – and they seem to be playing better, and Sam Bradford has still not hit his one time exhibited potential, they could just do it again. (Though if the Panthers stay fresh even after upsetting Seattle and do win – and, it’s not because the Eagles play like the Giants did last Monday night – watch out, as this division will have a nice battle to the end between these cats and some other birds – and still might anyway.)
Fly, Eagles, Fly.
Pick: Eagles
4. Buffalo Bills (-3.5) “at” the London Jaguars (also sometimes known as the Jacksonville Jaguars)
The Jaguars have lost more games the past 3 seasons than any team in the NFL, and continue to lose this year. And after coach Rex said he would “bet anyone” that his team would turn it on this season, the Jaguars should lose this one by 15 points. (Normally most volunteer work on this end is for the poor, helping out with health issues, the homeless and public information; but I’ve offered to be the Jaguars general manager for free – though I might have to stop writing bad football columns that even google barely knows about. Tough choice.)
Well, truly the Bills aren’t missing like half their team. But they are missing several key players: Sammie “my ankle injury is making me and you look bad” Watkins (or possibly it was “not getting the ball,” and not a sprained ankle that prompted that excellent impromptu “team spirit” comment from Watkins); Percy “maybe I should rethink this whole NFL thing and also make sure my coach tells the world he ‘has no idea where I am'” Harvin; Starting QB Tyrod Taylor; Kyle, and Karlos, Williams.
Pick: Bills, staying loyal to a bad preseason prediction: But really I dunno (Update. I sure didn’t.) It’s just fun to write about this Bills team. I still wouldn’t be surprised it they win handily. (Maybe former No. 16 overall pick reach EJ Manuel will finally turn it on – throwing to somebody, anyway).
But if the Jaguars can’t win in their once and future English accented home against an injury riddled cast, at this point in year four of the very lengthy “Jaguars are turning it around” program, when can they?
4a. New Orleans Saints (+4.5) at the Indianapolis Colts
Seriously? I could tell you who’ll win the U.S. presidency next year easier than I could this game.
I thought Andrew Luck was the next great quarterback. And this season he comes out and plays poorly. This last game against the Patriots – who he has all the motivation in the world to beat – he still didn’t play that well.
But whether this was still part of the not so great “new” Andrew Luck (if a slightly improved version of the “new” Luck), or some shoulder trouble, is hard to say. It seemed like the latter, but could be both.
The Saints weren’t going to let the Patriots beat them last week in the Superdome when they played the Falcons – it was just that kind of game. Their quarterback, coaches, and some of the players were angry and upset at having lost several games.
Can they come in here angry? On the other hand, are the Colts a debacle this year who have somehow managed to half keep it together and win (in which case they’re probably a little more likely than not to win again, but likely close), or the same team who (somehow, if helped by an easy division), managed to get to the AFC Championship game before getting soundly trounced in the second half after referee approved recalibrated inflated footballs. Who knows. We’ll see.
Pick: The team that score more points at the end. (Sure, mock that silly answer. But by some of the strategy calls NFL teams repeatedy make in basic, structural game situations, it’s not clear some NFL teams really know this, or at least what maximizes the chances of it being achieved; what with punting across midfield on short yardage situations; punting late in games in decent yardage situations when trailing by 17 points (the Giants, twice, against the Eagles – heaven forbid they get stopped and maybe lose); going for the PAT instead of a two point conversion when taking a 12 point lead in the second half, punting the ball away on a 4th and ~6 when trailing by 5 with just under two minutes to go and only 2 timeouts (Saints, week 1, followed by the Cardinals making a mistake nearly as bad by not simply running the clock down to about 56 seconds and then punting inside of the 20, giving the Saints about a 1 in 50 chance, if that, of winning), etc etc etc etc….Or, update, this wild gift of a real chance to the Ravens by the Cardinals in a game that the Ravens otherwise had less than a one in hundred chance of even tying, let alone winning.
If you’re in Vegas, don’t rely on the last two picks. I don’t think they’re officially listed as options. “I dunno” might be, but it probably only pays in Monopoly money. Or pizza.
5. Cleveland Browns (+6.5) at St. Louis Rams
Seriously? When did the Rams become so big and bad.(Update: Just before this game, after I jumped off my preseason bandwagon of trying to be “cool” and picking them to win the division. I did pick them to upset the Seahawks in week 1, but whatever; helped by some big return plays, they did that last year as well.)
Jeff Fisher sure gets a lot of pub as a good coach for a guy who hasn’t even made the playoffs the average 37.5% of the time, reaching the postseason, in his 19 full years of head coaching so far, in just 31.5% of his seasons.
Still, we’re all expecting it (I expected the Rams to surprise this year too), just probably not this game. Maybe, but probably not.
Pick: Browns
6. Pittsburgh Steelers (+2.5) at Kansas City Chiefs
The Chiefs have, uh, “disappointed.” For a team I expected to battle Denver heads up for the division (and since Denver was the easy call, actually picked the Chiefs to win it – now there’s a laugher, amongst an unusual bevy of bad preseason predictions), they sure are bad.
The most important clue was when they played the Packers in week 3 in a nationally televised game, after blowing an embarrasing (but otherwise, turnovers aside, solidly played) game at home in week 2 to the Broncos, who have beaten them every time since Peyton Manning came on board – and Manning, at least relatively speaking, can barely throw this year.
And not only did they lose, they allowed a late drive, then fumbled away the game in the last few seconds to take away even any 50 -50 chance in overtime if they couldn’t somehow pass deep and hit a quick field goal for the win prior to it.
It wasn’t the score in the ensuing Packers game (which was lopsided for most of the contest until some junk TDs late), but the way the Chiefs played. I tweeted during the game that they looked more like a team that couldn’t wait to get out of there and drink beer, than one focused and ready to play – let alone after such a big loss, and now on a national stage against a perenially strong team.
I picked the #Chiefs ATS. Terrible pick. They're playing with the energy of guys who can't wait to leave and drink beer. They also need a CB
And they haven’t won since. Andy Reid is at this point probably overrated, and they probably need to retool what it is they think they’re doing.
But they win this one. Jamaal Charles or No Jamaal Charles. This is their game to pump it up. (Or, then again, if they couldn’t even get psyched for the Packers on a national stage when their season was still alive, maybe I’m wrong.)
Pick: Chiefs
7. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (+3) at Washington Redskins
I don’t know what happened, but the Redskins are a well coached team this year. They play solid football. But they also played last week without about 9-10 originally projected starters, and not counting IR like 6 starters now that the season is underway (Jordan Reed, Chris Culliver, DeSean Jackson, DeAngelo Hall, Trent Williams, Kory Lichtensteiger, I think).
Jordan Reed, listed as questionable, is apparently expected to play (at least he hinted that way this past week), and Trent Williams in all likelihood will also – though as “questionable” it’s not certain.
Williams coming back at left tackle (if so), will be a boost, and while likely losing third down back Chris Thompson for this game won’t help, getting their top TE Reed back should help as well. Still, they’re down four key starters, as they’ve been for a while now, and last year, a Buccaneers team that won only two games, and really was pretty bad for most of them, came into Washington and beat the Redskins 27-7.
27-7! In Washington. It doesn’t even make much sense.
But watching the Washington team closely this year, again, it’s a well coached team and playing differently than last year, for some reason. Losing all these players hurts. But if this team is not still near the bottom of the league, and they don’t seem to be, they win this game. Maybe even if Kirk Cousins does throw another two picks; though it sure won’t help if he does.
(Side note to RG3’s agent – With an expensive option next year, and either a more expensive contract or he’s out the door if he plays well, after that, as well as a 16.1 million loss if he gets hurt this season and can’t play next, the Redskins have little to gain and a lot to lose by playing him. RG has a lot to gain, and, with his stock currently so low, very little to lose by not languishing on the bench, and instead hitting a team in need of some QB help or at least competition. The Redskins also benefit from trading him instead of just paying out his salary, making sure he doesn’t get injured, and then voiding the (now, with no injury, voidable) year five 16.1 million dollar option. So drop the silly injury clause, and stop with the triple lose lose lose. (The Skins, RG, and perhaps some NFL team that could use a player who still has the possibility of turning it on.) And turn it into a win win and win and get this guy’s talents back in the mix now, not as an undervalued free agent after the season is entirely wasted. Though this should have been done earlier.)
Pick: Redskins
Added pick, early Sunday a.m.
8. Minnesota Vikings (-1) at Detroit Lions
Sure the Lions could surprise, but right now they’re not as good. Close call, but
A 2015 week six NFL matchup between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers featured a rematch of Super Bowl XLVII from less than 3 years ago.
It also featured two 1-4 teams, while still current Ravens’ head coach John Harbaugh’s brother Jim is no longer coach of the 49ers; and out of both original teams, only ten players again started this game on Sunday (or at least for the same side – see below), six for the gang from San Francisco, and four from Baltimore: QB Joe Flacco, guards Kelechi Osemele and Marshal Yanda, and linebacker Courney Upshaw.
The game also saw a few interesting strategy situations unfold in the fourth quarter of what was ultimately another close one. And, with barely two minutes to go, wound up being dramatically altered by an inside of five yards subjective defensive hold call, in a contest that up until that point had seen just five penalties.
