As I mentioned in my previous post, it is time for the Pigskin Pick'em Playoffs!
My picks for this weekend's games (with the game time shown):
Redskins at Seahawks, Saturday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Skins have the "mo", plus they are a better overall team.
Jaguars at Steelers, Saturday, 8 p.m. ET: The Jags have already beaten the Steelers in Pittsburgh once this season. This will make twice.
Giants at Buccaneers, Sunday, 1 p.m. ET: Both teams lost their last game of the season, but the Giants at least have to feel good about their performance. Add in the fact they get a road game to start the playoffs, and the Giants seem like a good pick to advance.
Titans at Chargers, Sunday, 4:30 p.m. ET: The Chargers remind me of the recent Super Bowl winners who have charged out of the Wild Card round to win it all. They have all the talent to win it and they have the momentum going into the playoffs (a six game winning streak). If only Norv Turner wasn't their head coach. Still, they should have no trouble with the Titans, even though they only managed to squeak out an overtime win against the Titans on December 9th.
Pigskin Pick'em Playoff rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
Monday, December 31, 2007
NFL Team Rankings
Only the playoff teams and non-playoff teams (indicated with an asterisk) ranked above them are shown:
ELITE
Patriots: The only team that can beat the Pats is themselves.
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: Their loss to the Skins made their season series a wash. But Cowboys fans should be concerned because this team looked flat.
GOOD
Jaguars: They beat the Texans back when they had something to play for.
Packers
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers: The Steelers did beat the Ravens when it counted. That said, losing to the Ravens does not bode well for their playoff chances.
*Browns: The best team not to make the playoffs.
Redskins: No bump for the Skins win over the Cowboys because the game was meaningless to the Cowboys. But they still have the most momentum going into the playoffs.
*Vikings: They overachieved this year. However, they will still be a team to watch next year.
Giants
Seahawks
*Eagles: The Eagles played well when the games meant nothing. They should be a terror in the preseason next year.
*Bills: In the NFC, this team would be dangerous. In the AFC, they're just another also-ran.
*Lions: Something is just wrong with this team. There is no team chemistry, but lots of talent.
*Bears: I have to give Lovie Smith credit. Getting 7 wins out of a team with no passing game, no running game, and an aging defense, is pretty darned impressive. Of course, having Devin Hester doesn't hurt either.
Titans: Beating the Colts with Jim Sorgi under center doesn't get you any credit.
*Texans: The Texans need to fill a few holes, but they are in the toughest division in the NFL.
*Broncos: I think Jay Cutler could be a great quarterback, but the Broncos need a running game. The "plug in no-name running back" running game didn't work this year. They also need a defense desperately.
Buccaneers: The Bucs split the season series with the Panthers, so no moves here. That said, they have to be considered THE least impressive team entering the playoffs this year.
ELITE
Patriots: The only team that can beat the Pats is themselves.
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: Their loss to the Skins made their season series a wash. But Cowboys fans should be concerned because this team looked flat.
GOOD
Jaguars: They beat the Texans back when they had something to play for.
Packers
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers: The Steelers did beat the Ravens when it counted. That said, losing to the Ravens does not bode well for their playoff chances.
*Browns: The best team not to make the playoffs.
Redskins: No bump for the Skins win over the Cowboys because the game was meaningless to the Cowboys. But they still have the most momentum going into the playoffs.
*Vikings: They overachieved this year. However, they will still be a team to watch next year.
Giants
Seahawks
*Eagles: The Eagles played well when the games meant nothing. They should be a terror in the preseason next year.
*Bills: In the NFC, this team would be dangerous. In the AFC, they're just another also-ran.
*Lions: Something is just wrong with this team. There is no team chemistry, but lots of talent.
*Bears: I have to give Lovie Smith credit. Getting 7 wins out of a team with no passing game, no running game, and an aging defense, is pretty darned impressive. Of course, having Devin Hester doesn't hurt either.
Titans: Beating the Colts with Jim Sorgi under center doesn't get you any credit.
*Texans: The Texans need to fill a few holes, but they are in the toughest division in the NFL.
*Broncos: I think Jay Cutler could be a great quarterback, but the Broncos need a running game. The "plug in no-name running back" running game didn't work this year. They also need a defense desperately.
Buccaneers: The Bucs split the season series with the Panthers, so no moves here. That said, they have to be considered THE least impressive team entering the playoffs this year.
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 17 Results
We have two winners this week! Yours truly (of course) and David Stefanini:
As for the YTD standings, no great shocks here:
With only 11 playoff games left, and an overwhelming 7 game lead, I have decided to call the Pigskin Pick'em season officially over. However, I have decided to begin the Pigskin Playoffs! Here are the new rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
Good luck, and let the new season begin!
EdMcGon - 12
David Stefanini - 12
Bill Barker - 11
Robert A. George - 9
Audio Dave - 8
As for the YTD standings, no great shocks here:
EdMcGon(4.5) - 152
David Stefanini(2.5) - 145
Robert A. George(2) - 143
Bill Barker(1) - 123
J. Mark English(1) - 114
Audio Dave(2.5) - 84
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Jay - 9
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
With only 11 playoff games left, and an overwhelming 7 game lead, I have decided to call the Pigskin Pick'em season officially over. However, I have decided to begin the Pigskin Playoffs! Here are the new rules:
1. The top six pickers from the regular season (EdMcGon, David Stefanini, Robert A. George, Bill Barker, J. Mark English, and Audio Dave) are all in the playoffs. Like in the real playoffs, everyone starts from 0. Anyone else is welcome to pick the games, but only the top six from the regular season will be counted towards the final score.
2. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL playoff games. Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by the kickoff of the first NFL playoff game each week (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule").
3. The person who has the most playoff picks correct by the end of the Super Bowl gets...bragging rights! (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)
Good luck, and let the new season begin!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 17 Picks
SATURDAY GAME ALERT! PLEASE HAVE ALL PICKS IN BY 8:15 PM EST ON SATURDAY!
It may be the last week of the regular season, but we will be continuing the Pigskin Pick'em through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, to give all you losers...er, I mean to give all you fine people a chance to catch up to my overwhelming YTD totals. Of course, you could still take the weekly "bragging rights" prize.
My picks (otherwise known as the correct picks):
New England Patriots at New York Giants: At least the NFL made the right decision to simulcast this NFL Network game on both CBS and NBC. However, don't expect to see great football here. The Pats will get to 16-0, the Giants will rest their starters early, and the second half should be a yawn-fest.
Seattle Seahawks at Atlanta Falcons: Speaking of "yawn-fests"...
New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears: Don't let the records fool you. The Bears are the better team here.
San Francisco 49ers at Cleveland Browns: The Browns need the win and a lot of help to make it to the playoffs.
Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers: This one could go either way. The Packers decided their own playoff fate last week, so this game is meaningless to them. The Lions, with a win here, could at least make it to .500 on the year. If history is any indicator, expect the Lions to choke here.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Houston Texans: The Texans win this one for pride.
Cincinnati Bengals at Miami Dolphins: A meaningless game for two teams that disappointed their fans all year.
Buffalo Bills at Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles have been playing with a lot of pride the last few weeks. The irony in this game is both of these teams may have new quarterbacks next year. This may also be Andy Reid's last game, since rumors about his retirement have been swirling for months. It is a shame that Reid's retirement might get lost in the hype over the Pats-Giants, although Reid has NOT made it official. But if it is his last game, let me say for the record, I'll miss you Andy. You were one of the great coaches of this era. (Of course, if it isn't your last game Andy, then you need to get off your duff and fix this team!)
Carolina Panthers at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Meaningless game for the Bucs. But the Panthers are good enough to beat the Bucs IF the Bucs dog it, or if the Panthers play their best game.
St. Louis Rams at Arizona Cardinals: Did anyone get the score from that Paraguay-Ukraine soccer match? This game is about as interesting.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens: Remember how close the Ravens came to beating the Pats? I can just see the Ravens playing spoilers here.
Minnesota Vikings at Denver Broncos: The Vikes need the win, while the Broncos mail it in. (rhyme intended)
Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets: In the "Herm Edwards Bowl", I will go with his new team over his old team.
San Diego Chargers at Oakland Raiders: The "Norv Turner Bowl". I would love to see the Raiders win this one, but even the Chargers second string should give the Raiders some fits.
Dallas Cowboys at Washington Redskins: Don't think for a second that the Redskins wouldn't love to make it to the playoffs on the backs of the Cowboys.
Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: The Titans win, they're in. Add to that the fact the Colts will be resting their starters early, and the Titans should take it.
It may be the last week of the regular season, but we will be continuing the Pigskin Pick'em through the playoffs and the Super Bowl, to give all you losers...er, I mean to give all you fine people a chance to catch up to my overwhelming YTD totals. Of course, you could still take the weekly "bragging rights" prize.
My picks (otherwise known as the correct picks):
New England Patriots at New York Giants: At least the NFL made the right decision to simulcast this NFL Network game on both CBS and NBC. However, don't expect to see great football here. The Pats will get to 16-0, the Giants will rest their starters early, and the second half should be a yawn-fest.
Seattle Seahawks at Atlanta Falcons: Speaking of "yawn-fests"...
New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears: Don't let the records fool you. The Bears are the better team here.
San Francisco 49ers at Cleveland Browns: The Browns need the win and a lot of help to make it to the playoffs.
Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers: This one could go either way. The Packers decided their own playoff fate last week, so this game is meaningless to them. The Lions, with a win here, could at least make it to .500 on the year. If history is any indicator, expect the Lions to choke here.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Houston Texans: The Texans win this one for pride.
Cincinnati Bengals at Miami Dolphins: A meaningless game for two teams that disappointed their fans all year.
Buffalo Bills at Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles have been playing with a lot of pride the last few weeks. The irony in this game is both of these teams may have new quarterbacks next year. This may also be Andy Reid's last game, since rumors about his retirement have been swirling for months. It is a shame that Reid's retirement might get lost in the hype over the Pats-Giants, although Reid has NOT made it official. But if it is his last game, let me say for the record, I'll miss you Andy. You were one of the great coaches of this era. (Of course, if it isn't your last game Andy, then you need to get off your duff and fix this team!)
Carolina Panthers at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Meaningless game for the Bucs. But the Panthers are good enough to beat the Bucs IF the Bucs dog it, or if the Panthers play their best game.
St. Louis Rams at Arizona Cardinals: Did anyone get the score from that Paraguay-Ukraine soccer match? This game is about as interesting.
Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens: Remember how close the Ravens came to beating the Pats? I can just see the Ravens playing spoilers here.
Minnesota Vikings at Denver Broncos: The Vikes need the win, while the Broncos mail it in. (rhyme intended)
Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets: In the "Herm Edwards Bowl", I will go with his new team over his old team.
San Diego Chargers at Oakland Raiders: The "Norv Turner Bowl". I would love to see the Raiders win this one, but even the Chargers second string should give the Raiders some fits.
Dallas Cowboys at Washington Redskins: Don't think for a second that the Redskins wouldn't love to make it to the playoffs on the backs of the Cowboys.
Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: The Titans win, they're in. Add to that the fact the Colts will be resting their starters early, and the Titans should take it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 16 Results
It took him all year, but Bill Barker finally won a week legitimately. He even got his picks in on time. Congrats Bill!
Now, to my favorite part: The YTD standings, where I increased my lead over Stefanini and George, proving my uncanny prognostication abilities. Fortunately, you guys still have the playoffs to catch up with me. And the Patriots might lose to the Giants this week too...
Bill Barker - 13
EdMcGon - 12
Robert A. George - 10
Jay - 9
Audio Dave - 8
David Stefanini - 7
J. Mark English - 7
Now, to my favorite part: The YTD standings, where I increased my lead over Stefanini and George, proving my uncanny prognostication abilities. Fortunately, you guys still have the playoffs to catch up with me. And the Patriots might lose to the Giants this week too...
EdMcGon(4) - 140
Robert A. George(2) - 134
David Stefanini(2) - 133
J. Mark English(1) - 114
Bill Barker(1) - 112
Audio Dave(2.5) - 76
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Jay - 9
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
NFL Team Rankings
A lot of teams get locked in place now, because we are reaching the time of year when strange weather becomes a factor, or because some teams are not playing as hard because they have already clinched playoff berths, or been eliminated.
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys
GOOD
Jaguars
Packers: Losing to the Bears twice shows me the Pack are not all that good. However, I will consider the game conditions were less than ideal. The fact they beat the Chargers earlier this season still keeps them up here.
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers
Browns
Redskins: The Redskins game with the Vikings was the most meaningful to the rankings. Their win showed they are playoff-ready compared to the Vikings, so the Skins get to leapfrog up to this spot.
Vikings
Giants
Bills: Their loss to the Giants brings them down a few notches.
Seahawks
Eagles
Lions
Bears: While beating the Packers twice was pretty impressive, they also lost twice to the Lions.
