Alright, before I incense people who disagree with me into a rage due to my apparent ignorance and stupidity I'd like to say this: the Earth is warmer now than it was 25 years ago. The globe, on the whole, has warmed. The question is: "Is global warming (in its present definition) as severe as we have been lead to believe?"
Let's look at the facts: The average temperature has been climbing over during the last decade. There have been more severe hurricanes hitting our country. This winter has been one of the warmest on record. Connecticut set a record for most days where the high was above the average temperature for the month with 31 days in a row. Clearly, things are warming up.
So, what's the problem? Why this post? One who was marginally familiar with the concept of global warming would certainly point to this comfortable winter and say that this is getting serious. However, most scientists who are cautioning us regarding global warming have said that we should expect more severe winters with bigger blizzards and stronger storms. (Hey, there's an ad campaign for Dairy Queen: "combat global warming, get a blizzard!")
Once again, we have a group of people who want their DQ brownie sundae and want to eat it too! I've heard the same people who've said that global warming is going to cause some of the worst winters we've ever experienced now say that the unseasonably warm winter is due to global warming! Well, which is it? Does global warming cause wicked cold winters or crazy warm ones?
I won't ignore the fact that people who decry global warming like to exclaim through their chattering teeth "How's that global warming workin' out for ya" as their words dislodge the snot-sicles from their noses in the -18 degree wind-chill. These people are no better regarding their knowledge of the situation and should sound just as silly as the people I've mentioned above.
[Side note] I was watching a special on the Discovery Channel about a volcano that was emitting greenhouse gases. This volcano was releasing as much greenhouse gas as the top 7 cities in the US did over the course of 5 years. My point is basically only an idiot would claim that the Earth isn't warming. However, perhaps it is too soon to blame it entirely on humans. (This doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to reduce our contribution to the problem, but it's not exactly doomsday yet.)
In the meantime, I'll continue enjoying my non-global warming winter while I share with everyone that which is just my opinion.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Brady vs Manning
The debate is over! There is no longer any doubt which of the two "franchise" quarterbacks is the reigning king of the pigskin passers. (This will come as no surprise to any regular readers of JMO, however, there are statistics and reasons to follow) The winner is:
Tom Brady
How can this be when Peyton has won the last three times these two powerhouse teams have clashed? I'll tell you how. Peyton is 1-3 vs Tom in the playoffs. Scoring only 3 points in one contest and losing by multiple scores in his other two losses. For Manning to remove the crown from Tom's head and earn the right to wear it himself, he had to blow the Patriots out of the water. A performance in which the Colts won by 4 points and only lead for about a minute in the game was not nearly enough for the wannabe leader to overcome the current king.
The Patriots lost the first meeting this season by a score of 27-20. That's a fairly convincing victory. Let's look at a statistic that makes the score seem a bit more interesting: The Patriots had five (5) turnovers in that game! Three interceptions and two fumbles. Two of the interceptions were perfectly thrown passes that were misplayed by Brady's wide receivers and caught by fortunate Indianapolis defensive backs. That makes one interception that Brady could be faulted for (and that one was not converted into points by the Colts.) With such a turnover disparity, a truly amazing QB would have won by a much greater margin than Manning managed.
Manning apologists like to claim that Brady is a "system" quarterback. Meaning that he isn't great on his own, it's Belichick's system that makes him great, along with great receivers like Troy Brown. These people point to Brady's quick passes, underneath routes and passing on third and short. These same people have now pointed to the playoff victory by Peyton as their proof that he is better than Tom. The funny part about this is that Manning won the game on quick passes, underneath routes, and passing on third and short. (Passing on 3rd and short has been one of the strategies that raised Peyton's passer rating this year. He's got a passer rating in the high 50s on 1st and 2nd down, but his 3rd down rating is in the low 100s! Hello passing on third and short.) The biggest difference is Brady's ability to connect down the field. Recall the 3rd and long vs the Chargers, and Brady's 2 passes over 20 yards vs the Colts. Recall Peytons 0 passes that travelled 20+ yards in the air. Yes, there were a few passes that go in the record book as 20+ yards, but all of them were passes for less than 10 yards with a great run after the catch. Recall also the two major drops by Gaffney, one in the end zone and one when he was wide open and would have scored had he caught the stinkin' ball! Had either of those passes been completed we might be seeing a different team in the Big Game.
The biggest test of a quarterback is the post season. Peyton Manning has had 5 games where his passer rating was sub-fifty. Included in those five games were three that were sub-forty! Three of those five games were in the post season: One when the Colts were shut out by the Jets, and two against the Patriots. And even in his most recent victory against the Patriots, Mannings passer rating was lower than Brady's! Peyton was kept out of the end zone by Baltimore and unable to attain a higher passer rating vs New England. The post season is where Brady shines and where Manning disappears.