First, in a key 3rd down situation and trailing by 6 from the 49ers 27, the Ravens threw a long pass with very little chance, to a well covered Kamar Aiken boxed in along the deep right sideline (after the play was over, long time quarterback and commentator Rich Gannon proclaimed the play ultimately had “no chance”), thus blowing the more important opportunity to get four new plays out of the deal, on a sort of needless “wing it and hope” type of decision.
Then, about a minute later, the Ravens – having already badly wasted timeout number one less than a minute into the second half – lost their second on a challenge to a solid 51 yard Anquan Boldin catch (also see below), that barring a likely mistake by the referees had very little chance of being overturned.
This was a timeout that, given the Ravens waste of the earlier one, effectively made the difference between them having a very realistic chance of later ultimately winning the game, versus the super long shot chance they wound up with; but for, again, want of that timeout.
Then the Ravens pulled within 6, and made a PAT versus two point conversion attempt decision that was also pretty interesting. (Link forthcoming – but here was the situation: 5:14 left, the touchdown, pending an extra point or conversion try, made the score 25-19, with more strategy implications than might at first meet the eye.)
Then, though we’ll never know, the game may have been all but decided on a measly little penalty. A penalty that but for its moment of occurrence otherwise probably went somewhat under the radar:
Leading 25-20, the 49ers faced 3rd and 7 from their own 40 yard line with 2:33 left in the game, and just the one Baltimore timeout.
Quarterback Colin Kaepernick scrambled hard left. (Which, interestingly, as a right handed quarterback he nevertheless seems to like to do more than roll right – and on their prior drive, moving hard to his left, had on the dead run and with his right arm of course, thrown that essentially perfect pass to Anquan Boldin nearly 50 yards downfield for a 51 yard gain shown in the video above; hitting Boldin in his hands out in front in near perfect stride.) And he was eventually forced out of bounds for a one yard gain.
Thus, after Kaeperinick’s scramble on 3rd and 7, a 49ers punt had been upcoming. And thus at that moment the game was not only far from over, it may even have more likely belonged to the Ravens at that point: Since Joe Flacco joined the league and team in ’08, given plenty of time for a two minute type drill with the game on the line – make it and win outright, don’t make it and lose – the Ravens have won these games more than they’ve lost.
But they were called for their third penalty of the game: A somewhat subtle, within five yards, “grab” type hold by a member of their heavily depleted secondary. Here, cornerback Jimmy Smith on one time 49ers defeating Super Bowl champion Raven, and current 49er, Anquan Boldin. (Torrey Smith is yet another Raven wide receiver who was a member of that Super Bowl squad that defeated the 49ers and Kaepernick in number XLVII (47), who now plays for the 49ers – Smith even had a 76 yard TD catch against his former team in the game. Meanwhile, on the flip side of the ball, the Ravens secondary was so depleted coming in – and they lost safety Kendrick Lewis to a knee injury in the third quarter – that Shareece Wright started at corner for them, when just over a week earlier Wright had been a member of – who else – the 49ers. But not playing, he had asked to be traded or released, and gotten his wish.)
That 3rd down out of bounds scramble play and defensive hold stopped the clock at 2:26, and made it 49ers first down, at their own 45 yard line.
The Ravens could still win. (And as long of a shot which as a result they were ultimately faced with – helped as it later was by a bad 49ers punt – they wound up getting to the 49ers 35 yard line – also helped the last 5 yards by a 49ers penalty – and took two shots at the end zone: Though the 49ers likely played the final drive with more cushion than they otherwise would have had there been a little more time left.)
But at this point they were in a near Hail Mary fluke type of chance situation. A first down ends the game; and barring that, the only requirement was for San Francisco to run plays and hold onto the ball. One run will burn the Ravens last timeout. The second will take the game to the two minute warning.
The third will gake the game clock down to 1:15 or 1:16, at which point the 49ers would make a short high punt with essentially no chance of a return, and put the Ravens somewhere in between the goal and 20 yard line, and probably around the 10 or 12 on average. The Ravens would have about 70 seconds, and no timeouts, to drive between 80 and 99 yards. It’s been done on some fluke occurences, but it’s extremely rare. (The punt, despite becoming more of a rarity in such situations the last few seasons, as it is went into the end zone for a touchback, and gave the Ravens a slightly higher faint – albeit still faint – hope.)
But for a huge 49ers breakdown (though, again, with the Ravens reaching the 35 yard line the opportunity did at least arise as turned out), and what would be one of the very very rarest of last minute drives – post normal kickoff with no timeouts and only a minute to a minute and twenty seconds left – the 49ers, by virtue of that subjective penalty, all but essentially won the game (which, of course, they did 25-20). Or, but for a long shot fluke foulup – it ensured their winning a game that was otherwise completely up in the air.
This is no injustice of sport. And, frankly, in some sense it wouldn’t really be even if it was a bad penalty call. (Heck, the one being called a huge injustice for this season so far, if anything, would have been super fluke luck for the team ultimately deprived of it.)
The games are called aggressively against defensive backs – for better (fans that love high scoring and lots of “big plays” and big fantasy point scoring that the NFL’s Goodell, despite constant NFL sponsorhip on its own shows and website, says it’s not promoting), or worse (less balance between offense and defense, and less meaning to each big play and score). And bad calls, though the goal is to minimize if not eliminate them, are part of the game – and here, if minor, the penalty may have been a legitimate call as well.
When a game is that close – something that seems long forgotten if ever known (or agreed with) in the NFL, but for the record books and subsequent results, it’s not really “won” anyway in one sense at least. When it’s that close, bad bounces cause the difference betwen a win and a loss; a fluke, freak or lucky good play or bad, due to sheer randomness as much as skill and focus, cause the difference between a win and a loss.
They’re still legitimate wins and losses – particularly when combined with great play in key moments – but they often could have gone the other way. (Here the Giants lost opening day – imagine the repercussion for the tightly bunched NFC East right now, or possibly even more significantly by season end – because of a horrendous strategy decision by them; as well as, strategy snafu aside, by a third botched officiating call: A botched call that would have been a defensive hold penalty that, while legitimate, would have saved the Giants after their bad strategy decision and before they even had a chance to then add to it by playing a soft, backed way up swiss cheese style of defense – a defense with more holes even than capitalization policy on the word “swiss cheese,” and a botched call openly acknowledged by the NFL the next day. Itself one of two; but not three, acknowledged, as the NFL, but almost no one else, is apparently “clear” on what defines a catch when a receiver hits the ground “soon” after making said catch. (But apparently not if the ball is fumbled immediately beforehand – when the not yet completed catch under one set of rules, is now ruled a completed catch under another, and with sources apparently chomping at the bit to explain why.)
So actual wins count, are legitimate, and are real. But real wins in the sense of ensuring that on this day this competitor, or this team, is going to, will, and does defeat that competitor (somewhat like the week five game between the Saints and Falcons, most of the Patriots games this season, and of course, many, many others – but not including when Rex Ryan says his team is going to), or the way it turned out, unequivocally did win, regardless of calls or bounces, are a little bit different if not always as discernible.
But games are close in the NFL. And even not so close ones in the end come down to a lot of things. Sometimes those things are the subjective angle of penalty calls. And naturally here in the Ravens game it was the type of penalty that in the last few years has been increasingly tilting NFL games in favor of offenses versus defenses; and specifically passing, versus defenses.
And a game that was probably 50 50, if not at that point with a slight edge to the Ravens – with four player per set of downs, plenty of time, nothing to lose desperation on their side, and the fact that given this opportunity Flacco and the Ravens accomplish it more often than not – becomes, barring a complete 49ers defensive meltdown, essentially all but a lock for the 49ers to win.
It’s an interesting aspect that something as trivial as a minor holding call may have ultimately decided this game. And while the Ravens season looked all but over anyway, one never knows with this team. While it’s not likely in terms of their otherwise still very long shot chances of making the playoffs, that penalty may have ultimately, and very early in the season, knocked those chances down for the final count.
Week 6 of the NFL saw the Baltimore Ravens, with a depleted secondary and a 1-4 record out of a bevy of close games, go into San Francisco and (though seemingly slightly outplayed for much of it), lose another close one to fall to a now logistically impractical 1-5.
But an interesting situation came up early in the fourth quarter: 13:47 remained when the ball was snapped, and the Ravens faced 3rd and 4 from the 49ers 27 yard line (though not a “gimme,” solidly within superman kicker Justin Tucker’s comfortable field goal range – see bottom).
Ravens quarteback Joe Flacco occassionally makes throws that may not have been well advised, but overall takes a “play to win” approach, doesn’t fear interceptions if the play has an overall positive value, and generally makes good to very good decisions at one of the most difficult positions in all of sports.
On this play however, and however subtle, the Ravens may have blown a small but important opportunity.
With almost a quarter left to play, it’s too early to heavily discount the value of 3 versus 7 points here. But down 19-13, fairly late, pulling within 3, and thus still trailing (and thus not in a position to be able to generate the key late game two score lead, whereas your opponent is), and also more likely ultimately putting your team in a position to only play for the “tie” with a field goal, isn’t of huge value.
So going for the touchdown is obviously not a bad move. But what maximizes the chances of getting that touchdown?
If the Ravens get the first down here, it means they’re on the 49ers 23 yard line or better, and can mix it up to continue to try and advance the chains, as well as go for the end zone as oppportunity permits.
