7-9 again. Sheesh. Too much focus on baseball and hockey this past year, it would seem, has made me forget just how much can change in one football season. This is a much more fluid sport we're talking about here, where one year can result in huge changes.
Here we go for week 4. Winners in gold.
Thursday Night -
Cleveland (0-3) @ Baltimore (2-1)
Sunday Early -
Carolina (1-2) @ Atlanta (3-0)
New England (1-2) @ Buffalo (2-1)
Minnesota (2-1) @ Detroit (1-2)
San Diego (2-1) @ Kansas City (1-2)
Seattle (2-1) @ St. Louis (1-2)
San Francisco (2-1) @ NY Jets (2-1)
Tennessee (1-2) @ Houston (3-0)
Sunday Late -
Oakland (1-2) @ Denver (1-2)
Miami (1-2) @ Arizona (4-0)
Cincinnati (2-1) @ Jacksonville (1-2)
New Orleans (0-3) @ Green Bay (1-2)
Washington (1-2) @ Tampa Bay (1-2)
Sunday Night -
NY Giants (2-1) @ Philadelphia (2-1)
Monday Night -
Chicago (2-1) @ Dallas (2-1)
Baltimore and Cleveland is a pretty self-explanatory one, don't you think? Baltimore might just be the best team in the AFC, although Houston might have something to say about that.
Speaking of best teams in a conference, Atlanta looks primed this year, while Carolina looks like an entire team experiencing a sophomore slump. New England will likely destroy Buffalo after feeling robbed against Baltimore; but boy, wouldn't this game make an epic upset? Something about the Patriots seems off, but I expect them to do their thing here. As a Lions fan, I'm terrified of the Vikings game coming up - it's basically a must-win for the Lions, with their bye week afterwards. The Vikings, however, look like the most complete and fundamentally sound team in the NFC North. If this were in Minnesota, I'd take the Vikes, but I feel like a home game that's a must-win... gotta be the Lions, right? I still don't like San Diego, but I do like Kansas City. No reasoning here, really, but if Jamaal Charles has gotten going... well, yeah. I like Seattle a lot, also, against a somewhat sound, but still mediocre Rams squad. Likewise, San Francisco should reassert themselves after a shocking loss last week when they play the haphazard Jets this week. Houston should keep pace as one of the top-2 teams in the AFC, also, when they roll the Titans up.
I'm still not sure how Oakland beat Pittsburgh, but I'll take Denver here. It's at home, and Denver needs a win. If it were in Oakland, hm. But in Denver... well, at least for this week, I'll take Peyton in Denver over McFadden; but Oakland reads a lot like Kansas City - if McFadden is rolling, they can win. I love Arizona's defense and expect them to trounce Miami based on that alone. Cincinnati is a better team than Jacksonville; this game has potential for upset if MJD gets going, but I'll take the more complete team. New Orleans and Green Bay are playing in the Crushed Expectations Bowl this weekend, and both teams desperately need the win. I'll take the home team. Whoever loses can basically write off this season. I like Tampa against Washington also; RG3 is solid, but needs time yet, and that Tampa defense just looks might respectable.
Philly looks like a disaster to me. How do they have two wins? Giants on Sunday Night.
Same for Chicago, really. They snuck by the Rams last week, but I just don't buy that team at all. I think Dallas does a number on them.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Pierce's Picks 2012 - NFL Week 3
Ouch. 7-9 last week. Which only proves what we already knew - what we see in Week 1 isn't always the truth.
Atlanta and San Francisco, however, are the best teams in the league.
Winners in gold.
Thursday Night -
NY Giants (1-1) @ Carolina (1-1)
Early Sunday -
St. Louis (1-1) @ Chicago (1-1)
Buffalo (1-1) @ Cleveland (0-2)
Tampa Bay (1-1) @ Dallas (1-1)
Detroit (1-1) @ Tennessee (0-2)
Jacksonville (0-2) @ Indianapolis (1-1)
NY Jets (1-1) @ Miami (1-1)
San Francisco (2-0) @ Minnesota (1-1)
Kansas City (0-2) @ New Orleans (0-2)
Cincinnati (1-1) @ Washington (1-1)
Late Sunday -
Philadelphia (2-0) @ Arizona (2-0)
Atlanta (2-0) @ San Diego (2-0)
Houston (2-0) @ Denver (1-1)
Pittsburgh (1-1) @ Oakland (0-2)
Sunday Night -
New England (1-1) @ Baltimore (1-1)
Monday Night -
Green Bay (1-1) @ Seattle (1-1)
In theory, I'd think the Giants beat the Panthers - but look at their injury report. Who do they plan to suit up? Bad week for them to have a Thursday game; I'll take a spunky and healthy Panthers team here. I think both are legitimately good teams, but it's just impossible to know who Eli Manning intends to give the ball to at this point.
Chicago basically has to beat St. Louis; it's a classic lick-your-wounds game. If they hadn't been embarrassed by Green Bay last week, I'd say that St. Louis could play spoiler here, but no way that happens, as it could really bring some storm clouds on Chicago's season.
I don't think either Buffalo or Cleveland are very good, but I'll take the more experienced bad team here. Seems to me that it's going to be a very long year for Brandon Weeden; while this is one of his better chances for an early win, I just don't see it.
I really like Tampa this year, Greg Schiano's questionable late-game tactics aside (that's a whole other argument). But Dallas needs this game after being shocked by Seattle last week. I think both of these are good teams this year; this should be a good game, and close. But Dallas needs it more, and they ought to be aware of that.
Tennessee just doesn't look good. Their offensive line seems to be in a state of flux and/or misery, which is a bad reality to face up to when the Lions' defensive line comes to town. This game seems like just what the Lions need after a rough outing in San Francisco.
Jacksonville? They don't look good this year. Indianapolis? They look sneaky good. Andrew Luck's the real deal. Expect momentum from a clutch victory against Minnesota to carry over.
I hate that I'm taking the Dolphins here, as I'm not sure I really believe in them, but I don't believe in the Jets, either. The Dolphins just look like a team that could be sneaky good in a division that's a lot weaker than people think with the Patriots looking old and injured, and the Jets looking like a train-wreck waiting to happen. We'll learn a lot about both teams this week.
San Francisco is the best team in the NFL. End of story. The Vikings? They're sneaky good. Seriously. But it won't look like it this week.
New Orleans is 0-2 with a home game against an 0-2 Chiefs team. They have to win it. Right? Right? Have to. More than any other team this week, New Orleans has to win. If they were in Kansas City, I very well might take a Chiefs team that looks sneaky good to me.
I don't believe in Cincinnati. I do believe in RG3. Tough loss last week; the Redskins bounce back this week.
I think Philadelphia is the biggest mirage of the 2-0 teams; I expect a better Arizona team (particularly their defense) to keep the Eagles in check. Good chance here of a let-down loss after a big win against New England, but Arizona's defense has been pretty good since the middle of last season, so I like them against a team that's turning it over too much.
San Diego is the second-biggest mirage of the 2-0 teams. Atlanta, however, is the second-best team in the NFL. Of course, you might want to consider Matt Ryan's record outside of domes... but I still think Atlanta is the better team here.
Houston? Still as good as last year (take away that injury to Schaub last year and they win the Super Bowl). Denver? One of the most overrated teams in the league. Not a bad team; just not as good as Houston.
We won't even get into the mess that continues to be Oakland. Pittsburgh rolls here.
Baltimore's better. End of story. I still think the Patriots are good, but like the Steelers, aging and declining predictably. Baltimore is young and on the rise. Statement win for the Ravens on national television after a really tough loss last week.
Green Bay. Seattle. In Seattle. Really tough call. Seattle, like Arizona, is sneaky good on defense. Their offense needs some work, but I like Russell Wilson. Green Bay is still not quite as good as we think they are, either. I think Seattle wins this game if it happens later in the year, after Wilson has matured more. But right now, this early? I'll take the experience of the Packers team - even if they've been off from their norm. However, this will be a lot closer and lower-scoring than most people will expect.
Atlanta and San Francisco, however, are the best teams in the league.
Winners in gold.
Thursday Night -
NY Giants (1-1) @ Carolina (1-1)
Early Sunday -
St. Louis (1-1) @ Chicago (1-1)
Buffalo (1-1) @ Cleveland (0-2)
Tampa Bay (1-1) @ Dallas (1-1)
Detroit (1-1) @ Tennessee (0-2)
Jacksonville (0-2) @ Indianapolis (1-1)
NY Jets (1-1) @ Miami (1-1)
San Francisco (2-0) @ Minnesota (1-1)
Kansas City (0-2) @ New Orleans (0-2)
Cincinnati (1-1) @ Washington (1-1)
Late Sunday -
Philadelphia (2-0) @ Arizona (2-0)
Atlanta (2-0) @ San Diego (2-0)
Houston (2-0) @ Denver (1-1)
Pittsburgh (1-1) @ Oakland (0-2)
Sunday Night -
New England (1-1) @ Baltimore (1-1)
Monday Night -
Green Bay (1-1) @ Seattle (1-1)
In theory, I'd think the Giants beat the Panthers - but look at their injury report. Who do they plan to suit up? Bad week for them to have a Thursday game; I'll take a spunky and healthy Panthers team here. I think both are legitimately good teams, but it's just impossible to know who Eli Manning intends to give the ball to at this point.
Chicago basically has to beat St. Louis; it's a classic lick-your-wounds game. If they hadn't been embarrassed by Green Bay last week, I'd say that St. Louis could play spoiler here, but no way that happens, as it could really bring some storm clouds on Chicago's season.
I don't think either Buffalo or Cleveland are very good, but I'll take the more experienced bad team here. Seems to me that it's going to be a very long year for Brandon Weeden; while this is one of his better chances for an early win, I just don't see it.
I really like Tampa this year, Greg Schiano's questionable late-game tactics aside (that's a whole other argument). But Dallas needs this game after being shocked by Seattle last week. I think both of these are good teams this year; this should be a good game, and close. But Dallas needs it more, and they ought to be aware of that.
Tennessee just doesn't look good. Their offensive line seems to be in a state of flux and/or misery, which is a bad reality to face up to when the Lions' defensive line comes to town. This game seems like just what the Lions need after a rough outing in San Francisco.
Jacksonville? They don't look good this year. Indianapolis? They look sneaky good. Andrew Luck's the real deal. Expect momentum from a clutch victory against Minnesota to carry over.
I hate that I'm taking the Dolphins here, as I'm not sure I really believe in them, but I don't believe in the Jets, either. The Dolphins just look like a team that could be sneaky good in a division that's a lot weaker than people think with the Patriots looking old and injured, and the Jets looking like a train-wreck waiting to happen. We'll learn a lot about both teams this week.
San Francisco is the best team in the NFL. End of story. The Vikings? They're sneaky good. Seriously. But it won't look like it this week.
New Orleans is 0-2 with a home game against an 0-2 Chiefs team. They have to win it. Right? Right? Have to. More than any other team this week, New Orleans has to win. If they were in Kansas City, I very well might take a Chiefs team that looks sneaky good to me.
I don't believe in Cincinnati. I do believe in RG3. Tough loss last week; the Redskins bounce back this week.
I think Philadelphia is the biggest mirage of the 2-0 teams; I expect a better Arizona team (particularly their defense) to keep the Eagles in check. Good chance here of a let-down loss after a big win against New England, but Arizona's defense has been pretty good since the middle of last season, so I like them against a team that's turning it over too much.
San Diego is the second-biggest mirage of the 2-0 teams. Atlanta, however, is the second-best team in the NFL. Of course, you might want to consider Matt Ryan's record outside of domes... but I still think Atlanta is the better team here.
Houston? Still as good as last year (take away that injury to Schaub last year and they win the Super Bowl). Denver? One of the most overrated teams in the league. Not a bad team; just not as good as Houston.
We won't even get into the mess that continues to be Oakland. Pittsburgh rolls here.
Baltimore's better. End of story. I still think the Patriots are good, but like the Steelers, aging and declining predictably. Baltimore is young and on the rise. Statement win for the Ravens on national television after a really tough loss last week.
Green Bay. Seattle. In Seattle. Really tough call. Seattle, like Arizona, is sneaky good on defense. Their offense needs some work, but I like Russell Wilson. Green Bay is still not quite as good as we think they are, either. I think Seattle wins this game if it happens later in the year, after Wilson has matured more. But right now, this early? I'll take the experience of the Packers team - even if they've been off from their norm. However, this will be a lot closer and lower-scoring than most people will expect.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Pierce's Picks 2012 - NFL Week 2
Week 1 saw me go 10-6; not bad to start the season.
Are Atlanta and San Francisco really the best teams in the league? What about the swoons of the Saints and Packers? See below...
Winners in gold.
Thursday Night -
Chicago (1-0) @ Green Bay (0-1)
Early Sunday -
Kansas City (0-1) @ Buffalo (0-1)
Cleveland (0-1) @ Cincinnati (0-1)
Minnesota (1-0) @ Indianapolis (0-1)
Oakland (0-1) @ Miami (0-1)
Arizona (1-0) @ New England (1-0)
Tampa Bay (1-0) @ NY Giants (0-1)
Baltimore (1-0) @ Philadelphia (1-0)
New Orleans (0-1) @ Carolina (0-1)
Houston (1-0) @ Jacksonville (0-1)
Late Sunday -
Washington (1-0) @ St. Louis (0-1)
Dallas (1-0) @ Seattle (0-1)
NY Jets (1-0) @ Pittsburgh (0-1)
Tennessee (0-1) @ San Diego (1-0)
Sunday Night -
Detroit (1-0) @ San Francisco (1-0)
Monday Night -
Denver (1-0) @ Atlanta (1-0)
I actually like Chicago over Green Bay... I think the Packers are due for a swoon, from a great team to a good one; however, I think they realize that they have to win this Thursday. Opening the season 0-2, both losses at home? The Pack must be feeling some urgency. If they win this, they can settle down; if not, they're stacking the deck against themselves.
I think Kansas City might turn out to be sneaky good, certainly over a bad Bills team. We won't get into the offensive train-wrecks that Cleveland, Miami, and Philadelphia appear to be. I sort of like the odds of Indianapolis over Minnesota, but I'll give the nod to the team with the second-year QB and all-star RB. I think Tampa might be better than we all expect, and wouldn't be surprised if they shock the Giants; but like the Packers, the Giants must feel some urgency to not open up the season 0-2. The Saints will probably take out their opening loss frustrations on a lackluster-looking Panthers team, while Houston should roll a Jaguars team that barely kept up with a less-than-stellar Vikings team last week.
I'm tempted to take St. Louis over Washington, also. The RG3-led Redskins impressed, and will probably continue to for awhile (see Carolina and Cam Newton last year), but St. Louis did look stout against Detroit last week - and Matt Stafford is more polished than RG3, for now. Still, I'll take the lack of film on this new Redskins attack as the advantage the Redskins use to win. I could see Seattle beating Dallas, also, especially at home - the Seahawks might have beaten Arizona if not for some poor pass-catching. But I like Dallas this year, so I expect them to carry their momentum to 2-0 here. The Jets' offensive explosion against Buffalo is a mirage to me until they do it against a respectable team... and look, here comes Pittsburgh. San Diego might not have beat Oakland if not for an injury to the Raiders' long-snapper... but I'll take them over Tennessee.
I want to think Detroit can beat San Francisco on Sunday Night, and they probably can - but that 49ers' team looks stacked this year, and if the Lions can't field their first-stringers in the secondary, well, I expect them to get carved up. Whoever comes out with the win on Sunday Night will have lofty expectations going forward.
And as for Monday... Peyton's Broncos looked pretty decent against Pittsburgh, but I think they run into a wall against the Falcons, who looked like the best team in the league on Week 1. These Falcons? Not a mirage. They'll roll.
Are Atlanta and San Francisco really the best teams in the league? What about the swoons of the Saints and Packers? See below...
Winners in gold.
Thursday Night -
Chicago (1-0) @ Green Bay (0-1)
Early Sunday -
Kansas City (0-1) @ Buffalo (0-1)
Cleveland (0-1) @ Cincinnati (0-1)
Minnesota (1-0) @ Indianapolis (0-1)
Oakland (0-1) @ Miami (0-1)
Arizona (1-0) @ New England (1-0)
Tampa Bay (1-0) @ NY Giants (0-1)
Baltimore (1-0) @ Philadelphia (1-0)
New Orleans (0-1) @ Carolina (0-1)
Houston (1-0) @ Jacksonville (0-1)
Late Sunday -
Washington (1-0) @ St. Louis (0-1)
Dallas (1-0) @ Seattle (0-1)
NY Jets (1-0) @ Pittsburgh (0-1)
Tennessee (0-1) @ San Diego (1-0)
Sunday Night -
Detroit (1-0) @ San Francisco (1-0)
Monday Night -
Denver (1-0) @ Atlanta (1-0)
I actually like Chicago over Green Bay... I think the Packers are due for a swoon, from a great team to a good one; however, I think they realize that they have to win this Thursday. Opening the season 0-2, both losses at home? The Pack must be feeling some urgency. If they win this, they can settle down; if not, they're stacking the deck against themselves.
