Week Four Picks

Even less time than before:

Early games:

Chicago (-7) over Carolina (if they can't cover this spread it really is all over)

Buffalo (-3) over Cincinnati (yes please!)

Tennessee (+1) over Cleveland (the Titans look decent and Chris Johnson hasn't even shown up yet. He's been playing? Oh...)

Dallas (-1) over Detroit (So that the Lions won't be undefeated when they play the Bears)

Minnesota (-2) over Kansas City (the ViQueens have to be able to finish a game sometime, right?)

Redskins (PK) over Rams (watch as I slowly slide off the Rams bandwagon)

Philadelphia (PK) over San Fransisco (At least until Michael Vick completely falls apart)

New Orleans (-8) over Jacksonville (Saints D needs to get it going soon; Jacksonville is the team to get your confidence back against)

Steelers (+4) over Houston (if the Texans win here I will consider jumping off the Steelers betting wagon)

LATE GAMES

Giants (-1) over Arizona (bet against the NFC west as long as you can)

Atlanta (-6) over Seattle (if your counting at home, none of the four NFC west teams are favored and all are playing at home)

Packers (-13) over Denver (by the way, how bogus was that holding call at the end of the Bears-Packers game? And how awesome was that punt return design? Am I the only one who wonders why they didn't bust that out last year in the NFC Championship game? I hate you Lovie.)

New England (-5) over Oakland (Raiders are good; Brady is pissed)

San Diego (-9) over Miami (last week's lesson: as always, don't bet on Norv to make an easy game easy.)

Sunday Night

Jets (+4) over Baltimore (running out of time; this looks good)

Monday Night

Bucs (-10) over Colts (headlines say "Colts preparing to go with Painter." I think every Colts fan just went out to buy a bottle of Colt45.)

NFL Picks - Week 3

Rushed, but in rushed form is better than me giving up my quest to give you bad gambling info after only two weeks.

Last week against the spread: 8-7-1
Last week straight up: 13-3 (read dialogue on Jets and Pats games)

Season against the spread: 14-16-2
Season straight up: 21-11

So ... that looks better. I had a great week picking winners, missing only on the Ravens, the Cardinals and the Rams. Against the spread, I made some picks that seemed like good ideas at the time (take the Chargers and Jags plus the points even though you don't think they will win outright), that went down in flames. The lesson as always: only take a dog if you think they can win the game. I didn't think they could win, I took them, and I missed.

Without delay, here are this week's picks, with quick hit thoughts:

Sunday Early Games

New England (-9) over Buffalo

This is what I put down, but then I looked at the statistics, and let's just say that I'm going to change my pick based on the following: Buffalo has a top ten passing defense right now, New England has the second worst passing defense right now, and both these teams have offenses. I will straddle the pole again and pick the Pats to win, but the Bills to cover, and no I did not learn my lesson from last week.

Buffalo (+9) over New England

(Please note: when Tom Brady has thrown for his third first quarter TD to give the Pats a three score lead in the first quarter I will be shaking my head slowly ... at myself.

San Francisco (+3) over Cincinnati

Words cannot describe how little I like this Bengals team, but my repeated picking against them (I plan on going against them for sixteen games this year) will show it.

Cleveland (-3) over Miami

I struggled with this one before remembering that I picked Cleveland to make the playoffs, so they need to win this game. That's how you decide a coin flip: by who you'd like to see win.

Denver (+7) over Tennessee

Okay ... the Titans just went from a seven point dog to a seven point favorite in one week? Is the difference between Baltimore and Denver that great? These lines seem to be blowing in the wind as if Vegas doesn't know what to do with them. I'll go against the Titans again, but with the points this time.

Detroit (-4) over Minnesota

Did you know Detroit has covered something like eight games in a row? Did you know that we have no indisputable video evidence that Donovan McNabb has a pulse? When you combine those factors you end up with a very scary 3-0 Lions team after this week.