One final point: Peyton managed to squeeze out a four point victory with a supporting cast consisting of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark. The Patriots carried six receivers this year. Will everyone other than Apu please name two Patriot receivers that have not been mentioned already in this post, and a tight end. How'd you do? Basically, Peyton, along with 3 all Pro players managed to eek out a four point victory over Brady, a 40 year old Troy Brown, and a bunch of journeymen and rookies.
The debate is done. Even in defeat, Brady is clearly the best quarterback in the NFL today!
Is it just my opinion? I believe the facts speak for themselves. (If you'd like more, feel free to visit www.coldhardfootballfacts.com)
How can this be when Peyton has won the last three times these two powerhouse teams have clashed? I'll tell you how. Peyton is 1-3 vs Tom in the playoffs. Scoring only 3 points in one contest and losing by multiple scores in his other two losses. For Manning to remove the crown from Tom's head and earn the right to wear it himself, he had to blow the Patriots out of the water. A performance in which the Colts won by 4 points and only lead for about a minute in the game was not nearly enough for the wannabe leader to overcome the current king.
The Patriots lost the first meeting this season by a score of 27-20. That's a fairly convincing victory. Let's look at a statistic that makes the score seem a bit more interesting: The Patriots had five (5) turnovers in that game! Three interceptions and two fumbles. Two of the interceptions were perfectly thrown passes that were misplayed by Brady's wide receivers and caught by fortunate Indianapolis defensive backs. That makes one interception that Brady could be faulted for (and that one was not converted into points by the Colts.) With such a turnover disparity, a truly amazing QB would have won by a much greater margin than Manning managed.
Manning apologists like to claim that Brady is a "system" quarterback. Meaning that he isn't great on his own, it's Belichick's system that makes him great, along with great receivers like Troy Brown. These people point to Brady's quick passes, underneath routes and passing on third and short. These same people have now pointed to the playoff victory by Peyton as their proof that he is better than Tom. The funny part about this is that Manning won the game on quick passes, underneath routes, and passing on third and short. (Passing on 3rd and short has been one of the strategies that raised Peyton's passer rating this year. He's got a passer rating in the high 50s on 1st and 2nd down, but his 3rd down rating is in the low 100s! Hello passing on third and short.) The biggest difference is Brady's ability to connect down the field. Recall the 3rd and long vs the Chargers, and Brady's 2 passes over 20 yards vs the Colts. Recall Peytons 0 passes that travelled 20+ yards in the air. Yes, there were a few passes that go in the record book as 20+ yards, but all of them were passes for less than 10 yards with a great run after the catch. Recall also the two major drops by Gaffney, one in the end zone and one when he was wide open and would have scored had he caught the stinkin' ball! Had either of those passes been completed we might be seeing a different team in the Big Game.
The biggest test of a quarterback is the post season. Peyton Manning has had 5 games where his passer rating was sub-fifty. Included in those five games were three that were sub-forty! Three of those five games were in the post season: One when the Colts were shut out by the Jets, and two against the Patriots. And even in his most recent victory against the Patriots, Mannings passer rating was lower than Brady's! Peyton was kept out of the end zone by Baltimore and unable to attain a higher passer rating vs New England. The post season is where Brady shines and where Manning disappears.
One final point: Peyton managed to squeeze out a four point victory with a supporting cast consisting of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark. The Patriots carried six receivers this year. Will everyone other than Apu please name two Patriot receivers that have not been mentioned already in this post, and a tight end. How'd you do? Basically, Peyton, along with 3 all Pro players managed to eek out a four point victory over Brady, a 40 year old Troy Brown, and a bunch of journeymen and rookies.
The debate is done. Even in defeat, Brady is clearly the best quarterback in the NFL today!
Is it just my opinion? I believe the facts speak for themselves. (If you'd like more, feel free to visit www.coldhardfootballfacts.com)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
All four Super Bowl Previews
Many people accused me of homerism when I selected the now 12-1 Brady/Belichick combo to over-come the 5-12 Schotemhimer (Both records are post season only). What say you now? In this post, I am going to react to LT's outrage at the Patriots, preview all four possible Super Bowl match-ups and then let you know what I think the outcome of this weekends games will be.
Let's start with LT. Ladanian Thomlinson was outraged that the Patriots celebrated in the middle of the field in San Diego saying that the New England player should not have been mimicking Shawn Merriman's sack dance, that they were "classless" and that probably originated with "their head coach." He went on for several days, going so far as to compare it to TO's celebration on the star in Dallas stadium.