I think Kansas City might turn out to be sneaky good, certainly over a bad Bills team. We won't get into the offensive train-wrecks that Cleveland, Miami, and Philadelphia appear to be. I sort of like the odds of Indianapolis over Minnesota, but I'll give the nod to the team with the second-year QB and all-star RB. I think Tampa might be better than we all expect, and wouldn't be surprised if they shock the Giants; but like the Packers, the Giants must feel some urgency to not open up the season 0-2. The Saints will probably take out their opening loss frustrations on a lackluster-looking Panthers team, while Houston should roll a Jaguars team that barely kept up with a less-than-stellar Vikings team last week.
I'm tempted to take St. Louis over Washington, also. The RG3-led Redskins impressed, and will probably continue to for awhile (see Carolina and Cam Newton last year), but St. Louis did look stout against Detroit last week - and Matt Stafford is more polished than RG3, for now. Still, I'll take the lack of film on this new Redskins attack as the advantage the Redskins use to win. I could see Seattle beating Dallas, also, especially at home - the Seahawks might have beaten Arizona if not for some poor pass-catching. But I like Dallas this year, so I expect them to carry their momentum to 2-0 here. The Jets' offensive explosion against Buffalo is a mirage to me until they do it against a respectable team... and look, here comes Pittsburgh. San Diego might not have beat Oakland if not for an injury to the Raiders' long-snapper... but I'll take them over Tennessee.
I want to think Detroit can beat San Francisco on Sunday Night, and they probably can - but that 49ers' team looks stacked this year, and if the Lions can't field their first-stringers in the secondary, well, I expect them to get carved up. Whoever comes out with the win on Sunday Night will have lofty expectations going forward.
And as for Monday... Peyton's Broncos looked pretty decent against Pittsburgh, but I think they run into a wall against the Falcons, who looked like the best team in the league on Week 1. These Falcons? Not a mirage. They'll roll.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Pierce's Picks 2012 - NFL Week 1
I'm back!
Last season saw me go 159-97, two games worse than the year before, when I finished 161-95.
I'll admit, I haven't been as excited for the season as I usually am. I've been hooked on baseball this year, and the whole replacement ref debacle has me a little concerned about the quality of football we'll see. But as the first night of real football is upon us... well, let's just say, I'm ready to go.
Winners are in gold.
This week:
Wednesday Night -
Dallas (0-0) @ NY Giants (0-0)
Early Sunday -
Indianapolis (0-0) @ Chicago (0-0)
Philadelphia (0-0) @ Cleveland (0-0)
St. Louis (0-0) @ Detroit (0-0)
New England (0-0) @ Tennessee (0-0)
Atlanta (0-0) @ Kansas City (0-0)
Jacksonville (0-0) @ Minnesota (0-0)
Washington (0-0) @ New Orleans (0-0)
Buffalo (0-0) @ NY Jets (0-0)
Miami (0-0) @ Houston (0-0)
Late Sunday -
San Francisco (0-0) @ Green Bay (0-0)
Seattle (0-0) @ Arizona (0-0)
Carolina (0-0) @ Tampa Bay (0-0)
Sunday Night -
Pittsburgh (0-0) @ Denver (0-0)
Monday Night -
Cincinnati (0-0) @ Baltimore (0-0)
San Diego (0-0) @ Oakland (0-0)
It's week one. Week one is the hardest to predict. There's more we don't know than what we do, and most of what we do know is based on expectations created a year ago by rosters that might have changed a lot. Week one is always rife for upsets, as a result, and there are several tasty ones possible.
First up, I love the chances of Indianapolis over Chicago or San Francisco over Green Bay. We don't know what the real Indy offense will look like yet, and I just never really buy into Chicago. As for San Fran, same deal - who knows what they'll be up to with all those WRs this year; I saw it pointed out that Green Bay's weak secondary is still weak, after all. I like Tampa over Carolina; that's my big upset pick. Everyone's really feel-good about Carolina, but Cam Newton tailed off last season in the second half; I think a new-look offense in Tampa might take them by surprise. Remember that this was a 10-win team in 2010, and their failings last year were a surprise to many. I also like Oakland over San Diego. I have no strong reasoning for that other than wondering who Philip Rivers is going to throw to and who's going to be running the ball. If nothing else, Oakland can just shove Darren McFadden down your throat.
The Giants/Cowboys game should be a great start to the season. Those are good games usually, and I think both teams will be good. I'm tempted to take the Cowboys, but I like the Giants starting off their championship defense on the right foot. I'm likewise tempted to take the Jets over Buffalo, but let's face it, NYJ might win some games, but that team looks like a train-wreck. I don't love Denver over Pittsburgh, either, but Pittsburgh will be playing without Ryan Clark, and their secondary still isn't going to make anyone shake in their boots. Beyond that, same logic as some above - no one really knows what the Peyton-led Broncos will look like. I expect Pittsburgh to come after him and get burned on the blitz. But that's just my thought.
I'll be stuck watching the Jaguars and Vikings for the early Sunday game. At least the other games I'll end up with (SF/GB and the national games) look pretty solid this week.
Last season saw me go 159-97, two games worse than the year before, when I finished 161-95.
I'll admit, I haven't been as excited for the season as I usually am. I've been hooked on baseball this year, and the whole replacement ref debacle has me a little concerned about the quality of football we'll see. But as the first night of real football is upon us... well, let's just say, I'm ready to go.
Winners are in gold.
This week:
Wednesday Night -
Dallas (0-0) @ NY Giants (0-0)
Early Sunday -
Indianapolis (0-0) @ Chicago (0-0)
Philadelphia (0-0) @ Cleveland (0-0)
St. Louis (0-0) @ Detroit (0-0)
New England (0-0) @ Tennessee (0-0)
Atlanta (0-0) @ Kansas City (0-0)
Jacksonville (0-0) @ Minnesota (0-0)
Washington (0-0) @ New Orleans (0-0)
Buffalo (0-0) @ NY Jets (0-0)
Miami (0-0) @ Houston (0-0)
Late Sunday -
San Francisco (0-0) @ Green Bay (0-0)
Seattle (0-0) @ Arizona (0-0)
Carolina (0-0) @ Tampa Bay (0-0)
Sunday Night -
Pittsburgh (0-0) @ Denver (0-0)
Monday Night -
Cincinnati (0-0) @ Baltimore (0-0)
San Diego (0-0) @ Oakland (0-0)
It's week one. Week one is the hardest to predict. There's more we don't know than what we do, and most of what we do know is based on expectations created a year ago by rosters that might have changed a lot. Week one is always rife for upsets, as a result, and there are several tasty ones possible.
First up, I love the chances of Indianapolis over Chicago or San Francisco over Green Bay. We don't know what the real Indy offense will look like yet, and I just never really buy into Chicago. As for San Fran, same deal - who knows what they'll be up to with all those WRs this year; I saw it pointed out that Green Bay's weak secondary is still weak, after all. I like Tampa over Carolina; that's my big upset pick. Everyone's really feel-good about Carolina, but Cam Newton tailed off last season in the second half; I think a new-look offense in Tampa might take them by surprise. Remember that this was a 10-win team in 2010, and their failings last year were a surprise to many. I also like Oakland over San Diego. I have no strong reasoning for that other than wondering who Philip Rivers is going to throw to and who's going to be running the ball. If nothing else, Oakland can just shove Darren McFadden down your throat.
The Giants/Cowboys game should be a great start to the season. Those are good games usually, and I think both teams will be good. I'm tempted to take the Cowboys, but I like the Giants starting off their championship defense on the right foot. I'm likewise tempted to take the Jets over Buffalo, but let's face it, NYJ might win some games, but that team looks like a train-wreck. I don't love Denver over Pittsburgh, either, but Pittsburgh will be playing without Ryan Clark, and their secondary still isn't going to make anyone shake in their boots. Beyond that, same logic as some above - no one really knows what the Peyton-led Broncos will look like. I expect Pittsburgh to come after him and get burned on the blitz. But that's just my thought.
I'll be stuck watching the Jaguars and Vikings for the early Sunday game. At least the other games I'll end up with (SF/GB and the national games) look pretty solid this week.
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Eastern Conference Semifinals
Three Game 7s! Excellent! Surprising ones, too. But the East has wrapped up and the semifinals start tonight with the first Phoenix/Nashville game, and start in earnest tomorrow with two games (Wash/NY and STL/LA).
I went 3-1 in my Eastern picks, only whiffing on Boston, but every series went much longer than I expected, other than the unceremonious ousting of the Penguins by the Flyers. The East turned out to be much tougher than I expected, top-to-bottom.
Eastern Conference Semifinals -
New York (1-seed) vs. Washington (7-seed)
This is the series I'm really for this round. While I like the potential between St. Louis and Los Angeles for a defensive struggle, this is a series that's packed across the ice - great goaltending, solid defense, potentially explosive offense. The Rangers kept their poise after Ottawa took them to the brink; Washington did the same against the defending Stanley Cup champions. Without the pressure of a high seed or a wildly successful regular season, is this the year for the Caps? They seem to have a certain swagger, but it's hard to trust their playoff legs. Washington is a sexy pick here, and for good reason, but New York's stability is hard to question. Holtby's a great story but can he keep it going? I expect this series to be close and to go the distance. The difference between going home and advancing might be one bad bounce.
New York in 7.
Philadelphia (5-seed) vs. New Jersey (6-seed)
I expected both teams to win and be here; I didn't expect the Devils to take so long to do it. The Flyers are rested and coming off an emotional series domination of their in-state rival. They're physical, riding high, and forcing teams to play their way. The Devils left Florida push them to the brink. I don't think the Flyers will be so kind. Bryzgalov barely outplayed Fleury in Pittsburgh, though; he has to be better to beat Brodeur.
Philadelphia in 6.
The Eastern Conference Quarterfinals Curtain Call -
Boston (2-seed)
This just had the feeling of a tumultuous, unfulfilling season for Boston, ever since that Tim Thomas/White House stuff got built up. There's no run here, but Boston's core should remain. The real question going forward will be to stick with Thomas or not, since he's been painted as a somewhat divisive figure on the team. The Bruins don't have a lot of cap room, but they also don't have a lot of expiring contracts, with Rolston being the biggest one that stands out. No reason to worry too much here.
Florida (3-seed)
I don't see how this season can't be considered a huge success. In Dave Tallon's first year as GM, he took an annual bottom-feeder and won the division. They've got a handful of expiring contracts, but plenty of cap space to throw around. This team can continue to build and should, in theory, build on their success, also. Their biggest problem will be finding reasons to avoid relocation.
Pittsburgh (4-seed)
On the flip-side from Florida, Penguins fans can't consider this season anything other than a raging disappointment. After a slow start early, the Pens fired up and Malkin carried them to a strong 4-seed finish. Crosby returned, galvanizing hype and making them the top pick for the Cup. So much for that. Out-muscled, out-hustled, and out-played by the Flyers, they looked ill-prepared and weak in one of the ugliest playoff series I've seen in awhile. They suddenly have a huge problem in goal, where Marc-Andre Fleury spent the playoffs doing his best impression of Swiss cheese. However, the Pens' core players are locked up for next year, so there's no reason to believe they won't compete at a high level again. But this postseason was particularly crushing to them, and we'll have to see how it affects their psyche when the puck drops again in October.
Ottawa (8-seed)
After being absent from the playoffs for some years, Ottawa returned this year to give the 1-seed Rangers a shocking run for their money. They're comfortable with the cap, and while they've got some expiring contracts, their core guys are set for next year. They're in a very similar position as Florida - good cap room, most contracts set, lots of room to maneuver for next year. Just a matter of how they spend what they've got and how the success of this season affects them going forward.
I went 3-1 in my Eastern picks, only whiffing on Boston, but every series went much longer than I expected, other than the unceremonious ousting of the Penguins by the Flyers. The East turned out to be much tougher than I expected, top-to-bottom.
Eastern Conference Semifinals -
New York (1-seed) vs. Washington (7-seed)
This is the series I'm really for this round. While I like the potential between St. Louis and Los Angeles for a defensive struggle, this is a series that's packed across the ice - great goaltending, solid defense, potentially explosive offense. The Rangers kept their poise after Ottawa took them to the brink; Washington did the same against the defending Stanley Cup champions. Without the pressure of a high seed or a wildly successful regular season, is this the year for the Caps? They seem to have a certain swagger, but it's hard to trust their playoff legs. Washington is a sexy pick here, and for good reason, but New York's stability is hard to question. Holtby's a great story but can he keep it going? I expect this series to be close and to go the distance. The difference between going home and advancing might be one bad bounce.
New York in 7.
Philadelphia (5-seed) vs. New Jersey (6-seed)
I expected both teams to win and be here; I didn't expect the Devils to take so long to do it. The Flyers are rested and coming off an emotional series domination of their in-state rival. They're physical, riding high, and forcing teams to play their way. The Devils left Florida push them to the brink. I don't think the Flyers will be so kind. Bryzgalov barely outplayed Fleury in Pittsburgh, though; he has to be better to beat Brodeur.
Philadelphia in 6.
The Eastern Conference Quarterfinals Curtain Call -
Boston (2-seed)
This just had the feeling of a tumultuous, unfulfilling season for Boston, ever since that Tim Thomas/White House stuff got built up. There's no run here, but Boston's core should remain. The real question going forward will be to stick with Thomas or not, since he's been painted as a somewhat divisive figure on the team. The Bruins don't have a lot of cap room, but they also don't have a lot of expiring contracts, with Rolston being the biggest one that stands out. No reason to worry too much here.
Florida (3-seed)
I don't see how this season can't be considered a huge success. In Dave Tallon's first year as GM, he took an annual bottom-feeder and won the division. They've got a handful of expiring contracts, but plenty of cap space to throw around. This team can continue to build and should, in theory, build on their success, also. Their biggest problem will be finding reasons to avoid relocation.
Pittsburgh (4-seed)
On the flip-side from Florida, Penguins fans can't consider this season anything other than a raging disappointment. After a slow start early, the Pens fired up and Malkin carried them to a strong 4-seed finish. Crosby returned, galvanizing hype and making them the top pick for the Cup. So much for that. Out-muscled, out-hustled, and out-played by the Flyers, they looked ill-prepared and weak in one of the ugliest playoff series I've seen in awhile. They suddenly have a huge problem in goal, where Marc-Andre Fleury spent the playoffs doing his best impression of Swiss cheese. However, the Pens' core players are locked up for next year, so there's no reason to believe they won't compete at a high level again. But this postseason was particularly crushing to them, and we'll have to see how it affects their psyche when the puck drops again in October.
Ottawa (8-seed)
After being absent from the playoffs for some years, Ottawa returned this year to give the 1-seed Rangers a shocking run for their money. They're comfortable with the cap, and while they've got some expiring contracts, their core guys are set for next year. They're in a very similar position as Florida - good cap room, most contracts set, lots of room to maneuver for next year. Just a matter of how they spend what they've got and how the success of this season affects them going forward.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Now on Facebook (again)!
Pierce's Picks is live on Facebook! Like the FB page and get updates on when blog posts are published, as well as occasional short blurbs that are too short for blogs but too long for Twitter.
Link below in case you don't hit it above:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pierces-Picks/218355574867740
Link below in case you don't hit it above:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pierces-Picks/218355574867740
The Western Conference Semifinals
We'll have to wait a couple more days, at least, for the finish of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, but the West's picture is all set for the next round. I thought the teams in the West were a lot closer than the teams in the East, so this comes as a surprise for me. But then again, the playoff adage is coming to be truer and truer - just get in, as they say. That's what Ottawa's doing, for example. I'm going to look ahead to the two semifinal matchups and then take a minute to reflect on each losing team's future.
I went 1-3 in picking the Western Quarterfinals, with my lone correct pick (and it was correct down to number of games) being the Preds in 5 over my hometown Red Wings.
Western Conference Semifinals -
St. Louis (2-seed) vs. Los Angeles (8-seed)
I might be looking forward to this series more than any other coming up, regardless of what happens in the East. Both play a stifling defensive game and both have hot goaltenders. Goals will be at a premium in this series, and it's hard not to imagine at least a couple overtime thrillers. I didn't pick either team to advance, expecting playoff inexperience to hamper St. Louis, and Los Angeles to be ousted by a heated-up Vancouver team. We saw how that went. Neither team is brimming with playoff experience, but that seems to be a running theme throughout this year. I still don't buy into St. Louis entirely as a playoff team, but that logic didn't get me far in the first round. Los Angeles, though, really impressed me with their put-down of the Canucks. I think this series can go either way, but Los Angeles won't be facing Roberto Luongo this time, and the Blues are healthier than the Canucks were. It's hard to see the Kings working the same magic on Halak and Elliot.