On the other hand, going for the end zone on this 3rd down play instead – and leading to an inevitable field goal try if they fail – isn’t necessarily a bad play. But it’s limiting in that if they fail, it cuts off any successive chances of trying for the touchdown on this drive.
So does a failed shorter conversion attempt of course (unless that failure brings up a fourth and fairly short, in which case the Ravens should go for it); but the chances of doing so on a far shorter conversion attempt are much lower.
It’s easy to watch game film and second guess. And for that reason (and because it’s part of the fun of football), it tends to get overdone – even when one is trying to be careful not to. But at the same time we’re talking about the professional level, and one of the better, and instinctively savvier, quarterbacks in the game.
And here the best decision is of course to get a touchdown if you can. But, if at all possible, maximize keeping the drive alive if you can’t.
That aside, the best call here as with any situation, is to go with what whatever play call is best in this situation. In other words, as with most play calls, something that, taking into account the situation, personnel out there, alignment at the line, and outguessing a defense, etc., is fairly subjective.
But there’s also an important component here that’s not really “after the fact” second guessing, and objective.
That is, if taking a shot at the end zone under the impression that the play offers high odds is the call, that’s fine. But for winning football it needs to be considered that unless the end zone play is – or at least, more importantly, ultimately develops into – a solid, relatively high opportunity rather than just a near wing it and “take a shot” type of a play, making sure to try and get the first down is of greater value because of the multiple successive chances of scoring that it brings up.
The Ravens do go for the end zone. But in such a situation they need an out, in case the play develops more into the latter (a low odds play) rather than the former (a relatively high odds play that catches the defense off guard):
That is, if the play doesn’t unfold nicely, then the low odds of connecting on it, combined with the complete practical loss of their possession if they fail to connect – in so far as fourth down now ensues, and from the 27 on 4th and 4 – far out yet still within Tucker’s easy range, and without a super easy conversion opportunity – they will and should kick the field goal – make the play a bad decision.
The loss of opportunity may have been in the play call itself. But that’s hard to say: Maybe it would have worked out with an open receiver more often; maybe the play was designed to have easy second and third options, etc. (Or maybe it wasn’t, which would have made it a bad call from the get go, and not just how it was called and ultimately run.)
In other words, the loss of opportunity may not have been with the call to go deep down the right sideline to Kamar Aiken in coverage by Tramaine Brock. And again, even if it was – barring the issue of secondary options – it’s a subjective call because if it does leave Aiken wide open, with Flacco’s ability it’s a fairly easy touchdown.
The loss of opportunity was to both go with that play call and stick with it after nothing but tight coverage and a sort of “low odds” wing it situation developed, and thereby give up the far higher odds play of getting an entire new set of downs, and thus several more (and somewhat closer) chances at the end zone to work with.
The play as thrown had a very low probability of completion.
First of all it’s a difficult deep pass. Clearly that can be worth the payout (likely touchdown) on its own if it looks like it has a good chance of working. But again the uniqueness of the otherwise very makeable third down situation and the greater value that situation brings up needs to be considered as well.
Given that situation, the fact that Aiken was well covered and with little manueverability near the sidelines to boot when the long pass was thrown, greatly lowers the odds. And while it still “could” have worked, the chances were now much lower of it working; and thus, correspondingly, the chances were very high that the Ravens would be stopped in their quest to, far more importantly, add 7 rather than 3 points here.
Thus the decision to attempt the play, despite the tight coverage under the specific strategic situation the team was in – and thus the low probability use of only one shot at the end zone rather than a far higher probability shot at getting closer and gaining an entire new set of four downs (or at least a better probability shot at the end zone), was a mistake.
And by better awareness and decision making before the fact, it was probably an avoidable one; one that, at least with some trust, is also recognizable and correctable from a website blog piece alone, without additional practice time on the field and or physical skills – making it in one sense among the most critical kind of mistakes in football, as it offers up the opportunity for a team to improve its winning chances by better decision making alone. (And there are reams of these, many very significant, in NFL football today.)
Put more simply, in that situation, if there are subjective reasons or assessments for the end zone shot, call the play. But make sure it has secondary and tertiary outs. And given the situation, if the big play isn’t there, while its not always possible to easily make good adjustments on the fly, don’t get greedy and go for it regardless rather than for a secondary decision that instead maximizes the chances of keeping the drive alive with an easier option.
As it turned out, Justin Tucker, who rarely misses, hit the right upright on the ensuing field goal try, and the score remained 19-13 – although the San Francisco field may have been part of the reason. Watch Tucker sink and almost split on the kick, showing solid athleticism to even half stay with his follow through:
Last week recap: Last week’s picks provided all sorts of good reasons why the Patriots would trounce the Cowboys. Then picked the Cowboys because they are a “really good team” with championship aspirations and potential, and really good teams in key games against defending Super Bowl champs no less (as if they needed more motivation), don’t get blown out at home.
Yeah, well okay, that was wrong. To say the least.
Meanwhile, backup Cowboys QB Brandon Weeden, who’s now 0-11 in his last 11 starts, said he was “pissed” that he was benched.
Tim Tebow should be pissed due to the groupthink that swept thru the NFL like spinach salmonella food poisoning from a team cafeteria eathathon(okay that was a terrible analogy); and collectively decided Tebow can’t “play” even though when he has played in games, he’s come through and the team has won, which seems to warrent great consideration as at least a backup that can give a team a spark, until and unless it turns out the fact that the team seemed to play better when Tebow, and he pulled multiple games out at the end was some sort of bizarre fluke.
On the other hand, Weeden should be eternally grateful that he got 11 starts.
And this is the same league that after Tebow’s 2011 season where he started 11 games in Denver much of the overall collective thinking – while some (myself included) said he should be a backup, and a few said he can’t play at all -was that he could play (there was all this Tebow excitement, remember? And it wasn’t just the fans), and maybe even be a good starter.
This opinion has drastically changed despite the fact that but for a couple of meaningless plays with the Jets in odd situations (he attempted a total of 8 passes with the Jets, completing 6 for 39 yards), Tebow has not played again in a regular season game. (As far as training camps odds go, he’s never really looked good in practice; so neither that nor the non playing Jets time should really have that fundamentally changed things.)
On to this weeks disaster picks. Which should be easy, since the 1:00 E.S.T games are already going on – those were too hard anyway.
1. Carolina Panthers (+7) at Seattle Seahawks
After blowing a 17 point lead on the road to Cincinnati last week and falling to 2-3 (and this after almost losing at home the week before to at this point – at least before today’s early games end – still winless Detroit in a game that if the referee’s made the proper call on a bizarre fluke of a meaningless play, they more than likely would have), energy and focus levels seem to suggest the Seahawks.
And this Seattle team has shown its championship caliber and ability to focus when necessary, again and again.
They also seem to play far better at home, and on the road the last three seasons they’ve beaten the Panthers in close games, all of which the Panthers led late.
And beat them soundly in the playoffs last year.
It is for these last two reasons, both of which are also be compelling reasons for the Panthers to focus for the game, that 7 points is too high. The Panthers may be improving – particularly under Cam Newton’s play. They’re coming off a bye. And while he’s not expected to play all of the snaps (and his backup, A. J. Klein will be out), stud linebacker Luke Kuechly will be back. And this is the Seahawks; who but for a wild play at the one yard line in the final seconds, would have been repeat Super Bowl Champs.
Seattle, who’s also getting back running back Marshawn Lynch, is tough to beat at home. And if it’s the same old Panthers they will probably lose, but it might still be a reasonably close game. And this Panthers team at least has reasons to be motivated, to say the least.
Pick: Panthers
2. New England Patriots (-9.5) at Indianapolis Colts (Sunday Night)
Yes this game should be a blow out as well for the Patriots. Just like last week. And just like last week, the (questionable?) call here is maybe not. Though once again this may be ascribing more to presumed character and motivation than really exists.
Yet everyone is talking about all of the motivation that the Patriots have. And they’ve shown it. It’s even been noted on several occassions in here – before the Cowboys and before the Bills game and elsewhere – that the “Deflate-gate” saga seems to have focused the motivated the Patriots even more (and somewhat understandably).
And this Colts team is the team that “told” on them, which reportedly also has some Boston area fans upset.
The league’s handling of the deflategate saga was an abomination (following a pattern, no less), and it was made into something it was not. However, if footballs are supposed to be inflated to a psi range and they aren’t, and no one checks them during the game, then how do rules get enforced save for teams noticing it?
The issue needed to have been brought up. The question is how. Mentioning it to the Patriots directly in a league filled with refs, rules and oversight seems a little odd. That leaves only one choice: The Colts bringing the correct attention to it. (Although it could be argued – maybe – that the Colts perhaps could have brought it up generically and less attached to a particular game, so that the issue was proper psi inflation in general, not proper psi inflation for “our game.”) And given that the Colts did make an issue of it, and what it led to, it’s easy to see it as being motivating for the Patriots
But the bottom line is that the Colts have also been somewhat pilloried for this. More importantly they’re playing the Super Bowl champs. And playing the team that has owned them the past several years.
The Partiots are the team that has beaten the Colts the last six times they have played. The team who beat them 59-24 in late 2012. Who next beat them 43-22 in the 2013 playoffs. Who next beat them late last season, 42-20. (In Indy, too.) And who then in last season’s playoffs beat them 45-7; with most of it coming in the second half, with carefully recalibrated footballs.