LT, do you know why we fought the Revolutionary War and not the Colonial Uprising? Or the Civil War and not the Confederate Revolution? Because the victor dictates the ending. If you want to have a say about how things end, try winning the game. And the difference between the Pats and TO is that the Pats were down by 11 at one point and were headed to the AFC Championship game. TO ran out to the star after scoring a touchdown in a regular season game.
I admit, I respect you for not calling out your teammates and coaches for dropping passes, muffing punt returns, intercepting fourth down passes and then fumbling, and for challenging a play (and wasting a time out) because they really really didn't want it to be true. I find it appalling, however, that you'd take your frustrations out on the first team to defeat you in your home stadium this year. Not to mention that you specifically called out one of the most respected, honorable men in the game. Belichick is all about class. By the way, a wise man once said that the truely classy people don't talk about how classy they are. That wise man? Seattle Seahawk wide receiver Deion Branch.
And now, a preview of all four possible Super Bowls: (in alphabetical order)
Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts
This would probably be the most boring Super Bowl match-up. No "rematch talk" no "Dynasty debate" or "America's comeback" team. That and it would be a blow-out. Indy's protection of Peyton is fantastic and would easily negate Tank, and Indy's wide receivers and tight ends are too fast even for Urlacher. Chicago's strength is run defense, but thier defensive backs are suspect. So they could stop Rhodes and Addai but they'll have to have their line backers drop into zone to protect the underneath passes. Grossman isn't good enough to stay neck and neck with Peyton. Final score: 34-10 Indianapolis
Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots
If this is the match-up for the Super Bowl we get to hear two weeks of "rematch" talk. The over/under on the number of times we see the Refridgerator Perry crashing into the end zone is 315 (that's an average of 27 1/2 times per day). Of course, this is the team that Belichick would prefer to play. Grossman is ok, but he better close his eyes before the snap or his head will be spinning with the defensive alignments that will be dancing in front of him. The Patriots might take a quarter or two to fully figure out the Chicago D, they'd end up winning this contest. The first half would look like a defensive battle. The second half would be an example of first timer's mistakes and veteran's capitalization on those mistakes. Final score: 17-6 New England
New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts
This may be the game the network is hoping for. "Everyone's second favorite team" in the Saints vs Peyton's first chance at winning the big game. If the Saints defeat the Bears, they will set a Super Bowl record: They will have had the worst record the year before they played in the Super Bowl. The four teams that defeated Indy this year provided a blue print for this feat: run the ball. That's it, if you can successfully run the football against the Colts, you keep the ball out of Peyton's hands and the game is yours. The Saints have McAllister and Bush. It may be close, but the Saints would pull this game out. Once again Peyton's hopes would be thwarted. Final score: 27-24 New Orleans
New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots
One would think that, win or lose, if the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl yet again, the debate over whether or not they are a dynasty would finally be settled. Even Bengals fans would have to admit that we have the first dynasty of the salary cap era. The question we have to ask is: can the team who stopped LT contain McAllister and Bush? The answer: yes. If the Patriots get to this game, they will have defeated the Jets, Chargers, and Colts. The Saints would have played the Eagles and Bears. It's pretty clear that after the giants the Pats have faced, the Saints would seem like they were knee high to a hobbit. The Pats would play their usual game of keeping it close till the end. This game would secure the Patriots fourth Super Bowl victory in six years. Dynasty Debate Done. Final score: 24-20 New England
So which Super Bowl do I expect to see? New Orleans vs Indianapolis. New Orleans should have no problem with Chicago. That game looks like a no brainer to me. Chicago will force a turn over or two, but their offense won't be able to turn those into points. The real question is "can Peyton beat Brady in the playoffs?" Peyton has taken the last two regular season meetings, but has yet to overcome the Patriots in the post season. The game is in Indy, but Brady and Co. won two of their three conference championships in Pittsburgh. Is there a tougher stadium in the AFC than the home of those terrible towels? That and most of the Patriots losses this year were at home. But when the final seconds tick off of the clock in the AFC championship game, Indy will be up by a score of 23-21 and will go on to lose to New Orleans in the Super Bowl.
You may not want to put any money on all of this, though. Because it is just my opinion.
Let's start with LT. Ladanian Thomlinson was outraged that the Patriots celebrated in the middle of the field in San Diego saying that the New England player should not have been mimicking Shawn Merriman's sack dance, that they were "classless" and that probably originated with "their head coach." He went on for several days, going so far as to compare it to TO's celebration on the star in Dallas stadium.
LT, do you know why we fought the Revolutionary War and not the Colonial Uprising? Or the Civil War and not the Confederate Revolution? Because the victor dictates the ending. If you want to have a say about how things end, try winning the game. And the difference between the Pats and TO is that the Pats were down by 11 at one point and were headed to the AFC Championship game. TO ran out to the star after scoring a touchdown in a regular season game.