Titans
Texans
Broncos
Buccaneers
Panthers
Chiefs
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
Dolphins
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys
GOOD
Jaguars
Packers: Losing to the Bears twice shows me the Pack are not all that good. However, I will consider the game conditions were less than ideal. The fact they beat the Chargers earlier this season still keeps them up here.
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers
Browns
Redskins: The Redskins game with the Vikings was the most meaningful to the rankings. Their win showed they are playoff-ready compared to the Vikings, so the Skins get to leapfrog up to this spot.
Vikings
Giants
Bills: Their loss to the Giants brings them down a few notches.
Seahawks
Eagles
Lions
Bears: While beating the Packers twice was pretty impressive, they also lost twice to the Lions.
Titans
Texans
Broncos
Buccaneers
Panthers
Chiefs
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
Dolphins
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 16 Picks
Time for everyone's favorite game, "Ed wins!", otherwise known as Pigskin Pick'em!
Mercifully, this week we don't have to go to the trouble of picking the winner of the Steelers-Rams. It would take a Christmas miracle for the Rams to win.
However, there is a Saturday night game, so remember to get your picks in before 8:15 EST on Saturday!
My picks:
Dallas Cowboys at Carolina Panthers: Will there be a Jessica Simpson sighting in Carolina this weekend? If so, take the Panthers. More likely, the Cowboys win this one.
New York Giants at Buffalo Bills: There are two factors in this game: first, the G-men are on the road; second, the Bills don't seem ready to win the important games yet.
Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears: The Bears could win this, ruining Lord Favre's farewell tour. And then I woke up...
Cleveland Browns at Cincinnati Bengals: Is there a more likable team in the NFL than the Browns? They have struggled for decades in that godawful city, they have a no-name quarterback who comes out of nowhere to lead them to the steps of the playoffs in the hardest conference in all of football, they have a former star running back on his last legs trying to earn one more shot at glory, they have a stud wide receiver, they have a great offensive line anchored by a rookie tackle...and they have an awful defense which leads to a lot of high scoring games that are fun to watch. The Browns could almost be the Bengals. Fortunately, the Brownies are better.
Kansas City Chiefs at Detroit Lions: Remember that "10 win" prediction from Jon Kitna? This will be number 7.
Houston Texans at Indianapolis Colts: Sorry Texans, the Colts are out of your league.
Oakland Raiders at Jacksonville Jaguars: With Justin "Huggy Bear" Fargas gone for the season, this game could get ugly. (I just love having an excuse to say "Huggy Bear".)
Philadelphia Eagles at New Orleans Saints: What Brian Westbrook did for the Eagles last week will go down in the annals of football history as one of the classiest acts of all time (even if he was listening to Jon Runyan).
Atlanta Falcons at Arizona Cardinals: Note to Arthur Blank: Please concede this game. Do we have to watch the Falcons get steamrolled again like they were last week?
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at San Francisco 49ers: The Niners win this one for pride.
Miami Dolphins at New England Patriots: God said, let the Patriots have an easy December. And He looked upon the schedule, and gave Fish unto the Patriots. Upon seeing this, the coach Belichick proclaimed, "Thank you God!"
Baltimore Ravens at Seattle Seahawks: And the Ravens will also be playing.
New York Jets at Tennessee Titans: The ultimate Red State-Blue State matchup. Well, not really. But it sounded good, since the Red State team will win.
Washington Redskins at Minnesota Vikings: The Vikings seem like the perfect team to beat the Skins, but I have this nagging feeling I am wrong here.
Denver Broncos at San Diego Chargers: This game will be a lot closer than it looks on paper, but it is hard to go against the Chargers.
Just in case anyone forgot, here are the Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
Mercifully, this week we don't have to go to the trouble of picking the winner of the Steelers-Rams. It would take a Christmas miracle for the Rams to win.
However, there is a Saturday night game, so remember to get your picks in before 8:15 EST on Saturday!
My picks:
Dallas Cowboys at Carolina Panthers: Will there be a Jessica Simpson sighting in Carolina this weekend? If so, take the Panthers. More likely, the Cowboys win this one.
New York Giants at Buffalo Bills: There are two factors in this game: first, the G-men are on the road; second, the Bills don't seem ready to win the important games yet.
Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears: The Bears could win this, ruining Lord Favre's farewell tour. And then I woke up...
Cleveland Browns at Cincinnati Bengals: Is there a more likable team in the NFL than the Browns? They have struggled for decades in that godawful city, they have a no-name quarterback who comes out of nowhere to lead them to the steps of the playoffs in the hardest conference in all of football, they have a former star running back on his last legs trying to earn one more shot at glory, they have a stud wide receiver, they have a great offensive line anchored by a rookie tackle...and they have an awful defense which leads to a lot of high scoring games that are fun to watch. The Browns could almost be the Bengals. Fortunately, the Brownies are better.
Kansas City Chiefs at Detroit Lions: Remember that "10 win" prediction from Jon Kitna? This will be number 7.
Houston Texans at Indianapolis Colts: Sorry Texans, the Colts are out of your league.
Oakland Raiders at Jacksonville Jaguars: With Justin "Huggy Bear" Fargas gone for the season, this game could get ugly. (I just love having an excuse to say "Huggy Bear".)
Philadelphia Eagles at New Orleans Saints: What Brian Westbrook did for the Eagles last week will go down in the annals of football history as one of the classiest acts of all time (even if he was listening to Jon Runyan).
Atlanta Falcons at Arizona Cardinals: Note to Arthur Blank: Please concede this game. Do we have to watch the Falcons get steamrolled again like they were last week?
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at San Francisco 49ers: The Niners win this one for pride.
Miami Dolphins at New England Patriots: God said, let the Patriots have an easy December. And He looked upon the schedule, and gave Fish unto the Patriots. Upon seeing this, the coach Belichick proclaimed, "Thank you God!"
Baltimore Ravens at Seattle Seahawks: And the Ravens will also be playing.
New York Jets at Tennessee Titans: The ultimate Red State-Blue State matchup. Well, not really. But it sounded good, since the Red State team will win.
Washington Redskins at Minnesota Vikings: The Vikings seem like the perfect team to beat the Skins, but I have this nagging feeling I am wrong here.
Denver Broncos at San Diego Chargers: This game will be a lot closer than it looks on paper, but it is hard to go against the Chargers.
Just in case anyone forgot, here are the Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Fantasy Football: Gates vs. Scheffler?
As I was getting ready for the first round playoff game in my fantasy football league last Thursday, I was reviewing the last minute news when I saw there was a strong possibility that Antonio Gates, my tight end, would not be playing (he has a minor back injury).
I was faced with the dilemna of taking a chance that Gates would play, or take a chance on my backup tight end, Tony Scheffler of the Broncos. Even though Scheffler is only a backup for the Broncos, he has had a few solid games this year, his best game coming against the Bears when he had 5 catches for 82 yards and a touchdown.
Deciding it would be better to take a chance on Scheffler and get SOME points, rather than the potential goose egg I was looking at from Gates, I played Scheffler. I made the right choice, since he got 7 catches for 100 yards and one beautiful touchdown. Gates did play, but only got one catch for 8 yards.
(I should state that I would have won the game regardless of who I started at tight end, as I won by enough points that Scheffler's contribution was irrelevant.)
But now, like most NFL coaches who have a backup step in for an established starter and proceed to have a great game, I have a decision to make: Which of them shall I start in the championship game? Gates is still suffering from his back injury, and now it looks like Scheffler might even start for the Broncos this week. To make this decision even tougher, the Broncos play against the Chargers on Monday night, so I can't even use the "one game is earlier than the other game" as an excuse to make the decision for me.
To anyone who has (or has ever had) Gates on their fantasy team, he is arguably the best tight end in fantasy football over the last several years. However, this has not been his best season (thanks Norv Turner!). In the league I am in, he is only the second best tight end (Jason Witten of the Cowboys being the best).
But even in this off year for Gates, he still has more great games than Scheffler. Gates has four 100-yard games this year, and has scored a touchdown in 7 games (with two touchdowns in two games). Scheffler has only topped 100 yards once (obviously last week), but has scored touchdowns in four games.
However, Scheffler saw little playing time in the first four games. As his playing time has increased during the course of the season, his numbers have gotten better. When Broncos starting tight end Daniel Graham got hurt (high ankle sprain) early in last Thursday's game against the Texans, Scheffler had his best game of the season.
If that isn't enough to consider, Profootballtalk.com reported a rumor yesterday:
Marshall IS the Broncos best receiver, even if he is a head case. While the team is not likely to cut him now, if ANY disciplinary action is taken against him by the team, or if Marshall decides to dog it in retaliation, Scheffler would immediately become quarterback Jay Cutler's best receiving option.
Even with Marshall playing, Scheffler still managed to catch 7 passes last week. On the other hand, Gates has to compete with Chris Chambers and Ladainian Tomlinson for catches. So when the Broncos have the ball, Scheffler will clearly get more oppurtunities than Gates.
(For the record, neither team is good against opponent's tight ends. The Broncos are the worst in the NFL, and the Chargers are 9th worst.)
But which team will control the ball more? The last time they played, which was in Denver, the Chargers won 41-3 and controlled the clock for 32:53.
In that game, Gates had 7 catches for 113 yards and a touchdown. Scheffler wasn't starting then, and he only caught two passes for 37 yards.
But another thing to consider is team motivation. The Broncos might want revenge for that earlier loss, even though they are eliminated from playoff contention. Add in the fact the Chargers have already clinched their division, and have no chance of getting a first round bye in the playoffs, and the Chargers have no real motivation to win the game. If Gates is still hurt, the Chargers may decide to bench him early or not even play him at all.
I fully expect the Broncos to play a much better game against the Chargers, regardless of whether they win.
As for individual motivation, Scheffler wins hands down. He is trying to win the starting tight end job for next season. Gates has nothing to prove in this meaningless game.
All things considered, I will decide who to start between the two based on the following factors (in order of priority):
Wish me luck this week. I'm going to need it.
I was faced with the dilemna of taking a chance that Gates would play, or take a chance on my backup tight end, Tony Scheffler of the Broncos. Even though Scheffler is only a backup for the Broncos, he has had a few solid games this year, his best game coming against the Bears when he had 5 catches for 82 yards and a touchdown.
Deciding it would be better to take a chance on Scheffler and get SOME points, rather than the potential goose egg I was looking at from Gates, I played Scheffler. I made the right choice, since he got 7 catches for 100 yards and one beautiful touchdown. Gates did play, but only got one catch for 8 yards.
(I should state that I would have won the game regardless of who I started at tight end, as I won by enough points that Scheffler's contribution was irrelevant.)
But now, like most NFL coaches who have a backup step in for an established starter and proceed to have a great game, I have a decision to make: Which of them shall I start in the championship game? Gates is still suffering from his back injury, and now it looks like Scheffler might even start for the Broncos this week. To make this decision even tougher, the Broncos play against the Chargers on Monday night, so I can't even use the "one game is earlier than the other game" as an excuse to make the decision for me.
To anyone who has (or has ever had) Gates on their fantasy team, he is arguably the best tight end in fantasy football over the last several years. However, this has not been his best season (thanks Norv Turner!). In the league I am in, he is only the second best tight end (Jason Witten of the Cowboys being the best).
But even in this off year for Gates, he still has more great games than Scheffler. Gates has four 100-yard games this year, and has scored a touchdown in 7 games (with two touchdowns in two games). Scheffler has only topped 100 yards once (obviously last week), but has scored touchdowns in four games.
However, Scheffler saw little playing time in the first four games. As his playing time has increased during the course of the season, his numbers have gotten better. When Broncos starting tight end Daniel Graham got hurt (high ankle sprain) early in last Thursday's game against the Texans, Scheffler had his best game of the season.
If that isn't enough to consider, Profootballtalk.com reported a rumor yesterday:
"...Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall got into a verbal altercation with one or more members of the coaching staff on Monday, and then stormed out of the facility.
The talk is that Marshall at one point challenged the team to "cut me.""
Marshall IS the Broncos best receiver, even if he is a head case. While the team is not likely to cut him now, if ANY disciplinary action is taken against him by the team, or if Marshall decides to dog it in retaliation, Scheffler would immediately become quarterback Jay Cutler's best receiving option.
Even with Marshall playing, Scheffler still managed to catch 7 passes last week. On the other hand, Gates has to compete with Chris Chambers and Ladainian Tomlinson for catches. So when the Broncos have the ball, Scheffler will clearly get more oppurtunities than Gates.
(For the record, neither team is good against opponent's tight ends. The Broncos are the worst in the NFL, and the Chargers are 9th worst.)
But which team will control the ball more? The last time they played, which was in Denver, the Chargers won 41-3 and controlled the clock for 32:53.
In that game, Gates had 7 catches for 113 yards and a touchdown. Scheffler wasn't starting then, and he only caught two passes for 37 yards.
But another thing to consider is team motivation. The Broncos might want revenge for that earlier loss, even though they are eliminated from playoff contention. Add in the fact the Chargers have already clinched their division, and have no chance of getting a first round bye in the playoffs, and the Chargers have no real motivation to win the game. If Gates is still hurt, the Chargers may decide to bench him early or not even play him at all.