Again, the evidence that this Colts team simply can’t match up with the Patriots (combined with the fact that the Colts haven’t been very good this year, uncharacteristically, and the Patriots are seemingly on a rampage) may be too much. And choosing the Colts getting a measly 9.5 points may be a weak move.
But if any team has motivation here, it’s the Colts.
True, the Patriots will no doubt be focused. Even their non statements suggest it. “Um, we just want people to realize we didn’t beat them 45-7 because of deflated footballs,” is what’s reportedly being uttered.
But, while they simply may not be good enough, if this game doesn’t get the Colts focused to play as if a Super Bowl, then nothing can.
So, here’s saying it would just be too predictable, too formulaic, for this otherwise thus far not very good team – and one that really didn’t improve in the offseason despite all their talk about how they are a different team (they are, they’re worse) – not to play its heart out.
Though once again the mistake may be presuming focus and motivation where it doesn’t exist.
And the other mistake – but less important if the Colts play with an energy that simply won’t accept losing – just as the Saints did Thursday Night against the Falcons – is not giving sufficient due to the fact that right now they’re still not a very good football team, and are going up against a laser focused Super Bowl championship team with strong motivation to not just beat them, but throunce them, again.
But here’s to a suprisingly good and quite the story lined Sunday Night NFL matchup:
Pick: Colts
3. New York Giants (+5.5) at Philadelphia Eagles (Monday Night)
This is the Giants. Point spreads barely matter. And yes Odell Beckham might not play, Victor Cruz is still out, the Giants almost lost to San Francisco at home last week, while the Eagles last week finally showed us they may be closer to what we all thought they may be (aka, “good” rather than not so good).
But this is the Giants. And Eagles. Home field advantage doesn’t matter that much, and there’s no strong edge in terms of who’ll win. (After the fact there may appear to have been. But even if the Eagles are now “good,” given that this is the Giants, and it’s the Giants versus Eagles, and it’s the Giants versus Eagles on Monday Night, there’s still not much of an edge here.)
So given this, if it’s a close game, 5.5 points is a lot. The Giants may win – even if the odds are lower than for the Eagles winning. The Giants may lose handily. And the Giants may lose by a somewhat close one score game, in which case, spread wise, they still win.
Pick: Giants
The only pick that’s an uncomfortable one here (even if the Panthers do get pummeled, they have the ability to hang with and beat the Seahawks and this game should be big to them) is the Colts Patriots game.
This is because the Colts so far, at least relatively speaking, somewhat stink. And more disturbingly, no strong hints even seem to be coming out of the organization to the effect that they’re sick and tired of the Patriots, to say the least, rather than, instead, silly things like “we’re a different team.” Particularly when after a season that so far has shown that though on paper they are no better, they are a decidely “different” team: One no longer capable of hanging with anybody in the league (except the Patriots, that is), the last two seasons running.
But maybe they’re just keeping it to themselves. We’ll find out tonight.
Mike Tomlin commented during halftime of the Pittsburgh Steelers San Diego Chargers Monday night football game that the Steelers problem was they weren’t converting when they got into “fringe field goal” areas, and had “too many red zone like punts.”
Yet despite Tomlin’s proclamation during halftime, what did the Steelers do to end their first possession of the second half?
Still trailing 7-3, they punted. From fringe field goal range.
The Steelers faced 4th and 4 from the Chargers 42 yard line. While most teams would have very often done the same thing, this is a great place to punt from – if you are trying to help your opponents’ chances of winning, and decrease your own.
Punting gives away possession to the other team. That’s usually somewhat bad. Save for very rare exceptions, you need possession to score. (And the only time you do score in those rare “exceptions” is because your defense took possession during the play.)
But it makes sense to punt if risk of being stopped is great – such as giving up great field position to an opponent or having an extremely high chance of being stopped, and the benefit is not quite as great: For instance, your team is in poor field position anyway. (The same thing that simultaneously increases harm of getting stopped, and why the spot on the field is extremely key for making correct fourth down decisions.)
So it’s not like it’s “per se” bad to punt the ball. It’s per se bad when you give up – in terms of value times the chance of it – more than you gain; that is, the extra field position benefit times the chances that you would have been stopped, had you gone for it.
(The benefit of punting is not the improvement over getting stopped, it is the improvement over getting stopped times the chances of even being stopped in the first place, because had you otherwise gone for it and made it, you wouldn’t have been stopped and would still have the ball. The harm is the value of still having that ball that has now been lost, and at that spot on the field, times the chances that you would have.)
Here the situation is extreme: There’s a reasonable probability of making the fourth down with four yards to go. And if the Steelers convert, they get an extra possession they were not otherwise going to get. And, they get great field position.
That is, if they convert they’ll be on the Chargers 38 yard or better. Here, they’re only 38 yards away from a touchdown, 18 yards from the “red zone,” and well less than a first down away from even a reasonable field goal try.
It’s an enormous difference in football between having a first down at your opponent’s 38 yard line or better, and your opponent having the ball, and a first down.
And that difference, is the potential benefit here, versus punting. And the chances of realizing that benefit – i.e, making four yards – aren’t so slim or even anywhere close to it that such huge benefit can be tossed asunder.
Particularly when the harm from being stopped – the second part of this two part decision framework – is factored in.
So what is that harm? This is the part that teams are repeatedly greatly overestimating.
In other words, what happens when they are stopped? Is it that awful? Certainly going for it and making the first down is pretty awful for their opponent. After all, they were about to have the ball punted to them, and suddenly, their opponent has the ball instead, with a first down, and knocking on scoring territory, to boot.
But, in contrast, is it really that awful – as it must be to strategically justify what teams keep repeatedly doing – when the offense goes for the conversion and fails too make it? It may not feel good, but the goal is to win, not feel good or make weak decisions that actually decreased your chances to win, but are harder to knee jerk second guess later because “everybody does it,” and “at least it avoided the worse possible outcome” (and never mind that that worse possible outcome isn’t really so bad.)
What happens when they get stopped is their opponent gets the ball. And in much better position than had they punted. That’s not the harm of going for it – which is very different – but the harm of going for it and specifically getting stopped. That harm in turn has to be compared to the benefit of going for it, and making it, versus the punt as well.
But their opponent gets the ball in far worse field position – that is, a couple of first downs from field goal range, instead of less than a first down away – than the Steelers were going to get it in if they make it. But they were going to get the ball anyway. They don’t get an extra possession.
The Steelers not only get the ball and a first down in better field position than their opponents would get it when they get stopped (and in this case, significantly better); they get a brand new possession they weren’t even otherwise going to get. And, along with field position this is even more important, because you need possession of the ball to even score. Giving up possessions to the other team is a big deal.
Combining that with the fact that had your team – in this case the Steelers – kept possession, you could have had extremely good field position to boot, and that to try and get it only ran the risk of giving up worse field position versus a punt to your opponent if you get stopped but not as good as you would have gotten and not a new possession for them but one you were otherwise going to give them anyway, it’s an even bigger deal.
So, to recap, punting here; strategically, a great decision. If the goal is to help the other team win the game but at least “feel good” because (in this case monstrously incorrect and barely examined) convention is followed.
Maybe if there wasn’t all this seeming complaining in Detroit, and apparently major agreement nationally about how the Lions got “robbed” because of a missed fluke technicality that would have horseshoed them – instead of more focus on the fact they were outplayed – the Lions wouldn’t then go into week five at 0-4 and, seeking redemption, get blown outat home 42-17. (And with the score even being 35-7 at one point.)
Much of the complaining understandably comes from fans – which is part of the game. But it seemed to be felt by players too, when in reality a technical referee call that would have all but been a silly random very lucky break isn’t really them winning, but just a very lucky break.
So, taking that rather random, obscure super lucky break away, they lost. The Seahawks led throughout: even led after a somewhat fortunate but nice play Detroit defensive turnover touchdown to close the gap from 13-3 to 13-10 late in the game.
And when the Lions were about to take the lead even later, they didn’t protect the ball. And, for the Seahawks, in a somewhat fortunate but very nice play, strong safety Kam Chancellor purposefully and, football wise, near exquisitely knocked it out.
That kind of awareness and play is part of why they’ve been to the Super Bowl for the last two seasons, while the Lions have seen the playoffs twice since ’99 (though both were recent).
Tough to handle for a fan, no doubt. But a fan should be more upset that the Lions even for an instant thought they were robbed of a game that – but for a fluke, nothing to do with them, obscure, and half the league barely knows it rule that otherwise had nothing to do with the play – they lost.
And then rebounded from that, with a brutal, lopsided thrubbing at home to put them at 0-5; suggesting that too much focus, still, may have been on being ostensibly “robbed” at Seattle, rather than the fact they played Seattle tough and now at home were going to upset the Cardinals come whatever ref calls, turnovers, or circumstances occur. Or at least play to do so.
Week 5 of the 2015 NFL Season, New England Patriots at Dallas Cowboys, late third quarter:
Jim Nantz: “You gotta come out of this w/in 2 scores.”
Phil Phil Simms: “Absolutely.”
No guys, you don’t gotta do nothin’ but win the game. And kicking the field goal here versus trying to score more than double the points, does more to help the Patriots win than the Cowboys.