I admit, I respect you for not calling out your teammates and coaches for dropping passes, muffing punt returns, intercepting fourth down passes and then fumbling, and for challenging a play (and wasting a time out) because they really really didn't want it to be true. I find it appalling, however, that you'd take your frustrations out on the first team to defeat you in your home stadium this year. Not to mention that you specifically called out one of the most respected, honorable men in the game. Belichick is all about class. By the way, a wise man once said that the truely classy people don't talk about how classy they are. That wise man? Seattle Seahawk wide receiver Deion Branch.
And now, a preview of all four possible Super Bowls: (in alphabetical order)
Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts
This would probably be the most boring Super Bowl match-up. No "rematch talk" no "Dynasty debate" or "America's comeback" team. That and it would be a blow-out. Indy's protection of Peyton is fantastic and would easily negate Tank, and Indy's wide receivers and tight ends are too fast even for Urlacher. Chicago's strength is run defense, but thier defensive backs are suspect. So they could stop Rhodes and Addai but they'll have to have their line backers drop into zone to protect the underneath passes. Grossman isn't good enough to stay neck and neck with Peyton. Final score: 34-10 Indianapolis
Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots
If this is the match-up for the Super Bowl we get to hear two weeks of "rematch" talk. The over/under on the number of times we see the Refridgerator Perry crashing into the end zone is 315 (that's an average of 27 1/2 times per day). Of course, this is the team that Belichick would prefer to play. Grossman is ok, but he better close his eyes before the snap or his head will be spinning with the defensive alignments that will be dancing in front of him. The Patriots might take a quarter or two to fully figure out the Chicago D, they'd end up winning this contest. The first half would look like a defensive battle. The second half would be an example of first timer's mistakes and veteran's capitalization on those mistakes. Final score: 17-6 New England
New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts
This may be the game the network is hoping for. "Everyone's second favorite team" in the Saints vs Peyton's first chance at winning the big game. If the Saints defeat the Bears, they will set a Super Bowl record: They will have had the worst record the year before they played in the Super Bowl. The four teams that defeated Indy this year provided a blue print for this feat: run the ball. That's it, if you can successfully run the football against the Colts, you keep the ball out of Peyton's hands and the game is yours. The Saints have McAllister and Bush. It may be close, but the Saints would pull this game out. Once again Peyton's hopes would be thwarted. Final score: 27-24 New Orleans
New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots
One would think that, win or lose, if the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl yet again, the debate over whether or not they are a dynasty would finally be settled. Even Bengals fans would have to admit that we have the first dynasty of the salary cap era. The question we have to ask is: can the team who stopped LT contain McAllister and Bush? The answer: yes. If the Patriots get to this game, they will have defeated the Jets, Chargers, and Colts. The Saints would have played the Eagles and Bears. It's pretty clear that after the giants the Pats have faced, the Saints would seem like they were knee high to a hobbit. The Pats would play their usual game of keeping it close till the end. This game would secure the Patriots fourth Super Bowl victory in six years. Dynasty Debate Done. Final score: 24-20 New England
So which Super Bowl do I expect to see? New Orleans vs Indianapolis. New Orleans should have no problem with Chicago. That game looks like a no brainer to me. Chicago will force a turn over or two, but their offense won't be able to turn those into points. The real question is "can Peyton beat Brady in the playoffs?" Peyton has taken the last two regular season meetings, but has yet to overcome the Patriots in the post season. The game is in Indy, but Brady and Co. won two of their three conference championships in Pittsburgh. Is there a tougher stadium in the AFC than the home of those terrible towels? That and most of the Patriots losses this year were at home. But when the final seconds tick off of the clock in the AFC championship game, Indy will be up by a score of 23-21 and will go on to lose to New Orleans in the Super Bowl.
You may not want to put any money on all of this, though. Because it is just my opinion.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
More troops in Iraq
Alright, I admit it. I'm a bit behind on the topics. However, this is one that I'd like to cover (slash discuss) before any further decisions are made by the current administration.
In the little Hamlet of Iraq we hear the musings, "To escalate or not to escalate, that is the question."
I'm not going to hold my faithful readers in suspense on this one. Here is my opinion:
Escalation in Iraq is not the answer. (No, Dr. James, do not attempt to adjust your monitor, you read that correctly.)