I fully expect the Broncos to play a much better game against the Chargers, regardless of whether they win.
As for individual motivation, Scheffler wins hands down. He is trying to win the starting tight end job for next season. Gates has nothing to prove in this meaningless game.
All things considered, I will decide who to start between the two based on the following factors (in order of priority):
1. If Daniel Graham is out, Scheffler gets the start.
2. If disciplinary action is taken by the Broncos against Brandon Marshall, then Scheffler gets the start. The Broncos would have to play Scheffler much more than they otherwise might.
3. If Gates is NOT on the Chargers final injury report, he gets the start.
4. If Gates is on the final injury report as "probable", and has participated fully in at least one practice this week, he gets the start.
5. Scheffler gets the start, due to the fact that both he and the Broncos are motivated to do well, plus the fact that Gates would be less than 100%. Add to that the fact that Scheffler has shown he can put up receiving numbers comparable to Gates, then Scheffler becomes the choice.
Wish me luck this week. I'm going to need it.
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 15 Results
It has been a great week for me. I won the first round playoff game in my fantasy football league, AND won Pigskin Pick'em, AND moved into first place in Pigskin Pick'em's YTD standings. As Terrell Owens would say, "I love me some me!" (I still have no clue what that means, but it sounds appropriate.)
Let the bragging commence with the weekly pick results:
So how did I end up with a 3 pick lead over second place? 4 picks over third place?
I can thank the Jaguars for part of it. Mark was the only other person to pick the Jags. The Jags are a far better team than people give them credit. Don't be surprised if the Jags end up being the team that beats the Patriots in the playoffs.
How about them 49ers? Barker was the only other one to pick the Niners.
And I can't forget a hardy chorus of "Hail to the Redskins"! One important thing I left out of my comments on that game: The Giants stink at home. Of course, Mark not picking the game at all certainly helped.
This all leads to me being in first place for the season:
In case you hadn't noticed, I plan to be a completely insufferable braggart if you guys let me win this.
Let the bragging commence with the weekly pick results:
EdMcGon - 12
J. Mark English - 9
David Stefanini - 8
Robert A. George - 8
Audio Dave - 8
Bill Barker - 7
So how did I end up with a 3 pick lead over second place? 4 picks over third place?
I can thank the Jaguars for part of it. Mark was the only other person to pick the Jags. The Jags are a far better team than people give them credit. Don't be surprised if the Jags end up being the team that beats the Patriots in the playoffs.
How about them 49ers? Barker was the only other one to pick the Niners.
And I can't forget a hardy chorus of "Hail to the Redskins"! One important thing I left out of my comments on that game: The Giants stink at home. Of course, Mark not picking the game at all certainly helped.
This all leads to me being in first place for the season:
EdMcGon(4) - 128
David Stefanini(2) - 126
Robert A. George(2) - 124
J. Mark English(1) - 107
Bill Barker - 99
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
Audio Dave(2.5) - 68
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
In case you hadn't noticed, I plan to be a completely insufferable braggart if you guys let me win this.
Monday, December 17, 2007
NFL Team Rankings
Even though the final score of the game did not impact the rankings, the Raiders looked a whole lot better yesterday against the Colts than they have looked all year. The 99 yard drive the Raiders had for a touchdown in the second quarter was possibly the best drive I have seen all year, by any team. If they play like that next year, they will be a tough team to beat.
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: I am only giving the Cowboys a little nudge below the Colts for their loss to the Eagles, since the Boys did beat the Eagles earlier this year. Frankly, the Eagles played way above their heads yesterday.
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers
Browns: Got to give the Brownies their due after their win over the Bills.
Bills
Vikings: Their game tonight will not impact their ranking, since they already beat the Bears once this year.
Giants
Seahawks: Their loss to the Panthers has to be considered a fluke, for now. The Hawks are the best team the Panthers have beaten all year.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Titans
Texans
Broncos: The Broncos took a huge hit for losing to the Texans.
Buccaneers
Panthers: They get a little nudge up for beating the Hawks.
Chiefs
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
Dolphins: Finally out of the "ugly" category. But don't read too much into it.
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Colts
Cowboys: I am only giving the Cowboys a little nudge below the Colts for their loss to the Eagles, since the Boys did beat the Eagles earlier this year. Frankly, the Eagles played way above their heads yesterday.
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Steelers
Browns: Got to give the Brownies their due after their win over the Bills.
Bills
Vikings: Their game tonight will not impact their ranking, since they already beat the Bears once this year.
Giants
Seahawks: Their loss to the Panthers has to be considered a fluke, for now. The Hawks are the best team the Panthers have beaten all year.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Titans
Texans
Broncos: The Broncos took a huge hit for losing to the Texans.
Buccaneers
Panthers: They get a little nudge up for beating the Hawks.
Chiefs
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
Dolphins: Finally out of the "ugly" category. But don't read too much into it.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Ed's Sunday Sermon: Religionism vs. Deism (Part 2)
I apologize for it taking almost a month to get around to part 2 of "Religionism vs. Deism":
Within the realm of theism, where resides the religionists and the deists, there is a great divide in political beliefs.
For religionists, there is a sub-division created by the multiple religions and multitude of religious texts. For example, Islamic texts are quite explicit about what a muslim's political beliefs should be, proclaiming that Sharia Law should be the law of the land. On the other hand, the Bible does not even consider political beliefs, going so far as to reject them.
Before I get stampeded by a bunch of angry Christians, allow me to explain. It is a misconception that the Bible has ANYTHING to do with politics, in spite of the fact many Christians seem to think it does. How many times does the Bible say there is only one king, and He is in Heaven? (see Matthew 23 for a few examples) Christ even said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) Christ also said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)
One problem for Christians is the Old Testament. Even though Christians don't follow all the laws of the Old Testament (had some ham lately?), they still retain the Jewish justification for incorporating religious law into political law, even though that justification is based on an agreement between God and "the children of Israel" (Leviticus 26:46).
Another problem for Christians is representative government. When the Bible was written, the only representative governments had been in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and both of these had failed. But in modern times, we are faced with governments where "every man is king". How does one "render unto Caesar" when one IS Caesar? (You have to wonder if Christ had this in mind when he said in Matthew 23:11, "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.")
Yet Christians still manage to happily mix their religion with their politics. Considering how many people have died in wars over religious differences, why would anyone seek justification to incorporate their religion into their government? Further, to use the power you hold under your representative government in order to force your neighbor to live under your own religious laws, is this not going against Christ's second commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."? (Matthew 22:39)
Christians are just one example of how religionists are totally consumed by their beliefs, in every aspect of their lives. Religionists will force their "square peg" beliefs into "round hole" areas where they don't belong, since religion must consume all areas of life. If I am going to Heaven because of my religious beliefs, why shouldn't I force the rest of the world to believe the same thing? More importantly, why shouldn't I force them to live under the same moral laws I live under?
The great irony is that Christ was right, but Christians don't "get it".
As for deists, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sums up their political beliefs:
However, the deist would also extend freedom of religion to include freedom FROM religion within our legal codes. Specifically, enacting laws whose basis is a religious text, or an interpretation of a religious text, without a greater moral basis, is wrong.
Consider murder. For most religionists (ignoring Islam for obvious reasons here), their religious texts strictly forbid murder. Deists would agree: without the right to live, society would be unable to function properly. If murder were legal, no one would hesitate (except for moral reasons) from killing anyone else for even the most minor perceived slights. There is a greater moral basis present to allow for outlawing murder.
Consider abortion. If you agree with the religionist interpretation of their texts (which usually do not explicitly say abortion is wrong, or even that it should be banned), then abortion must be considered on the same level as murder. For deists, abortion might be undesirable. But within the greater consideration of society as a whole, a deist would see that abortion as a practice does not hurt society. In some cases, abortion can even be seen as a positive (i.e. rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother).
On what basis do I draw this conclusion about deists? The Founding Fathers of the United States, who were arguably the ultimate deists. As stated in the Declaration of Independence:
Simply put, any government has two responsibilities to it's people: "their Safety and Happiness". Since abortion does NOT affect the safety of people, then the only consideration is happiness. At what point does offending religionists supercede an individual's "unalienable Rights"? It doesn't, and that is why deists would say that abortion must remain legal. (There are subtleties to the abortion argument which I am not going to cover here, such as viability of the fetus. The purpose of this post is not about abortion per se.)
There is another aspect which religionists ignore in their quest to turn society into a reflection of their own religious beliefs: How does government enforce law? Ultimately, through the use of deadly force. Are religionists willing to literally kill someone for performing an abortion? There are some zealots who would, as evidenced by abortion clinic bombings and other violence.
If a man performs an abortion, and then resists arrest, is a religionist willing to kill him for it? One can argue that resisting arrest is reason enough, but it is the act of performing the abortion that led to it. By banning abortion, the religionist creates the situation where deadly force is authorized in apprehending the criminal. In a land where every man is king, are you, the king, willing to authorize this action? Many religionists would say yes, justifiably so because they consider abortion murder. Most deists would consider it excessive.
But abortion is a harshly divided issue. How about an issue such as government altruism? People from theists to atheists would support government altruism. Our society as a whole values altruism.
The problem here is that most religions support INDIVIDUAL altruism. So in a land where every man is king, it would only seem logical for government to be altruistic, under the religionist view. The religionists fail to recognize HOW government gets money.
The religionist happily "renders unto Caesar", especially knowing their government will be altruistic. Unfortunately, they also apply the deadly force of government to rob their neighbors to pay for their own altruism. Are you ultimately willing to apply deadly force to get the money for government to be altruistic, when you could just as easily be charitable with your own money?
When it comes to altruism, religionists are passing the buck when they promote government altruism. They are passing their own responsibility onto government, thereby requiring it of everyone, much like they do when they try to legislate their own morality.
On the other hand, deists recognize that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is no way to run a government, just as you cannot expect everyone to live by the same morality you do.
Thomas Jefferson defined the deist view perfectly:
Within the realm of theism, where resides the religionists and the deists, there is a great divide in political beliefs.
For religionists, there is a sub-division created by the multiple religions and multitude of religious texts. For example, Islamic texts are quite explicit about what a muslim's political beliefs should be, proclaiming that Sharia Law should be the law of the land. On the other hand, the Bible does not even consider political beliefs, going so far as to reject them.
Before I get stampeded by a bunch of angry Christians, allow me to explain. It is a misconception that the Bible has ANYTHING to do with politics, in spite of the fact many Christians seem to think it does. How many times does the Bible say there is only one king, and He is in Heaven? (see Matthew 23 for a few examples) Christ even said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) Christ also said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)
One problem for Christians is the Old Testament. Even though Christians don't follow all the laws of the Old Testament (had some ham lately?), they still retain the Jewish justification for incorporating religious law into political law, even though that justification is based on an agreement between God and "the children of Israel" (Leviticus 26:46).
Another problem for Christians is representative government. When the Bible was written, the only representative governments had been in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and both of these had failed. But in modern times, we are faced with governments where "every man is king". How does one "render unto Caesar" when one IS Caesar? (You have to wonder if Christ had this in mind when he said in Matthew 23:11, "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.")
Yet Christians still manage to happily mix their religion with their politics. Considering how many people have died in wars over religious differences, why would anyone seek justification to incorporate their religion into their government? Further, to use the power you hold under your representative government in order to force your neighbor to live under your own religious laws, is this not going against Christ's second commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."? (Matthew 22:39)
Christians are just one example of how religionists are totally consumed by their beliefs, in every aspect of their lives. Religionists will force their "square peg" beliefs into "round hole" areas where they don't belong, since religion must consume all areas of life. If I am going to Heaven because of my religious beliefs, why shouldn't I force the rest of the world to believe the same thing? More importantly, why shouldn't I force them to live under the same moral laws I live under?
The great irony is that Christ was right, but Christians don't "get it".
As for deists, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sums up their political beliefs:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
However, the deist would also extend freedom of religion to include freedom FROM religion within our legal codes. Specifically, enacting laws whose basis is a religious text, or an interpretation of a religious text, without a greater moral basis, is wrong.
Consider murder. For most religionists (ignoring Islam for obvious reasons here), their religious texts strictly forbid murder. Deists would agree: without the right to live, society would be unable to function properly. If murder were legal, no one would hesitate (except for moral reasons) from killing anyone else for even the most minor perceived slights. There is a greater moral basis present to allow for outlawing murder.
Consider abortion. If you agree with the religionist interpretation of their texts (which usually do not explicitly say abortion is wrong, or even that it should be banned), then abortion must be considered on the same level as murder. For deists, abortion might be undesirable. But within the greater consideration of society as a whole, a deist would see that abortion as a practice does not hurt society. In some cases, abortion can even be seen as a positive (i.e. rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother).
On what basis do I draw this conclusion about deists? The Founding Fathers of the United States, who were arguably the ultimate deists. As stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Simply put, any government has two responsibilities to it's people: "their Safety and Happiness". Since abortion does NOT affect the safety of people, then the only consideration is happiness. At what point does offending religionists supercede an individual's "unalienable Rights"? It doesn't, and that is why deists would say that abortion must remain legal. (There are subtleties to the abortion argument which I am not going to cover here, such as viability of the fetus. The purpose of this post is not about abortion per se.)