New Orleans (-4) over Houston

This line is WAAAAYYYYY to small. I'd take the Saints -7 here. If I had a bookie, I would be on the phone with him right away. We all do realize that the Saints lost to the defending champs, then throttled a Bears team that beat Atlanta ... who just beat Philly ... and that the Saints were (-7) over the Bears. And they were home. And now they are home against an overhyped Houston team who played Miami (bad) and the Colts (worse)? Is anyone listening? I need to search for the nearest sports book and put some money on this one.

Philadelphia (PK) over NY Giants

If Vick is healthy this looks laughable for you: a pick em (even line) against a beat up Giants team that has the Rex Grossman of Mannings playing for them? If he doesn't go, this becomes more realistic. I'm guessing Vegas thinks Vick doesn't go, or isn't healthy. I'm thinking that hit wasn't that bad in reality. Jim McMahon ate hits like those for breakfast.

Jacksonville (+4) over Carolina

I looked at these teams and promised myself I'd take the points because neither team should be favored. Thank goodness this wasn't a pick em; I wouldn't know what to do.

SUNDAY LATE GAMES

Oakland (+4) over NY Jets

The Jets fooled me once ... last week ... when they throttled a bad Jacksonville offense with such ferocity that it overcame another stink bomb by Dirty Sanchez. I might be crazy, but I kinda like Oakland's swagger. Actually, I'm probably crazy, but I'm starting Oakland's D this weekend, so there.

Ravens (-4) over St. Louis

So last week the Ravens are overvalued at Tennessee ... this week they get only four against the Rams? A team that got killed by a not so good Giants team? Check please?

San Diego (-15) over Kansas City

Could this line be high enough that I would take KC? Let's just say that I'm starting to wonder if the entire team has a fantasy of Andrew Luck starting at Arrow Head. Two huge stink bombs in a row ... so no. It couldn't be. The -15 didn't even phase me. Does Tom Brady play the Chiefs this year, because he might hit 1,000 passing yards in that game if he does.

Green Bay (-4) over Chicago

Packers beat Saints ... Saints favored by -7 against Chicago ... Packers play Bears ... Packers only favored by 4 over Bears. Hmmm....

Cardinals (-4) against Seattle

Dear Ken Wisenhunt: please enjoy another victory, courtesy of Pete Carol's fascination with crappy QBs. You thought Whitehurst was bad enough ... here's Tavaris Jackson. Seriously, we couldn't want Andrew Luck any more, and we already got San Fran to win a game. We rule. Sincerely, Seahawks front management.

Atlanta (+1) over Tampa Bay

I like Atlanta's mojo after winning against Philly last week.

SUNDAY NIGHT GAME

Pittsburgh (-11) over the Indianapolis "oh where or where did my Manning go?" Colts

Again ... line couldn't be too high really. I'm surprised, after the Steelers covered (-15) against Seattle last week that they aren't in the same neighborhood this week against a really bad Colts team. I'm betting NBC thought this game would be a bigger draw when they picked it.

MONDAY NIGHT GAME

Cowboys (PK) over Washington

Rex Grossman, if you win again I'm going to sack you and puncture your lung. That's a bad Rex for being good Rex two weeks in a row. Don't hurt these fans by drawing them in only to let them down. Dan Snyder has done enough damage to last a lifetime. Bad Rex! BAD REX!!!

The Long Hard Road

As the days go by, and as we steadily move towards the official start of the 2012 election cycle, the numbers keep coming in. One thing you realize studying political science is that the numbers are the constant, unending aspect of domestic politics. We always want the latest, greatest poll, and we want to know exactly right now how people are feeling about candidate x. So we poll people on this, we poll them on that, we give them hypothetical matchups to decide from, and somewhere in the midst of all the numbers we find trends that we try to extrapolate into bigger picture meaning. And so the numbers keep coming in, and in this case they keep confounding me.

I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.

I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.

Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.

But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?

And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?

But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.

The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.


But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.

Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.

The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.

NFL - Week Two Picks

With NYC on the horizon this weekend I will make it two weeks in a row that I don't watch any NFL games. Of course, given the Bears shockingly strong performance against Atlanta last Sunday, maybe that's a good thing. As I mentioned last week I'll be picking the NFL games this week, with some thoughts as to the likely outcomes. I'll pick against the spread, but I'll also try to indicate who I like separate from the gambling. Since I have to pick so early in the week (and take any opportunity to write I have) I won't be able to take into account late injury news, which isn't the best ... but I'm sure you'll forgive me.