Here's why I think this is the case (And I'll offer a possible solution later in this post.): More troops in Iraq means more death in Iraq. There is no way of avoiding this. It's as simple as a law of averages. It's a gaurantee. I don't just mean more Iraqi deaths (as that is a foregone conclusion,) but many more American deaths as well. Furthermore, if you'll pardon the football analogy, I see the insurgents conducting themselves like the New England Patriots. New England usually does just enough to win. They don't often blow their opponents out of the water, they bide their time so that they end the game in victory. If the insurgents are doing this and we send more troops, they will increase their attacks. They will pour more of their seemingly limitless resourses into getting the US out resulting in even more deaths. I'll put it in a simple mathmatical equation so all (including the President) can understand:
Iraq + Escalation = Wicked Bad Idea!
There is speculation that "cutting and running" would create more death in Iraq as well as some believe that if we leave the consequence would be a civil war. However, that is not a certainty. More troops resulting in more death is.
Now for what I think I'd like to see. I've heard a theory that the Iraqi insurgents are attacking primarily because they want to see the US out of Iraq. Alright, let's conduct a little test. Iraq is not the weak, impotent nation that it was when the knee-jerkers first started calling for a "time-table for withdrawl" or a "complete retreat." I do not believe that it will crumble like Florida's defense will against Ohio State on Monday. I don't think we'll see another "Siagon." So let's leave with some conditions. We begin to slowly remove troops. No vacuum, no complete immediate withdrawl. A few hundred at a time we bring folks home. We do so as a message to the Iraqi people, government, and insurgents (in that order) that we so strongly care about the success of their democracy, that we are leaving so they can prove they are able to sustain their government and the peace. If the insurgents are attacking because we are present, they'd have no reason to continue their reign of destruction any longer. On our way out, we make it clear that we reserve the right to return the instant Iraq begins to look like Palestine/Israel. The moment we see anything that even resembles a civil war, we will be back so fast (with so many more "boots on the groung," "birds in the air," "resolve," and "shock and awe") that it will make thier heads spin. Iraq will become the 52nd state. (We'd have to make Puerto Rico the 51st or they'd be really peeved!)
So, that's what I think we should do. A slow withdrawl to see if the insurgency lessens and to give the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own two feet. What thinketh thou?
Mr. President, are you listening? Because this, after all, is just my opinion.
In the little Hamlet of Iraq we hear the musings, "To escalate or not to escalate, that is the question."
I'm not going to hold my faithful readers in suspense on this one. Here is my opinion:
Escalation in Iraq is not the answer. (No, Dr. James, do not attempt to adjust your monitor, you read that correctly.)
Here's why I think this is the case (And I'll offer a possible solution later in this post.): More troops in Iraq means more death in Iraq. There is no way of avoiding this. It's as simple as a law of averages. It's a gaurantee. I don't just mean more Iraqi deaths (as that is a foregone conclusion,) but many more American deaths as well. Furthermore, if you'll pardon the football analogy, I see the insurgents conducting themselves like the New England Patriots. New England usually does just enough to win. They don't often blow their opponents out of the water, they bide their time so that they end the game in victory. If the insurgents are doing this and we send more troops, they will increase their attacks. They will pour more of their seemingly limitless resourses into getting the US out resulting in even more deaths. I'll put it in a simple mathmatical equation so all (including the President) can understand:
Iraq + Escalation = Wicked Bad Idea!
There is speculation that "cutting and running" would create more death in Iraq as well as some believe that if we leave the consequence would be a civil war. However, that is not a certainty. More troops resulting in more death is.
Now for what I think I'd like to see. I've heard a theory that the Iraqi insurgents are attacking primarily because they want to see the US out of Iraq. Alright, let's conduct a little test. Iraq is not the weak, impotent nation that it was when the knee-jerkers first started calling for a "time-table for withdrawl" or a "complete retreat." I do not believe that it will crumble like Florida's defense will against Ohio State on Monday. I don't think we'll see another "Siagon." So let's leave with some conditions. We begin to slowly remove troops. No vacuum, no complete immediate withdrawl. A few hundred at a time we bring folks home. We do so as a message to the Iraqi people, government, and insurgents (in that order) that we so strongly care about the success of their democracy, that we are leaving so they can prove they are able to sustain their government and the peace. If the insurgents are attacking because we are present, they'd have no reason to continue their reign of destruction any longer. On our way out, we make it clear that we reserve the right to return the instant Iraq begins to look like Palestine/Israel. The moment we see anything that even resembles a civil war, we will be back so fast (with so many more "boots on the groung," "birds in the air," "resolve," and "shock and awe") that it will make thier heads spin. Iraq will become the 52nd state. (We'd have to make Puerto Rico the 51st or they'd be really peeved!)
So, that's what I think we should do. A slow withdrawl to see if the insurgency lessens and to give the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own two feet. What thinketh thou?