There is another aspect which religionists ignore in their quest to turn society into a reflection of their own religious beliefs: How does government enforce law? Ultimately, through the use of deadly force. Are religionists willing to literally kill someone for performing an abortion? There are some zealots who would, as evidenced by abortion clinic bombings and other violence.
If a man performs an abortion, and then resists arrest, is a religionist willing to kill him for it? One can argue that resisting arrest is reason enough, but it is the act of performing the abortion that led to it. By banning abortion, the religionist creates the situation where deadly force is authorized in apprehending the criminal. In a land where every man is king, are you, the king, willing to authorize this action? Many religionists would say yes, justifiably so because they consider abortion murder. Most deists would consider it excessive.
But abortion is a harshly divided issue. How about an issue such as government altruism? People from theists to atheists would support government altruism. Our society as a whole values altruism.
The problem here is that most religions support INDIVIDUAL altruism. So in a land where every man is king, it would only seem logical for government to be altruistic, under the religionist view. The religionists fail to recognize HOW government gets money.
The religionist happily "renders unto Caesar", especially knowing their government will be altruistic. Unfortunately, they also apply the deadly force of government to rob their neighbors to pay for their own altruism. Are you ultimately willing to apply deadly force to get the money for government to be altruistic, when you could just as easily be charitable with your own money?
When it comes to altruism, religionists are passing the buck when they promote government altruism. They are passing their own responsibility onto government, thereby requiring it of everyone, much like they do when they try to legislate their own morality.
On the other hand, deists recognize that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is no way to run a government, just as you cannot expect everyone to live by the same morality you do.
Thomas Jefferson defined the deist view perfectly:
"That government which governs least, governs best."
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 15 Picks
THERE IS A SATURDAY GAME THIS WEEK, SO ALL PICKS MUST BE IN BEFORE 8:15 PM EST ON SATURDAY. Is that clear enough?
And just for the record, I like the Broncos over the Texans in tonight's game.
My picks this week:
Cincinnati Bengals at San Francisco 49ers: Two teams with coaches on the hot seat. But it's hard to see the Bengals defense stopping Frank Gore.
Seattle Seahawks at Carolina Panthers: This game should be close, but the Hawks bring just a little more to the game.
Buffalo Bills at Cleveland Browns: I would not have expected this game to have playoff implications, but it does. This is the game of the week, as these two teams are about equal in my mind. It could go either way, but I am leaning towards the Browns. They have a better offensive line.
Tennessee Titans at Kansas City Chiefs: In a Jeff Fisher vs. Herm Edwards coaching battle, who do you pick?
Baltimore Ravens at Miami Dolphins: The Fish could pull out of their funk with this game, as the Ravens are nothing special. More likely, the Fish go down once more.
New York Jets at New England Patriots: At this point, the only team that can beat the Patriots IS the Patriots.
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints: Close game between two underachievers.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Pittsburgh Steelers: The Jaguars are appropriately named. This team is like a jungle cat that quietly sneaks up on you. By the time you realize they are there, it's too late, and the game is over. Sorry Steeler fans, but the Jags are too good for your team.
Green Bay Packers at St. Louis Rams: Mismatch.
Atlanta Falcons at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: So long Bobby Petrino. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. That said, I am glad to see Emmitt Thomas get a coaching job, even if it is only interim.
Indianapolis Colts at Oakland Raiders: Take pity on us Tony Dungy!
Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys: I just don't see the Eagles having the firepower for this one.
Detroit Lions at San Diego Chargers: The Bolts are too much here.
Washington Redskins at New York Giants: Eli Manning is NOT a bad quarterback. The New York fans need to get off his case. The problem for the Giants is simple: offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride, who couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag.
Chicago Bears at Minnesota Vikings: If the Bears had an offense, I might look for them to win here.
And just for the record, I like the Broncos over the Texans in tonight's game.
My picks this week:
Cincinnati Bengals at San Francisco 49ers: Two teams with coaches on the hot seat. But it's hard to see the Bengals defense stopping Frank Gore.
Seattle Seahawks at Carolina Panthers: This game should be close, but the Hawks bring just a little more to the game.
Buffalo Bills at Cleveland Browns: I would not have expected this game to have playoff implications, but it does. This is the game of the week, as these two teams are about equal in my mind. It could go either way, but I am leaning towards the Browns. They have a better offensive line.
Tennessee Titans at Kansas City Chiefs: In a Jeff Fisher vs. Herm Edwards coaching battle, who do you pick?
Baltimore Ravens at Miami Dolphins: The Fish could pull out of their funk with this game, as the Ravens are nothing special. More likely, the Fish go down once more.
New York Jets at New England Patriots: At this point, the only team that can beat the Patriots IS the Patriots.
Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints: Close game between two underachievers.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Pittsburgh Steelers: The Jaguars are appropriately named. This team is like a jungle cat that quietly sneaks up on you. By the time you realize they are there, it's too late, and the game is over. Sorry Steeler fans, but the Jags are too good for your team.
Green Bay Packers at St. Louis Rams: Mismatch.
Atlanta Falcons at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: So long Bobby Petrino. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. That said, I am glad to see Emmitt Thomas get a coaching job, even if it is only interim.
Indianapolis Colts at Oakland Raiders: Take pity on us Tony Dungy!
Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys: I just don't see the Eagles having the firepower for this one.
Detroit Lions at San Diego Chargers: The Bolts are too much here.
Washington Redskins at New York Giants: Eli Manning is NOT a bad quarterback. The New York fans need to get off his case. The problem for the Giants is simple: offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride, who couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag.
Chicago Bears at Minnesota Vikings: If the Bears had an offense, I might look for them to win here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Transcending Sports
I recently did a blog post which complained about Brett Favre. Specifically, I was complaining about how the Media treats him as more important than the game itself. But how many athletes have really transcended their sport?
In my opinion, here are the athletes who did:
Babe Ruth: Ruth took baseball and MADE it the American Pastime. After the 1919 "Black Sox Scandal" nearly ruined baseball, Ruth saved the game and changed it forever.
Jesse Owens: Owens is one of the best examples of transcending sport and entering international politics. His four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics showed up the Aryan supremacy message at the heart of Nazi propaganda.
Jackie Robinson: "Breaking the color barrier" is all you need to say about Robinson. Every black person who has ever played a professional sport since Robinson has him to thank for it.
Muhammad Ali: Few athletes from any sport achieve the international fame of Ali. As for transcending sport, no athlete has EVER topped Ali. From his objection to the Vietnam War (for which he ended up in prison), to his blatant braggadocio (which he always seemed to be able to bring to fruition), to his international fights ("The Rumble in the Jungle" in Zaire, and "The Thrilla in Manilla" in the Philippines), to his lighting of the torch at the 1996 Olympics (which was one of the most touching sporting moments I have ever seen), Ali was truly "The Greatest".
Vince Lombardi: Whether it is fair to include a coach in a list of athletes is arguable, but what cannot be argued is how Lombardi became the very definition of "head coach". Winning three NFL Championships and the first two Super Bowls in a span of seven years is still a significant accomplishment. But where he truly stands out from other great coaches was in the things he said. Although he is frequently, and incorrectly, credited with saying "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing", he had many other quotes which showed how great a motivator he was. Within American culture, Lombardi symbolizes everything in coaches (and leaders) from motivation to authoritarian dictatorship.
Michael Jordan: One of the things that impresses me about Jordan is that he is one of the smartest superstars to ever play any sport. That intelligence undoubtedly helped him to dominate professional basketball, but it also gave him a marketing savvy that few athletes have. As for transcending his sport, consider Jordan's first retirement from basketball, when he went to play baseball. How many athletes would be dragging the Media around to their minor league baseball games?
There are a few others who are borderline cases, like Jim Thorpe, Red Grange, "Babe" Didrikson Zaharias, and Joe Namath, but their fame has faded over time to such an extent that it can be argued they really didn't transcend their sport that much.
Now does anyone honestly think Brett Favre belongs on that list?
In my opinion, here are the athletes who did:
Babe Ruth: Ruth took baseball and MADE it the American Pastime. After the 1919 "Black Sox Scandal" nearly ruined baseball, Ruth saved the game and changed it forever.
Jesse Owens: Owens is one of the best examples of transcending sport and entering international politics. His four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympics showed up the Aryan supremacy message at the heart of Nazi propaganda.
Jackie Robinson: "Breaking the color barrier" is all you need to say about Robinson. Every black person who has ever played a professional sport since Robinson has him to thank for it.
Muhammad Ali: Few athletes from any sport achieve the international fame of Ali. As for transcending sport, no athlete has EVER topped Ali. From his objection to the Vietnam War (for which he ended up in prison), to his blatant braggadocio (which he always seemed to be able to bring to fruition), to his international fights ("The Rumble in the Jungle" in Zaire, and "The Thrilla in Manilla" in the Philippines), to his lighting of the torch at the 1996 Olympics (which was one of the most touching sporting moments I have ever seen), Ali was truly "The Greatest".
Vince Lombardi: Whether it is fair to include a coach in a list of athletes is arguable, but what cannot be argued is how Lombardi became the very definition of "head coach". Winning three NFL Championships and the first two Super Bowls in a span of seven years is still a significant accomplishment. But where he truly stands out from other great coaches was in the things he said. Although he is frequently, and incorrectly, credited with saying "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing", he had many other quotes which showed how great a motivator he was. Within American culture, Lombardi symbolizes everything in coaches (and leaders) from motivation to authoritarian dictatorship.
Michael Jordan: One of the things that impresses me about Jordan is that he is one of the smartest superstars to ever play any sport. That intelligence undoubtedly helped him to dominate professional basketball, but it also gave him a marketing savvy that few athletes have. As for transcending his sport, consider Jordan's first retirement from basketball, when he went to play baseball. How many athletes would be dragging the Media around to their minor league baseball games?
There are a few others who are borderline cases, like Jim Thorpe, Red Grange, "Babe" Didrikson Zaharias, and Joe Namath, but their fame has faded over time to such an extent that it can be argued they really didn't transcend their sport that much.
Now does anyone honestly think Brett Favre belongs on that list?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 14 Results & Mike Vick
The best pick this week was made by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, when he chose to give Mike Vick 23 months in prison, instead of the 12-18 months recommended in Vick's plea agreement.
I know a lot of people want to see Vick out of football forever, but I personally hope Vick can learn from this mistake, get his head on straight, and come back better than ever in a few years. Although if he doesn't play well, I am sure the fans will have him on a "short leash".
Seriously though, in our weekly picks, I win!
In the YTD standings, David Stefanini returns to sole possession of the top spot, but with only two games separating him from Robert George and me:
UPDATE: Originally, I had Bill Barker with the weekly win. WRONG! Barker posted his picks after 1:00 pm on Sunday, so I had to take away all his 1:00 games, leaving him with 7 games. Sorry Bill.
I know a lot of people want to see Vick out of football forever, but I personally hope Vick can learn from this mistake, get his head on straight, and come back better than ever in a few years. Although if he doesn't play well, I am sure the fans will have him on a "short leash".
Seriously though, in our weekly picks, I win!
EdMcGon - 13
David Stefanini - 12
FunkyPundit - 12
Audio Dave - 12
Robert A. George - 10
Bill Barker - 7
J. Mark English - 6
In the YTD standings, David Stefanini returns to sole possession of the top spot, but with only two games separating him from Robert George and me:
David Stefanini(2) - 118
EdMcGon(3) - 116
Robert A. George(2) - 116
J. Mark English(1) - 98
Bill Barker - 92
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 76
BL(2) - 74
Audio Dave(2.5) - 60
SoloD(1) - 53
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
UPDATE: Originally, I had Bill Barker with the weekly win. WRONG! Barker posted his picks after 1:00 pm on Sunday, so I had to take away all his 1:00 games, leaving him with 7 games. Sorry Bill.
Monday, December 10, 2007
NFL Team Rankings
The only game which impacted the rankings last weekend was the Bucs losing to the Texans, which makes me feel REALLY good about the rankings.
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos
Steelers
Bills
Browns
Vikings
Giants
Seahawks
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Titans
Texans
Buccaneers: The Bucs are a hard team to rank, mostly because of their quarterback carousel. With a healthy Jeff Garcia, they are a smidgen better than this.
Chiefs
Panthers
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
UGLY
Dolphins
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos
Steelers
Bills
Browns
Vikings
Giants
Seahawks
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Titans
Texans
Buccaneers: The Bucs are a hard team to rank, mostly because of their quarterback carousel. With a healthy Jeff Garcia, they are a smidgen better than this.
Chiefs
Panthers
Saints
49ers
Cardinals
Bengals
Raiders
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams
Falcons
UGLY
Dolphins
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 14 Picks
As usual, the Bears-Redskins game tonight will NOT count in the weekly or YTD standings. But for the record, I like the Skins tonight.