St. Louis in 7.
Phoenix (3-seed) vs. Nashville (4-seed)
People are going to bill this as a huge goalie battle, and in truth, it is. But make no mistake - Mike Smith has been the hotter goaltender of the two, if only because Nashville's defense left nothing but scraps to the Red Wings. Rinne rarely had to make the kind of breathtaking stops that Mike Smith did in Game 6 against the Blackhawks. Someone can take that and say it means Smith is to be counted on more, but I see it as meaning that Nashville probably has the superior defense; Rinne will hold his own when he has to. Both teams have reasons to be hungry - Nashville's core could get split up this offseason, and Phoenix might see the departure of captain Shane Doan. As good a story as Phoenix's first playoff series win as a franchise post-Winnipeg is, I don't see it happening again. If Nashville can play Phoenix the way they played Detroit, it'll be another short series.
Nashville in 5.
The Western Conference Quarterfinals Curtain Call -
Vancouver (1-seed)
Tough one, here. Vancouver was supposed to win; was poised to win. Had me convinced. But this postseason might become a blessing in disguise for a Canucks team that will be good again next year - they now know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they can't win with Roberto Luongo. The regular season maestro and playoff choker probably coughed up his last playoff loss in Vancouver, as the team should now realize that there's no way they can let Cory Schneider leave in free agency. In this goaltender-driven league (look around at the surviving playoff teams), someone will trade for Luongo, although Vancouver might have to give him up for pennies on the dollar.
Detroit (5-seed)
Another tough one. Detroit set a record with 23 straight home wins this season, but didn't carry that momentum into the playoffs. Detroit was the best team in February, but that rarely translates. Injuries bogged them down the stretch, and they faced a team built precisely to counter what they do. The Red Wings looked like a dinosaur on the ice, unable to adapt or offer an alternative game plan to the one Nashville was so methodically taking apart. They say the Red Wings are too old, but that discounts the maturing young guys like Helm, Abdelkader, and Miller, as well as rising young players like Nyquist, Mursak, and Brendan Smith. The Wings have some age, but they're well-balanced as always. Brad Stuart is gone, making room to acquire a top blue-liner and promote some from within. Lidstrom will stay or he won't; he looked old this postseason and if he does return, it would be reasonable to trim down his minutes in the regular season. But the Wings have more cap room than they've ever had in the post-lockout era, so there's no reason they can't return to prominence next year.
Chicago (6-seed)
Chicago flip-flopped all season long, going through periods of surges and droughts. At one point in December or January, they had lost 9 or 10 in a row and the talking heads were calling for Coach Q's head. It's hard to say what went wrong against Phoenix. Mike Smith decisively outplayed Corey Crawford, who was inconsistent all season long, and much can be hung there. But the Hawks didn't look themselves, either, perhaps victims of inconsistent penalty calls and suspensions. Andrew Shaw's 3-game suspension for (unintentionally, it seemed to me) running into Mike Smith was excessive and might have put the Hawks on their heels more than people realize. It was clear to me, though, that a great deal of spirit left the team when Marian Hossa got laid out. Hossa's a more integral part of that offense than people realize; a strong, quiet presence as important as Toews or Kane. His absence was palpable to me in Game 6. This is still a good team, but they're still recovering from all of the hemorrhaging they did after winning the Cup in 2010. Their defense lacks depth and Crawford might not be the guy. Similar futures await without some changes.
San Jose (7-seed)
Out of the two teams who got their seedings on the last day of the season, I expected San Jose's playoff experience to advance them over a much more raw Kings team. Yet, the Sharks got soundly ejected by the Blues, whereas the Kings delivered the stunner of the quarterfinals thusfar. I didn't see much of the Sharks series, I have to admit, but I expected more from them. But the Sharks had been playing playoff hockey for weeks and may very well have slowed down against a Blues team ready to pounce on any mistakes made. Obviously some work must be done for this team to be better, but I really don't see them being vastly inferior to Los Angeles, or having the problems Chicago does. They'll be back.
But on the plus side for all four of these teams? None of them are Pittsburgh. Who knew we'd be saying that after the first round of the playoffs? More on that when the Eastern Quarterfinals wrap up.
I went 1-3 in picking the Western Quarterfinals, with my lone correct pick (and it was correct down to number of games) being the Preds in 5 over my hometown Red Wings.
Western Conference Semifinals -
St. Louis (2-seed) vs. Los Angeles (8-seed)
I might be looking forward to this series more than any other coming up, regardless of what happens in the East. Both play a stifling defensive game and both have hot goaltenders. Goals will be at a premium in this series, and it's hard not to imagine at least a couple overtime thrillers. I didn't pick either team to advance, expecting playoff inexperience to hamper St. Louis, and Los Angeles to be ousted by a heated-up Vancouver team. We saw how that went. Neither team is brimming with playoff experience, but that seems to be a running theme throughout this year. I still don't buy into St. Louis entirely as a playoff team, but that logic didn't get me far in the first round. Los Angeles, though, really impressed me with their put-down of the Canucks. I think this series can go either way, but Los Angeles won't be facing Roberto Luongo this time, and the Blues are healthier than the Canucks were. It's hard to see the Kings working the same magic on Halak and Elliot.
St. Louis in 7.
Phoenix (3-seed) vs. Nashville (4-seed)
People are going to bill this as a huge goalie battle, and in truth, it is. But make no mistake - Mike Smith has been the hotter goaltender of the two, if only because Nashville's defense left nothing but scraps to the Red Wings. Rinne rarely had to make the kind of breathtaking stops that Mike Smith did in Game 6 against the Blackhawks. Someone can take that and say it means Smith is to be counted on more, but I see it as meaning that Nashville probably has the superior defense; Rinne will hold his own when he has to. Both teams have reasons to be hungry - Nashville's core could get split up this offseason, and Phoenix might see the departure of captain Shane Doan. As good a story as Phoenix's first playoff series win as a franchise post-Winnipeg is, I don't see it happening again. If Nashville can play Phoenix the way they played Detroit, it'll be another short series.
Nashville in 5.
The Western Conference Quarterfinals Curtain Call -
Vancouver (1-seed)
Tough one, here. Vancouver was supposed to win; was poised to win. Had me convinced. But this postseason might become a blessing in disguise for a Canucks team that will be good again next year - they now know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they can't win with Roberto Luongo. The regular season maestro and playoff choker probably coughed up his last playoff loss in Vancouver, as the team should now realize that there's no way they can let Cory Schneider leave in free agency. In this goaltender-driven league (look around at the surviving playoff teams), someone will trade for Luongo, although Vancouver might have to give him up for pennies on the dollar.
Detroit (5-seed)
Another tough one. Detroit set a record with 23 straight home wins this season, but didn't carry that momentum into the playoffs. Detroit was the best team in February, but that rarely translates. Injuries bogged them down the stretch, and they faced a team built precisely to counter what they do. The Red Wings looked like a dinosaur on the ice, unable to adapt or offer an alternative game plan to the one Nashville was so methodically taking apart. They say the Red Wings are too old, but that discounts the maturing young guys like Helm, Abdelkader, and Miller, as well as rising young players like Nyquist, Mursak, and Brendan Smith. The Wings have some age, but they're well-balanced as always. Brad Stuart is gone, making room to acquire a top blue-liner and promote some from within. Lidstrom will stay or he won't; he looked old this postseason and if he does return, it would be reasonable to trim down his minutes in the regular season. But the Wings have more cap room than they've ever had in the post-lockout era, so there's no reason they can't return to prominence next year.
Chicago (6-seed)
Chicago flip-flopped all season long, going through periods of surges and droughts. At one point in December or January, they had lost 9 or 10 in a row and the talking heads were calling for Coach Q's head. It's hard to say what went wrong against Phoenix. Mike Smith decisively outplayed Corey Crawford, who was inconsistent all season long, and much can be hung there. But the Hawks didn't look themselves, either, perhaps victims of inconsistent penalty calls and suspensions. Andrew Shaw's 3-game suspension for (unintentionally, it seemed to me) running into Mike Smith was excessive and might have put the Hawks on their heels more than people realize. It was clear to me, though, that a great deal of spirit left the team when Marian Hossa got laid out. Hossa's a more integral part of that offense than people realize; a strong, quiet presence as important as Toews or Kane. His absence was palpable to me in Game 6. This is still a good team, but they're still recovering from all of the hemorrhaging they did after winning the Cup in 2010. Their defense lacks depth and Crawford might not be the guy. Similar futures await without some changes.
San Jose (7-seed)
Out of the two teams who got their seedings on the last day of the season, I expected San Jose's playoff experience to advance them over a much more raw Kings team. Yet, the Sharks got soundly ejected by the Blues, whereas the Kings delivered the stunner of the quarterfinals thusfar. I didn't see much of the Sharks series, I have to admit, but I expected more from them. But the Sharks had been playing playoff hockey for weeks and may very well have slowed down against a Blues team ready to pounce on any mistakes made. Obviously some work must be done for this team to be better, but I really don't see them being vastly inferior to Los Angeles, or having the problems Chicago does. They'll be back.
But on the plus side for all four of these teams? None of them are Pittsburgh. Who knew we'd be saying that after the first round of the playoffs? More on that when the Eastern Quarterfinals wrap up.
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Demise of the 2011-12 Red Wings
Of all traditions in sports, the post-series handshake in the NHL has to be one of my favorites. After being vanquished in a tough series, it's always heartening to see smiles and handshakes, shows of respect to one another. Nick Lidstrom sharing extra words with Suter and Weber. Zetterberg and Weber sharing a civil handshake. Jimmy Howard and Pekka Rinne having a handshake and brief man-hug. Lidstrom and Babcock both having extra words to Barry Trotz. Beautiful moment from a tight series; an obvious show that both teams have great respect for one another.
Now, congratulations to Nashville. They've slain their Goliath, putting down the divisional rival Red Wings, the team that was their standard to beat. They put the NHL's primary current dynasty on their butts and made them the first team out this year. Not only that, but they did it convincingly. For those who watched all five games, did you ever suspect at any point that Nashville would lose the series? I predicted a Nashville victory in 5, but I didn't expect Detroit to spend a lot of it looking deflated. Nashville ground them down and wore on them all series long. The pressure from their top guys was relentless. Have you seen such a stifling defense? The praise of this victory is going to Rinne, who had an impressive save percentage from it, but that was courtesy of a defense that rarely let Detroit have a good shooting lane. The Red Wings are a team that doesn't dump the puck on net often as it is, rather content to cycle the puck until the right shot opens up. With Nashville, the right shot never opened up. Many of the pucks that came Rinne's way were easy saves.
Did you see those sweet Datsyuk highlights, though? No? Oh, right, that's because there weren't any. Yet another mark of that Nashville defense - they controlled the Red Wings' top players. Datsyuk was under such pressure from Fisher or Suter so often that he never got to play wizard on them. The Wings looked tired. How many shots did they not get because their reactions seemed a split-second too slow? Meanwhile, Nashville was all over everything. Trotz said it perfectly early in Game 5 - they weren't going to try to beat the Red Wings at their game, they were going to make the Red Wings play theirs. It worked. They didn't try to play a puck possession game or prevent the Red Wings from doing so. They responded to it with a perfect defense, clogging the shooting and passing lanes and leaving the Wings very little reward for their effort.
The biggest thing the Wings were missing in this game was a grinding element. Babcock even acknowledged after Game 1 that they really didn't have the personnel to exact revenge on Shea Weber for his WWE-style tactics on Zetterberg. Bertuzzi apparently disagreed, but in truth, Babcock was right. The Wings are a finesse team. They have been for a long time. But they also used to keep about a line's worth of grinders - guys like McCarty or Maltby or Draper. Guys who could go out and wear out the opposition, or punch them in the mouth when need be. To be fair, Helm is the new (faster!) Draper, a grinder in the mold of those guys, although a much more significant playoff "x-factor" because of his breakaway speed. Eaves, even fills in that role some. Abdelkader can do that, too, as he led the Wings in fighting penalties this year, but he can't do it alone, and he's still a pretty young kid up against some pretty big Nashville guys. The Wings can finesse their way past a lot of teams, but it was clear from the start of this series that the Predators would have none of that, indeed, were built and schemed specifically to not allow that.
So where do the Wings go from here? There's been talk already among the Detroit media of "blowing the team up" or "shaking things up significantly." That's pretty premature, if you ask me. For one, the Wings were lacking two significant playmakers in Darren Helm and Patrick Eaves. While two injuries shouldn't make or break a series, it leaves a mark, and as some NHL pundits have mentioned, the winning team is often the least injured team. Beyond that, the Red Wings are an older, veteran team, and perhaps Father Time is catching up with them some. Perhaps the new parity of the NHL is catching up more now, as well, as other teams are closing the talent gap more, with several years of planning and modeling paying dividends now. Perhaps some of everything.
As far as shaking things up, well, some of that will happen naturally. There's no certainty that Nick Lidstrom will be back; he'll be 42 in a week and while he still plays at a high level, he's starting to slow down, especially at the end of the year. Brad Stuart is almost certain to be gone; he wants to be on the West Coast, nearer his family and home, and if he offers teams from those areas a discount on his market price, well, he'll find a home there. Tomas Holmstrom is 39 and has acknowledged the wear and tear on his body from the game he loves; he's an unrestricted free agent.
Ken Holland knows these things. There's a reason they traded for Kyle Quincey, who will hopefully be better in a full season wearing the Winged Wheel. Assume that Lidstrom and Stuart both leave; without acquiring any new players, the Wings' starting six defensemen would likely be Kronwall, White, Ericsson, Quincey, Jakub Kindl, and Brendan Smith. Not a bad set. Not what we'd be used to, but honestly not bad. Brendan Smith is considered the top prospect in the Wings' farm, and he showed in a brief stint with the Wings this year that he belongs on the roster. Kindl and Quincey both need work, but that comes from playing. I expect the Wings to go out and acquire another defensemen or two to have depth and competition, but given the above, don't expect a big splash. That's not how the Wings do things. People griped at ho-hum nature of the Ian White acquisition in last year, but he's been huge for the Wings this year and fit into their system perfectly. As for Holmstrom, his departure would only clear the way for some of the other young Wings to rise up - both Gustav Nyquist and Jan Mursak impressed me during their time with the team this year and both, I feel, should be on the roster to start next season.
The Red Wings are entering a period of transition, insofar as the Red Wings transition. If it's not this year, I am certain next year will be Lidstrom's last. The "C" will be passed on (to Zetterberg, I'm sure). A new group of veterans will guide a new group of young players. Just as Yzerman, Draper, and Lidstrom brought up a group of upstarts named Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Kronwall, so will those guys bring up more. It's how the Wings do things. Maybe then they'll find that ever-important, never-quantifiable "hunger" to bring another Cup to Hockeytown.
Now, congratulations to Nashville. They've slain their Goliath, putting down the divisional rival Red Wings, the team that was their standard to beat. They put the NHL's primary current dynasty on their butts and made them the first team out this year. Not only that, but they did it convincingly. For those who watched all five games, did you ever suspect at any point that Nashville would lose the series? I predicted a Nashville victory in 5, but I didn't expect Detroit to spend a lot of it looking deflated. Nashville ground them down and wore on them all series long. The pressure from their top guys was relentless. Have you seen such a stifling defense? The praise of this victory is going to Rinne, who had an impressive save percentage from it, but that was courtesy of a defense that rarely let Detroit have a good shooting lane. The Red Wings are a team that doesn't dump the puck on net often as it is, rather content to cycle the puck until the right shot opens up. With Nashville, the right shot never opened up. Many of the pucks that came Rinne's way were easy saves.
Did you see those sweet Datsyuk highlights, though? No? Oh, right, that's because there weren't any. Yet another mark of that Nashville defense - they controlled the Red Wings' top players. Datsyuk was under such pressure from Fisher or Suter so often that he never got to play wizard on them. The Wings looked tired. How many shots did they not get because their reactions seemed a split-second too slow? Meanwhile, Nashville was all over everything. Trotz said it perfectly early in Game 5 - they weren't going to try to beat the Red Wings at their game, they were going to make the Red Wings play theirs. It worked. They didn't try to play a puck possession game or prevent the Red Wings from doing so. They responded to it with a perfect defense, clogging the shooting and passing lanes and leaving the Wings very little reward for their effort.