Mr. President, are you listening? Because this, after all, is just my opinion.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
NFL Predictions (Recap and Playoffs)
So there you have it. The NFL regular season is in the books and the playoff picture is firmly set. I'll be predicting the outcome of the playoffs as they stand later in the post. However, before the gridiron grind began I made some predictions regarding this final outcome, let's see how I did:
NFC East (Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins)
(Prediction: Dallas Actual: Philly)
Well, I both nailed and blew this division. I said it would be the most hotly contested division in the NFC, and it was with three of the four teams with a shot at first place in the second half of the year and three of these teams making the playoffs. However, I thought that the Eagles would crash into last place (especially after McNabb went down.) Who would've thought that Garcia would carry his team into first?! And had Dallas put some effort into fighting Detroit, they'd've been in first, so I was not right, but I was close. Half Credit. (Mudflaps and Apu, however, can both bear witness that before the season I predicted an 8-8 season from the Giants. Slam dunk on that one!)
NFC West (Seahawks, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals)
(Prediction: Seattle Actual: Seattle)
First, I'd like to personally thank the 49ers for making sure that the Denver Bronco frauds did not make it into the playoffs. They didn't deserve the victory vs New England last year and I'm happy that they won't be at the ball this year. I could pat myself on the back for calling this one correctly all around, but it's such an easy division.
NFC North (Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings)
(Prediction: Chicago Actual: Chicago)
Ooo, look, another tough call made in this division. I think the only thing that surprised me with this group was that Farve didn't break a hip this year. (And the Packers still had a chance at the playoffs late in the year.) But that's the NFC for you. Much weaker than the AFC so more folks have a chance at the big dance.
NFC South (Saints, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers)
(Prediction: Carolina Actual: New Orleans)
Well, this division proved harder to call than I thought. The double barrel running game of McAllister and Bush did rocket the Saints to victory. In fact, it got them to a first round bye and a home playoff game! So I got this one quite wrong.
NFC Wild Card
Predictions: Tampa Bay & Washington, Actual: Dallas & New York
So, 1 point for every correctly predicted playoff team and 1/2 point for wild card team from the predicted division (for a possible 7 points) 3 out of six for the playoff teams (Chicago, Dallas, Seattle) plus the 1/2 credit for 1 wild card division (NFC East) and the 8-8 finish of the Giants. 4 out of 7 for the NFC. On to the AFC (I don't think I faired much better.)
AFC East (Patriots, Jets, Dolphins, Bills)
(Prediction: New England Actual: New England)
I thought this was an easy division to call. However, SI (Sports Illustrated) predicted that the Dolphins would win this division and the Patriots would be a wild card team. I disagreed and am happy to say that I was correct. New England did indeed win this division in a manner that was never in question. A wild card team did come from the East. It was not the Dolphins, rather it was the Jets.
AFC West (Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders)
(Prediction: San Diego Actual: San Diego)
For this division I acurately predicted that the Broncos would not be back (again, thank you 49ers), that the Chiefs need a defense, that the Raiders would not finish any higher than 3rd (they were in last) and that the Chargers would dash into the playoffs on the back of LT's record setting year. Thank you, good night!
AFC North (Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Browns)
(Prediction:Cincinnati Actual: Baltimore)
Wow, so I really missed the mark on this division. What happened to the Bengals? And the Steelers? Not even a chance to repeat as they completely missed the playoffs! The Ravens with their power D snuck up and hog tied this division. They will be tough to beat in the post season.
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
(Prediction: Indianapolis Actual: Indianapolis)
No big surprises here. With one exception: for the first time in 10 games Indy lost to Houston! Just a sign of how far Indy will get in the playoffs: not very. Welcome to Marino-World, Mr. Manning. Here's the difference between he and you: He actually played in a Super Bowl.
AFC Wild Card
Predictions: Miami & Pittsburgh Actual: New York & Kansas City
Same scoring as before. 3 out of 6 for the division winners. 1 half point for the wild card team from the East. 3.5 out of 7 for a total of 7.5 out of 14. Just over 50% isn't so bad. (Better than SI, at least my Super Bowl match-up is still possible.)
So here's the playoff picture now and my predictions
Round 1:
NFC
Dallas @ Philly
Dallas wins this game because it's not in Dallas.
Giants @ Seattle
Seattle takes this game. The Giants have been falling apart and this game won't be any different. Besides, what is an 8-8 team doing in the playoffs?
AFC
Jets @ New England
New England has been struggling at home this year, but this is the playoffs. Brady is 10-1 in the playoffs and the game he lost he lost to the zebras. New England wins easily.
Kansas City @ Indy
Indy will run over KC giving the Manning band wagoners more fuel for their "Manning is the greatest" crap. To bad he loses the next week.