Now for the rest of my weekly picks:
Miami Dolphins at Buffalo Bills: This could be the week for the Fish. More likely not.
St. Louis Rams at Cincinnati Bengals: This might be a fun game to watch, only because neither team knows how to play defense.
Dallas Cowboys at Detroit Lions: They should have played this game on Thanksgiving.
Oakland Raiders at Green Bay Packers: Even a banged-up Brett Favre is too much for the Raiders.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Houston Texans: This is the closest game of the week. With Bucs QB Jeff Garcia looking like he will play, and Texans QB Matt Schaub looking like he won't, I will gamble on the Bucs to win it. Even if both played, it still could go either way.
Carolina Panthers at Jacksonville Jaguars: The Jags are the better cats here.
New York Giants at Philadelphia Eagles: Take the Eagles in this revenge match.
San Diego Chargers at Tennessee Titans: The Bolts should be able to take care of business against an overmatched Titans team.
Minnesota Vikings at San Francisco 49ers: The improving Vikes are too much for the floundering 49ers.
Arizona Cardinals at Seattle Seahawks: Another revenge match, with the Hawks coming out on top.
Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos: I imagine the Broncos are still stinging from last week's loss to the Raiders. Expect the Chiefs to pay for it.
Pittsburgh Steelers at New England Patriots: I can't pick the Pats to lose, but this one should be close enough for the Steelers to pull it off, but only if they don't make crucial mistakes.
Cleveland Browns at New York Jets: Nice victory for the Jets over the Dolphins. Now they can come back down to earth against a real team.
Indianapolis Colts at Baltimore Ravens: Don't expect the Ravens to do any better against the Colts than they did against the Pats.
New Orleans Saints at Atlanta Falcons: This is a Monday night game? Take the Saints and go to bed early.
Pigskin Pick'em rules: Look 'em up in one of the previous weeks!
Now for the rest of my weekly picks:
Miami Dolphins at Buffalo Bills: This could be the week for the Fish. More likely not.
St. Louis Rams at Cincinnati Bengals: This might be a fun game to watch, only because neither team knows how to play defense.
Dallas Cowboys at Detroit Lions: They should have played this game on Thanksgiving.
Oakland Raiders at Green Bay Packers: Even a banged-up Brett Favre is too much for the Raiders.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Houston Texans: This is the closest game of the week. With Bucs QB Jeff Garcia looking like he will play, and Texans QB Matt Schaub looking like he won't, I will gamble on the Bucs to win it. Even if both played, it still could go either way.
Carolina Panthers at Jacksonville Jaguars: The Jags are the better cats here.
New York Giants at Philadelphia Eagles: Take the Eagles in this revenge match.
San Diego Chargers at Tennessee Titans: The Bolts should be able to take care of business against an overmatched Titans team.
Minnesota Vikings at San Francisco 49ers: The improving Vikes are too much for the floundering 49ers.
Arizona Cardinals at Seattle Seahawks: Another revenge match, with the Hawks coming out on top.
Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos: I imagine the Broncos are still stinging from last week's loss to the Raiders. Expect the Chiefs to pay for it.
Pittsburgh Steelers at New England Patriots: I can't pick the Pats to lose, but this one should be close enough for the Steelers to pull it off, but only if they don't make crucial mistakes.
Cleveland Browns at New York Jets: Nice victory for the Jets over the Dolphins. Now they can come back down to earth against a real team.
Indianapolis Colts at Baltimore Ravens: Don't expect the Ravens to do any better against the Colts than they did against the Pats.
New Orleans Saints at Atlanta Falcons: This is a Monday night game? Take the Saints and go to bed early.
Pigskin Pick'em rules: Look 'em up in one of the previous weeks!
NFL Team Rankings
ELITE
Patriots: Why would the Patriots ranking be unaffected by Monday night's game against the Ravens? Because they won. Great teams find a way to win. It may not always be pretty, but they get it done.
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos: They split their series with the Raiders this year. No ranking impact for the Broncos.
Steelers
Bills
Browns: It is not often I will ignore a loss in the rankings, but the Browns were cheated by the refs in their game against the Cards.
Vikings
Giants
Seahawks: The win over the Eagles nudged the Hawks up the rankings.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Buccaneers
Titans
Texans
Chiefs
Panthers
Saints
49ers
Cardinals: A bad call by the refs at the end of the game is the only thing keeping the Cardinals from advancing here.
Bengals
Raiders: The win over the Broncos shows the Raiders are really at the bottom end of the "average" teams, rather than the top end of the "bad" teams.
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams: Beating the Falcons is good for a one-spot nudge in the rankings.
Falcons: You are pretty bad when you lose to the Rams.
UGLY
Dolphins: 1976 Buccaneers, get those champagne bottles ready!
Patriots: Why would the Patriots ranking be unaffected by Monday night's game against the Ravens? Because they won. Great teams find a way to win. It may not always be pretty, but they get it done.
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos: They split their series with the Raiders this year. No ranking impact for the Broncos.
Steelers
Bills
Browns: It is not often I will ignore a loss in the rankings, but the Browns were cheated by the refs in their game against the Cards.
Vikings
Giants
Seahawks: The win over the Eagles nudged the Hawks up the rankings.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Bears
Buccaneers
Titans
Texans
Chiefs
Panthers
Saints
49ers
Cardinals: A bad call by the refs at the end of the game is the only thing keeping the Cardinals from advancing here.
Bengals
Raiders: The win over the Broncos shows the Raiders are really at the bottom end of the "average" teams, rather than the top end of the "bad" teams.
BAD
Ravens
Jets
Rams: Beating the Falcons is good for a one-spot nudge in the rankings.
Falcons: You are pretty bad when you lose to the Rams.
UGLY
Dolphins: 1976 Buccaneers, get those champagne bottles ready!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 13 Results
Last night's Patriots-Ravens game was why I watch football: Watch a lesser team dominate a better team for 58 minutes, only to lose the game in the last two minutes. And I do mean the FULL two minutes.
Speaking of better teams, Audio Dave won his second week in a row in our Pigskin Pick'em pool:
Finally, we have a dramatic development in our YTD standings! Robert George has moved into a tie with David Stefanini for the lead:
The great irony here is that if Robert had remembered to make the first week's picks, he might be winning by now. Of course, if Audio Dave had started playing earlier in the year, he might be winning too. If, if, if, if, if...
Speaking of better teams, Audio Dave won his second week in a row in our Pigskin Pick'em pool:
Audio Dave - 11
J. Mark English - 10
Robert A. George - 9
Bill Barker - 9
FunkyPundit - 8
David Stefanini - 7
EdMcGon - 5
Finally, we have a dramatic development in our YTD standings! Robert George has moved into a tie with David Stefanini for the lead:
Robert A. George(2) - 106
David Stefanini(2) - 106
EdMcGon(2) - 103
J. Mark English(1) - 92
Bill Barker - 85
BL(2) - 74
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 64
SoloD(1) - 53
Audio Dave(2.5) - 48
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
The great irony here is that if Robert had remembered to make the first week's picks, he might be winning by now. Of course, if Audio Dave had started playing earlier in the year, he might be winning too. If, if, if, if, if...
Friday, November 30, 2007
Sports Media Bias: Brett Favre
We have all heard of the liberal Media bias displayed by most Media sources. But there is a Media bias far more glaring and obvious than anything the Media does related to politics. That bias is towards Brett Favre.
If you took Cal Ripken's durability and work ethic and combined it with John Kruk's wit and love of the game, and put it into a football player, you would have Brett Favre, who is without question one of the great quarterbacks playing, as well as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time.
But the media treatment of Favre would lead you to think he transcends the game itself. Last night's Cowboys-Packers game was a disgusting example of Favre bias on full display.
Favre got injured in the second quarter. Mind you, the game was still being played, but you might not know it from the coverage. While Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth were droning on about Favre's injury, we got to see repeated replays of the play where Favre got hurt. While Aaron Rodgers led the Packers on a touchdown drive at the end of the second quarter (something Favre had not accomplished while he was in there, and I don't count Ryan Grant's 62 yard touchdown run as Favre's accomplishment), you would think Islamic terrorists had flown an airplane into Brett Favre's arm based on the amount of coverage it was getting.
But it was clear from the replay that Favre hit his arm on a defender's helmet as he was trying to throw. Worst case scenario was that Favre broke his arm, but it didn't even look that serious from the replay. Considering Favre is hoping to play next week, it is safe to say it is a minor injury.
The halftime show was even worse. At one point, Rich Eisen nailed the bias when he called the score of the game "secondary" to Favre's injury. I might buy that if Favre had broken his neck, or sustained some other life-threatening injury. But was it really necessary to have the camera on the locker room door when the Packers came out for the second half, with the constant "we don't see Favre coming out with the team" comments?
Just when you think the "Favre love-in" cannot get any worse, the third quarter started. Or did it? Forget the game! Forget replays of the action on the field! Favre is leaving the locker room! Favre is returning to the field!
Thank God the Packers announced Favre would not be returning to the game. Otherwise, Gumbel and Collinsworth might have spent the entire second half wondering if Favre would be returning. As it was, we got treated to plenty of camera shots of Favre standing on the sidelines in the second half, as if just the mere presence of Favre on the sidelines added to the game somehow.
While the announcers were busy gushing over Brett Favre, his replacement was actually having a better game than Favre. The final stat line for both:
During the second half, Bryant Gumbel noted how there would be "no quarterback controversy in Green Bay". Probably because the Media would skewer Green Bay's management if they even hinted at benching Favre.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying the Packers should bench Favre. But the Media will not even consider the possibility, which is a dereliction of the Media's duty. When a public figure is not performing as well as they should, the Media has a responsibility to question whether that public figure is worthy of their position. For the Media to place a public figure above scrutiny is the definition of bias.
Any politician would kill to get the kind of Media bias that Brett Favre enjoys. The drinking problems from early in his career? Forgotten. The fact he has thrown more interceptions than any other quarterback in the history of the NFL? No biggie.
If it wasn't for the Media genuflecting before Favre at every oppurtunity, I might enjoy watching the end of Favre's career. As it is, I will be glad when he retires.
If you took Cal Ripken's durability and work ethic and combined it with John Kruk's wit and love of the game, and put it into a football player, you would have Brett Favre, who is without question one of the great quarterbacks playing, as well as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time.
But the media treatment of Favre would lead you to think he transcends the game itself. Last night's Cowboys-Packers game was a disgusting example of Favre bias on full display.
Favre got injured in the second quarter. Mind you, the game was still being played, but you might not know it from the coverage. While Bryant Gumbel and Cris Collinsworth were droning on about Favre's injury, we got to see repeated replays of the play where Favre got hurt. While Aaron Rodgers led the Packers on a touchdown drive at the end of the second quarter (something Favre had not accomplished while he was in there, and I don't count Ryan Grant's 62 yard touchdown run as Favre's accomplishment), you would think Islamic terrorists had flown an airplane into Brett Favre's arm based on the amount of coverage it was getting.
But it was clear from the replay that Favre hit his arm on a defender's helmet as he was trying to throw. Worst case scenario was that Favre broke his arm, but it didn't even look that serious from the replay. Considering Favre is hoping to play next week, it is safe to say it is a minor injury.
The halftime show was even worse. At one point, Rich Eisen nailed the bias when he called the score of the game "secondary" to Favre's injury. I might buy that if Favre had broken his neck, or sustained some other life-threatening injury. But was it really necessary to have the camera on the locker room door when the Packers came out for the second half, with the constant "we don't see Favre coming out with the team" comments?
Just when you think the "Favre love-in" cannot get any worse, the third quarter started. Or did it? Forget the game! Forget replays of the action on the field! Favre is leaving the locker room! Favre is returning to the field!
Thank God the Packers announced Favre would not be returning to the game. Otherwise, Gumbel and Collinsworth might have spent the entire second half wondering if Favre would be returning. As it was, we got treated to plenty of camera shots of Favre standing on the sidelines in the second half, as if just the mere presence of Favre on the sidelines added to the game somehow.
While the announcers were busy gushing over Brett Favre, his replacement was actually having a better game than Favre. The final stat line for both:
Brett Favre: 5/14, 56 passing yards, 2 interceptions
Aaron Rodgers: 18/26, 201 passing yards, 1 td, 5 rush attempts, 30 rushing yards
During the second half, Bryant Gumbel noted how there would be "no quarterback controversy in Green Bay". Probably because the Media would skewer Green Bay's management if they even hinted at benching Favre.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying the Packers should bench Favre. But the Media will not even consider the possibility, which is a dereliction of the Media's duty. When a public figure is not performing as well as they should, the Media has a responsibility to question whether that public figure is worthy of their position. For the Media to place a public figure above scrutiny is the definition of bias.
Any politician would kill to get the kind of Media bias that Brett Favre enjoys. The drinking problems from early in his career? Forgotten. The fact he has thrown more interceptions than any other quarterback in the history of the NFL? No biggie.