The biggest thing the Wings were missing in this game was a grinding element. Babcock even acknowledged after Game 1 that they really didn't have the personnel to exact revenge on Shea Weber for his WWE-style tactics on Zetterberg. Bertuzzi apparently disagreed, but in truth, Babcock was right. The Wings are a finesse team. They have been for a long time. But they also used to keep about a line's worth of grinders - guys like McCarty or Maltby or Draper. Guys who could go out and wear out the opposition, or punch them in the mouth when need be. To be fair, Helm is the new (faster!) Draper, a grinder in the mold of those guys, although a much more significant playoff "x-factor" because of his breakaway speed. Eaves, even fills in that role some. Abdelkader can do that, too, as he led the Wings in fighting penalties this year, but he can't do it alone, and he's still a pretty young kid up against some pretty big Nashville guys. The Wings can finesse their way past a lot of teams, but it was clear from the start of this series that the Predators would have none of that, indeed, were built and schemed specifically to not allow that.
So where do the Wings go from here? There's been talk already among the Detroit media of "blowing the team up" or "shaking things up significantly." That's pretty premature, if you ask me. For one, the Wings were lacking two significant playmakers in Darren Helm and Patrick Eaves. While two injuries shouldn't make or break a series, it leaves a mark, and as some NHL pundits have mentioned, the winning team is often the least injured team. Beyond that, the Red Wings are an older, veteran team, and perhaps Father Time is catching up with them some. Perhaps the new parity of the NHL is catching up more now, as well, as other teams are closing the talent gap more, with several years of planning and modeling paying dividends now. Perhaps some of everything.
As far as shaking things up, well, some of that will happen naturally. There's no certainty that Nick Lidstrom will be back; he'll be 42 in a week and while he still plays at a high level, he's starting to slow down, especially at the end of the year. Brad Stuart is almost certain to be gone; he wants to be on the West Coast, nearer his family and home, and if he offers teams from those areas a discount on his market price, well, he'll find a home there. Tomas Holmstrom is 39 and has acknowledged the wear and tear on his body from the game he loves; he's an unrestricted free agent.
Ken Holland knows these things. There's a reason they traded for Kyle Quincey, who will hopefully be better in a full season wearing the Winged Wheel. Assume that Lidstrom and Stuart both leave; without acquiring any new players, the Wings' starting six defensemen would likely be Kronwall, White, Ericsson, Quincey, Jakub Kindl, and Brendan Smith. Not a bad set. Not what we'd be used to, but honestly not bad. Brendan Smith is considered the top prospect in the Wings' farm, and he showed in a brief stint with the Wings this year that he belongs on the roster. Kindl and Quincey both need work, but that comes from playing. I expect the Wings to go out and acquire another defensemen or two to have depth and competition, but given the above, don't expect a big splash. That's not how the Wings do things. People griped at ho-hum nature of the Ian White acquisition in last year, but he's been huge for the Wings this year and fit into their system perfectly. As for Holmstrom, his departure would only clear the way for some of the other young Wings to rise up - both Gustav Nyquist and Jan Mursak impressed me during their time with the team this year and both, I feel, should be on the roster to start next season.
The Red Wings are entering a period of transition, insofar as the Red Wings transition. If it's not this year, I am certain next year will be Lidstrom's last. The "C" will be passed on (to Zetterberg, I'm sure). A new group of veterans will guide a new group of young players. Just as Yzerman, Draper, and Lidstrom brought up a group of upstarts named Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Kronwall, so will those guys bring up more. It's how the Wings do things. Maybe then they'll find that ever-important, never-quantifiable "hunger" to bring another Cup to Hockeytown.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Preview
Not long ago, I considered a Red Wings vs. Penguins Stanley Cup rematch to pretty much be locked and set, the way those teams played in February and early March. But since then, so much has changed. The Red Wings struggled to win anywhere after their 23-game-long winning streak at home was snapped by Vancouver, and the Penguins, well, they dropped some easy ones along the way to taking the 4-seed in the East.
So who now? Is there any team really running away with anything? It's hard to say. Vancouver seems to be surging at the right time, taking the 1-seed in the West and the President's Trophy in the eleventh hour from St. Louis and New York. Nashville, likewise, looks like a team that's got the right mentality going into the playoffs and doesn't seem afraid of anyone or anything. In the East, well, assuming they don't kill each other, it's hard not to like the winner of the Penguins/Flyers series. But can anyone count out Washington, who resurrected their playoff hopes in the last couple weeks to top Buffalo and ultimately take the 7-seed?
It's time, folks. The best time of year on the sports calendar - the NHL playoffs.
The Eastern Conference Quarterfinals -
NY Rangers (1-seed) vs. Ottawa (8-seed)
Ottawa limped into the playoffs, losing their last 3 games and being helped along by Buffalo's equally inept performance down the stretch. A team that looked like a surer bet earlier now looks shaky at best and are facing a matchup against the best team in the East. While the Rangers haven't been as good as the Penguins at times, they've been the most consistent team in the East and their point total reflects that. Lundquist's out-of-his-mind play has buoyed this team all season long, but they're good enough everywhere else to capitalize on that (which is why they're a 1-seed and not an 8-seed like Los Angeles). There's no reason to think the Rangers start slowing down now.
New York in 5.
Boston (2-seed) vs. Washington (7-seed)
Tough call. Washington is being sneaky good hear at the end, knowing that years of playoff berths and no success are starting to cause disharmony. Boston's been a poster-child for disharmony at times this season, thanks to Tim Thomas, but otherwise have played well. Their 2-seed berth isn't as indicative of their performance this season, though, as their 5th-highest point total in the East. However, while that might sway my opinion of them against better teams, I think the defending Cup champions' playoff savvy and consistency will give them the edge over a streaky Washington team.
Boston in 5.
Florida (3-seed) vs. New Jersey (6-seed)
Florida didn't exactly go screaming down the stretch, nearly coughing up the division lead to to Washington in the last week. New Jersey, meanwhile, suddenly came on, even threatening Pittsburgh and Philly's epic matchup by infringing on the 4- or 5-seed. But the Devils finished a point behind Philly and end up with an easier matchup against the lagging Panthers, who finished eight points behind New Jersey, but who won their division. Like St. Louis, Florida's success was inspirational, but surprising. Like St. Louis, they don't have the playoff experience to conquer a team better-suited for postseason play.
New Jersey in 4.
Pittsburgh (4-seed) vs. Philadelphia (5-seed)
The best series of the round and, for good reason, the most hyped. That brawl just set it up and now here we go. These are good teams that hate each other and that is the best kind of rivalry the NHL can have. Better yet, Philadelphia has owned Pittsburgh all year in the Penguins' own building. Have the Pens been coasting? Against almost anyone else, I'd take the Pens, but the only time they beat Philly in Pittsburgh was a meaningless game at the end of the season. When you can't get it done at home, I don't expect you to get it done.
Philadelphia in 7.
The Western Conference Quarterfinals -
Vancouver (1-seed) vs. Los Angeles (8-seed)
Los Angeles snuck into the playoffs despite a great season out of Jonathon Quick. Beyond that, though, you have to wonder how good this team is. When outstanding goaltending only gets you the 8-seed, you have concerns, and those concerns are likely to get exploited by a 1-seed team... especially when that 1-seed is peaking. Vancouver seems the most primed for the playoffs of all the Western teams to me. I'll even go as far as to say it might their year (at least to represent the West in the Finals). They're just deeper than Los Angeles. Barring a (semi-typical) postseason meltdown by Luongo, I expect Vancouver to roll.
Vancouver in 5.
St. Louis (2-seed) vs. San Jose (7-seed)
St. Louis is the biggest question mark of the playoffs to me. Can their stalwart defense and unreal netminding continue as the intensity ratchets up in postseason play? San Jose's been on the verge of not being in the playoffs for some time and are going to be ready to go, having had to beat Los Angeles on the last day of the season to finish in the 7-seed. The Sharks are better than they look, even when they're not breaking up plays from the bench. I think their postseason mettle shows over the relatively inexperienced Blues. St. Louis struck me all season as that occasional "early exit after winning the President's Trophy" team that comes around every few years.
San Jose in 7.
Phoenix (3-seed) vs. Chicago (6-seed)
I was certain Detroit would lose to Chicago and take the 6-seed, setting up a third-straight first-round series with Phoenix. Instead, Phoenix draws Chicago, who beat the Wings in shootout to end their season. Chicago's had a remarkably up-and-down season but appear to be peaking at the right time. With Toews out, their ceiling is limited, but they should be able to dispatch the Pacific division champs, who finished with a lower point total than they did.
Chicago in 6.
Nashville (4-seed) vs. Detroit (5-seed)
I want to believe. I want to think that the veteran savvy of the Red Wings and the return of some injured starters will propel them through this series and beyond. But... I can't. Nashville is playing like a team with a chip on its shoulder, like a team that has the confidence to prove it belongs in the upper echelon of teams. This is a team that knows they have to get through Detroit to get anywhere and they've built to do just that. This year, they accomplish the feat.
Nashville in 5.
So who now? Is there any team really running away with anything? It's hard to say. Vancouver seems to be surging at the right time, taking the 1-seed in the West and the President's Trophy in the eleventh hour from St. Louis and New York. Nashville, likewise, looks like a team that's got the right mentality going into the playoffs and doesn't seem afraid of anyone or anything. In the East, well, assuming they don't kill each other, it's hard not to like the winner of the Penguins/Flyers series. But can anyone count out Washington, who resurrected their playoff hopes in the last couple weeks to top Buffalo and ultimately take the 7-seed?
It's time, folks. The best time of year on the sports calendar - the NHL playoffs.
The Eastern Conference Quarterfinals -
NY Rangers (1-seed) vs. Ottawa (8-seed)
Ottawa limped into the playoffs, losing their last 3 games and being helped along by Buffalo's equally inept performance down the stretch. A team that looked like a surer bet earlier now looks shaky at best and are facing a matchup against the best team in the East. While the Rangers haven't been as good as the Penguins at times, they've been the most consistent team in the East and their point total reflects that. Lundquist's out-of-his-mind play has buoyed this team all season long, but they're good enough everywhere else to capitalize on that (which is why they're a 1-seed and not an 8-seed like Los Angeles). There's no reason to think the Rangers start slowing down now.
New York in 5.
Boston (2-seed) vs. Washington (7-seed)
Tough call. Washington is being sneaky good hear at the end, knowing that years of playoff berths and no success are starting to cause disharmony. Boston's been a poster-child for disharmony at times this season, thanks to Tim Thomas, but otherwise have played well. Their 2-seed berth isn't as indicative of their performance this season, though, as their 5th-highest point total in the East. However, while that might sway my opinion of them against better teams, I think the defending Cup champions' playoff savvy and consistency will give them the edge over a streaky Washington team.
Boston in 5.
Florida (3-seed) vs. New Jersey (6-seed)
Florida didn't exactly go screaming down the stretch, nearly coughing up the division lead to to Washington in the last week. New Jersey, meanwhile, suddenly came on, even threatening Pittsburgh and Philly's epic matchup by infringing on the 4- or 5-seed. But the Devils finished a point behind Philly and end up with an easier matchup against the lagging Panthers, who finished eight points behind New Jersey, but who won their division. Like St. Louis, Florida's success was inspirational, but surprising. Like St. Louis, they don't have the playoff experience to conquer a team better-suited for postseason play.
New Jersey in 4.
Pittsburgh (4-seed) vs. Philadelphia (5-seed)
The best series of the round and, for good reason, the most hyped. That brawl just set it up and now here we go. These are good teams that hate each other and that is the best kind of rivalry the NHL can have. Better yet, Philadelphia has owned Pittsburgh all year in the Penguins' own building. Have the Pens been coasting? Against almost anyone else, I'd take the Pens, but the only time they beat Philly in Pittsburgh was a meaningless game at the end of the season. When you can't get it done at home, I don't expect you to get it done.
Philadelphia in 7.
The Western Conference Quarterfinals -
Vancouver (1-seed) vs. Los Angeles (8-seed)
Los Angeles snuck into the playoffs despite a great season out of Jonathon Quick. Beyond that, though, you have to wonder how good this team is. When outstanding goaltending only gets you the 8-seed, you have concerns, and those concerns are likely to get exploited by a 1-seed team... especially when that 1-seed is peaking. Vancouver seems the most primed for the playoffs of all the Western teams to me. I'll even go as far as to say it might their year (at least to represent the West in the Finals). They're just deeper than Los Angeles. Barring a (semi-typical) postseason meltdown by Luongo, I expect Vancouver to roll.
Vancouver in 5.
St. Louis (2-seed) vs. San Jose (7-seed)
St. Louis is the biggest question mark of the playoffs to me. Can their stalwart defense and unreal netminding continue as the intensity ratchets up in postseason play? San Jose's been on the verge of not being in the playoffs for some time and are going to be ready to go, having had to beat Los Angeles on the last day of the season to finish in the 7-seed. The Sharks are better than they look, even when they're not breaking up plays from the bench. I think their postseason mettle shows over the relatively inexperienced Blues. St. Louis struck me all season as that occasional "early exit after winning the President's Trophy" team that comes around every few years.
San Jose in 7.
Phoenix (3-seed) vs. Chicago (6-seed)
I was certain Detroit would lose to Chicago and take the 6-seed, setting up a third-straight first-round series with Phoenix. Instead, Phoenix draws Chicago, who beat the Wings in shootout to end their season. Chicago's had a remarkably up-and-down season but appear to be peaking at the right time. With Toews out, their ceiling is limited, but they should be able to dispatch the Pacific division champs, who finished with a lower point total than they did.
Chicago in 6.
Nashville (4-seed) vs. Detroit (5-seed)
I want to believe. I want to think that the veteran savvy of the Red Wings and the return of some injured starters will propel them through this series and beyond. But... I can't. Nashville is playing like a team with a chip on its shoulder, like a team that has the confidence to prove it belongs in the upper echelon of teams. This is a team that knows they have to get through Detroit to get anywhere and they've built to do just that. This year, they accomplish the feat.
Nashville in 5.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Opening Weekend - Wow!
I hadn't quite seen an opening set of games like that before. If this is a season of destiny for the Tigers, well, it certainly got a storybook beginning.
I caught parts of the Thursday game - the first two or three innings and the ninth. I had to leave just as Verlander started to get that Look. You know, the one where he's found his groove. I got back in time to see that Valverde blew the save and the Tigers come back up to bat.
I watched all of both weekend games.
Here's what I learned:
1) Verlander looks dominant.
This guy doesn't seem to have skipped a beat. He'll have bad days, but he looks like he's ready to win another AL Cy Young.
2) Valverde's blown save is a blessing in disguise.
Mark my words on this - having the pressure of no blown saves in 52 attempts, in more than a calendar year, was not something we wanted on Papa Grande. By blowing the first save of the year, everyone can laugh it off, Valverde can relax, and he'll be fine the rest of the way.
3) Cabrera and Fielder really are two of the best hitters in the game.
Cabrera looks ready to go. One of the Fox Sports Detroit announcers said this might be the year he wins an MVP. If he plays with this intensity all year, I agree. Fielder, likewise, looks dialed in and ready go. What's amazing is how relaxed both look. And it's not just the HRs - both of them just know how to get it done, like Fielder's single in the 11th yesterday.
4) The clubhouse chemistry seems top-notch.
Everyone seems really relaxed. Given, they're winning. But still, no one seems like they feel like they need to hold the team on their shoulders. Everyone seems to be comfortable relying on each other. And they all look like they're having fun. A happy clubhouse with a team that stacked? Scary.
5) Is there a weak spot in the lineup?
Nope. There just isn't. If Austin Jackson halves his strikeout numbers and keeps hitting (not at a .560 clip, but at, say, a .300 clip) it'll make this team even more dangerous. And who are you pitching around past that? Boesch? Young? Avila? Peralta? Raburn? The only weak spot is the 9-hole and it's still better than many.
6) Don't overreact to the Fister injury.
It's early in the season and the guy pulled a rib muscle. Later in the year, this might not even be a DL trip. But right now? No reason not to play it safe.
7) Don't overreact to Scherzer's first outing.
Guy had a bad game, probably got overconfident from the big lead. It's one game and he was relatively solid last season. Like Porcello, though, he's going to have bad days.
8) The bullpen is much improved.
Sure, they gave up some runs. But this bullpen is vastly improved over the 2011 incarnation... and that's without Al Alburquerque. This is not the glaring weak point it was last year.
9) Boston isn't as good as people think.
This is a very mediocre Boston team. Trouncing them doesn't mean the same thing it would have meant two or three years ago.
10) Tampa Bay will provide a better test to gauge this team by.
One of the best pitching teams against one of the best hitting teams. Tampa is a better team than Boston this year (by a lot). Let's see how the Tigers hit against that squad.
There's still a lot of season left, but it's hard not to be encouraged by the most exciting Opening Weekend ever, right? And after two walk-off wins and one dominant shutout, why not? Let's enjoy it and see how the Tampa set goes.