Second Round
NFC
Dallas @ Chicago
Sorry, Romo, your year ends here. Chicago's offense may be lacking, but you don't have enough D to stop them. TO will drop 3 passes for you and you'll go home.
Seattle @ New Orleans
No repeat visit for you Shawn. Your team can't stop Brees, Bush and McAllister. The Saints are headed to the Conference Championship.
AFC
Indy @ Baltimore
Mr. Manning, allow me to introduce you to something called Defense. You may have heard, it wins championships. You don't have one. Baltimore does. Sorry, you journey ends here.
New England @ San Diego
If LT were the only weapon that San Diego had, I'd give the Patriots more of a shot. They did stop Marshal Faulk and Kurt Warner in their first Super Bowl, but the Chargers have Gates, Caldwell, Rivers, LT... The other side of this coin is that D wins Championships, and the Patriots have a better D than the Chargers. If this turns into a scoring fest the Patriots win. My inclination is to pick the Chargers, but as this will be a hard fought game I believe the Patriots will emerge victorious. (Really, I'm flipping a coin here... and trying not to be a homer... The other hard part about this is that if the Patriots win, they are going to the Super Bowl because they can beat Baltimore, However, if the Chargers win it's Baltimore who will represent the AFC...) Ok, my final answer is: New England (How can I pick against a 10-1 QB/Coach Combo?) So, no, there will be no Rivers/Brees San Diego/New Orleans Super Bowl.
Conference Championships
NFC
New Orleans @ Chicago
The weather will probably not play a factor here. The Saints are primarily a rushing team, I don't think the cold gets to them. Chicago has a crazy D, but not enough of an offense to win this game. Watch for New Orleans to win a nail biter.
AFC
New England @ Baltimore
Baltimore had the D, but not enough offense. They would have to score twice on defense to win this game. I don't think they can do it. Brady leads his team to yet another Super Bowl game.
Super Bowl
It's not the one the networks wanted. No Bears/Pats rematch. No Rivers vs Brees show down. No Manning going for his first crown. Nope, it's
New England vs New Orleans
The rookie's nerves get to him and he fumbles a few times. Brady leads yet another march down field to win the game. And it's a Dynasty for sure now.
(Of course, if San Diego defeats New England, then it's Baltimore vs New Orleans and the story book ending is acheived. New Orleans wins the Super Bowl the year after Katrina hits.
There you have it. The JMO playoff predictions. Let's see if I can get better than 50% this time!
Thanks for reading, feel free to offer your winners and losers in the comments.
NFC East (Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins)
(Prediction: Dallas Actual: Philly)
Well, I both nailed and blew this division. I said it would be the most hotly contested division in the NFC, and it was with three of the four teams with a shot at first place in the second half of the year and three of these teams making the playoffs. However, I thought that the Eagles would crash into last place (especially after McNabb went down.) Who would've thought that Garcia would carry his team into first?! And had Dallas put some effort into fighting Detroit, they'd've been in first, so I was not right, but I was close. Half Credit. (Mudflaps and Apu, however, can both bear witness that before the season I predicted an 8-8 season from the Giants. Slam dunk on that one!)
NFC West (Seahawks, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals)
(Prediction: Seattle Actual: Seattle)
First, I'd like to personally thank the 49ers for making sure that the Denver Bronco frauds did not make it into the playoffs. They didn't deserve the victory vs New England last year and I'm happy that they won't be at the ball this year. I could pat myself on the back for calling this one correctly all around, but it's such an easy division.
NFC North (Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings)
(Prediction: Chicago Actual: Chicago)
Ooo, look, another tough call made in this division. I think the only thing that surprised me with this group was that Farve didn't break a hip this year. (And the Packers still had a chance at the playoffs late in the year.) But that's the NFC for you. Much weaker than the AFC so more folks have a chance at the big dance.
NFC South (Saints, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers)
(Prediction: Carolina Actual: New Orleans)
Well, this division proved harder to call than I thought. The double barrel running game of McAllister and Bush did rocket the Saints to victory. In fact, it got them to a first round bye and a home playoff game! So I got this one quite wrong.
NFC Wild Card
Predictions: Tampa Bay & Washington, Actual: Dallas & New York
So, 1 point for every correctly predicted playoff team and 1/2 point for wild card team from the predicted division (for a possible 7 points) 3 out of six for the playoff teams (Chicago, Dallas, Seattle) plus the 1/2 credit for 1 wild card division (NFC East) and the 8-8 finish of the Giants. 4 out of 7 for the NFC. On to the AFC (I don't think I faired much better.)