Last week I had the following numbers:

Against the spread: 6-9-1
Straight Up: 8-8

In other words, not a very good week. In fact, a pretty bad one. The highlights:

- The Packers-Saints shootout that I should have won on the spread, if not straight up, if New Orleans doesn't call that asinine up the gut run play to end it.
- The Bears beating the Falcons in every phase of the game, and looking uber competent while doing it.
- Cincinnati getting their one win of the year against one of my "sleeper" teams, Cleveland
- The Bills looking good, and the Rams getting so injured that they might have lost their advantage in the NFC West after one week.
- Pittsburgh getting owned by Baltimore.
- New England looking unstoppable in the air.

Year after year we are told, and sometimes taught, not to take one week and extrapolate that over a whole year. So I'm going to stay patient this week and try to stick to my guns, assuming that last week just had some crazy games in it. After I take another beating, I'll change my strategy for week two. On to the picks (all lines courtesy of ESPN.com):

Sunday Early Games

Buffalo (-4) over Oakland

The Bills looked crazy good last week, whereas Oakland looked just good enough to beat a crappy Broncos team. Fitzpatrick has had a year run now where he's looked somewhere between a competent QB and an All-Pro level QB. At some point you'd think he would have to give, but what if this guy is a modern day Kurt Warner who just has the magic? I mean, he's throwing to crappy receivers and still takes the game over. On the other hand, my dad will probably start him in fantasy football this week, almost assuredly jinxing him. I think Buffalo may be sneaky good, so I'll take them here.

Detroit (-9) over Kansas City

NINE POINTS?!?!?!?! These are the Lions we're talking about, right? They barely hold on against Tampa and now they are giving nine points? This line feels like a bad combo of Vegas loving Detroit and over reacting to how badly KC flopped last week. But the game is in Detroit, they do have a fearsome defensive line, and they can throw the ball. Still, how high would this line be if it were KC at Green Bay? Green Bay (-28)? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the line were two points lower, but given this line I'll still ride Detroit. I'm just not happy about it.

Baltimore (-7) over Tennessee

This is one instance where I'll admit I might have been wrong after one week, and I'll jump (hesitantly) onto the Ravens bandwagon. The defense looked better than ever, the offense looked great, and they were playing a good Steelers team. That said, Pittsburgh fans will have to wait a decade to see their team play that bad again. And Baltimore isn't that good. But Chris Johnson is rusty, and as much as I can see this going the other way, I think a push is the most likely, so I'll take the -7 and the better team.

Cleveland (-3) over Indianapolis

This is a great matchup for the Browns, and right when they need it after laying an egg against Cincinnati. When was the last time that Indy was the dog at home? Peyton's rookie year? I had to double take to make sure I was reading this right. Indy is in real trouble, and they might be smart to pull a San Antonio circa 1998 and tank for Andrew Luck.

Tampa Bay (+3) over Minnesota

Boy McNabb looked bad last week. And Tampa has to be fired up after having their "up and coming team of the NFC" title usurped by Detroit. I'll take the fired up better team plus the points happily. And for nostalgia factors, remember when these teams used to play in the same division?

New Orleans (-7) over Chicago

Very tricky Vegas, putting this line just high enough that I almost jumped at my Bears and said "hell yes, give me the points." I know better; you're just trying to reverse jinx me. I will not take my Bears over my NFC Super Bowl pick. Chicago, you may proceed with proving me wrong. Again. For the second straight week.

Jacksonville (+9) over NY Jets

Here's my case: the Jets just played a game that their coach declared more important than the Super Bowl, looked toasted in it, then miraculously came back because Tony Romo loves his country and couldn't bear to see the Jets lose at home on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, so he threw the game (and you can't convince me otherwise ... Romo LOVES his country ok? He wouldn't do anything to hurt it! He had to lose that game!). Now they have a universally panned Jags team coming in, and everyone looks at this line and says "that can't be high enough. The Jags just cut their starting QB. They are awful." Let's just say that I think the Jets will win, but I think the Jags keep it really close. It's called emotional let down people.