I caught parts of the Thursday game - the first two or three innings and the ninth. I had to leave just as Verlander started to get that Look. You know, the one where he's found his groove. I got back in time to see that Valverde blew the save and the Tigers come back up to bat.
I watched all of both weekend games.
Here's what I learned:
1) Verlander looks dominant.
This guy doesn't seem to have skipped a beat. He'll have bad days, but he looks like he's ready to win another AL Cy Young.
2) Valverde's blown save is a blessing in disguise.
Mark my words on this - having the pressure of no blown saves in 52 attempts, in more than a calendar year, was not something we wanted on Papa Grande. By blowing the first save of the year, everyone can laugh it off, Valverde can relax, and he'll be fine the rest of the way.
3) Cabrera and Fielder really are two of the best hitters in the game.
Cabrera looks ready to go. One of the Fox Sports Detroit announcers said this might be the year he wins an MVP. If he plays with this intensity all year, I agree. Fielder, likewise, looks dialed in and ready go. What's amazing is how relaxed both look. And it's not just the HRs - both of them just know how to get it done, like Fielder's single in the 11th yesterday.
4) The clubhouse chemistry seems top-notch.
Everyone seems really relaxed. Given, they're winning. But still, no one seems like they feel like they need to hold the team on their shoulders. Everyone seems to be comfortable relying on each other. And they all look like they're having fun. A happy clubhouse with a team that stacked? Scary.
5) Is there a weak spot in the lineup?
Nope. There just isn't. If Austin Jackson halves his strikeout numbers and keeps hitting (not at a .560 clip, but at, say, a .300 clip) it'll make this team even more dangerous. And who are you pitching around past that? Boesch? Young? Avila? Peralta? Raburn? The only weak spot is the 9-hole and it's still better than many.
6) Don't overreact to the Fister injury.
It's early in the season and the guy pulled a rib muscle. Later in the year, this might not even be a DL trip. But right now? No reason not to play it safe.
7) Don't overreact to Scherzer's first outing.
Guy had a bad game, probably got overconfident from the big lead. It's one game and he was relatively solid last season. Like Porcello, though, he's going to have bad days.
8) The bullpen is much improved.
Sure, they gave up some runs. But this bullpen is vastly improved over the 2011 incarnation... and that's without Al Alburquerque. This is not the glaring weak point it was last year.
9) Boston isn't as good as people think.
This is a very mediocre Boston team. Trouncing them doesn't mean the same thing it would have meant two or three years ago.
10) Tampa Bay will provide a better test to gauge this team by.
One of the best pitching teams against one of the best hitting teams. Tampa is a better team than Boston this year (by a lot). Let's see how the Tigers hit against that squad.
There's still a lot of season left, but it's hard not to be encouraged by the most exciting Opening Weekend ever, right? And after two walk-off wins and one dominant shutout, why not? Let's enjoy it and see how the Tampa set goes.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
The MLB Preview
Whoops. We're a couple days in already! Lax on my part, but nonetheless, I'll list my opinions and predictions here, since a couple days of play really doesn't color anything that strongly or change/invalidate them.
The AL -
Division winners? Detroit, Tampa, Texas.
Wild Cards? New York and Toronto.
The NL -
Division Winners? Philadelphia, St. Louis, Arizona.
Wild Cards? Washington and San Francisco.
Fielder will have a better season than Pujols -
I'm hearing a lot of Albert Pujols and Angels hype. It seems to me that most people are forgetting that guys take time to adjust to a new league, especially for sluggers in the AL. I expect both Pujols and Prince Fielder to take some time to get hot. Remember that Cabrera had one of his worst seasons in 2008 when he first joined the Tigers. However, I also expect Fielder to do better.
My reasoning is simple. First of all, Pujols has a lot of hype to deal with. He's the face of the Angels right now. Besides that, Pujols is leaving his home of ten years to come to a new place. It's gonna take time. As for Fielder, he didn't leave home - he came back home. Remember that he grew up a Tiger. Unlike Pujols, the Tigers aren't asking as much of Fielder - he's not the face of the Tigers. They just want him to come in and do his job. Far less pressure on Fielder. He's gonna have the better season.
Braun won't be NL MVP again -
I think Braun has plenty of tools, but he has two major issues to deal with. First, he's it. Fielder's gone, so a greater burden falls on his shoulders. Second, he has a revoked PED suspension looming over him. The guy has too much on his mind. He won't repeat.
Verlander might in the AL, though -
This is highly unlikely, in truth, but when you listen to Verlander talk, he sounds like he had an "okay" season last year. The guy continues to challenge himself and his Opening Day performance only proves that his drive to excel and succeed is quite admirable. It's like winning those awards last season have only motivated him to do even better. Scary.
The AL is the better division -
Mark my words, the best non-playoff team in the AL will have a record good enough to win the weakest NL division.
Kansas City will be better than anyone expects -
They won't win the AL Central, or really challenge for it, but they'll finish second.
Boston will be worse -
.500 at best. I just don't buy this team. It won't even be because of Bobby Valentine. Just too much attrition in one offseason for them to be very effective in a loaded division. This team isn't rebuilding, per se, but they are very much in transition.
Miguel Cabrera makes less than 15 errors at 3B -
This story just got way too much attention over the winter. He'll be adequate there; he's not a Gold Glove, obviously. But he's on a good team and he'll have good support. It'll work out. Miami, however, might be another situation altogether - anyone see that Opening Night game?
The Tigers win the World Series -
I'm really not sure who'll emerge from the NL. Really tough to say. If I had to pick, I'd say Arizona. But the Tigers will win it. They have the look and swagger of a team that looks ready to play a full season, win a lot of games, hit a lot of balls, and have a lot of fun doing it. For all the hype, they seem as relaxed as any team I've seen. I resisted the hype as best I could over the offseason, especially as a Tigers fan, but hype aside, it's the best Tigers team I've ever seen. They were closer than people think last year and this year they're simply more dangerous and they clearly realize that their job this year is to win it all. The infield won't be as bad as people think, the batting lineup will be the nastiest in the majors, and the pitching will be everything it needs to be, if not more.
Here's to the 2012 season. It's good to have baseball back.
The AL -
Division winners? Detroit, Tampa, Texas.
Wild Cards? New York and Toronto.
The NL -
Division Winners? Philadelphia, St. Louis, Arizona.
Wild Cards? Washington and San Francisco.
Fielder will have a better season than Pujols -
I'm hearing a lot of Albert Pujols and Angels hype. It seems to me that most people are forgetting that guys take time to adjust to a new league, especially for sluggers in the AL. I expect both Pujols and Prince Fielder to take some time to get hot. Remember that Cabrera had one of his worst seasons in 2008 when he first joined the Tigers. However, I also expect Fielder to do better.
My reasoning is simple. First of all, Pujols has a lot of hype to deal with. He's the face of the Angels right now. Besides that, Pujols is leaving his home of ten years to come to a new place. It's gonna take time. As for Fielder, he didn't leave home - he came back home. Remember that he grew up a Tiger. Unlike Pujols, the Tigers aren't asking as much of Fielder - he's not the face of the Tigers. They just want him to come in and do his job. Far less pressure on Fielder. He's gonna have the better season.
Braun won't be NL MVP again -
I think Braun has plenty of tools, but he has two major issues to deal with. First, he's it. Fielder's gone, so a greater burden falls on his shoulders. Second, he has a revoked PED suspension looming over him. The guy has too much on his mind. He won't repeat.
Verlander might in the AL, though -
This is highly unlikely, in truth, but when you listen to Verlander talk, he sounds like he had an "okay" season last year. The guy continues to challenge himself and his Opening Day performance only proves that his drive to excel and succeed is quite admirable. It's like winning those awards last season have only motivated him to do even better. Scary.
The AL is the better division -
Mark my words, the best non-playoff team in the AL will have a record good enough to win the weakest NL division.
Kansas City will be better than anyone expects -
They won't win the AL Central, or really challenge for it, but they'll finish second.
Boston will be worse -
.500 at best. I just don't buy this team. It won't even be because of Bobby Valentine. Just too much attrition in one offseason for them to be very effective in a loaded division. This team isn't rebuilding, per se, but they are very much in transition.
Miguel Cabrera makes less than 15 errors at 3B -
This story just got way too much attention over the winter. He'll be adequate there; he's not a Gold Glove, obviously. But he's on a good team and he'll have good support. It'll work out. Miami, however, might be another situation altogether - anyone see that Opening Night game?
The Tigers win the World Series -
I'm really not sure who'll emerge from the NL. Really tough to say. If I had to pick, I'd say Arizona. But the Tigers will win it. They have the look and swagger of a team that looks ready to play a full season, win a lot of games, hit a lot of balls, and have a lot of fun doing it. For all the hype, they seem as relaxed as any team I've seen. I resisted the hype as best I could over the offseason, especially as a Tigers fan, but hype aside, it's the best Tigers team I've ever seen. They were closer than people think last year and this year they're simply more dangerous and they clearly realize that their job this year is to win it all. The infield won't be as bad as people think, the batting lineup will be the nastiest in the majors, and the pitching will be everything it needs to be, if not more.
Here's to the 2012 season. It's good to have baseball back.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Saints, Bounties, and Violence in Football
I wrote a brief piece about this when it first broke out a month ago to the day. I return to touch on it again, hopefully in my last football piece for awhile, with such an exciting NHL postseason and MLB season on tap (more on those this weekend).
Today, some damning audio of Gregg Williams surfaced. Everyone's all in a tizzy! He yelled at his guys, told them to target injuries and take guys out. Everyone's really excited! He said things like "knock the fuck out of him" and "kill Frank Gore's head" and "[Crabtree] becomes human when we fucking take out his outside ACL" and so on and so forth. This story is dominating the newsvine right now, but I really have to wonder - why? Is anyone really surprised by this? Is anyone shocked or appalled by this, which is coming from a guy who has admitted to running a pay-for-injury bounty program in his defense? For that matter, is anyone surprised by this in any NFL locker room?
Look, I played a bit of sports in my day. Not a lot. I shot hoops and played baseball with friends growing up. I fenced in college. I've played beer-league softball. At any level of sport, with any group of guys, you're gonna get people saying things that sound really messed up out of context. At any level of sport, though, you are trying to win and you will take advantage of anything you can do so. If this means you're a CB and your WR has a concussion history, maybe you're extra aggressive with him at the line, try to make him a half-step slower, whatever. Maybe a guy has had knee surgery, so you hit him low when you do. Maybe you want a star NHL forward to think twice when he enters the offensive zone, so you land some good hits on him early. All of the resultant hits from these things could be completely clean and legal and all of them could lack any intent whatsoever to injure. But if you take them out of context, they might sound like it. Is there anyone who can imagine a pro locker room in football in which someone yelling "WE NEED TO FUCKING KILL THAT GUY" is out of place or uncommon? I didn't think so.
I'm not advocating for Williams. I'm not pardoning him. I stated a month ago that he should be banned from the NFL for life. The NFL is a dangerous, violent game. That will never change; that's the nature of it. If you want something a little more gentile, a little less violent, then watch baseball. If you want large men crashing violently into other large men, you watch football. If you want to watch more average-sized men crash violently into other average-sized men while moving very very fast on ice skates, you watch hockey. I enjoy all of these sports, personally, for various reasons besides the obvious violence. But I won't shy away from the reality - some of these sports are inherently violent and I admit to enjoying that regulated violence.
I do not endorse or enjoy, however, the active pursuit of intentional injury. Does it happen sometimes? Probably. If anyone out there thinks the Saints are the only team with a bounty program, they're deluding themselves. These are violent games played by people indoctrinated into that violence. It's not abnormal to them. It's completely ordinary and expected. Understand that there are different social mores at work. That yelling "WE NEED TO PUT THAT FUCKER DOWN" means something akin to "Knock him down a few times to make him think twice." Out of context, yeah, sounds worse. But without context, I refuse to judge completely. But having Gregg Williams, in light of the bounty scandal, calling out injuries to target (basically), isn't exactly good for him. But is it really that surprising? Really?
Football provides, perhaps, the perfect storm for this sort of thing. It's so highly regulated that it makes me think of how one child can instigate another and it's always the retaliatory child that gets caught. There aren't many methods of self-policing in football. Baseball and basketball aren't that violent in and of themselves. Hockey is, in my opinion, far more violent than football and dealing with similar concussion problems - however, in hockey, if you do something dirty, there's a whole team with a whole game's worth of opportunities to make you pay for it. People think fighting should be banned from hockey; I think fighting help keeps players in check and keep the game clean. You know if you exist too far outside the rules, you're gonna become a target of the dirty play you enact. It's fair to consider that the same controls don't exist in football; they're in the commissioner's office, not on the field.
Williams should be banned. What he instigated was egregious and anyone else caught doing the same should face the same penalty. If Roger Goodell truly wants to make the NFL a safer game, he has to crack down on this with the utmost sincerity and passion - which means he needs to start investigating better helmets for players, he needs to crack down hardest on coaches like Williams and Payton, and he needs to tell the league's television outlets to stop glamorizing hard hits. This isn't an overnight fix; it's a whole culture change. Football, like hockey, will always be a fast and violent sport. And whatever powers-that-be in those sports need to acknowledge that and accept that injuries will happen. People will get hurt playing these games.
A line has to be drawn. Intentional, egregious violence should be punished. Incidental violence that comes as part of the game should be accepted for what it is. But until I see these leagues pushing for better equipment and celebrating the violence less, I won't be able to believe their sincerity on the matter. At the end of the day, the violence of the sport is what brings revenue. Until Roger Goodell pulls programming celebrating bone-rattling hits, til he stops talking about 18-game seasons, til he starts pushing research or mandates for better (more expensive) helmets and equipment, he'll always seem two-faced on this topic to me: he wants a safer game, yes, but only if it doesn't threaten the revenue pie. And at the end of the day, sadly, that's all it's about.
Today, some damning audio of Gregg Williams surfaced. Everyone's all in a tizzy! He yelled at his guys, told them to target injuries and take guys out. Everyone's really excited! He said things like "knock the fuck out of him" and "kill Frank Gore's head" and "[Crabtree] becomes human when we fucking take out his outside ACL" and so on and so forth. This story is dominating the newsvine right now, but I really have to wonder - why? Is anyone really surprised by this? Is anyone shocked or appalled by this, which is coming from a guy who has admitted to running a pay-for-injury bounty program in his defense? For that matter, is anyone surprised by this in any NFL locker room?
Look, I played a bit of sports in my day. Not a lot. I shot hoops and played baseball with friends growing up. I fenced in college. I've played beer-league softball. At any level of sport, with any group of guys, you're gonna get people saying things that sound really messed up out of context. At any level of sport, though, you are trying to win and you will take advantage of anything you can do so. If this means you're a CB and your WR has a concussion history, maybe you're extra aggressive with him at the line, try to make him a half-step slower, whatever. Maybe a guy has had knee surgery, so you hit him low when you do. Maybe you want a star NHL forward to think twice when he enters the offensive zone, so you land some good hits on him early. All of the resultant hits from these things could be completely clean and legal and all of them could lack any intent whatsoever to injure. But if you take them out of context, they might sound like it. Is there anyone who can imagine a pro locker room in football in which someone yelling "WE NEED TO FUCKING KILL THAT GUY" is out of place or uncommon? I didn't think so.
I'm not advocating for Williams. I'm not pardoning him. I stated a month ago that he should be banned from the NFL for life. The NFL is a dangerous, violent game. That will never change; that's the nature of it. If you want something a little more gentile, a little less violent, then watch baseball. If you want large men crashing violently into other large men, you watch football. If you want to watch more average-sized men crash violently into other average-sized men while moving very very fast on ice skates, you watch hockey. I enjoy all of these sports, personally, for various reasons besides the obvious violence. But I won't shy away from the reality - some of these sports are inherently violent and I admit to enjoying that regulated violence.
I do not endorse or enjoy, however, the active pursuit of intentional injury. Does it happen sometimes? Probably. If anyone out there thinks the Saints are the only team with a bounty program, they're deluding themselves. These are violent games played by people indoctrinated into that violence. It's not abnormal to them. It's completely ordinary and expected. Understand that there are different social mores at work. That yelling "WE NEED TO PUT THAT FUCKER DOWN" means something akin to "Knock him down a few times to make him think twice." Out of context, yeah, sounds worse. But without context, I refuse to judge completely. But having Gregg Williams, in light of the bounty scandal, calling out injuries to target (basically), isn't exactly good for him. But is it really that surprising? Really?