AFC East (Patriots, Jets, Dolphins, Bills)
(Prediction: New England Actual: New England)
I thought this was an easy division to call. However, SI (Sports Illustrated) predicted that the Dolphins would win this division and the Patriots would be a wild card team. I disagreed and am happy to say that I was correct. New England did indeed win this division in a manner that was never in question. A wild card team did come from the East. It was not the Dolphins, rather it was the Jets.
AFC West (Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders)
(Prediction: San Diego Actual: San Diego)
For this division I acurately predicted that the Broncos would not be back (again, thank you 49ers), that the Chiefs need a defense, that the Raiders would not finish any higher than 3rd (they were in last) and that the Chargers would dash into the playoffs on the back of LT's record setting year. Thank you, good night!
AFC North (Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Browns)
(Prediction:Cincinnati Actual: Baltimore)
Wow, so I really missed the mark on this division. What happened to the Bengals? And the Steelers? Not even a chance to repeat as they completely missed the playoffs! The Ravens with their power D snuck up and hog tied this division. They will be tough to beat in the post season.
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
(Prediction: Indianapolis Actual: Indianapolis)
No big surprises here. With one exception: for the first time in 10 games Indy lost to Houston! Just a sign of how far Indy will get in the playoffs: not very. Welcome to Marino-World, Mr. Manning. Here's the difference between he and you: He actually played in a Super Bowl.
AFC Wild Card
Predictions: Miami & Pittsburgh Actual: New York & Kansas City
Same scoring as before. 3 out of 6 for the division winners. 1 half point for the wild card team from the East. 3.5 out of 7 for a total of 7.5 out of 14. Just over 50% isn't so bad. (Better than SI, at least my Super Bowl match-up is still possible.)
So here's the playoff picture now and my predictions
Round 1:
NFC
Dallas @ Philly
Dallas wins this game because it's not in Dallas.
Giants @ Seattle
Seattle takes this game. The Giants have been falling apart and this game won't be any different. Besides, what is an 8-8 team doing in the playoffs?
AFC
Jets @ New England
New England has been struggling at home this year, but this is the playoffs. Brady is 10-1 in the playoffs and the game he lost he lost to the zebras. New England wins easily.
Kansas City @ Indy
Indy will run over KC giving the Manning band wagoners more fuel for their "Manning is the greatest" crap. To bad he loses the next week.
Second Round
NFC
Dallas @ Chicago
Sorry, Romo, your year ends here. Chicago's offense may be lacking, but you don't have enough D to stop them. TO will drop 3 passes for you and you'll go home.
Seattle @ New Orleans
No repeat visit for you Shawn. Your team can't stop Brees, Bush and McAllister. The Saints are headed to the Conference Championship.
AFC
Indy @ Baltimore
Mr. Manning, allow me to introduce you to something called Defense. You may have heard, it wins championships. You don't have one. Baltimore does. Sorry, you journey ends here.
New England @ San Diego
If LT were the only weapon that San Diego had, I'd give the Patriots more of a shot. They did stop Marshal Faulk and Kurt Warner in their first Super Bowl, but the Chargers have Gates, Caldwell, Rivers, LT... The other side of this coin is that D wins Championships, and the Patriots have a better D than the Chargers. If this turns into a scoring fest the Patriots win. My inclination is to pick the Chargers, but as this will be a hard fought game I believe the Patriots will emerge victorious. (Really, I'm flipping a coin here... and trying not to be a homer... The other hard part about this is that if the Patriots win, they are going to the Super Bowl because they can beat Baltimore, However, if the Chargers win it's Baltimore who will represent the AFC...) Ok, my final answer is: New England (How can I pick against a 10-1 QB/Coach Combo?) So, no, there will be no Rivers/Brees San Diego/New Orleans Super Bowl.
Conference Championships
NFC
New Orleans @ Chicago
The weather will probably not play a factor here. The Saints are primarily a rushing team, I don't think the cold gets to them. Chicago has a crazy D, but not enough of an offense to win this game. Watch for New Orleans to win a nail biter.
AFC
New England @ Baltimore
Baltimore had the D, but not enough offense. They would have to score twice on defense to win this game. I don't think they can do it. Brady leads his team to yet another Super Bowl game.
Super Bowl
It's not the one the networks wanted. No Bears/Pats rematch. No Rivers vs Brees show down. No Manning going for his first crown. Nope, it's
New England vs New Orleans
The rookie's nerves get to him and he fumbles a few times. Brady leads yet another march down field to win the game. And it's a Dynasty for sure now.
(Of course, if San Diego defeats New England, then it's Baltimore vs New Orleans and the story book ending is acheived. New Orleans wins the Super Bowl the year after Katrina hits.
There you have it. The JMO playoff predictions. Let's see if I can get better than 50% this time!
Thanks for reading, feel free to offer your winners and losers in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)