Pittsburgh (-15) over Seattle

Are you kidding me? +15? That line is so asininely high that I had to go check another website to see if ESPN was just screwing with me. According to Vegas.com it's 14.5. Okay, so let me get this straight: Pittsburgh get's killed, looks incompetent, and generally craps the bed ... and then they get favored by more than two TDs? The Tavaris Jackson effect sports fans ... he's so bad I can't pick him even with 15 points being fronted.

Arizona (+5) over Washington

Now we've seen good Rex. Are you ready for bad Rex Redskins fans? Arizona may not be the team to do it against him since Cam Newton shredded them last week, but it's coming. Oh yes, it's coming (insert evil laugh here)

Green Bay (-11) over Carolina

This line cannot be high enough. Cam Newton is overvalued at this point. I would lay two full TDs.

Sunday Late Games

Dallas (-3) over San Francisco

Now that Tony Romo saved the world by throwing the 9/11 game he can get back to doing what he does best: picking apart bad teams to make himself look good. Up next, a San Francisco team that was celebrating their victory over Seattle, then went "wait a minute, we want to lose so we can get Andrew Luck! Dammit! I knew something felt wrong!"

Denver (-5) over Cincinnati

Denver's bad. Cincinnati can't win again or I'm obligated to give you all a money back guarantee on this blog.

Houston (-3) over Miami

I mean ... did you SEE what Brady did to this Miami secondary? Schaub's gotta be able to at least come close right? And with a better running game?

San Diego (+7) over New England

Tough game for the Pats on a short week. Let's just say that I'll be at a concert for this one, but I think that San Diego can hang with the Pats, making this line fair, but I'll take the points and a late Brady drive for a Gostkowski field goal for the Pats win.

Sunday Night Game

Atlanta (+3) over Philadelphia

Vick returns to Atlanta, who is coming off an embarrassing loss to Chicago. If Atlanta loses this one they are in a heap of trouble. My advice? Hit Vick early, hit him often, and rile the crowd up.

Monday Night Game

Rams (+5) over Giants

Both these teams are so decimated by injury that they should probably agree to tie and take the week off to heal. I'll take the points because I have no idea which way this one will go. It probably depends on good Eli versus bad Eli.

9/11: Words Cannot Describe

I woke up this morning and watched the programming for the 10th anniversary for 9/11. It's hard to believe that a decade has passed since that day, which I still remember so vividly. Riding my bike to school ... taking the GRE ... the announcement and moment of silence in the school ... the ride back ... watching TV with my parents throughout the night and trying to make sense of it all.

There is no doubt that the world fundamentally changed on that day, and that the course of the world I would live in shifted dramatically. Seeing President George W. Bush today made me think about how much his life, and his administration and legacy by extension, changed on that brilliant September morning. Without 9/11 we probably are not at war, in the midst of the longest war in our nation's history. Without 9/11 who knows? What I do know is that I don't, at the present time, have the words to put my thoughts down onto paper (or a website as the case may be). On that day in 2001 my life, and the lives of six billion plus people shifted forever. And so, in honor of those who died that day, and all those who have given their lives since then, I will simply pass along art. A song, performed at Saturday Night Live, in the aftermath of that horrendous day. Paul Simon. The Boxer (click on video and it will take you to the site).

I Wanted It To End ... But Not Like This

One of the reasons why we are so obsessed with professional sports is a fascination with our own demise. How's that for a statement? I've written before about the myriad of sports mega stars who hold on too long, and do damage to their legacy in the process (Jordan, Favre, Ali, Mays to name a few). Their is something romantic about this, because it helps us to realize that even the best of all time are prone to the same human fallibility that we are in our everyday existence. When we see Joe Montana in a Chiefs uniform there is a part of us that can relate to holding on to something beyond its' expiration date: a romantic relationship, a friendship, a job ... anything.