Football provides, perhaps, the perfect storm for this sort of thing. It's so highly regulated that it makes me think of how one child can instigate another and it's always the retaliatory child that gets caught. There aren't many methods of self-policing in football. Baseball and basketball aren't that violent in and of themselves. Hockey is, in my opinion, far more violent than football and dealing with similar concussion problems - however, in hockey, if you do something dirty, there's a whole team with a whole game's worth of opportunities to make you pay for it. People think fighting should be banned from hockey; I think fighting help keeps players in check and keep the game clean. You know if you exist too far outside the rules, you're gonna become a target of the dirty play you enact. It's fair to consider that the same controls don't exist in football; they're in the commissioner's office, not on the field.
Williams should be banned. What he instigated was egregious and anyone else caught doing the same should face the same penalty. If Roger Goodell truly wants to make the NFL a safer game, he has to crack down on this with the utmost sincerity and passion - which means he needs to start investigating better helmets for players, he needs to crack down hardest on coaches like Williams and Payton, and he needs to tell the league's television outlets to stop glamorizing hard hits. This isn't an overnight fix; it's a whole culture change. Football, like hockey, will always be a fast and violent sport. And whatever powers-that-be in those sports need to acknowledge that and accept that injuries will happen. People will get hurt playing these games.
A line has to be drawn. Intentional, egregious violence should be punished. Incidental violence that comes as part of the game should be accepted for what it is. But until I see these leagues pushing for better equipment and celebrating the violence less, I won't be able to believe their sincerity on the matter. At the end of the day, the violence of the sport is what brings revenue. Until Roger Goodell pulls programming celebrating bone-rattling hits, til he stops talking about 18-game seasons, til he starts pushing research or mandates for better (more expensive) helmets and equipment, he'll always seem two-faced on this topic to me: he wants a safer game, yes, but only if it doesn't threaten the revenue pie. And at the end of the day, sadly, that's all it's about.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Bounties
I've been meaning to write about more than just the NFL, as I follow all of the major American sports (although that's admittedly less true for basketball than the others, but I still have opinions about Lin-sanity and I'm versed enough in the sport to talk about it), but here we are, the NFL bringing me back to the blog for the moment.
News came out at the end of last week that the Saints were running a bounty program that involved payment for landing big hits and/or injuring players of other teams. Most reports I'm reading make it sound like it was either player-initiated and run or it was run by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams; reports also indicate that head coach Sean Payton and GM Mickey Loomis knew about it without directly participating. News also includes that Loomis lied to the Saints' owner about it and didn't end it when instructed to do so.
Look, the NFL is a violent game. Players run into players. Guys get hit. Guys get hurt. But there's a line between sport and malice, too. What's happening with this probe into New Orleans crosses that line.
Now, I'm on board with believing that Gregg Williams is very much complicit in whatever happened and deserves the brunt of whatever punishment comes down. Williams's attitude has always been brash and brazen with a "we're coming after your guy" attitude. Anyone who's watched a Saints game and paid careful attention to their defense should have trouble disagreeing with these charges. In particular, I recall the 2009 season's NFC Championship game, when the Saints beat the Vikings. As I watched that game, I felt it inevitable that Favre was going to get hurt. They were coming after him. And hey, that's fine, that's strategy, and it got them the win. But if there's a payment behind that, specifically behind hurting a guy? That crosses a line and, having watched the Saints for a few years carefully as they've risen to prominence, I'm honestly not surprised by this. The other thing to note - Williams took off this offseason. There's always a trend of coaches leaving when they smell smoke. I wondered to myself when I heard that - why'd Williams leave a championship-contending team to move to a bottom-5 team in a lateral move (he was defensive coordinator in NO, is in STL)? Just to roll with Jeff Fisher again? That didn't jive with me entirely... but now that this is hitting the fan, well, Mr. Williams must have known things were coming down.
I expect there are bounties across the league on teams. It makes sense. You have guys playing a physical game, they're gonna make bets with each other, they're gonna put up pools. Most guys in male-dominated workplaces run sports gambling pools. It's against the rules. But it breaks up the monotony of the workweek and it's fun. Why wouldn't these guys do similar? The question is what the extent is. If a guy is buying his team dinner if he gets a KR TD, or if someone's winning $100 for an interception or sack, that's one thing. But if the rule is injury - if it's a payment for inflicting deliberate and malicious harm on someone else's body - well, that crosses a line that I find abhorrent. I give the NFL a lot of crap for being the "No Fun League" about some things. I hope they come down as hard as possible about this, though. Enough injury, enough harm, comes to players by virtue of playing the game itself; headhunting should be squelched as much as possible - in any sport, any league.
Kudos to James Harrison, though, for his little piece of input I saw this morning - he's curious to hear what the NFL comes down to on this, remarking that if he'd been complicit in something like this, he'd expect to be kicked out of the league. Given, he's remarking based on his reputation as of the last couple seasons, and while James Harrison does play a very physical, very old-school style of game, I don't think he's a particularly dirty player and was a convenient poster-child for the NFL's crackdown on big hits. I agree with him; I'm very interested to see how the NFL handles this, because it'll set a tone going forward.
News came out at the end of last week that the Saints were running a bounty program that involved payment for landing big hits and/or injuring players of other teams. Most reports I'm reading make it sound like it was either player-initiated and run or it was run by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams; reports also indicate that head coach Sean Payton and GM Mickey Loomis knew about it without directly participating. News also includes that Loomis lied to the Saints' owner about it and didn't end it when instructed to do so.
Look, the NFL is a violent game. Players run into players. Guys get hit. Guys get hurt. But there's a line between sport and malice, too. What's happening with this probe into New Orleans crosses that line.
Now, I'm on board with believing that Gregg Williams is very much complicit in whatever happened and deserves the brunt of whatever punishment comes down. Williams's attitude has always been brash and brazen with a "we're coming after your guy" attitude. Anyone who's watched a Saints game and paid careful attention to their defense should have trouble disagreeing with these charges. In particular, I recall the 2009 season's NFC Championship game, when the Saints beat the Vikings. As I watched that game, I felt it inevitable that Favre was going to get hurt. They were coming after him. And hey, that's fine, that's strategy, and it got them the win. But if there's a payment behind that, specifically behind hurting a guy? That crosses a line and, having watched the Saints for a few years carefully as they've risen to prominence, I'm honestly not surprised by this. The other thing to note - Williams took off this offseason. There's always a trend of coaches leaving when they smell smoke. I wondered to myself when I heard that - why'd Williams leave a championship-contending team to move to a bottom-5 team in a lateral move (he was defensive coordinator in NO, is in STL)? Just to roll with Jeff Fisher again? That didn't jive with me entirely... but now that this is hitting the fan, well, Mr. Williams must have known things were coming down.
I expect there are bounties across the league on teams. It makes sense. You have guys playing a physical game, they're gonna make bets with each other, they're gonna put up pools. Most guys in male-dominated workplaces run sports gambling pools. It's against the rules. But it breaks up the monotony of the workweek and it's fun. Why wouldn't these guys do similar? The question is what the extent is. If a guy is buying his team dinner if he gets a KR TD, or if someone's winning $100 for an interception or sack, that's one thing. But if the rule is injury - if it's a payment for inflicting deliberate and malicious harm on someone else's body - well, that crosses a line that I find abhorrent. I give the NFL a lot of crap for being the "No Fun League" about some things. I hope they come down as hard as possible about this, though. Enough injury, enough harm, comes to players by virtue of playing the game itself; headhunting should be squelched as much as possible - in any sport, any league.
Kudos to James Harrison, though, for his little piece of input I saw this morning - he's curious to hear what the NFL comes down to on this, remarking that if he'd been complicit in something like this, he'd expect to be kicked out of the league. Given, he's remarking based on his reputation as of the last couple seasons, and while James Harrison does play a very physical, very old-school style of game, I don't think he's a particularly dirty player and was a convenient poster-child for the NFL's crackdown on big hits. I agree with him; I'm very interested to see how the NFL handles this, because it'll set a tone going forward.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Pierce's Picks - Super Bowl XLVI
Well, I botched my Conference Championship picks, so I sit at 4-6 on the playoffs this year.
Sunday, February 5th, 2012
~6:30pm ET
Super Bowl XLVI
NY Giants (4-seed) vs. New England (1-seed)
Four years ago, I picked the Patriots to win it all and go 19-0. This year, I'm backing the Giants, for the reasons I learned in 2007.
The Patriots have been suspect to me all year - that they got this far is proof of a weak AFC playoff field, in my opinion. I feel that a healthy Texans team would have beaten both Baltimore and New England (and the NY Giants, for that matter). But this is what we've got. The Patriots lack of defense concerns me. To be fair, though, I had the same concern about the Colts the year they won it all. But I feel like they won't be able to keep up and expected someone to exploit that earlier - but they lucked out and got to face a lame Denver team and an offensively-inconsistent Ravens team. Neither of those teams were gelling like the Giants are right now.
As for the NY Giants, they've been the best team in football the last six weeks or so. The key to this game really is in their pass rush - if they can get in Brady's face and make him uncomfortable all game long, they'll win. It's as simple as that. The rest will fall into place. The Giants' pass rush has been great all playoffs long - often getting pressure with just a 4-man rush, allowing them to drop seven into coverage. If they can do that against the Patriots, I feel like they'll hold up. Pundits are remarking on the Giants overall defensive ranking (low, but not lower than the Patriots), but really, to gauge the Giants we're seeing right now, you have to ignore much of the early season and just look at recent games. They're on fire. They roll on.
The NYG pass rush is the key. If it works, they win. If not, they lose.
Sunday, February 5th, 2012
~6:30pm ET
Super Bowl XLVI
NY Giants (4-seed) vs. New England (1-seed)
Four years ago, I picked the Patriots to win it all and go 19-0. This year, I'm backing the Giants, for the reasons I learned in 2007.
The Patriots have been suspect to me all year - that they got this far is proof of a weak AFC playoff field, in my opinion. I feel that a healthy Texans team would have beaten both Baltimore and New England (and the NY Giants, for that matter). But this is what we've got. The Patriots lack of defense concerns me. To be fair, though, I had the same concern about the Colts the year they won it all. But I feel like they won't be able to keep up and expected someone to exploit that earlier - but they lucked out and got to face a lame Denver team and an offensively-inconsistent Ravens team. Neither of those teams were gelling like the Giants are right now.
As for the NY Giants, they've been the best team in football the last six weeks or so. The key to this game really is in their pass rush - if they can get in Brady's face and make him uncomfortable all game long, they'll win. It's as simple as that. The rest will fall into place. The Giants' pass rush has been great all playoffs long - often getting pressure with just a 4-man rush, allowing them to drop seven into coverage. If they can do that against the Patriots, I feel like they'll hold up. Pundits are remarking on the Giants overall defensive ranking (low, but not lower than the Patriots), but really, to gauge the Giants we're seeing right now, you have to ignore much of the early season and just look at recent games. They're on fire. They roll on.
The NYG pass rush is the key. If it works, they win. If not, they lose.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Pierce's Picks - NFL Conference Championship Weekend
I went 2-2 again, putting me at 4-4 so far for the playoffs.
I knew I should have picked the Giants last week - Green Bay felt too much like a Peyton Manning Classic Colts team that rested their starters on Week 17 and then would lose in the second round because everyone was rusty and out-of-sync. Like 'em or not, Belicheck and his Patriots have always had the right idea insofar as playing every down. Still not sure why their starters were on the field in the fourth quarter last week, though.
Amazing how far Houston pressed Baltimore, especially with T.J. Yates finally playing like a rookie - he wasn't awful, but he wasn't great, definitely not good enough for the playoffs that game. What promise that young guy shows, though. Hard to think the Texans keep him and Matt Leinart after this season. I feel like Houston was the team to win it all if they'd been healthy - they got this far with their 1st/2nd-string QBs down for the last few weeks and with Mario Williams out. This is the best team in the AFC, folks... they just caught some bad breaks this year. Watch out next season.
That San Francisco/New Orleans game was the most exciting of the year so far.
Sunday at 3:00pm ET -
Baltimore (2-seed) @ New England (1-seed)
This smells like the 49ers/Saints game. Given, the home-field advantage is reversed. But still. Who really expects Baltimore to win this one? Flacco had a so-so game and the offense looked out of sync last week. But they survived and that defense looks geared up. I feel like the tough Houston matchup has people doubting the Ravens whereas the soft Broncos matchup has people high on the Patriots. The Ravens are 7-0 against playoff teams this season; New England hasn't beaten a team with a winning record. I think Baltimore brings it when it counts. Even in this year of wacky offense, it's clear - defense wins championships.
Sunday at 6:30pm ET -
NY Giants (4-seed) @ San Francisco (2-seed)
And that brings us to this matchup, of what has been the two best defenses in the NFC in the latter part of the season. The Giants are riding a huge streak of playing quality football, for about five straight weeks now, basically since that ugly 23-10 loss to the Redskins. San Francisco, though, has been the most consistent team in the entire league, week-in and week-out. They come to play and that team just looks special this year. I like the Giants and they definitely have some of that Super Bowl XLII magic going for them this year - who isn't flashing back to that team as they watch the 2011 Giants in the playoffs? - but I feel like consistency is the key here. Alex Smith showed us his gusto last week and I feel like home-field advantage helps the 49ers here. That crowd is going to be stoked. I still can't quite put faith fully into the Giants - they pounded a Falcons team that was predictably hapless outdoors and a Green Bay team that doesn't play defense. The 49ers beat the Saints. The 49ers will beat the Giants.
Yes. I am predicting the SUPER HARBAUGH BOWL. Although a Super Bowl XLII rematch would be fun, but far less engrossing to me, to be honest. Seen it. It'd be fun, but, seen it. The only way that'd be fun is if we watched the Patriots lose a gut-wrencher again. I want to see the first Super Bowl between brothers.
In other news -
Peyton Manning can't remain a Colt. I'd be shocked if he does and I think it'd be a terrible move by the new GM if he did. New GM? Bring in the new coach, bring in a new QB. Learn from Green Bay and part ways with your veteran once you're rebuilding; learn from Detroit and bring in a new front office, new coach, and new QB all together. As for where Peyton goes? Tough call. I saw a write-up by one of the Grantland writers that basically said the 49ers were the most logical choice - they'd dominate the NFC for the rest of his career and could build the rest of the team in that time, while grooming a QB-of-the-future. That makes the most sense to me, but if the 49ers win the Super Bowl, why not stay with Alex Smith? He certainly proved himself against the Saints. I think if Baltimore flares out because Joe Flacco falters, that's a logical option, too. If you're a Ravens fan, you've gotta be holding your breath half the time the game rides on Flacco's shoulders, even if his statistics come out good. I have trouble seeing Peyton as a Jet - the very character of that team seems contrary to his personality; but besides that, it's also a logical fit. Plus he'd get to play Tom Brady twice a year for awhile yet. Beyond that, it's hard to find playoff-caliber teams with that gaping of a need at QB and it's hard to imagine Peyton going to a rebuilding team for his twilight years. If you go that route, Arizona makes sense and Ken Whisenhunt might like to have a veteran QB come in and save his job next year. Or who knows, Peyton might retire. No one really talks about that, but the guy's had three neck surgeries in two years and already has a Super Bowl ring. He might be content with what he's got. We'll see.
I knew I should have picked the Giants last week - Green Bay felt too much like a Peyton Manning Classic Colts team that rested their starters on Week 17 and then would lose in the second round because everyone was rusty and out-of-sync. Like 'em or not, Belicheck and his Patriots have always had the right idea insofar as playing every down. Still not sure why their starters were on the field in the fourth quarter last week, though.
Amazing how far Houston pressed Baltimore, especially with T.J. Yates finally playing like a rookie - he wasn't awful, but he wasn't great, definitely not good enough for the playoffs that game. What promise that young guy shows, though. Hard to think the Texans keep him and Matt Leinart after this season. I feel like Houston was the team to win it all if they'd been healthy - they got this far with their 1st/2nd-string QBs down for the last few weeks and with Mario Williams out. This is the best team in the AFC, folks... they just caught some bad breaks this year. Watch out next season.
That San Francisco/New Orleans game was the most exciting of the year so far.
Sunday at 3:00pm ET -
Baltimore (2-seed) @ New England (1-seed)
This smells like the 49ers/Saints game. Given, the home-field advantage is reversed. But still. Who really expects Baltimore to win this one? Flacco had a so-so game and the offense looked out of sync last week. But they survived and that defense looks geared up. I feel like the tough Houston matchup has people doubting the Ravens whereas the soft Broncos matchup has people high on the Patriots. The Ravens are 7-0 against playoff teams this season; New England hasn't beaten a team with a winning record. I think Baltimore brings it when it counts. Even in this year of wacky offense, it's clear - defense wins championships.