If it wasn't for the Media genuflecting before Favre at every oppurtunity, I might enjoy watching the end of Favre's career. As it is, I will be glad when he retires.
Help! I'm being held hostage by Hillary!
I received the following picture in an email from my dad. The email claimed that Snopes.com had verified it's authenticity. Sure enough they did.
Tha caption from Snopes:
Tha caption from Snopes:
The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School. He's giving the sign of 'coercion' with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's to send messages back to our intelligence services viewing the photo or video. This guy was being coerced into holding hands with Hillary. Little did she know that he would tell us.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 13 Picks
As stated in my previous post, the Cowboys-Packers game will NOT count, per the Pigskin Pick'em rules (see below, or any of the other previous 12 times they were posted). Here are my weekly picks:
San Francisco 49ers at Carolina Panthers: Hard to pick against the 49ers with a healthy Frank Gore.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Indianapolis Colts: If you can't see the Cowboys-Packers, then try to catch this one. It might be better. With Peyton playing more like Eli lately, expect the Jags to exact some revenge for their last loss to the Colts.
San Diego Chargers at Kansas City Chiefs: The Chiefs are a mess.
New York Jets at Miami Dolphins: Speaking of good games...well, you know I wasn't talking about this one. This may be the only time I pick the Fish all year.
Detroit Lions at Minnesota Vikings: My first upset special for this week.
Seattle Seahawks at Philadelphia Eagles: Coin toss game.
Atlanta Falcons at St. Louis Rams: These two teams are still playing? I thought they were both mailing it in this year.
Houston Texans at Tennessee Titans: My second upset special this week.
Buffalo Bills at Washington Redskins: How do you pick this game, considering the Skins are in mourning over Sean Taylor? My gut feeling is because the Skins are at home, they will stomp the Bills. Or they'll be flat and get rolled by the Bills.
Cleveland Browns at Arizona Cardinals: I never thought I'd hear the words "offensive shootout" associated with a Browns-Cards game, but it's true.
Denver Broncos at Oakland Raiders: If ever there was a game where I want to pick the Raiders to win, this is it. Forgive me Al, for I have sinned...
New York Giants at Chicago Bears: Take "Da Bears" at home.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at New Orleans Saints: Just a feeling...or was it that po'boy I ate?
Cincinnati Bengals at Pittsburgh Steelers: The only chance the Bengals have is if the Steelers are looking past them to...
New England Patriots at Baltimore Ravens: "Brady...to Moss...TOUCHDOWN!!!" Now say that four more times, inserting different receivers each time. And that's just the first quarter.
Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
San Francisco 49ers at Carolina Panthers: Hard to pick against the 49ers with a healthy Frank Gore.
Jacksonville Jaguars at Indianapolis Colts: If you can't see the Cowboys-Packers, then try to catch this one. It might be better. With Peyton playing more like Eli lately, expect the Jags to exact some revenge for their last loss to the Colts.
San Diego Chargers at Kansas City Chiefs: The Chiefs are a mess.
New York Jets at Miami Dolphins: Speaking of good games...well, you know I wasn't talking about this one. This may be the only time I pick the Fish all year.
Detroit Lions at Minnesota Vikings: My first upset special for this week.
Seattle Seahawks at Philadelphia Eagles: Coin toss game.
Atlanta Falcons at St. Louis Rams: These two teams are still playing? I thought they were both mailing it in this year.
Houston Texans at Tennessee Titans: My second upset special this week.
Buffalo Bills at Washington Redskins: How do you pick this game, considering the Skins are in mourning over Sean Taylor? My gut feeling is because the Skins are at home, they will stomp the Bills. Or they'll be flat and get rolled by the Bills.
Cleveland Browns at Arizona Cardinals: I never thought I'd hear the words "offensive shootout" associated with a Browns-Cards game, but it's true.
Denver Broncos at Oakland Raiders: If ever there was a game where I want to pick the Raiders to win, this is it. Forgive me Al, for I have sinned...
New York Giants at Chicago Bears: Take "Da Bears" at home.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers at New Orleans Saints: Just a feeling...or was it that po'boy I ate?
Cincinnati Bengals at Pittsburgh Steelers: The only chance the Bengals have is if the Steelers are looking past them to...
New England Patriots at Baltimore Ravens: "Brady...to Moss...TOUCHDOWN!!!" Now say that four more times, inserting different receivers each time. And that's just the first quarter.
Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
NFL Team Rankings
ELITE
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos: The overtime loss to the Bears has to be viewed as a fluke, based on the fact the Broncos have beaten the Steelers, Titans, and Bills.
Steelers
Bills
Browns
Vikings: Is it possible this team is finally "getting it"? It is hard to ignore the 3 wins in the last 4 weeks, especially when two of them are over the Giants and the Chargers, with their only loss coming to a very good Packers team.
Giants: After the crushing defeat to the Vikings, you have to give the Giants a serious re-evaluation. This team has been riding an easy schedule most of the year.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Seahawks
Bears
Buccaneers
Titans: A blowout loss to the Bengals shows the Titans are doing it with smoke and mirrors.
Texans
Chiefs: Don't read too much into their loss to the Raiders. They split the series.
Panthers: A split series with the Saints doesn't mean much.
Saints
49ers: The 49ers beat the Cardinals twice this year. Frankly, as in "Gore", they looked impressive doing it too. With Gore at the top of his game, this is an average, almost good, team. Without him, they are bad.
Cardinals: The 49ers let the Cards stay in last week's game longer than they should have.
Bengals: A solid win over the Titans shows this team can still compete with the average teams.
BAD
Raiders: A couple more wins like the one over the Chiefs and we might have to take the Raiders for real.
Ravens
Jets
Falcons
Rams
UGLY
Dolphins
Patriots
EXCELLENT
Cowboys
Colts
GOOD
Packers
Jaguars
Chargers
AVERAGE
Broncos: The overtime loss to the Bears has to be viewed as a fluke, based on the fact the Broncos have beaten the Steelers, Titans, and Bills.
Steelers
Bills
Browns
Vikings: Is it possible this team is finally "getting it"? It is hard to ignore the 3 wins in the last 4 weeks, especially when two of them are over the Giants and the Chargers, with their only loss coming to a very good Packers team.
Giants: After the crushing defeat to the Vikings, you have to give the Giants a serious re-evaluation. This team has been riding an easy schedule most of the year.
Eagles
Redskins
Lions
Seahawks
Bears
Buccaneers
Titans: A blowout loss to the Bengals shows the Titans are doing it with smoke and mirrors.
Texans
Chiefs: Don't read too much into their loss to the Raiders. They split the series.
Panthers: A split series with the Saints doesn't mean much.
Saints
49ers: The 49ers beat the Cardinals twice this year. Frankly, as in "Gore", they looked impressive doing it too. With Gore at the top of his game, this is an average, almost good, team. Without him, they are bad.
Cardinals: The 49ers let the Cards stay in last week's game longer than they should have.
Bengals: A solid win over the Titans shows this team can still compete with the average teams.
BAD
Raiders: A couple more wins like the one over the Chiefs and we might have to take the Raiders for real.
Ravens
Jets
Falcons
Rams
UGLY
Dolphins
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 12 Results
In a crazy week of football, it figures the guy from Canada would win. Congrats Audio Dave!
In the YTD standings, a bad week for Stefanini and a good week for Robert George means we have a real bottleneck at the top of the standings (with weekly wins in parentheses):
Per the Pigskin Pick'em rules, tonights Packers-Cowboys game will NOT count towards the weekly or YTD results, although you are welcome to pick it. Personally, I like the Cowboys tonight.
Audio Dave - 9
Robert A. George - 8
EdMcGon - 7
Bill Barker - 7
SoloD - 7
David Stefanini - 5
Moose - 1
In the YTD standings, a bad week for Stefanini and a good week for Robert George means we have a real bottleneck at the top of the standings (with weekly wins in parentheses):
David Stefanini(2) - 99
EdMcGon(2) - 98
Robert A. George(2) - 97
J. Mark English(1) - 82
Bill Barker - 76
BL(2) - 74
FunkyPundit(0.5) - 56
SoloD(1) - 53
Audio Dave(1.5) - 37
Dave O'Leary - 21
Rigel - 17
Snave - 8
Mike - 8
Moose - 2
Per the Pigskin Pick'em rules, tonights Packers-Cowboys game will NOT count towards the weekly or YTD results, although you are welcome to pick it. Personally, I like the Cowboys tonight.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Importance of Clinton's Lesbianism
The blog Wolf Howling has the definitive post regarding rumors of Hillary Clinton's lesbianism. The rumors seem to be picking up steam since The Times of London mentioned them in a piece about South Carolina political rumors, followed by a lead article over at the Drudge Report. However, the rumors have been around since Bill Clinton was president (I can remember first hearing the rumor from a co-worker back in the early 90's, who allegedly had a friend who went to college with Hillary and knew about Hillary's lesbianism.).
If it is true, is Hillary's lesbianism important?
Let's remove the question from Hillary Clinton and ask: Is lesbianism important in presidential politics? There are undoubtedly some people who would never vote for a homosexual candidate, regardless of the candidate's political views. Personally, I consider the issue of lesbianism irrelevant by itself. If an openly lesbian candidate shares my political views, she has my vote. But that is just me.
How about from the aspect of a married woman who is having a lesbian affair on the side, while campaigning for president? What if the candidate publicly lied about being a lesbian? This comes under the same category of any presidential candidate who is cheating on their spouse. Again, there are many voters who would never vote for an unfaithful candidate. Personally, this is where a candidate starts to lose me as a voter, for this reason: If a candidate would lie to their spouse, who should be the most important person in their life, then I believe it is reasonable to assume they would have no trouble whatsoever lying to me, an anonymous voter. However, I would be willing to overlook the trust issue IF the candidate has a history of supporting my political views.
So far, if I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her political views, I would still be doing so.
But there are subtleties to Hillary's situation that I have never seen in politics before.
Consider this quote from Gennifer Flowers' 1995 book, Passion and Betrayal:
The reason this is disturbing is: Why would Gennifer Flowers have any reason to attack Hillary Clinton back in 1995? If anything, one might expect her to be sympathetic towards Hillary. However, if she had found out the man she was having an affair with was married to a lesbian, she might use that fact as a means of revenge.
IF Hillary is a lesbian, and IF Bill has known about it since his affair with Gennifer Flowers, then it brings into question how hurt she REALLY was by the Monica Lewinsky affair, as well as the whole Clinton marriage. If she had been cheating on him all these years, why would she care if Bill had an affair?
Another rumor which has been around for a long time is that the Clinton's marriage was nothing more than a professional collaberation between two politically ambitious people. If so, their relationship is a political charade the likes of which have never been seen before. While there have been loveless marriages in politics, has there ever been a marriage that was politically choreographed from the start, between an oversexed heterosexual man and a lesbian?
IF it is proven that Hillary is a lesbian, and IF her marriage has been nothing more than a political convenience, then even her political history has to be called into question. If a person was so congenitally dishonest as to create a sham marriage in order to advance her political career, can you honestly believe that her legislative votes reflect her beliefs?
It is easy to stop here with a hollow image of dishonest Hillary. But put yourself in her shoes for a minute.
Imagine yourself in 1973, having just graduated from Yale Law School. You are a lesbian woman, with strong political ambitions. It doesn't sound like you really have much of a political future, does it? In 1973, lesbian lawyers didn't go very far in politics. You might be able to make it in local politics, possibly even into the U.S. Congress. But you want more than that.
Then you meet Bill Clinton. He is charming, and he shares your political views and ambition (and lust for women?). Maybe he doesn't interest you sexually, but you need a way to accomplish your political goals. You want to change the world, and the world of the 1970's doesn't offer political means to lesbians, even ones who are talented lawyers. So you get married. Changing the world is more important than your personal affairs, right?
Somewhere along the line, Bill realizes you aren't interested in him sexually. Either he cheats on you, or confronts you with it. Maybe you were cheating on him? Regardless of how it happens, the two of you reach an agreement: As long as both of you are discrete, then you both can have as many affairs as you like. The important thing is for both of you to stay together, because the world needs to be changed.
Here we are over 30 years later. You have been living with this lie your entire life. You are leading in the polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. You are even leading in the early polls for the general election next year. Would YOU come clean NOW? When your main goal all along has been to change the world, and you are so close to accomplishing it, why would anyone risk it?
Personally, I disagree with Hillary's socialist politics. But if you agree with her brand of socialism, then ignore the lesbian rumors and vote for her. Her personal life is a mess, but it was never important to her in the first place. She is trying to accomplish what has always been important to her, and for that she has my respect.
If it is true, is Hillary's lesbianism important?
Let's remove the question from Hillary Clinton and ask: Is lesbianism important in presidential politics? There are undoubtedly some people who would never vote for a homosexual candidate, regardless of the candidate's political views. Personally, I consider the issue of lesbianism irrelevant by itself. If an openly lesbian candidate shares my political views, she has my vote. But that is just me.