In fact, we get so used to this norm, athletes holding on too long, that we can get downright upset when we are robbed of this. A great example of this fact can be seen in the retirement of Barry Sanders, often referred to by illustrations such as "premature," "for selfish reasons," and "robbing us of his talent." Conversely, the general public and most of the media felt better, and took greater joy in the end of the career of Emmit Smith, Sanders' contemporary. We could write, depending on our perspective on Smith, that he "left it all on the field," "gave it all he could," "ruined his legacy," or "was so self-centered that he held on for every last penny, and was so egotistical that he played three years past the absolute end of his prime just to break Walter Payton's rushing record" (I may or may not be wearing a Payton jersey as I write that last one). How do you think St. Louis Cardinal fans would react if Albert Pujols walked away at the end of this year, not to another team, but to retirement? My guess is that it would be a much more hostile feeling than they had for Mark McGuire, who walked away with a broken down body. McGuire was (rightly so) praised for walking away from guaranteed money, but he did so because he could not play anymore. We can handle that. We can't handle players robbing us of our entertainment.

The lone exception to this might have been Michael Jordan's second retirement. Phil Jackson famously told Michael at the time of his first retirement that he was being selfish in robbing people of the chance to see him play, and that statement reportedly ate away at Michael and played on his ego so that the 1st comeback was possible. But by the time he retired a second time the consensus was that management was forcing MJ out, and so the fans blamed the Jerry's rather than Michael. Still, even with no pressure to return, Michael found his way back. He had the most productive seasons ever for a player of his age, and he had a few moments that reminded you of what he had become, but he still did far more damage to his legacy than anyone would care to acknowledge (it may say more about the extent of Michael's power that we've all agreed to forget that he played in Washington at all). But on the whole, even the greatest of all time was unable to avoid this pitfall, even when afforded the opportunity to do it without any fan retribution.

And all that background is meant to drive home one point: athletes hang on far longer than they should as a general rule. And, again as a general rule, we thrive on their decisions to do so. We almost need them to do so, because it helps us to make sense of our own demise in professional life and life in general. When our body no longer reacts the way it is supposed to we can look at MJs knees going out ... or Ali's reaction time ... or Mays ability to patrol the outfield ... and we can say "well, this happened to (the icon of our childhood), so it's natural it happens to me." Hell, it makes us feel good about the changes in our lives. If Michael Jordan gets old and can't do it anymore, why should I be any different?

And that, finally, brings me to Peyton Manning. My old nemesis. I have, happily, proclaimed my hatred for Manning since he was playing at Tennessee and I was just starting to learn about college football. I've always found Manning to be pompous, self-centered, and annoying. His drawl reminded me of Forrest Gump, but at least that character was humble. Manning was not. Colts fans jumping on his bandwagon and anointing his the greatest of all time far too early drove the point home for me. Manning was worthless, the Colts were worthless, and I enjoyed a great deal of satisfaction out of watching them fail year ... after year ... after year. Until they toppled my Bears it seemed that I would always be able to have a Manning playoff choke to count on. What I didn't count on was the ability of Rex Grossman to out choke Manning, although in hindsight that should have been self-evident.

Now Manning is getting older, and he's dealing with some pretty serious stuff. Neck injuries are nothing to mess around with. When I wake up with a stiff/strained neck (which happens about monthly thanks to a fall on my head in a high school during a basketball game) it's good to ruin my week to some degree. I've learned to deal with it, but I'm always thankful that it's a minor neck injury. I'd hate to have to deal with a major one. You can't look without turning your whole body, and even then it hurts. You can't get to sleep easily. Simple tasks like driving become major endeavors.

With an injury of this kind Manning has an easy out. Nobody will question him if he came out tomorrow and said the following:

"I've loved playing football, and I've loved playing for the Colts. Colts fans will always be in my heart and mind, and I will always do what I can for the city and the team. I will never be able to pay all of you back for what you've given me. It pains me to announce that I can no longer continue to play football. I look at so many former players lose the ability to move around freely and I do not want that for myself. My teammates have helped me to avoid major injury for a long time, but I do not want to be unable to move by the time I'm 50. I never thought it would end like this, but it is time for me to walk away."