Pretty simple situation: 4th down, ball at the 5 yard line (or a bit outside if the refs spotted it correctly), 2 yards to go for the first Third quarter, 1:30 left. Patriots lead 20-3.
Until this one, Dallas has had one drive that’s gotten a first down all night. 7 of their first 8 averaged around 3 yards per drive. 2.42 if the end of half kneeldown is included.
That doesn’t really matter much, but it’s interesting, and does suggest Dallas is having a (very) hard time moving the ball against New England.
So here they are, with a chance to make it a reasonable game, 20-10.
With 16:30 left to play, it’s bleak regardless. But a field goal here, relative to a touchdown, does very little to increase their chances all that much, and,despite the seeming popularity (and conventionality) of the move, it’s strategically boneheaded. Or, in technical terms, “highly ill-advised.”
First off, the EV, or expected value is poor. (EV of trying the conversion equal odds of making the 1st time times chance of then making the TD if they don’t make it on that fourth down play, plus the chances of getting stopped times the (small but real) value of leaving the Patriots around the 5 yard line, is still higher than the 3 points of the field goal; and down by a lot of points, Dallas needs to maximize the points they make, not go “conservative” as if they need to decrease volatility.)
But more importantly is the real value it conveys. Two touchdowns – and that’s without a single additional New England score the rest of the way (meaning the Cowboys stop them each time), does not mean Dallas wins. It means they win half of the time.
If more realistically, New England sneaks in a field goal, they still need three scores to win, and only then if all three are touchdowns. And two touchdowns and a field goal just to tie.
Being “within two scores” is better than not. But the context of those two scores – what the scores are exactly, whether they put the team into a tie or win, how much time is left, and most importantly the specific opportunity the team is giving up to achieve them, are far more important.
Here it’s lopsided. Sure a team can crush it to the end but yet get “stopped” on one simple 2 yard play (the big “worry” that Dallas apparently has, and so fearfully doesn’t want to “give up” the 3 points), but that’s even more unlikely than them even just kicking the field goal instead and then suddenly crushing it to the end sufficiently to at least tye of win the game. (In other words, the only rationale for not trying the conversion – and it’s a bit speculative at that – is “we can’t move the ball on this team.” Yet the decision to not try requires that for all but the duration of the game the Cowboys not only move the ball on the Patriots, but dominate their defense.) It just feels good.
Group hug sessions and high fives are about feeling good. Winning strategy is about winning the game. And if a team needs to trick itself and strategically help its opponent in order to “feel good” and thus play better, it has bigger game winning problems.
Even getting stopped all day Dallas has a strong chance of making the 4th & 2, on this individual play.
And if one wants to factor in that they can’t seem to move the ball on New England, again – it can’t be emphasized enough but yet is repeatedly overlooked – that has to be equally factored into the fact that then willfully putting themselves down by a full fourteen points when they are so close to making it only ten becomes an even longer shot than it is already:
That is, the team can’t move the ball against New England so much they can’t get two yards, but is going to create two touchdown drives plus either stop New England or match yet a third score, and then also drive and win in overtime?
They may. But it banks on being able to move the ball, substantially, while the decision to give up a huge opportunity at a measly two or so yards banks on the inability to even budge the ball.
The fact Dallas is struggling thus on balance doesn’t weigh in much here, because it cuts both ways – they know they’ll have a hard time on subsequent drives, so reducing the number of them, the difficulty, or increasing the chances that the drives produce a win and not a “shot at” a win, is just as critical as the idea that their odds of making the fourth and two on this one particular play might also be lower than normal.
And to the extent the fact Dallas is struggling does weigh in, it means their chances are lower than the general game situation (score, time left) suggests.
This in turn means they need to take chances and increase volatility and variability; not decrease it. And there’s not much better opportunity to do so than when a team is only 5 yards from a touchdown, and only needs 2 to get an entire new set of downs. While on the other hand, taking the milquetoast field goal instead greatly decreases variability – and thus helps New England, the team both leading by a lot, and here the likely better team as well.
If Dallas does correctly go for the conversion and gets stopped, they at least have New England back at their own 5, and increase their own odds of subsequently having a shorter drive to field goal (and touchdown) range.
If they make the conversion, which is still statistically more likely than not, they stand a reasonable chance of scoring the touchdown on the play itself.
And if they make the conversion but don’t score on the play, they again have four chances to advance the ball a maximum of three yards, or as little as an inch, depending on where their successful fourth down conversion winds up.
As impotantly, making that touchdown would make it a 20-10 game. This is very different from a 20-6 game at this point, with barely over a quarter to play, and in what has been a defensive game. (The Patriots have moved the ball some, but this is in part because they keep stopping the Cowboys so quickly and have had a lot of chances, and good field position. And it’s in part because of somewhat sloppy tackling technique by the Cowboys versus better tackling and angles by the Patriots, but that’s another story.)
If, along with the constant stoppages of the Patriots, Dallas gets those same two touchdowns they seem to be banking on (and, at a minimum need, or the field goal is worthless), they win the game outright, instead of still lose it half of the time.
And, more likely, if the Patriots hit at least another field goal with their exceptional field goal kicker (who has already connected from 57), then those same two touchdowns still win the game, since the Patriots would be up by 13 points.
If that same Patriots field goal, and then somehow, two Dallas touchdowns happens after their measly 23 yard field goal instead, they again lose the game outright. And again, in that case, they would need to score three touchdowns just to win (making the odds from low to almost ridiculous by that point given the time left), or two touchdowns plus a field goal just to make it a tie game.
And last, by pulling within ten, not only are the Cowboys at least somewhat protected against a New England field goal (once again, if that happens, those same two touchdowns they would at a minimum need to even have a shot if they only kick the field goal – and which then would be worthless without more scores in the event of a New England field goal – would in this case still win them the game outright); they have a strong backup plan:
That is, if they stop the Patriots on all ensuing drives that taking the measly field goal here all but essentially also requires, and can’t get the two touchdowns, they can at least hit a field goal on one of their two scoring drives – which gives a lot more flexibility if they need it – and at least still have a shot at winning by putting the game into overtime. (Or winning on another field goal, which option being down by 14 also won’t give them).
In short, it’s a game structure and probabilities issue, combined with the huge field value situation of having a fourth and short near the goal line.
Here that field goal does fairly little, but seems to mean a lot because it’s “two scores”; while a touchdown, while still not giving them a great chance, presents a significant change to the game and their at the 4th & 2 pre decision moment, very low chances.
If the Cowboys weren’t in such a good field and down situation – already at the 5 yard line, with only about 2 to go for the first down – it might be a closer call. Obviously 20-6 is still better than 20-3: It at least does give you that option of maybe somehow scoring two unanswered touchdowns and winning in overtime, which alone won’t do it “if” you got stopped.
But 4th & 2 from the 5 when trailing by a lopsided score nearing late in the game is a gift wrapped opportunity. The value of making it simply has to be cohesively assessed (and multiplied by, or assessed vis a vis the chances of doing so), versus the value of kicking that field goal in lieu.
The former – the value of making it – is significant, and the chances fairly high, and the latter – moving to 20-6 – far more trivial. The decision to take it is playing not to lose in one of the worst ways possible, in order to avoid the possibility of somehow getting to the end of the game and being down by 1, 2, or 3 and incorrectly but commonly thinking, “Oh, if we had we only kicked the field goal.”
But the reality is the real value of the opportunity given up, will be relevant far more often but not seen. That is because that opportunity was not a hard number but a value expectation that’s just as real – or significant – but not as concrete or easy to blame after the fact because it connotates a range, and not something “definitive” that could have happened (take the “3” points) for instance, rather than a chance or even high chance, but not certainty, at a much larger value.
If teams can’t or won’t think in these terms, they will continue to make the wrong decisions in these situations, and, along with the great majority, think, as with Simms and Nantz, that they’re the right ones.
The Lions lost a close game Last Monday night in Seattle (where the Seahawks have still lost only twice in the now three plus seasons since Russell Wilson entered the league), after looking like they were going to pull it out at the end.
With less than two minutes to go, on 3rd and 1 from the Seattle 11, Lions quarterback Matt Stafford hit Calvin “Megatron” Johnson, who after the catch was en route for what looked like would be the go ahead touchdown.
As big as this was, and often unmentioned, the game still wouldn’t be over after the touchdown. Down by four, 17-13, the Seahawks would not have enough time to mount a perfect two minute type drill. But with 1:45 left and two timeouts to save them an extra 30 seconds or so or use the middle of the field more, they still had a pretty good shot. And under Russell Wilson, particularly at home, they’ve been pretty good at pulling out games at the end.
But just before the ball broke the plane of the goal line, the Seahawks Kam Chancellor knocked it loose, causing a fumble that rolled through to the back of the end zone.
The ball was about to go out of bounds, and no one was even near it: except for Seahawks linebacker K.J. Wright, who, not wanting to risk even the theoretical possibility of anything bizarre happening (such as trying to recover it and muffing it himself while somehow keeping it in the end zone), helped it along by a very purposeful slight right jab (video).
Which is illegal – although Wright clearly didn’t know, and even head coach Pete Carroll said he hadn’t been aware of the rule. And it should have been first down Lions ball inside the 1 yard line.