How about from the aspect of a married woman who is having a lesbian affair on the side, while campaigning for president? What if the candidate publicly lied about being a lesbian? This comes under the same category of any presidential candidate who is cheating on their spouse. Again, there are many voters who would never vote for an unfaithful candidate. Personally, this is where a candidate starts to lose me as a voter, for this reason: If a candidate would lie to their spouse, who should be the most important person in their life, then I believe it is reasonable to assume they would have no trouble whatsoever lying to me, an anonymous voter. However, I would be willing to overlook the trust issue IF the candidate has a history of supporting my political views.
So far, if I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton based on her political views, I would still be doing so.
But there are subtleties to Hillary's situation that I have never seen in politics before.
Consider this quote from Gennifer Flowers' 1995 book, Passion and Betrayal:
“There’s something you need to know. I’ve been hearing tales around town that Hillary is having another thing with a woman.” I watched his face to see his reaction, and couldn’t believe it when he burst out laughing. I was stunned! I asked him what was so funny. “Honey,” he said, “she’s probably eaten more pussy than I have.”
Bill said he had known for a long time that Hillary was attracted to women, and it didn’t really bother him anymore. His first clue came from her lack of enjoyment of sex with him. She didn’t like to experiment and insisted on the missionary position and nothing else. Because she wasn’t enjoying herself; neither was he. Sex with her became a duty; nothing more.”(page 42, quoted from Wolf Howling's blog)
The reason this is disturbing is: Why would Gennifer Flowers have any reason to attack Hillary Clinton back in 1995? If anything, one might expect her to be sympathetic towards Hillary. However, if she had found out the man she was having an affair with was married to a lesbian, she might use that fact as a means of revenge.
IF Hillary is a lesbian, and IF Bill has known about it since his affair with Gennifer Flowers, then it brings into question how hurt she REALLY was by the Monica Lewinsky affair, as well as the whole Clinton marriage. If she had been cheating on him all these years, why would she care if Bill had an affair?
Another rumor which has been around for a long time is that the Clinton's marriage was nothing more than a professional collaberation between two politically ambitious people. If so, their relationship is a political charade the likes of which have never been seen before. While there have been loveless marriages in politics, has there ever been a marriage that was politically choreographed from the start, between an oversexed heterosexual man and a lesbian?
IF it is proven that Hillary is a lesbian, and IF her marriage has been nothing more than a political convenience, then even her political history has to be called into question. If a person was so congenitally dishonest as to create a sham marriage in order to advance her political career, can you honestly believe that her legislative votes reflect her beliefs?
It is easy to stop here with a hollow image of dishonest Hillary. But put yourself in her shoes for a minute.
Imagine yourself in 1973, having just graduated from Yale Law School. You are a lesbian woman, with strong political ambitions. It doesn't sound like you really have much of a political future, does it? In 1973, lesbian lawyers didn't go very far in politics. You might be able to make it in local politics, possibly even into the U.S. Congress. But you want more than that.
Then you meet Bill Clinton. He is charming, and he shares your political views and ambition (and lust for women?). Maybe he doesn't interest you sexually, but you need a way to accomplish your political goals. You want to change the world, and the world of the 1970's doesn't offer political means to lesbians, even ones who are talented lawyers. So you get married. Changing the world is more important than your personal affairs, right?
Somewhere along the line, Bill realizes you aren't interested in him sexually. Either he cheats on you, or confronts you with it. Maybe you were cheating on him? Regardless of how it happens, the two of you reach an agreement: As long as both of you are discrete, then you both can have as many affairs as you like. The important thing is for both of you to stay together, because the world needs to be changed.
Here we are over 30 years later. You have been living with this lie your entire life. You are leading in the polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination. You are even leading in the early polls for the general election next year. Would YOU come clean NOW? When your main goal all along has been to change the world, and you are so close to accomplishing it, why would anyone risk it?
Personally, I disagree with Hillary's socialist politics. But if you agree with her brand of socialism, then ignore the lesbian rumors and vote for her. Her personal life is a mess, but it was never important to her in the first place. She is trying to accomplish what has always been important to her, and for that she has my respect.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Ed's Sunday Sermon: The Arrogance of Mankind
I was going to continue today where I left off last Sunday with part 2 of "Religionism vs. Deism", but something else caught my attention.
It is hard to ignore a headline that reads, "Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'". But this story at the Telegraph got me thinking:
In summary, merely by observing what is happening in the universe, we affect it's outcome, regardless of whether we can truly perform any actions to change what is a natural phenomena.
The problem with this theory is obvious. If you see a mile-wide asteroid moving at an incredible rate of speed when it is exactly twenty feet above your head, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Of course not.
On the other hand, if you see a mile-wide asteroid moving towards the Earth at a speed which will cause it to hit the Earth in approximately two months, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Possibly, but only if action is taken.
The flaw in Krauss and Dent's theory is that our perception of dark energy has somehow effected it. Perhaps in the future we MAY affect it, but our perception of it does NOT affect what dark energy does in the universe UNTIL we can somehow take an action which will change it. Most of the universe is unobserved by mankind. Does that mean our lack of perception somehow protects us from it? That it isn't doing anything UNTIL we perceive it?
This theory reminds me of the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It would seem ironic that the first modern appearance of this question was in a 1910 physics book. But based on how science today seems to be overly concerned with how man affects the universe, we have to wonder whether science and philosophy are really as separated as they should be, although I personally believe there will come a time when science and philosophy will overlap. But it is too soon now.
Science needs to remain as objective as possible, and above questions of philosophy, which are inevitably tethered to human politics.
To return to Krauss and Dent's theory, they assume there were two possible outcomes to the universe prior to our observation of dark energy: the universe was eternal or the universe had a set lifespan. This is comparable to saying that because someone heard a sound, the tree fell, and if no one had heard it, then it wouldn't have fallen. Just like the tree would have fallen regardless of whether anyone heard a sound, the universe would have ended eventually regardless of whether human perception discovered dark energy.
But Krauss and Dent, by blaming the end of the universe on mankind, are a reminder of a current belief that mankind has greater impact on his environment than it actually does.
One only has to look at Global Warming to see that mankind has an overinflated opinion of itself. We hear all these things that we produce are causing Global Warming, in spite of the important fact that nature produces greater quantities than mankind, even while the single greatest cause of Global Warming, the sun, is ignored.
If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.
To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.
Five hundred years ago, Copernicus moved the Earth from the center of the universe. In 1918, Harlow Shapley determined that our sun was not at the center of our galaxy. Yet, we are STILL determined to be the center of the universe. We ignore basic facts in favor of wildly speculative theories, because these theories support the misguided belief that we are the center of the universe.
There is a good reason why pride is considered one of the "seven deadly sins". While mankind has much to be proud of, we cannot place our value above the universe. When we value theories over facts because the theories appeal to our pride, that is not only a sin, but stupidity at it's worst. To claim we can cause the universe to end, or the Earth to warm, is arrogance worthy of a god. We are no gods.
It is hard to ignore a headline that reads, "Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'". But this story at the Telegraph got me thinking:
Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.
The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory...
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.
They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)
New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.
The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.
In summary, merely by observing what is happening in the universe, we affect it's outcome, regardless of whether we can truly perform any actions to change what is a natural phenomena.
The problem with this theory is obvious. If you see a mile-wide asteroid moving at an incredible rate of speed when it is exactly twenty feet above your head, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Of course not.
On the other hand, if you see a mile-wide asteroid moving towards the Earth at a speed which will cause it to hit the Earth in approximately two months, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Possibly, but only if action is taken.
The flaw in Krauss and Dent's theory is that our perception of dark energy has somehow effected it. Perhaps in the future we MAY affect it, but our perception of it does NOT affect what dark energy does in the universe UNTIL we can somehow take an action which will change it. Most of the universe is unobserved by mankind. Does that mean our lack of perception somehow protects us from it? That it isn't doing anything UNTIL we perceive it?
This theory reminds me of the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It would seem ironic that the first modern appearance of this question was in a 1910 physics book. But based on how science today seems to be overly concerned with how man affects the universe, we have to wonder whether science and philosophy are really as separated as they should be, although I personally believe there will come a time when science and philosophy will overlap. But it is too soon now.
Science needs to remain as objective as possible, and above questions of philosophy, which are inevitably tethered to human politics.
To return to Krauss and Dent's theory, they assume there were two possible outcomes to the universe prior to our observation of dark energy: the universe was eternal or the universe had a set lifespan. This is comparable to saying that because someone heard a sound, the tree fell, and if no one had heard it, then it wouldn't have fallen. Just like the tree would have fallen regardless of whether anyone heard a sound, the universe would have ended eventually regardless of whether human perception discovered dark energy.
But Krauss and Dent, by blaming the end of the universe on mankind, are a reminder of a current belief that mankind has greater impact on his environment than it actually does.
One only has to look at Global Warming to see that mankind has an overinflated opinion of itself. We hear all these things that we produce are causing Global Warming, in spite of the important fact that nature produces greater quantities than mankind, even while the single greatest cause of Global Warming, the sun, is ignored.
If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.
To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.
Five hundred years ago, Copernicus moved the Earth from the center of the universe. In 1918, Harlow Shapley determined that our sun was not at the center of our galaxy. Yet, we are STILL determined to be the center of the universe. We ignore basic facts in favor of wildly speculative theories, because these theories support the misguided belief that we are the center of the universe.
There is a good reason why pride is considered one of the "seven deadly sins". While mankind has much to be proud of, we cannot place our value above the universe. When we value theories over facts because the theories appeal to our pride, that is not only a sin, but stupidity at it's worst. To claim we can cause the universe to end, or the Earth to warm, is arrogance worthy of a god. We are no gods.
College Football Quote of the Day
"I have done an excellent job in every area." - Bill CallahanCallahan said that about a month ago. Today, Callahan was fired as head coach at Nebraska after the Cornhuskers finished their season with a 5-7 record.
NFL Pro Bowl Balloting Update
The only early NFL Pro Bowl balloting results I can find are from last week (at Mile High Report). If anyone has a link to more current information, please post it in the comments section.
TOM BRADY NEEDS A NEW PR GUY
How does Tom Brady fall below Brett Favre and Peyton Manning in the Pro Bowl vote totals? Brady is having not only the best season of his career, but the best season ANY quarterback has EVER had.
I would buy the argument that "Favre is carrying his team", except for the fact he did NOT carry them last year. The truth is the Packers have surrounded Favre with enough talent this year that he CAN carry them.
As for Manning, he is having one of the worst seasons of his career. Aside from Brady and Favre, the other quarterbacks having a better year than Manning: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, David Garrard, Jeff Garcia, and Matt Hasselbeck.
The Pro Bowl is NOT about who has had a better career, but rather who is having the best season THIS YEAR. No one is better than Brady this year.
WHO IS ANTONIO GATES?
Only the best tight end in the NFL this year and going back to 2004. But you wouldn't know it based on the Pro Bowl votes, which only rank him as the best in the AFC.
Jason Witten of the Cowboys has 238,598 votes, compared to Gates getting only 199,593 votes. Statistically, they are comparable. Not counting the Cowboys-Jets game, Witten has 55 catches for 696 yards and 5 touchdowns, whereas Gates has 54 catches for 729 yards and 6 touchdowns. So why is Witten worthy of more votes?
The truth is Gates is being underutilized by the Chargers (thank you Norv Turner) whereas Witten is being utilized to the best of his abilities by the Cowboys. Ask any NFL head coach or scout who they would rather have on their team, and Gates would win easily over Witten.
But there is a reasonable explanation for this voting anomaly: Tony Gonzalez. Gonzalez has 59 catches for 690 yards and 4 touchdowns. These numbers are certainly worthy of Pro Bowl votes. Compare this to the NFC's second best tight end, Jeremy Shockey: 48 catches for 528 yards and 3 touchdowns.
Clearly, Witten rates a bigger edge over the second best tight end in his conference than Gates in his conference. Kudos to the Pro Bowl voters for recognizing this.
KICK THIS ONE OUT
According to the Pro Bowl voters, Nick Folk of the Cowboys and Adam Vinatieri of the Colts are the two best kickers in the NFL this year.
In the NFC, I will grant the argument for Folk, since he has made 85% of his field goals. However, in the AFC, there are only two names we should be talking about: Rob Bironas (Titans) and Kris Brown (Texans). Both of them are perfect on their extra points, compared to Vinatieri who has missed two. Both of them have made over 90% of their field goals (Bironas has 92.3%, Brown has 91.3%), whereas Vinatieri has only made 76% of his field goals. Both of them are perfect on field goals beyond 50 yards (Bironas is 3/3, Brown is 4/4), whereas Vinatieri missed his only try from that distance (in fact, the longest field goal Vinatieri has made this year was from 39 yards).
I would even rank Shayne Graham (Bengals) above Vinatieri this year, although below the other two because Graham's longest field goal was from 48 yards. Graham has been perfect on extra points, and has been good on 95.5% of his field goal attempts.
SPEAKING OF KICKS...
How on earth does Wes Welker lead the AFC for kick returner votes? He is not even the best return man on his own team!