I have no idea if Manning will do this, but I'd like to think I would in his shoes. He's got more money than he and his children and his children's children would ever need if he is smart. He will remain marketable for many years after his retirement as an NFL icon. He will always be able to sell himself in the Indiana area. He's been remarkably healthy, and walking away now, under the guise of this injury, gives him the perfect out. Nobody will question it like they did with Sanders, and nobody will get the chance to criticize him like they did Emmit Smith. This is his Jordan in 1998 moment: circumstances have given him the almost impossible perfect out.

And so I'm left to think about what all of this means to me. And, I have to tell you, I feel for the guy. As much as I hate to admit it, he's grown up a good deal in the last few years. Listening to him talk now there is much less "me" and much more "team." Maybe that's the calm that came when he broke the MVP record. Perhaps it started when he was able to win a Super Bowl. Maybe it came when he failed to win a second Super Bowl, but was universally acclaimed (and rightly so) for carrying a number of bad Colts teams into contention by himself. In all honesty, the Colts probably wouldn't have been in the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl, without Manning two years ago.

If he does walk away, I'll miss rooting against him. He's the ultimate villain because he's worked so hard to become the good guy, and because, unlike someone like Barry Bonds, there were an equal number of people who liked him. In my circles people were equally divided on Manning, and that made it half the fun. I always envisioned Manning's numbers decaying like Dan Marino's, or him holding on just a bit too long like Favre did. I always knew he would pull an Emmit Smith and hang on far too long just to be self centered and break the records. But I'm not that sure anymore. And if he walks away this way, I'll feel bad for him, and I'll miss him. He will have been taken too soon. And that's something I never expected.

NFL - Week One Picks

So this year I'm going to try something new: making weekly NFL picks, and writing about my thoughts on the league in that manner. This week, with tight school and work deadlines I won't go into many details, but here are my week one picks (lines from ESPN.com) with quick hit thoughts:

Thursday Night: New Orleans (+4.5) over Green Bay (screw Green Bay ... plus this is the tie breaker for my NFC pick)

Sunday Early Afternoon:

- Atlanta (-3) over Chicago (Bear down ... Chicago Bears ... *sigh*)
- Cleveland (-7) over Cincinnati (7pts is a lot to lay for Cleveland ... but the Bengals are awful)
- Bills (+6) over Kansas City (hurt Cassel or crappy back up... either way, bet Harvad's Fitzpatrick)
- Rams (+5.5) over Philadelphia (and so it begins for the "Dream Team" in Philly)
- Detroit (+1) over Tampa Bay (one team making the leap, the other regressing to the mean)
- Tennessee (+3) over Jacksonville (did I just take four straight underdogs? Uh oh.)
- Pittsburgh (+2) over Baltimore (now five straight? Someone stop me please! Help! HELP!)
- Houston (-9) over Indianapolis (I wish I could have bet this line prior to them announcing Peyton Manning was out)

Sunday Late Afternoon:

- Arizona (-7) over Carolina (seven for AZ? Ugh. But it is Cam Newton...)
- San Diego (-9) over Minnesota (Vegas is doing well making the sure thing bets hard because of silly high lines for week one)
- Seattle (+6) over San Francisco (the battle for Andrew Luck begins)
- New York Giants (-3) over Washington (Because, seriously, its' REX GROSSMAN)

Sunday Night Game:

- New York Jets (-4) over Dallas (It's 9/11 in New York. The Jets suck if they can't win this game)

Monday Night:

- New England (-7) over Miami (they are my super bowl pick... how could I not)
- Oakland (+3) over Denver (I'll be asleep by kickoff.

But seriously guys ... in between work and school I will not get to see ANY OF THESE GAMES. If only I could do nothing for a living and be lazy you'd get more writing, and I'd watch more football. In related news, if any of you would like to sponsor me with an annual salary I could make that dream a reality.

The POV NFL Preview - Wither Chicago?

It's that magical time of year again, where I get to write my favorite post: my NFL predictions. I am pressed for time this year, and so I won't recount my past successes and failures as I have in years past, but I take pride in the fact that I generally get more right than wrong. That said, this year I'm troubled because NOBODY wants to predict good things for my Bears. I mean nobody. Not even the Chicago media is drinking the kool-aid coming out of the Windy City. And ... I tend to agree with them. I said earlier that I had them pegged for 7-9 and third in the division, but could they be even worse than that? Such has been the struggle in my mind. But the season starts tomorrow, and I've got to make my picks before the start of the year. So I'll put aside my Bears' generated anguish and move forward.

