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.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)