At which point, trailing 13-10, the Lions likely – but, against that Seattle defense that but for this last drive had essentially badly bottled them up all night – very much not assuredly, would have scored a TD (and taken critical time off the clock), or probably kicked a field goal. Nice Pro Football Talk column here, but that field goal doesn’t necessarily mean the game goes into overtime:
The Seahawks had two timeouts left, and would have used them immediately on any two staying in bounds running plays. A Detroit penalty that stopped the clock and that Seattle declined, would probably have also sufficed to save them a timeout. (Though Seattle likely would have taken it since any penalty was likely to push Detroit away from the goal line, but only depending on what down it was; for instance, likely figuring that after a failed third try in a row the Lions wouldn’t dare risk losing it all on yet a fourth short yardage attempt for the win, why give them a free third down play with still a “gimme” field goal as backup.) And any attempted pass play that led to an incomplete, or outside run or pass that went out of bounds, would have completely frozen the game clock and operated as effectively as another timeout.
Thus it’s likely that if Detroit tried a field goal on fourth down, Seattle would have had at least somewhere near a minute, and maybe about 1:20 or so left. Which in turn – although 1:20 is better – are both enough for a quick drive to get into field goal range and win the game even before it gets to overtime.
But, perhaps in an irony in a league that, particularly this year, seems to call – or maybe it just sees – way too many penalties), the penalty never got called. And the Seahawks were awarded the ball out at the 20 yard line for a touchback.
The Lions would still have an outside shot to tie, since they could stop the clock on two plays with their last two timeouts; and after a Seahawks punt if they could stop them, would have about 45 seconds, or around 1:20 if the Seahawks threw incomplete. (On average they wouldn’t be in quite as good a situation as the Seahawks would have been had the Lions been re-rewarded the ball inside the 1 and then kicked a 4th down field goal: Very short field goals take a few seconds – punts take longer – and the Seahawks were in a situation where running clock was probably paramount, while inside the 1 the Lions focus was on trying to score a touchdown and win. Though on the other hand, they may have come up with slightly better field position after the punt versus a post field goal kickoff.)
But on a 3rd and 2 the Seahawks connected on an unnecessarily long pass (though that was the play that was apparently the most open), and essentially ended the game.
Then ensued a near firestorm controversy about how the team was robbed, with the Lions giving hints of perhaps feeling a little bit sorry for themselves for having gotten somewhat “screwed” by the refs’ call, or, in this case, non call.
But the mild batting of the ball by K.J. Wright was a technical rule fluke that otherwise had no real bearing on the play; one that simply would have given the Lions an unexpected gift.
Sure, the refs made a mistake. But that mistake didn’t screw the Lions over. It kept the Lions from getting miraculously lucky on some fluke rule that the opposing player, among many, didn’t know about.
They still “should” have been given that opportunity to win it inside the one yard line, under the rules. But they also legitimately lost the game. Holding onto the football is perhaps the most important aspect of the game, and the Lions did not, at the most critical time, while on the other hand they had nothing to do with the fluke rule or K.J reaching the ball and electing to unknowingly (rulewise) bat it out rather than just run through it.
In essence the Lions got rescued by a fluke and otherwise completely irrelevant rule and circumstance. But then they got immediately unrescued by a mistake in judgment by the referees in either not being clear on the rule themselves, or not seeing that, in so far as there can be an “intentional batting” of the ball, Wright’s action’s were intentional.
Rescued by circumstances outside of one’s control and performance, then unrescued, is not getting screwed.
Sure, it was unlucky. But it was only unlucky because it was first lucky for them for Wright to even get to the ball before it went out of the end zone anyway, and do what many players in that situation, playing “heads up” but unaware of the rule, might have done; and thus make sure that a ball going out of the end zone – that but for Wright touching it was going to anyway -did so.
So they got lucky and unlucky. Yet almost all that’s seemingly been focused on is the unlucky and fairly random part, and not how it that part was only created by an equal amount of completely unexpected luck to begin with a moment earlier. And how driving for the go ahead touchdown, they fumbled the ball, and lost the game, not the referees.
The rulebook, through obscure application, almost rescued them. And the refs, through then botching that application, failed to do so, in a blown call. But the game was blown by the Lions, not the refs.
Per NFL.COM and Conor Orr, this morning on NFL’s Game Day former head coach and current analyst – who often has good takes on football itself – dropped this pearl:
[Kickers] are part of your team, you want to give them love. But you also — man you’re out there sweating in training camp and in practice and you look over there and those guys are doing whatever it is they do, just kind of hanging out and it’s like ‘can you just do your job?’
At least he gets it. It’s tough to “work hard,” while others seemingly aren’t.
Kickers just hang out, while football players lead awful lives, sweating. Working hard with the human body. I mean never mind that increases brain neurotrophic factor (which builds brain cells), decreases arterial buildup, improves spirit and character, improves mood, decreases blood glucose levels, allows one to eat more food while losing or not putting on as much weight, and, relative to less exercise and more sitting, is directly connected to increased overall health and longevity, and is what the human body was made to do.
Also, never mind that football players are professsional athletes, while many people work their tails off just to stay in shape, battle a disease, or be able to play their own favorite sports for the job of the game; professional football players get paid upwards of a million dollars and more a year. So, yeah, I get it too, sweating out there at practice – moving, learning, using the human body, getting better at one’s craft – that must be kind of annoying while kickers just “do what they do.” At least for top notch sweating coaches like Billick.
What kickers do is kick. Personally if I was affiliated with a team I’d have our kickers work on better conditioning, strength, agility, and flexibility, and have them learn and practice tackling. So they would do a little more than kick, to the extent possible and practical: They’re part of the coverage team, and often miss tackles that could have saved huge kick returns.
But what they mainly do is kick. So if a team doesn’t see it my way – teach kickers to tackle better and develop flexibility and both primary and secondary muscle fibers (both for better musculature balance and resistance to injury, as well as improved practical multiple angle and situation use strength application) – then that’s what they would be doing.
Billick’s just expressing a mindset, and likely not literally suggesting kickers should not miss field goals or extra points. But it’s disconnected logic. The fact they “do what they do,” while other players work harder on staying in presumably better overall shape, as well as developing a far broader football execution skill and knowledge set, doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that kicking a football through uprights under presssure with a fast rush coming at you, particularly from far distances, is difficult.
And it is so, unlike catching a football, which should, as an NFL athlete, be part of a football player’s job. Any decent athlete can be taught to catch a football – a fairly easy act, and a critical fundamental to the game. (Plenty of passes are also dropped when the players isn’t about to get “pummeled,” and, albeit more difficult to disconnect the two mentally and thus kinesiologically, getting pummeled still isn’t really connected to the act of first catching the ball itself.)
Any decent athlete can not be taught to kick a ball through the uprights from 45 yards away with little time and under a heavy rush; and in fact few can. So aside from any other contributions a team seems fit to train kickers to assist on, kickers jobs are to try and make kicks.
So, Brian, they are doing their job.
One could also, if a little roughly, say, “maybe you should do yours while other analysts are in the studio sweating and giving relevant takes, analysis and info while you live this seemingly cush life of getting to simply rap about football and get paid a lot of money to do it.”
But that would be even less fair than illogically implying kickers have to not miss kick attempts in order to be doing “their jobs.” Particularly since the siliness is more apparent.
Your job is to give assessments; that’s what you were doing here. People like your assessments (including me much of the time), and so that is what it is:
While other people sweat away under boring monotonous repetitive labor hour after hour, you’re getting paid (presumably) a lot of money, to rap about how kickers apparently “aren’t doing their jobs,” when by virtue of what trying to kick a field goal at the limits of what we now as humans can do, practicing and trying to do so, and sometimes missing, even as kickers get better and better over time and field goals get longer and longer, is their job.
I never coached kickers before and kickers aren’t football players. They’re different, they are.
I guess football players are people who fit a certain stereotype, and not people who play professional football, which kickers in fact do play. It’s not like kicking, or even the foot of the human body, has anything to do with football. It’s certainly not like it’s referenced in the name itself.
Kicking is part of what makes football interesting. And while kickers play a very different role than most other players, and thus probably as athletes are different in some ways (though differences is what in part makes democracies great, homogeneity what makes fascist regimes great, and a key requirement of them), to say they’re not football players is a little silly; like saying football commentators aren’t commentators. They are. They comment on football. It’s what they do. Just like kickers.
Last week recap: On the bright side, pegged the Giants and Rams as picks against the spread and to each win outright; making the proclamation with respect to the Giants at the bottom of the game summary, and with respect to the Rams in said summary; dryly noting how it would “shock” ESPN. (Mainly because EPSN’s power rankings after week 3, by virtue of the Cardinals beating three middling teams, two by lopsided scores, already had the Cardinals as number two in the league – ahead of the Packers who almost made it to the Super Bowl last season and are playing even better early on in this one.)
Downside: 2-2 again. Sure, 2-1-1 would have been squeaked out had the Saints hit their chip shot field goal at the end to win 23-20. But the Cowboys could have also won the game outright in overtime as a result (and 15-9 total against the spread looks so much better than 14-10, doesn’t it?), or lost it by the far more common 3 points, same as if the Saints had not missed from inside what is now extra point range.