This year, more than any other, I think that teams which have been together for awhile are going to succeed. No offseason workouts, no OTAs, nothing... that adds up to veteran teams succeeding. But in recent NFL history we know that half of the playoff field turns over... so I have to take that into consideration too. As a reminder, I pick records that make sense to me, but I don't take the time to see if all the records combined together would work. With that said, here are my predictions for the upcoming NFL season:

AFC East

1. New England - 13-3
2. New York - 10-6
3. Miami - 7-9
4. Buffalo - 5-11

The Reasoning: The Pats seem focused, and I'm sure that they are driven to get over the hump from the last few years of failing to win the Super Bowl. Last year's defeat, at the hands of the Jets, has to be eating at them. I like their veteran additions: Belicheck tends to get a good deal out of players like Haynsworth, Ochocinco, and Ellis. Brady is still the best QB in the game, bar none, and he is right in his prime. There is too much to like not to think they'll succeed. Plus, they are a veteran team that knows one another. As for the Jets, try as I might, I do not believe in Mark Sanchez, not even a little bit. He has a weak arm, is not accurate ... he's like the worst combination of Chad Pennington's arm strength and Ryan Leaf's accuracy (okay ... maybe Jeff George's accuracy). He is a "winner" for whatever that's worth, but he's also playing in NYC, with a bunch of giant egos, and that is a house of cards. They have enough talent that they will hold on to the Wild Card, but I don't see them giving New England a real run for their money during the regular season. Miami and Buffalo are a toss up, but I'll side with the Dolphins because they have more top level talent (Jake Long first and foremost), although they may not have a passing game or a running game this year at all. In Buffalo, I wish the Fitzpatrick experiment the best, but trading Lee Evans did not help. Poor Buffalo.

AFC North

1. Pittsburgh Steelers - 11-5
2. Cleveland Browns - 9-7
3. Baltimore Ravens - 9-7
4. Cincinnati Bengals - 1-15

The Reasoning: I'm going bottom up this time: Cincinnati has a chance to be historically bad. I would not be shocked if they competed for the Lions 0-16 "record." They are starting a QB that is going to be woefully underqualified for the job, with a rookie WR (never a good match), a RB with no heart (great 5 days in jail Cedric!), and a poor offensive line. Their defense isn't bad, but it isn't amazing either. This team should have a chance to draft Andrew Luck next year so that he can retire if they don't trade him. As for the rest of the division, Pittsburgh meets my criteria of minimal turnover and knowing each other. Baltimore doesn't; they are packing in every available veteran right now, but, unlike New England, they don't have a history of doing well with end of the road vets. Cleveland has a very easy schedule, doesn't play Pittsburgh or Baltimore until the final five weeks of the season, and if they go into that final five at 8-3 or 7-4 I wouldn't be shocked. At that point I think they'll need to split with Baltimore (possible) to hold on to second in the division. Either way, this division is Pittsburgh's to lose, and you can expect a big year out of Big Ben (if he can stay upright behind such a shoddy offensive line).

AFC South

1. Houston Texans - 9-7
2. Tennessee Titans - 8-8
3. Indianapolis Colts - 7-9
4. Jacksonville Jaguars - 5-11

The Reasoning: Why did I just start putting team names in with the teams? I have no idea. I also have no idea what to make of Peyton Manning. The man hasn't missed a game, always comes through, and never loses this division (thanks to Commissioner Tags for giving Peyton an easy division for his prime!). Manning is as consistent as can be. And now? Who knows what to say or think? I, personally, will be shocked if he isn't out there Sunday. How can he not be? I've been waiting for years to stop saying "this is the year the Colts fall" and actually have it be the year. Peyton has pulled an all time epic on us in front of our faces, only his lack of post-season success made us blind to it. This Colts team legitimately died four years ago when they started missing on every single draft pick, but he kept them winning divisions. Without him? Let's just say that 8-8 is how I think they will be if he misses 4-6 weeks. If he misses the whole year, they may be 3-13. As for the rest of the division, Del Rio cutting Garrard was a desperate move by a desperate man, and I don't see it ending well. Tennessee has the potential for a good offense and a competent defense, although their lack of coaching will hurt (most inexperienced staff in the league). Houston is my reluctant pick, although I know that everyone is on their bandwagon, and that they will choke. Or try to. Actually, if Manning can even give the Colts ten games of real Manning (back by week five or so), they may be ok.