Sunday at 6:30pm ET -
NY Giants (4-seed) @ San Francisco (2-seed)
And that brings us to this matchup, of what has been the two best defenses in the NFC in the latter part of the season. The Giants are riding a huge streak of playing quality football, for about five straight weeks now, basically since that ugly 23-10 loss to the Redskins. San Francisco, though, has been the most consistent team in the entire league, week-in and week-out. They come to play and that team just looks special this year. I like the Giants and they definitely have some of that Super Bowl XLII magic going for them this year - who isn't flashing back to that team as they watch the 2011 Giants in the playoffs? - but I feel like consistency is the key here. Alex Smith showed us his gusto last week and I feel like home-field advantage helps the 49ers here. That crowd is going to be stoked. I still can't quite put faith fully into the Giants - they pounded a Falcons team that was predictably hapless outdoors and a Green Bay team that doesn't play defense. The 49ers beat the Saints. The 49ers will beat the Giants.
Yes. I am predicting the SUPER HARBAUGH BOWL. Although a Super Bowl XLII rematch would be fun, but far less engrossing to me, to be honest. Seen it. It'd be fun, but, seen it. The only way that'd be fun is if we watched the Patriots lose a gut-wrencher again. I want to see the first Super Bowl between brothers.
In other news -
Peyton Manning can't remain a Colt. I'd be shocked if he does and I think it'd be a terrible move by the new GM if he did. New GM? Bring in the new coach, bring in a new QB. Learn from Green Bay and part ways with your veteran once you're rebuilding; learn from Detroit and bring in a new front office, new coach, and new QB all together. As for where Peyton goes? Tough call. I saw a write-up by one of the Grantland writers that basically said the 49ers were the most logical choice - they'd dominate the NFC for the rest of his career and could build the rest of the team in that time, while grooming a QB-of-the-future. That makes the most sense to me, but if the 49ers win the Super Bowl, why not stay with Alex Smith? He certainly proved himself against the Saints. I think if Baltimore flares out because Joe Flacco falters, that's a logical option, too. If you're a Ravens fan, you've gotta be holding your breath half the time the game rides on Flacco's shoulders, even if his statistics come out good. I have trouble seeing Peyton as a Jet - the very character of that team seems contrary to his personality; but besides that, it's also a logical fit. Plus he'd get to play Tom Brady twice a year for awhile yet. Beyond that, it's hard to find playoff-caliber teams with that gaping of a need at QB and it's hard to imagine Peyton going to a rebuilding team for his twilight years. If you go that route, Arizona makes sense and Ken Whisenhunt might like to have a veteran QB come in and save his job next year. Or who knows, Peyton might retire. No one really talks about that, but the guy's had three neck surgeries in two years and already has a Super Bowl ring. He might be content with what he's got. We'll see.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Pierce's Picks - NFL Divisional Championship Weekend
I went 2-2 last week, missing on New Orleans and Denver.
You may notice as you look at this week's slate of games that last week, all four Wild Card teams were eliminated. Home teams went 4-0 last week. Will it happen again? History says the divisional round is the most lopsided in favor of the home team (check the stats, really).
Saturday at 4:30pm ET -
New Orleans (3-seed) @ San Francisco (2-seed)
I feel like New Orleans is the team to beat right now in the NFC. Say what you want about the Packers, but is any team playing offense as well as the Saints? The Packers might be the most dynamic offense, but the Saints are becoming the most efficient. Shut down the run and they'll smoke you through the air. Take away their deep routes and they'll gash you short and with the run. They look indomitable. But the common maxim has always been that defense wins championships. That theory is put to the test in this game - the better offense or the better defense? I'm taking the Saints' offense, and a defense that's just good enough.
Saturday at 8:00pm ET -
Denver (4-seed) @ New England (1-seed)
Tim vs. Tom. Denver's win last week was improbable and came against a battered Pittsburgh defense - make no mistake; Ike Taylor is not a great CB and the Steelers were playing all backups on their D-line. However, Pittsburgh's second-string defense is probably better than New England's first-string. But the Patriots offense, if it gets going, can shred Denver's defense. The onus of this game really falls on Denver's defense: can they make Brady uncomfortable and knock him off his rhythm? If yes, they have a chance. If not, then they'll get eviscerated again. If Tebow plays like he did last week and the Denver defense can tee off on Brady, Denver wins. But I don't think both of those things happen. Patriots roll, but it won't be as lopsided as their last meeting.
Sunday at 1:00pm ET -
Houston (3-seed) @ Baltimore (2-seed)
I expect our AFC Super Bowl representative to be this game's winner. This will be a nasty game, a black-and-blue game, with the two best running backs in the game leading their teams. Arian Foster and Ray Rice are absolute beasts. Both teams play marvelous defense. It's going to come down to which quarterback stays cool under pressure and can make the tough throw in the clutch. I think Houston's ability to spell Foster with Ben Tate is an advantage for them, but I think Baltimore gets a big advantage with playoff-tested Joe Flacco, as opposed to T.J. Yates. Houston could pull this off. But I think they're a young team, new to the playoffs, going up against an experienced team on their turf. Veteran savvy of guys like Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs will lead the defense; the poise of Joe Flacco will be the difference between the two teams on offense. Baltimore will win a close, hard-fought game.
Sunday at 4:30pm ET -
NY Giants (4-seed) @ Green Bay (1-seed)
The Giants have suddenly played three remarkable games in a row. In the regular season, we're bracing for the inevitable "how'd they lose that one" game. In the playoffs, well, 2007 taught us anything is possible. The Giants defense is meshing at the right time; they crushed Atlanta. The defensive line might be the best in the playoffs right now. If Kansas City can beat Green Bay, anyone can, and the G-Men are no strangers to playing in the cold. It's a lot like the Denver/New England game - if they can get pressure on Rodgers and Eli doesn't make mistakes, they win. And Rodgers hasn't played in three weeks, since McCarthy gave him Week 17 off. I've seen teams struggle after resting starters on Week 17, but I don't think that happens to Green Bay. Rodgers has been playing out of his mind and for them to lose their first playoff game this season would be a resounding disappointment. I think the Giants have a great chance at an upset here, but I don't see it happening.
You may notice as you look at this week's slate of games that last week, all four Wild Card teams were eliminated. Home teams went 4-0 last week. Will it happen again? History says the divisional round is the most lopsided in favor of the home team (check the stats, really).
Saturday at 4:30pm ET -
New Orleans (3-seed) @ San Francisco (2-seed)
I feel like New Orleans is the team to beat right now in the NFC. Say what you want about the Packers, but is any team playing offense as well as the Saints? The Packers might be the most dynamic offense, but the Saints are becoming the most efficient. Shut down the run and they'll smoke you through the air. Take away their deep routes and they'll gash you short and with the run. They look indomitable. But the common maxim has always been that defense wins championships. That theory is put to the test in this game - the better offense or the better defense? I'm taking the Saints' offense, and a defense that's just good enough.
Saturday at 8:00pm ET -
Denver (4-seed) @ New England (1-seed)
Tim vs. Tom. Denver's win last week was improbable and came against a battered Pittsburgh defense - make no mistake; Ike Taylor is not a great CB and the Steelers were playing all backups on their D-line. However, Pittsburgh's second-string defense is probably better than New England's first-string. But the Patriots offense, if it gets going, can shred Denver's defense. The onus of this game really falls on Denver's defense: can they make Brady uncomfortable and knock him off his rhythm? If yes, they have a chance. If not, then they'll get eviscerated again. If Tebow plays like he did last week and the Denver defense can tee off on Brady, Denver wins. But I don't think both of those things happen. Patriots roll, but it won't be as lopsided as their last meeting.
Sunday at 1:00pm ET -
Houston (3-seed) @ Baltimore (2-seed)
I expect our AFC Super Bowl representative to be this game's winner. This will be a nasty game, a black-and-blue game, with the two best running backs in the game leading their teams. Arian Foster and Ray Rice are absolute beasts. Both teams play marvelous defense. It's going to come down to which quarterback stays cool under pressure and can make the tough throw in the clutch. I think Houston's ability to spell Foster with Ben Tate is an advantage for them, but I think Baltimore gets a big advantage with playoff-tested Joe Flacco, as opposed to T.J. Yates. Houston could pull this off. But I think they're a young team, new to the playoffs, going up against an experienced team on their turf. Veteran savvy of guys like Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs will lead the defense; the poise of Joe Flacco will be the difference between the two teams on offense. Baltimore will win a close, hard-fought game.
Sunday at 4:30pm ET -
NY Giants (4-seed) @ Green Bay (1-seed)
The Giants have suddenly played three remarkable games in a row. In the regular season, we're bracing for the inevitable "how'd they lose that one" game. In the playoffs, well, 2007 taught us anything is possible. The Giants defense is meshing at the right time; they crushed Atlanta. The defensive line might be the best in the playoffs right now. If Kansas City can beat Green Bay, anyone can, and the G-Men are no strangers to playing in the cold. It's a lot like the Denver/New England game - if they can get pressure on Rodgers and Eli doesn't make mistakes, they win. And Rodgers hasn't played in three weeks, since McCarthy gave him Week 17 off. I've seen teams struggle after resting starters on Week 17, but I don't think that happens to Green Bay. Rodgers has been playing out of his mind and for them to lose their first playoff game this season would be a resounding disappointment. I think the Giants have a great chance at an upset here, but I don't see it happening.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Pierce's Picks - NFL Wild Card Weekend
After a 159-97 season record for me, it's time to look ahead to the matchups this weekend and see how the NFL playoffs will unfold. I'll give more talk per game in the playoffs than I do during the season.
Saturday at 4:30pm ET -
Cincinnati (6-seed) @ Houston (3-seed)
Both teams stumbled into the playoffs, so neither really has a lot of momentum going on. Houston might start Jake Delhomme at QB if T.J. Yates can't go, but word lately is that Yates will be fine. Still, their options are either the late-round rookie who looked unflappable at first but then began to wilt slightly, or a guy whose last playoff performance was an epic disaster. Arian Foster and Ben Tate will have to step up, along with Houston's defense, to win here. For Cincinnati, they can't underestimate this game. In fact, it should play a lot like a game against Pittsburgh or Baltimore for them - tough defense and a lot of running the ball. The problem? They went 0-4 against Pittsburgh and Baltimore. They lost to Houston, as well, surrendering a last-second TD. While I think losing to a team and then playing them again later can offer some benefits insofar as game-planning goes, I don't think Cincinnati has the weapons, the experience, or the hunger yet to keep up with the Texans or anyone else in the AFC playoff field. They'll be a better, more-prepared team next year, but they're not going anywhere else this year.
Saturday at 8:00pm ET -
Detroit (6-seed) @ New Orleans (3-seed)
Make no mistake - this is the game of the weekend. Two 5,000-yard passers facing off for the first time in NFL history, leading two dynamic (yet very different) offenses. The Lions played the Saints after Thanksgiving and lost 31-17, something the sports pundits are going on about. The Saints are also playing their best football of the season right now. I don't think either team is overlooking each other. The Lions kept it close in December until penalties derailed them; and that was with their best safety, cornerback and running back out. Those men - Louis Delmas, Chris Houston, and Kevin Smith - are all ready for this game. If the Lions can play solid, mistake-free ball and not make dumb penalties at dumb times, this is a winnable game for them. For the Saints, they need to blitz Stafford and get him off his rhythm - his numbers with a pass-rush of 5+ are lower than standard, but you have to think the Lions prepared for that this week. Still, the Saints blitz better than anyone right now. Otherwise, the Saints just need to roll on as they have been lately. Still, something about this game screams trap to me - everything seems to favor the Saints and in a playoff atmosphere, with so much on the line, against a team that's young and hungry and playing with a chip on its shoulder, you just never know what can happen. My football brain says Saints, but my gut says Lions and my heart bleeds Honolulu Blue & Silver - so I think the Lions bring it this week and stun the Saints at home.
Sunday at 1:00pm ET -
Atlanta (5-seed) @ NY Giants (4-seed)
This is a tough matchup to pick. The Giants tend to play a horrible game after playing one or two great ones; I'm waiting for that pattern to kick in. Atlanta does the same, losing inexplicably at times. Both QBs are good, but not great; both can have elite games and both can be mistake-prone. Both teams have run-games that get the job done, but aren't as explosive as you might want. Both teams feature solid defenses. Earlier in the week, I thought about picking Atlanta, but really, the Falcons haven't shown me anything lately. The Giants, however, are rolling. It's not always pretty, but they get it done. Beyond that, I think the Giants have the key to this game - their pass-rush. It's the one particular area that I think these teams are strikingly different and I think it makes the big difference, especially when coupled with the fact that Matt Ryan's record is much better indoors than it is outside. Eli's experience and familiarity playing outside trumps Ryan's. Giants advance.
Sunday at 4:30pm ET -
Pittsburgh (5-seed) @ Denver (4-seed)
Where to begin? What to say? The Tim Tebow delusion has come crashing to reality over the last two weeks - against Buffalo and Kansas City. I doubt the gritty Steelers defense will be any more merciful to the young QB. This is the most lop-sided, most obvious matchup of the playoffs to me. Denver has a couple advantages - Big Ben's lack of health in his foot and that they're at home, playing at Mile High, which is often something opponents have to adapt to due to the thinner air (Ryan Clark will be inactive for the game, for example, due to his asthma combined with the thin air). I don't expect the Tim Tebow Option offense to work against Pittsburgh. This is a savvy, nasty, veteran defense. There's enough tape out there of Tebow now that teams are figuring him out and truly exposing him. While Denver's defense has been very good this season, they won't be able to hold the Steelers low enough to keep it close, especially if Tebow offers up a number of turnovers as he has lately. The talent gap and experience gap between these two teams is gigantic and based on recent play, I find it impossible to think that a team that lost its last 3, yet won its division with an 8-8 record, goes anywhere in the playoffs.
--
Yes, I know. I talk about talent gap and experience gap and use that as a factor to count out Cincinnati and Denver, yet not Detroit. Fair enough, calling me out on that. But look closely. I think the talent gap between Detroit and New Orleans is smaller than people observe. The primary difference between them is that Detroit's running game isn't there. Otherwise, they're relatively comparable across the board. Statistically, the Saints are a weaker pass defense than the Lions, but a better run defense. Both are top-5 passing teams, but the Saints run the ball effectively. Both utilize the tight-end position well and are fine using short dump-offs to the tight end or screens to the running back as a supplemental running game. The difference on defense is that the Saints blitz more, whereas the Lions typically stick to the 4-man rush, due to their ability to rotate out D-linemen throughout the game. That's the other key - the Lions need to generate pressure with their 4-man rush (didn't happen in the loss) or get sliced apart; they also need to pickup the Saints' blitz, or Stafford needs to be making some good pre-snap reads to identify single-coverage and get the ball out fast. If the Lions are prepared, the Saints' blitzing ways could hurt them.
The Saints are Super Bowl winners. They have experience. The Lions only have six players who have played in a playoff game. Why isn't that a big deal to me? Well, we'll see. The way it'll manifest negatively is if the Lions lose their cool like they did against Green Bay and New Orleans earlier this season. Schwartz has re-emphasized discipline since then and the best example of it came in the 38-10 decimation of San Diego - a game in which the Lions committed 3 penalties for 8 yards, with all 3 coming at inconsequential moments. If they can do that against the Saints, the game will stay close - it only got out of hand in December due to horrendous post-whistle personal fouls and other such chippy behavior. I think they remember that game. I think it's fuel now. That loss, on national TV, hurt and showed a Lions team that wasn't ready for the spotlight. You can't tell me that isn't on their mind now, waiting for Saturday night to roll around, thinking, "We'll show 'em we're ready now." I think they are.
Saturday at 4:30pm ET -
Cincinnati (6-seed) @ Houston (3-seed)
Both teams stumbled into the playoffs, so neither really has a lot of momentum going on. Houston might start Jake Delhomme at QB if T.J. Yates can't go, but word lately is that Yates will be fine. Still, their options are either the late-round rookie who looked unflappable at first but then began to wilt slightly, or a guy whose last playoff performance was an epic disaster. Arian Foster and Ben Tate will have to step up, along with Houston's defense, to win here. For Cincinnati, they can't underestimate this game. In fact, it should play a lot like a game against Pittsburgh or Baltimore for them - tough defense and a lot of running the ball. The problem? They went 0-4 against Pittsburgh and Baltimore. They lost to Houston, as well, surrendering a last-second TD. While I think losing to a team and then playing them again later can offer some benefits insofar as game-planning goes, I don't think Cincinnati has the weapons, the experience, or the hunger yet to keep up with the Texans or anyone else in the AFC playoff field. They'll be a better, more-prepared team next year, but they're not going anywhere else this year.