The missed field goal was great luck for Dallas. Such great luck, Dallas apparently didn’t realize they were actually in overtime until the second play after the kickoff. Which worked out well for the Saints, since they scored an 80 yard touchdown on the first play, and won, 26-20.
Bigger downside: Once again, shamefully, went with the 49ers. But at least Colin Kaepernick elected not to throw more passes to the opposing players than his own this week; and frankly, the 49ers played a much better game.
Without further ado, let’s roll through a few lock picks. Not necessarily a lock to be right, but a lock to be right, wrong, or possibly a push. One of those three, at least.
1. New England Patriots (-9) at Dallas Cowboys
The only thing keeping the spread here from being a joke, besides the fact that the Cowboys are missing their two biggest superstars – Tony Romo and Dez Bryant, with the QB drop off from Romo to Brandon Weeden being among the largest in the league, missing their best CB Orlando Scandrick for the entire season, and the fact that before losing to said at the time 0-3 Saints, they gave up a 14 point lead to lose to the Falcons by two scores right here in Dallas, is….um…uh…
Wait a minute. Those are a lot of things keeping the spread from being a joke, and it doesn’t even cover it all.
But the most key thing might be this: The Patriots seem to be on the proverbial warpath after their post Super Bowl glory was seemingly made partial mockery of by the NFL’s labeling of Tom Terrific Brady as a ball deflating cell phone destroying cheater. (Never mind that Brady willingly gave permission to access any texts and phone calls with all potentially relevant parties rather than open up the entirety of his personal communications, or that the CBA concept of giving the commissioner broad discretion doesn’t mean there’s suddenly an expectation of yielding one’s intimate personal communications – and possibly nudie pictures or worse with, or of, his wife, etc. – to the NFL for what are in effect on field equipment transgressions.)
And the fact that nearly the entire NFL offseason was essentially shaped if not dominated by this ongoing “Deflategate” saga. (We’ve certainly come a long way from Watergate, when ‘Gates were tied to things like the basic subversion of our democracy rather than whether footballs for one team but not the other were somehow purposefully and thus illicitly deflated below the requisite 12.5 lbs of pressure.)
That’s a pretty good reason to be worried about the Patriots, if one is playing them. At least, it certainly is combined with the fact that through three games they’ve looked as good as any team in the league, and are the defending Super Bowl champs.
That said, this is also the team that the Cowboys could have possibly played in that Super Bowl if the football on a pretty athletic Dez Bryant catch didn’t graze the ground and come loose for a moment. And, that is, if they could have then beaten Seattle again in Seattle.
But hey, before melting down at the end and giving up two scores sandwiched around a long shot Seattle onside kick recovery (enabled by a some unintentional Packer assistance), those Packers were beating that same team and heading to the Bowl themselves; and the Cowboys were a better road team than Green Bay last year.
The Cowboys are a little different now, missing their key two offensive superstars Romo and Bryant, and without their top CB for the season. (Along with their superstar running back from last year, with no seemingly suitable replacement yet – although Demarco Murray hasn’t done anything over at rival Philadelphia yet.)
And while they haven’t had a chance to practice, and will be rusty and less in tune with the defense, they do get Greg Hardy back from suspension, along with Rolando McClain, who will ostensibly finally play alongside key MLB Sean Lee. (Who in turn missed the last 3 quarters of the Saints game last week but was on the field for the Falcons debacle in week 3.)
Maybe the Cowboys aren’t a team with championship aspirations ability and attitude.
But they seem to think they are; and if they are, they’re playing the Super Bowl champs, lost their last two games including an embarrassing home loss two weeks ago, and have a chance to show the nation (and themselves) that yes, they possibly could have done what Seattle (almost did but) did not do.
And if they don’t at least battle the Patriots reasonably close here at home, in a game that’s less meaningful to the Patriots – who are also playing on the road – that idea becomes a bit far fetched no matter how many excuses are made about how they “didn’t have Romo or Dez.” (But, though not an equal trade given the key importance of the QB position – and the fact that Greg Hardy has never played with them, was also suspended last year, and is rusty coming off a four game suspension this one – they do have Hardy, and Sean Lee; while last year Hardy wasn’t with the team, and Lee was injured for the season.)
The Cowboys could surprise by not being what they say they are, and lose solidly. But it’s more likely they “surprise” and put up a tough battle, and possibly even a real “surprise” win.
3-1 on outright upset picks on the year. (The other two besides the Giants and Rams in week four were also the Giants and Rams, but in week one. And while the Rams somehow managed to defeat the Seahawks in overtime, the Giants got some fortunate picks and had the game won until the referees completely blew it for them, and, separate and apart from the referees, they completely blew it for themselves.)
So, time for boldness and risking a fall to 3-2 on upsets? And this would be a BIG one.
But Brandon Weeden!? He’s 0-10 his last 10 starts. And now he’s playing the likely still upset Super Bowl champion Patriots. Cowboys – not even with recently acquired second backup and former Patriots back up stalwart Matt Cassel, but Brandon Weeden – defeat the so far bulletproof appearing Super Bowl champs?? (While Cassel could get in, that would likely only be if Weeden is doing poorly, and putting the Cowboys into an even bigger hole. And it’s not like Cassel is all that good – he’s a solid backup who has occassionally started, and therein had one or two nice runs with good personnel around, and some very poor ones.)
It’s hard to tell whether picking the Cowboys to win with the clear lack of winning leadership from Weeden is a bold move, or a fruitless one. Going with the latter: But really, 0-10 is the time for a bold move. But the issues, as the Falcons game (as well as the last Saints drive when they had to stop them, then again on one play in overtime) clearly showed, aren’t just Brandon Weeden.
Pick: Cowboys, in a very close loss.
2. New Orleans Saints (+6) at Philadelphia Eagles
In week one the Saints lost a fairly close game on the road to a team that after two more games against bad opponents ESPN questionably ranked number two in its NFL power rankings; lost at home to a weak Buccaneers team; lost a fairly close game at the 4-0 Panthers (not that the Panthers have played any team that’s all that great yet); then got back a few defensive players and essentially beat Dallas at the end, first missing an otherwise game winning 30 yard field goal, then winning in overtime.
Meanwhile, the Eagles are 1-3 against the spread, and most of those haven’t been all that close. This also matches their record. Thus it could be that perception of this team doesn’t really match what they are.
But apparently that perception continues.
Sure, the Eagles played now 4-0 Atlanta very tough, beat a solid Jets team, and lost close to an underrated (but still at this point fairly middling) Redskins team. But they’re 1-3 like the Saints. And while they get one or two guys back on defense, the two players the Saints picked up for week four – CB Keenan Lewis and S Jarius Byrd (who saw limited action), might be more key because they help lead what has otherwise been a weak defense.
Saints quarterback Drew Brees’ shoulder, injured in week two against the Buccaneers – which limited his throwing (and kept him out of week 3 against the Panthers, though Verizon commercial star Luke McCown played an outstanding game in his stead) – also wasn’t fully healed for the Dallas game in week four, and should be stronger this week.
If Eagles quarterback Sam Bradford stops playing skittish, worried and tense, and plays like he did against the Redskins in the second half of week 4 or better, the Eagles will be tougher to beat; but Bradford’s fall from his one time lofty potential is not the Eagles only problem.
With the way offenses and the new rule tweaks of the last few years have been going, six points is not a huge amount; as a lot of games become high scoring offensive scoring affairs, and double digits is now ho hum.
But while the Eagles “look” to be slightly better and probably have a small home field advantage, this game would otherwise be close to a tossup, and not the seemingly at least somewhat one sided battle a six point spread suggests.
One almost never knows with the NFL, but this should be a good game.
Pick: Saints
3. Pittsburgh Steelers (+4) at San Diego Chargers
This just isn’t the same Steelers team with Michael Vick at the helm instead of Ben Rothlisberger; it’s tough to cross the country; and the Chargers are a pretty good home team that might be slightly better injury wise than last week (but possibly not by much). While the Steelers will also be without last year’s first round pick (No. 15 overall) Ryan Shazier, although he’s missed the last two games as well.
But that said, this line may in part be an overreaction to the Steelers botchery against the at that point winless (but always dangerous) and ultimately half WR-less Ravens in a nationally televised week four Thursday Night matchup.
Here’s the real botchery. But the most notable was the miss of that same 49 yard field goal near the end that would have won the game the way it played out; then the miss of the 41 yarder that almost assuredly (but for some tupe of near Hail Mary type fluke) would have as well; then the two fourth down conversion, odd play call and Michael Vick failure tries in overtime. With, as icing on the cake, the second coming from winning field goal range that the Steelers were at that point too skittish to try, one yard closer in than the distance (52 yards) from which nearly bulletproof Ravens kicker Justin Tucker then beat them a few moments later. (Though I half agree with their decision to go for the fourth down conversion, if not the more subjective specific play call itself, and disagree with analytic guru Brian Burke. The only reason I might not have, unless my kicker didn’t have a confident look in his eyes, is that with nothing to lose at that point and a chance at redemption, then very soon to be released Josh Scobee might have had laser focus for the kick. But that was just a guess, and defensible strategically only because the decision was otherwise close; and a read on kickers is important in close calls, if something that’s often hard to see away from the sidelines.)