AFC West

1. San Diego - 12-4
2. Oakland - 8-8
3. Denver - 6-10
4. Kansas City - 5-11

The Reasoning: with time limited before class, I'll speed by this one:

A) The Chargers have more talent than the other teams combined
B) Kansas City is due for a major regression to the mean
C) Oakland seems poised for the jump (as they have for years now)
D) Denver will improve, but has too far to go.


NFC East

1. Dallas Cowboys - 11-5
2. New York Giants - 9-7
3. Philadelphia Eagles - 8-8
4. Washington Redskins - 6-10

The Reasoning: Stay with me here: I think Philly is due for a major crash. I don't buy Vick staying healthy or getting as lucky as he did with interceptions last year. Their offensive line makes the Bears' line look good. They have a ton of egos, and a moron backup QB who already labeled them the team of destiny. I see them struggling big time out of the gate and not righting the ship quick enough. In the interim, Dallas will succeed for the opposite reason: minimal hype (for them), uniformity on the team, and being humbled by last year's experience. New York has had a ton of injuries, but will be healthier by the time their schedule picks up. Washington is starting Rex Grossman. 'Nuff Said.

NFC North

1. Green Bay - 12-4
2. Detroit Lions - 10-6
3. Chicago Bears - 7-9
4. Minnesota Vikings - 6-10

The Reasoning: The Bears may well finish a lot lower than this, but I don't have the heart to be that honest with myself. If Aaron Rodgers stays healthy then the damn Pack is probably secure as the top team. Detroit has a good chance to make the leap this year with a tough defense and a good offense if Matthew Stafford can stay healthy. Minnesota has a washed up veteran QB, and a defense and offensive line that is breaking down. Sound familiar? At any rate, expect another lost year Bears fans. Because, as Lovie said this offseason, he feels no pressure now that he got a contract extension. No, seriously, he said that. Look it up.

NFC South

1. New Orleans - 12-4
2. Atlanta - 10-6
3. Tampa Bay - 8-8
4. Carolina - 2-14

The Reasoning: Tampa will regress to the mean after a year in which they took advantage of an easy schedule and had an improbably low INT rate from Josh Freeman. Atlanta has the tools, but New Orleans has the experience and the stability that I'm looking for. Carolina is going to be a train wreck, and I think that Cam Newton is Vince Young redux. And (Forrest Gump voice) "that's all I've got to say about that."

NFC West

1. St. Louis - 8-8
2. Arizona - 7-9
3. Seattle - 4-12
4. San Francisco - 3-13

The Reasoning: does it matter? This division is awful, and whatever team gets to play it for its' out of conference opponent has a huge competitive advantage over anyone in the field. Kinda like Happy Gilmore and his long drive. I need to get Apollo Creed in here to give the speech, but you get the point. I think that St. Louis and Arizona will battle it out, and one of them might get to .500 this year, as they are the only two teams with even a bit of promise at the QB position at this time.

The Playoffs (teams listed in order of seed)

AFC Playoff Teams: New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Houston, NY Jets, Cleveland (gulp!)


NFC Playoff Teams: New Orleans, Green Bay, Dallas, St. Louis, Atlanta, Detroit

Wild Card: Jets over Texans, Steelers over Browns, Cowboys over Falcons, Lions over Rams

Divisional round: Patriots over Jets, Steelers over Chargers, Saints over Lions, Cowboys over Packers

Conference Finals: Patriots over Steelers, Saints over Cowboys

Superbowl: Patriots over Saints

And that's your NFL this year: not quite as random as a box of chocolates, but with some fun mixed in. Unless you're a Bears fan. Then you'll just be wondering why they had to extend him...