Saturday at 8:00pm ET -
Detroit (6-seed) @ New Orleans (3-seed)
Make no mistake - this is the game of the weekend. Two 5,000-yard passers facing off for the first time in NFL history, leading two dynamic (yet very different) offenses. The Lions played the Saints after Thanksgiving and lost 31-17, something the sports pundits are going on about. The Saints are also playing their best football of the season right now. I don't think either team is overlooking each other. The Lions kept it close in December until penalties derailed them; and that was with their best safety, cornerback and running back out. Those men - Louis Delmas, Chris Houston, and Kevin Smith - are all ready for this game. If the Lions can play solid, mistake-free ball and not make dumb penalties at dumb times, this is a winnable game for them. For the Saints, they need to blitz Stafford and get him off his rhythm - his numbers with a pass-rush of 5+ are lower than standard, but you have to think the Lions prepared for that this week. Still, the Saints blitz better than anyone right now. Otherwise, the Saints just need to roll on as they have been lately. Still, something about this game screams trap to me - everything seems to favor the Saints and in a playoff atmosphere, with so much on the line, against a team that's young and hungry and playing with a chip on its shoulder, you just never know what can happen. My football brain says Saints, but my gut says Lions and my heart bleeds Honolulu Blue & Silver - so I think the Lions bring it this week and stun the Saints at home.
Sunday at 1:00pm ET -
Atlanta (5-seed) @ NY Giants (4-seed)
This is a tough matchup to pick. The Giants tend to play a horrible game after playing one or two great ones; I'm waiting for that pattern to kick in. Atlanta does the same, losing inexplicably at times. Both QBs are good, but not great; both can have elite games and both can be mistake-prone. Both teams have run-games that get the job done, but aren't as explosive as you might want. Both teams feature solid defenses. Earlier in the week, I thought about picking Atlanta, but really, the Falcons haven't shown me anything lately. The Giants, however, are rolling. It's not always pretty, but they get it done. Beyond that, I think the Giants have the key to this game - their pass-rush. It's the one particular area that I think these teams are strikingly different and I think it makes the big difference, especially when coupled with the fact that Matt Ryan's record is much better indoors than it is outside. Eli's experience and familiarity playing outside trumps Ryan's. Giants advance.
Sunday at 4:30pm ET -
Pittsburgh (5-seed) @ Denver (4-seed)
Where to begin? What to say? The Tim Tebow delusion has come crashing to reality over the last two weeks - against Buffalo and Kansas City. I doubt the gritty Steelers defense will be any more merciful to the young QB. This is the most lop-sided, most obvious matchup of the playoffs to me. Denver has a couple advantages - Big Ben's lack of health in his foot and that they're at home, playing at Mile High, which is often something opponents have to adapt to due to the thinner air (Ryan Clark will be inactive for the game, for example, due to his asthma combined with the thin air). I don't expect the Tim Tebow Option offense to work against Pittsburgh. This is a savvy, nasty, veteran defense. There's enough tape out there of Tebow now that teams are figuring him out and truly exposing him. While Denver's defense has been very good this season, they won't be able to hold the Steelers low enough to keep it close, especially if Tebow offers up a number of turnovers as he has lately. The talent gap and experience gap between these two teams is gigantic and based on recent play, I find it impossible to think that a team that lost its last 3, yet won its division with an 8-8 record, goes anywhere in the playoffs.
--
Yes, I know. I talk about talent gap and experience gap and use that as a factor to count out Cincinnati and Denver, yet not Detroit. Fair enough, calling me out on that. But look closely. I think the talent gap between Detroit and New Orleans is smaller than people observe. The primary difference between them is that Detroit's running game isn't there. Otherwise, they're relatively comparable across the board. Statistically, the Saints are a weaker pass defense than the Lions, but a better run defense. Both are top-5 passing teams, but the Saints run the ball effectively. Both utilize the tight-end position well and are fine using short dump-offs to the tight end or screens to the running back as a supplemental running game. The difference on defense is that the Saints blitz more, whereas the Lions typically stick to the 4-man rush, due to their ability to rotate out D-linemen throughout the game. That's the other key - the Lions need to generate pressure with their 4-man rush (didn't happen in the loss) or get sliced apart; they also need to pickup the Saints' blitz, or Stafford needs to be making some good pre-snap reads to identify single-coverage and get the ball out fast. If the Lions are prepared, the Saints' blitzing ways could hurt them.
The Saints are Super Bowl winners. They have experience. The Lions only have six players who have played in a playoff game. Why isn't that a big deal to me? Well, we'll see. The way it'll manifest negatively is if the Lions lose their cool like they did against Green Bay and New Orleans earlier this season. Schwartz has re-emphasized discipline since then and the best example of it came in the 38-10 decimation of San Diego - a game in which the Lions committed 3 penalties for 8 yards, with all 3 coming at inconsequential moments. If they can do that against the Saints, the game will stay close - it only got out of hand in December due to horrendous post-whistle personal fouls and other such chippy behavior. I think they remember that game. I think it's fuel now. That loss, on national TV, hurt and showed a Lions team that wasn't ready for the spotlight. You can't tell me that isn't on their mind now, waiting for Saturday night to roll around, thinking, "We'll show 'em we're ready now." I think they are.
Monday, January 2, 2012
2011 NFL Season in Review
Week 17 saw me go 10-6, putting my season finish at 159-97. That's two games below last season, but still a 62% winning percentage and equivalent to a 10-6 average, approximately.
The playoff board is set, but I'll discuss that later this week. For today, the year in review and my choices for award winners.
Feel-good teams of the year -
How can we not sit back and applaud for the Lions, Texans and 49ers? All had playoff-droughts of almost, or longer, than a decade and all three charged into the playoffs this season. The Lions may have a 6-seed, but they owned it before Week 17. The 49ers and Texans both locked up their divisions with three weeks (or more, for the 49ers) to play. Cincinnati gets an honorable mention here, too, not only for making the playoffs, but parting ways with Carson Palmer and receiving a king's ransom of picks for a guy who really didn't play that well.
Mystifying collapses of the year -
This has to go to Dallas and Tampa Bay. Dallas let game after game slip away - in fact, NBC ran a stat during the game last night that the Cowboys have lost 8 games under Jason Garrett with the lead at the start of the 4th quarter! That's crazy. This team had every opportunity to put up and shut up and win a division and they failed, including a win-and-you're-in game in Week 17 that they came out totally flat for. As for Tampa Bay, I don't even know how that team collapsed so far so fast. They looked uninspired and flat all season long. At the start of the year, I predicted either Detroit or Tampa (last year's hot young teams-to-be) would falter and the other would make the playoffs, but I had no idea Tampa would fall so far. Honorable mention to St. Louis, who looked poised for a competitive year, but also came out looking terrible. Their biggest change was acquiring new offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels (former offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur took the head coaching job in Cleveland) and it was their offense that turned out to be entirely putrid. Indianapolis doesn't count here because everyone should have known that team was not set up to survive without Peyton Manning.
Most disappointing division -
The NFC East sucks. They fostered the only NFC playoff team with less than 10 wins when most people (including yours truly) expected a tightly fought division with at least one Wild Card team coming from it. Instead, you had Dallas handing away games all year long; you had Philadelphia playing bad fundamentals; you had Washington being a classic Mike Shanahan team, post-Elway. The Redskins started out 3-0 and looked set to go until Shanahan benched Rex Grossman indefinitely after one bad game. I felt that this eroded the locker room trust there and it probably didn't help when Shanahan started playing musical chairs at running back. The Eagles, well, you hand Michael Vick a ton of money long-term and promote your offensive line coach to defensive coordinator and... well, this is what you get. Someone let me know when Vick plays all 16 games of a season. The Giants won this division by default, not so much because they ran away with it. They dropped winnable games throughout the season, but managed to take it because other teams failed along the way (Dallas had a great shot to win the division, but likewise lost critical games late in the year).
Peaking at the right time -
The Saints looked wobbly all year long, including stunning losses to St. Louis and Tampa Bay, but they appear to have their act together at the right time. They've torched the end of the season and seem the most ready for a playoff run of all twelve teams remaining. The limelight has moved a little bit away from the Packers since their loss and is a little more on the red-hot Saints as the playoff starts. I would also argue that the Lions look pretty scary after their rout of the Chargers and a high-flying game at Lambeau. Even though they lost at Lambeau, I have to believe - and hope - that they played relatively vanilla defensive schemes with their playoff hopes locked up. After all, a rematch would be in the books if they beat New Orleans - and if that's the case, showing Green Bay one thing in Week 17, then something else the next time they play (it'd be consecutive games against the same opponent for Green Bay) is advantageous to the Lions. Don't let their Week 17 loss fool you - the talking sports heads out there get all riled up, but the difference between the #5/6 seeds is nil; one might get you a cushy matchup in the first week of the playoffs, but I don't think Schwartz's Lions are worried about that - they know they have to take on the big boys to win the big prize, so I don't think they're afraid of going to New Orleans instead of New York.
Where'd you come from?
Victor Cruz is not a Pro Bowler, which is a crime. He won't be in the running for rookie of the year, either, since it's not his rookie season (last year was, but he missed it all due to an injury suffered in the preseason). But this guy is electric. His first season as an NFL player saw him shatter the single-season receiving yardage record for the Giants (set previously by Amani Toomer). In fact, if not for the emergence of Cruz, the Giants aren't a playoff team. You're not hearing enough about this guy outside of New York and fantasy football.
Oh, that injury bug...
Chicago looked poised to take the 6-seed. I thought they would; they'd help the Lions to a 10-win season without a playoff berth, since if Chicago had won 10-games, they'd hold the tiebreaker (I believe). Instead, Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went down and then Chicago collapsed around them, lacking the depth or talent to compete otherwise. With both men out of the lineup, Chicago's season ended 8-8, with their sole win coming against a terrible Minnesota team. And in that win? They saw Brian Urlacher sustain a devastating injury that's been reported as a sprain, but looked nothing like it. Even as a rival, I respect the longevity and tenacity of Brian Urlacher - but if that's a serious injury after all, you have to wonder if it's a career-ender. A Bears defense without him isn't the same (similar rules apply to Ray Lewis and Baltimore).
Coaches on the hotseat already fired -
Two have already been fired this morning: Raheem Morris in Tampa and Spagnuolo in St. Louis. I agree with the Tampa firing; if your entire team plays flat and uninspired, with no real drive, and goes from a great up-and-coming season to a complete 4-12 collapse, it's on the coach. I'm not so sure about Spagnuolo - his team still competed and still played solid defense, for the most part. His offense, however, never looked right and Sam Bradford clearly had trouble transitioning to his second offense in two years. That's sad, because Bradford looked great last year as a rookie. That responsibility falls on Josh McDaniels, who I felt should have borne the brunt of the blame for the Rams' failures this year. Assuming St. Louis keeps with Bradford, he'll have a new offense to learn for the third time in three years. Let this be a cautionary tale to everyone - no matter how sure a prospect a guy is, changing what's around him annually will stunt his growth. Sam Bradford runs a serious risk of following in the footsteps of Joey Harrington and David Carr as he goes into his second offseason. Quarterbacks who are often successful early on have continuity at offensive coordinator.
Coaches on the hotseat -
The players love him, but I have to wonder how Norv Turner keeps his job. San Diego collapsed again and played inefficient football for most of the season, again. Remember last year, they were top-5 in offense and defense, yet didn't make the playoffs. Norv has always had success as an offensive coordinator, and less so as a head coach. Might be time to move on. I have serious questions about Andy Reid, who has been the Eagles' coach forever, but has yet to deliver them the big prize. His teams almost always fall short somehow, like the hero of a Greek tragedy, who has a fatal flaw at the critical moment. He looked tired this year, detached, until his team spun off a 4 game winning stream to close things out, which probably saved his job. Likewise, Jason Garrett should be given a lot of scrutiny in Dallas. That team seems to lack heart when they need it most and 4th-quarter collapses fall on the coaches (for example, up by 3+ possessions against Detroit, why are you passing?). In Washington, I have to wonder how much longer the Mike Shanahan experiment will go on, when it is clear to everyone outside of Washington that it is a trainwreck so far. If the Colts part ways with Peyton Manning, I think they have every reason to do so with Jim Caldwell, as well. Caldwell inherited Dungy's team and won on his fumes for a couple years, but the team is in clear decline due to poor drafting (which falls on the Polians) and, quite frankly, Caldwell has often looked in above his head. I suspect that Peyton runs the offense himself (he'll make a good coach after he retires, mark my words). It doesn't help that their draft picks haven't been panning out lately, but with the aging defense as well... it seems like a logical time to clean house in Indianapolis and rebuild for the future, with a new quarterback, coach and GM.
Offensive Rookie of the Year -
Cam Newton, and it isn't even close. This is self-explanatory. The kid is the real deal, an absolute stud. He appears to have something all other dual-threat NFL QBs have lacked - durability to play that kind of game. He may be a one-of-a-kind talent; the durability and determination of Ben Roethlisberger, the raw talent and electricity of Michael Vick. More importantly, he takes care of the football. For a dual-threat quarterback to have only three fumbles is remarkable. He threw more TDs than picks and I expect, over time, he'll take better care of the ball in the air, too. Carolina has a bright future with Cam Newton.
Defensive Rookie of the Year -
Aldon Smith. It was Von Miller of Denver for a long time, but San Francisco was dominant all season long and while many attribute that to Jim Harbaugh (rightfully so, see below) and Alex Smith, Aldon Smith helped invigorate the already-solid defense led by Patrick Willis and give it teeth. His 14 sacks led rookies and he added 2 forced fumbles to that over the season. It's always hard to judge the value of individual defensive players, especially young ones, but you can make the argument that Smith helped his team win games and without his exceptional play, they wouldn't be enjoying a playoff bye week, at least.
Offensive Player of the Year -
Drew Brees. He didn't just break Marino's old passing record of 5,084 yards - he did that with one game left on the schedule. He obliterated it, finishing with 5,476 yards after his final game this season, and odds are that record will stand as long as Marino's did, if not longer. We'll look back on this season and gasp about Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers, about the year of quarterbacking that was. Brees led what might have been the most dynamic offense of the year, finishing with 46 TDs and 14 INTs.
Defensive Player of the Year -
This is tough. Jared Allen had 22 sacks for a 3-win team. London Fletcher had 166 tackles for a 5-win team. Kyle Arrington had 7 INTs for a porous New England defense. Eric Weddle, likewise, had 7 INTs, but on a team that didn't make the playoffs. Charles Woodson can make an argument with 7 INTs, 70+ tackles and a forced fumble, but Green Bay wasn't a remarkable defense, either (although, better than we think at first glance).
No. Looking over it, I think the defensive player of the year becomes evident. He played all 16 games this season and helped one of the league's best defenses overcome the absence of its best player for awhile. He finished the season with 70 tackles, 14 sacks, 7 forced fumbles and 2 INTs. I'm giving the award to Terrell Suggs of the Baltimore Ravens. At the end of the year this season, we weren't talking about the terror that is Ray Lewis - no, the man people were talking about in the same breath as the defense was Suggs, who wrecked havoc for Baltimore this season, helping lead them to the #2 seed and an AFC North championship. To press the point home, 3 of his sacks, 2 of his forced fumbles and 1 of his INTs came when the Ravens needed them most - against Pittsburgh.
Coach of the Year -
As much as I want to give this to Jim Schwartz, and as much as he deserves a "Coach of the last 3 years combined" award, it's just not going to happen. Jim Harbaugh gets it, for turning a lackluster 49ers team into a 13-3 division champion. Take a look at this - Harbaugh did it in the season after the lockout, getting only a month or so with his new team before the season started. He did it not by bringing in "his own guys" as many new coaches do, but by working with the personnel on hand. He guided Alex Smith to his best year as a starter after everyone had classified him as a bust, albeit a long-lived one. He did all of this with no NFL head coaching experience, coming fresh from the college ranks. A more impressive single first year on the job may not exist. There should be no debating this award this year.
Most Valuable Player -
Aaron Rodgers. While Matt Flynn's evisceration of the Lions on Week 17 may take away from this argument (I maintain my belief that they played a watered-down defense in a meaningless game), you have to realize that Rodgers had the best season on record for a quarterback and led his team to a 14-1 record. 4,643 yards and 45 TDs wasn't as electric as what Brees or Brady did this season, but they key number, the one that helped his team win more games, is his 6 INTs. That's incredibly low. Brady had 12; Brees 14. Rodgers did not lead the most dynamic offense in the league (although it is plenty dynamic); he led the most efficient, by far. And that's what a true MVP does - he wins games and doesn't make mistakes. He is irreplaceable to his team and Aaron Rodgers is just that. Brady and Brees may be to their teams as well, but when you look at the stat lines of everyone involved you have to think that, with no names attached, just stats, most people want Rodgers over the other two, because you see his 68% completion rate and his few INTs and you know that this man wins more games. He's more valuable. Congratulations, Mr. Rodgers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)