But let’s get on with this game, and why this is an easy pick:
At Foxboro in week one the Steelers, despite perception to the contrary expressed by a few articles, weren’t really much outplayed by the Patriots; which in turn suggested either the game was an aberration (common in the NFL), the Patriots weren’t yet very good (hard to fathom when Tom Brady was laser sharp for the contest, and even harder to fathom now), or the Steelers were good.
The Steelers then trounced the 49ers. Sure, big deal; but the 49ers are still a football team who did beat the Vikings the week before. (Glad I picked the Vikings in that game, who were decidedly outplayed by the 49ers – who in turn haven’t covered since (and not even been within half a mile in two out of three) – before going on a slight rampage; very solidly winning outright by substantial margins the next two weeks, then covering in a close game at Denver last week. So basicallly: when this site gives you a pick that involves the San Francisco 49ers, go with the opposite. 14-7 so far against the spread this season in games not involving the 49ers. 0-3 in games involving them.)
Then the Steelers outplayed the Rams in St. Louis, before outplaying the Ravens for most of this last game, and Vick’s full contest, week four.
Chargers quarterback Philip Rivers is outstanding at the end of football games. Michael Vick is not. On the road, against a home crowd, it’s tough to see the Steelers winning a close game.
But right now they are probably the better team. And getting four points. And though it might in large part be due to Big Ben, who is cheering from the sidelines, they tend to have a pretty extreme winning record on Monday Night Football. (They even managed to win this one last year against the Texans by somehow getting the ball back and then scoring 24 points in the span of less than 3 minutes, 21 of which came in 90 seconds.)
Pick: Steelers, in a game that’s probably at best a tossup for the Chargers to win.
Last week recap: “But perhaps a humbled Rex has his team more quietly fired up this time.” Apparently so. Also, even more apparently so, “the Cardinals obviously have the edge in winning.” But picking the 49ers +6.5 points was almost the football equivalent of Titanic engineers picking their boat over icebergs. (Metaphorically speaking – no insensitive humor intended. Bad humor however, intended.)
But hey, four interceptions, two pick-sixes, 67 total yards passing; at least with “Bad Harbaugh” gone, not being asked to do things he doesn’t want to do (or presumably isn’t good at – as opposed to throwing pick sixes), quarterback Colin Kaepernick is now “comfortable.”
Whew to the 49er’s to be rid of the head coach who took over a team which went 7-9, 2-14, 4-12, 7-9, 5-11, 7-9, 8-8, 6-10 their prior 8 seasons, and immediately took them to the NFC Championship Game, the Super Bowl, the NFC Championship Game, and then a still tough 8-8 record in an injury and exodus rumor riddled season.
Which brings us to two icebergs – um, I mean football games – on this week’s docket. Namely, our two villains from last week’s “horrible pick of the month”:
The first of the two teams playing in that 49ers Cardinals contest is playing a team that, in a misleading final score game, played so well last Monday night that for much of the contest they looked like they were scrimmaging a local college squad. The second is playing a team so stubborn in its patterns that its mascot even grew horns.
1. Green Bay Packers (-9) at San Francisco 49ers
The fact that the (then very different) 49ers have beaten the Packers the last four times they’ve played doesn’t matter – except to the extent that the Packers, even though it’s “just another game,” might be aware of it.
And Aaron Rodgers is playing really, really, well. While Colin Kaepernick though, at least is “comfortable.”
But here’s one last dying hope to the idea that jettisoning Harbaugh to bring in Tomsula wasn’t like ditching Ulysses Grant to bring in Custer.
This is your moment 49ers. You can’t be a nearly 10 point home underdog with a strong home field advantage against a team that itself normally plays far better at home and coming off a big Monday night win in front of the nation.
Unless, you know, you really are one of the bottom teams in the league right now.
Pick: 49ers
2. St Louis Rams (+7) at the Arizona Cardinals
I’m just probably not practical enough to recognize the reality of NFL football, where CBAs and the fact that athletes are “so good” makes pretty much everything reasonable.
Thus, tackling technique? For advanced high school athletes and wanna be posers. In the NFL, you need to bring a ball carrier down “any way possible.”
Which I suppose is one of the reasons that in a game where the single most important fundamental is tackling – it not only ends nearly every play, but ultimately determines each plays’ outcome – technique sometimes follows a “jump up around the guy’s shoulders,” “try to shoulder bump him to hopefully upend instead of missing outright,” or “try to dive low even when you don’t have to” approach, instead of driving and wrapping up with at least the intention of controlling the critical mid section or legs, and continuing to finish wrapping and driving through and back upfield or sideways.
Jeff Fisher is a head coach I have heard utter the ridiculous “he knows he needs to bring him down by any way possible” phrase. Which could explain why throughout the years Fisher’s otherwise solid enough looking defenses have gone through poor periods of tackling.
The Rams could be good this year. They should be good this year. (Though they do keep making questionable draft day decisions.) And that defense should be a monster.
But let’s face it, while so many of us have just long assumed that Fisher” is a very good NFL head coach, his teams have now been to the playoffs only twice in the last ten years. And there, with two losses total, no wins.
Over one third of all NFL teams – 37.5, or close to 40% – make it to the playoffs every season. Fisher has been a head coach for 20 years prior to this one, and despite an overall mild winning record (.522), his teams have won the division 3 times, and reached the playoffs 6. That’s 30% of the time. With one SB appearance.
And this year, the third season in a row his Rams were finally supposed to rise up from mediocrity, they’ve followed the same pattern:
Upsetting a Seahawks team who who they also beat in St. Louis last year as well. (And who outplayed them in overtime, but given the benefit of a semi mistaken onsides kick snafu that immediately put the Seahawks in a really bad field position hold, and ultimately a nice but probably fortuitous stop of the Seahawks the crucial fourth down of the all but first score wins overtime period, they won it.)
Then going to Washington (to face a team they shut out last year 24-0) and practically being shut out themselves, 24-0, before ultimately losing 24-10. Then in week three coming home and being outplayed by the Steelers in a 12-6 loss where despite being on the road and losing their quarterback in the third quarter, the Steelers were decidedly the better team.
Why be stubborn like the horns of a Ram and go against the pattern of them as a mediocre team? Because I have faith I’m not completely right about Fisher. That he’s not really a so so coach disguised as a good one.
And that after 10 years of near mediocrity, against a division rival who the Rams outplayed for over three quarters in Arizona last season (with Carson Palmer in the lineup – in fact ironically the game fell apart for the Rams after Palmer left with his infamous injury), after yet again the same, old same old; the Rams will play like a football team, and not only cover this piddling 7 point spread, but upset the Cardinals and so shock ESPN and the “play fantasy football” channel on Monday that total team and division ranking chaos ensues.
There’s also another reason to pick the Rams. Their pattern also suggests they might play a tough game. And the Cardinals rise from preseason afterthought to suddenly number two in the power rankings ahead of Green Bay, after just three middling opponents, might (or might not) ultimately wind up being justified; but right now it’s not.
But luckily, despite Eli Manning’s strange pronouncement after the game that their goal had been to finish strong and that they did so, they so dominated the Redskins in week 3 that even though they actually finished weak, they still won the game.
It would be nice if the Giants got Victor Cruz back. (Or even had Jason Pierre-Paul.) But you know, fireworks, and recurring calf problems and all.
Pick: Giants, in an upset
4. Dallas Cowboys (+3) at New Orleans Saints
Save for possibly the 49ers game, the above picks were too easy (famous last words, right?). So here’s a slightly harder one:
The now nine straight losses in a row Brandon Weedens (that is, teams quarterbacked by Weeden have now lost their last 9), clash head on with the three straight losses of the Saints; who in turn, after missing his first game since high school (and back in the last century), get back quarterback Drew Brees,
With Weeden, and yet missing a few players on defense and the heart and soul of that team – Tony Romo – can the Cowboys possibly win?
I picked them to win the NFC. (Which, with Romo out with a broken collarbone, and Dez Bryant out for who knows how many months, and after blowing a 21-7 then 28-14 point lead to lose 39-28 at home to the Falcons last week, isn’t looking so hot incidentally). And to stick with the nautical and iceberg theme here, I might as well go down with the ship.
The Saints hung with the Panthers last week and could have won the game; are a strong team at home; they get Drew Brees back (though Luke McCown played very strong at Carolina); and are desperate at 0-3.
Meanwhile, if the Cowboys are the team they say they are, and not the team that otherwise always seems to go 8-8 (and a loss here would put them at a nice 2-2, not 1-3, courtesy, again, of both referee calls and the Giants how not to finish a football game strategy camp), they have to be geared up for this game. And it should be a good one.
I picked them to be closer to the team they say they are, and not the one they usually seem to be. And they did outplay the Giants, and dominate the Eagles. So one game isn’t enough to jump ship (though with Weeden as the engine, it is time to start thinking about it).
One final note, though hopefully a mere coincidence. I picked the Chiefs last Monday Night. (0-3 so far ATS on Monday Night Games, 12-5 on Sundays).
I did it because they were a little under the radar, because of Andy Reid’s long standing solid record as a head coach (and who at this point might just be sort of doing the same old same old, since it’s hard to see how he could let his team play so flat in such a key game after an embarassing and critical home loss the week before).
And, relevant here, I did it because I believed they were who they said they were. (Notice though, so far at least, I left the Bengals Chiefs game off this list. And that should be an easy pick as well.)
NFL Football Strategy 