Welker does a good job returning punts for the Patriots, but Ellis Hobbs handles the kick return duties. Hobbs tied an NFL record with a 108 yard kick return for a touchdown earlier this year. Welker has no touchdowns returning kicks or punts this year.
Among the worthy kick returners, it is an easy choice between Joshua Cribbs of the Browns (with 2 touchdowns on 1475 kick return yards) and Leon Washington of the Jets (with 3 touchdowns on 946 kick return yards).
Among the worthy punt returners, Roscoe Parrish of the Bills is the clear leader in the AFC, with 330 punt return yards for a 19.4 yard average (which is almost worthy of a kick returner) and one touchdown, compared to Welker's 236 return yards for an 11.2 yard average and no touchdowns.
BACK TO THE PACK
I hope that after the Packers pass rushing display against the Lions that their defensive ends get a little more respect from the Pro Bowl voters.
Even before that game, Aaron Kampman and Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila were among the NFC leaders in sacks, with 9.0 and 8.5 respectively. The other leader is Trent Cole of the Eagles with 9.0 sacks.
So who is the NFC's leading Pro Bowl vote receiver? Osi Umenyiora of the Giants, with 8.0 sacks. While Osi is having a great year, Kampman or Cole both deserve more consideration. Each of them have had over 50 tackles this year, whereas Osi has only had 30. Even Michael Strahan of the Giants, who is having arguably his worst season, has 8.0 sacks and 37 tackles.
SPEAKING OF DEFENSIVE ENDS...
How does Dwight Freeney of the Colts merit ANY Pro Bowl consideration? He has had 3.5 sacks and 21 tackles. Even if you throw out Jared Allen of the Chiefs (9.5 sacks and 38 tackles) because of his suspension early this season, there are still plenty of better choices
Start with Elvis Dumervil of the Broncos (8.0 sacks and 23 tackles). Then look at Freeney's other bookend for the Colts, Robert Mathis (6.0 sacks and 27 tackles). How about Jason Taylor of the Dolphins (5.0 sacks and 30 tackles), Kyle Vanden Bosch of the Titans (5.0 sacks and 31 tackles), or Mario Williams of the Texans (5.0 sacks and 29 tackles)?
MERRIMAN DEMERIT
A year after the Chargers Shawne Merriman is suspended for steroid use, he is having his worst season. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Yet he still gets the most votes at outside linebacker in the AFC, even though his numbers (45 tackles and 5.5 sacks) are clearly less than two other outside linebackers, Mike Vrabel of the Patriots (50 tackles and 9.5 sacks) and James Harrison of the Steelers (57 tackles and 7.5 sacks).
So it doesn't matter that Merriman made his name while using steroids, while two better players who have NEVER been accused of steroid use get ignored?
THIS BRUSCHI HAS A HOLE IN IT
I hate to pick on Tedy Bruschi, because his story is inspirational (had a mild stroke, a congenital heart defect, and was partially paralyzed). And the Patriots are having a good year. It can even be argued that his work against the run has made the Patriots a better defense this year. But his numbers (56 tackles and 2 sacks) are nowhere among the AFC leaders for inside linebackers.
Among the AFC's inside linebackers, Ray Lewis is probably still the best, with 92 tackles and 1.0 sacks. Even if you throw out Lewis based on his story versus Bruschi's, there are still other better choices.
Start with Gary Brackett of the Colts, with 87 tackles and 0.5 sacks. Then there is DeMeco Ryans of the Texans with 83 tackles and 2.0 sacks. Consider D.J. Williams of the Broncos, with 82 tackles and 1.0 sacks.
THE BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF THE PRO BOWL VOTING
Last and certainly least, we have the punters.
While Mat McBriar of the Cowboys would not be my first choice in the NFC (I would take Andy Lee of the 49ers), at least McBriar is close enough to merit consideration.
However, in the AFC, how does the player with the easiest job in the NFL get ANY votes? Chris Hanson of the Patriots has only punted 22 times this season, for a net average of 36.2 yards. Granted, he has pinned opponents inside their 20 a total of 8 times (36%), with 18% of his kicks being touchbacks.
But if you only look at Hanson's averages and percentages in comparison to other punters in the AFC, he is still nowhere near the best in the AFC. There are 10 AFC punters with better net averages. There are four punters with better "inside the 20" percentages. There are 15 punters with lower touchback percentages.
For the best in the AFC, look at Shane Lechler of the Raiders (44.3 net) or Daniel Sepulveda of the Steelers (44.2% inside the 20, with a touchback percentage of 4.7%).
TOM BRADY NEEDS A NEW PR GUY
How does Tom Brady fall below Brett Favre and Peyton Manning in the Pro Bowl vote totals? Brady is having not only the best season of his career, but the best season ANY quarterback has EVER had.
I would buy the argument that "Favre is carrying his team", except for the fact he did NOT carry them last year. The truth is the Packers have surrounded Favre with enough talent this year that he CAN carry them.
As for Manning, he is having one of the worst seasons of his career. Aside from Brady and Favre, the other quarterbacks having a better year than Manning: Ben Roethlisberger, Tony Romo, David Garrard, Jeff Garcia, and Matt Hasselbeck.
The Pro Bowl is NOT about who has had a better career, but rather who is having the best season THIS YEAR. No one is better than Brady this year.
WHO IS ANTONIO GATES?
Only the best tight end in the NFL this year and going back to 2004. But you wouldn't know it based on the Pro Bowl votes, which only rank him as the best in the AFC.
Jason Witten of the Cowboys has 238,598 votes, compared to Gates getting only 199,593 votes. Statistically, they are comparable. Not counting the Cowboys-Jets game, Witten has 55 catches for 696 yards and 5 touchdowns, whereas Gates has 54 catches for 729 yards and 6 touchdowns. So why is Witten worthy of more votes?
The truth is Gates is being underutilized by the Chargers (thank you Norv Turner) whereas Witten is being utilized to the best of his abilities by the Cowboys. Ask any NFL head coach or scout who they would rather have on their team, and Gates would win easily over Witten.
But there is a reasonable explanation for this voting anomaly: Tony Gonzalez. Gonzalez has 59 catches for 690 yards and 4 touchdowns. These numbers are certainly worthy of Pro Bowl votes. Compare this to the NFC's second best tight end, Jeremy Shockey: 48 catches for 528 yards and 3 touchdowns.
Clearly, Witten rates a bigger edge over the second best tight end in his conference than Gates in his conference. Kudos to the Pro Bowl voters for recognizing this.
KICK THIS ONE OUT
According to the Pro Bowl voters, Nick Folk of the Cowboys and Adam Vinatieri of the Colts are the two best kickers in the NFL this year.
In the NFC, I will grant the argument for Folk, since he has made 85% of his field goals. However, in the AFC, there are only two names we should be talking about: Rob Bironas (Titans) and Kris Brown (Texans). Both of them are perfect on their extra points, compared to Vinatieri who has missed two. Both of them have made over 90% of their field goals (Bironas has 92.3%, Brown has 91.3%), whereas Vinatieri has only made 76% of his field goals. Both of them are perfect on field goals beyond 50 yards (Bironas is 3/3, Brown is 4/4), whereas Vinatieri missed his only try from that distance (in fact, the longest field goal Vinatieri has made this year was from 39 yards).
I would even rank Shayne Graham (Bengals) above Vinatieri this year, although below the other two because Graham's longest field goal was from 48 yards. Graham has been perfect on extra points, and has been good on 95.5% of his field goal attempts.
SPEAKING OF KICKS...
How on earth does Wes Welker lead the AFC for kick returner votes? He is not even the best return man on his own team!
Welker does a good job returning punts for the Patriots, but Ellis Hobbs handles the kick return duties. Hobbs tied an NFL record with a 108 yard kick return for a touchdown earlier this year. Welker has no touchdowns returning kicks or punts this year.
Among the worthy kick returners, it is an easy choice between Joshua Cribbs of the Browns (with 2 touchdowns on 1475 kick return yards) and Leon Washington of the Jets (with 3 touchdowns on 946 kick return yards).
Among the worthy punt returners, Roscoe Parrish of the Bills is the clear leader in the AFC, with 330 punt return yards for a 19.4 yard average (which is almost worthy of a kick returner) and one touchdown, compared to Welker's 236 return yards for an 11.2 yard average and no touchdowns.
BACK TO THE PACK
I hope that after the Packers pass rushing display against the Lions that their defensive ends get a little more respect from the Pro Bowl voters.
Even before that game, Aaron Kampman and Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila were among the NFC leaders in sacks, with 9.0 and 8.5 respectively. The other leader is Trent Cole of the Eagles with 9.0 sacks.
So who is the NFC's leading Pro Bowl vote receiver? Osi Umenyiora of the Giants, with 8.0 sacks. While Osi is having a great year, Kampman or Cole both deserve more consideration. Each of them have had over 50 tackles this year, whereas Osi has only had 30. Even Michael Strahan of the Giants, who is having arguably his worst season, has 8.0 sacks and 37 tackles.
SPEAKING OF DEFENSIVE ENDS...
How does Dwight Freeney of the Colts merit ANY Pro Bowl consideration? He has had 3.5 sacks and 21 tackles. Even if you throw out Jared Allen of the Chiefs (9.5 sacks and 38 tackles) because of his suspension early this season, there are still plenty of better choices
Start with Elvis Dumervil of the Broncos (8.0 sacks and 23 tackles). Then look at Freeney's other bookend for the Colts, Robert Mathis (6.0 sacks and 27 tackles). How about Jason Taylor of the Dolphins (5.0 sacks and 30 tackles), Kyle Vanden Bosch of the Titans (5.0 sacks and 31 tackles), or Mario Williams of the Texans (5.0 sacks and 29 tackles)?
MERRIMAN DEMERIT
A year after the Chargers Shawne Merriman is suspended for steroid use, he is having his worst season. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Yet he still gets the most votes at outside linebacker in the AFC, even though his numbers (45 tackles and 5.5 sacks) are clearly less than two other outside linebackers, Mike Vrabel of the Patriots (50 tackles and 9.5 sacks) and James Harrison of the Steelers (57 tackles and 7.5 sacks).
So it doesn't matter that Merriman made his name while using steroids, while two better players who have NEVER been accused of steroid use get ignored?
THIS BRUSCHI HAS A HOLE IN IT
I hate to pick on Tedy Bruschi, because his story is inspirational (had a mild stroke, a congenital heart defect, and was partially paralyzed). And the Patriots are having a good year. It can even be argued that his work against the run has made the Patriots a better defense this year. But his numbers (56 tackles and 2 sacks) are nowhere among the AFC leaders for inside linebackers.
Among the AFC's inside linebackers, Ray Lewis is probably still the best, with 92 tackles and 1.0 sacks. Even if you throw out Lewis based on his story versus Bruschi's, there are still other better choices.
Start with Gary Brackett of the Colts, with 87 tackles and 0.5 sacks. Then there is DeMeco Ryans of the Texans with 83 tackles and 2.0 sacks. Consider D.J. Williams of the Broncos, with 82 tackles and 1.0 sacks.
THE BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF THE PRO BOWL VOTING
Last and certainly least, we have the punters.
While Mat McBriar of the Cowboys would not be my first choice in the NFC (I would take Andy Lee of the 49ers), at least McBriar is close enough to merit consideration.
However, in the AFC, how does the player with the easiest job in the NFL get ANY votes? Chris Hanson of the Patriots has only punted 22 times this season, for a net average of 36.2 yards. Granted, he has pinned opponents inside their 20 a total of 8 times (36%), with 18% of his kicks being touchbacks.
But if you only look at Hanson's averages and percentages in comparison to other punters in the AFC, he is still nowhere near the best in the AFC. There are 10 AFC punters with better net averages. There are four punters with better "inside the 20" percentages. There are 15 punters with lower touchback percentages.
For the best in the AFC, look at Shane Lechler of the Raiders (44.3 net) or Daniel Sepulveda of the Steelers (44.2% inside the 20, with a touchback percentage of 4.7%).
Friday, November 23, 2007
The Darwin Award goes to...
Anyone who has ever visited the Darwin Awards website will get treated to stories of incredible human stupidity. As the website describes itself:
Just to show you one of the kinds of stories to expect there:
I mention the Darwin Awards because I was reminded of them when I was reading a story linked from Drudge Report at the Daily Mail website, titled "Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly":
Let us thank Toni for protecting the planet from the stupidity of any potential offspring she might have!
I have always believed that stupid people should not reproduce. But what can you say about someone who is so stupid they voluntarily jump out of the gene pool?
Later in the article, the story mentions a couple, Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson, where he got a vasectomy in order to "reduce [their] carbon footprint". As a side benefit to the rest of humanity, they also reduced their genetic footprint.
Personally, I believe all environmentalists should follow the lead of these three people and self-sterilize. In order to promote this position, I would like to honor Toni Vernelli, Sarah Irving, and Mark Hudson, with a Darwin Award, for taking their insane political views to their logical extreme.
A Chronicle of Enterprising Demises
Honoring those who improve the species...by
accidentally removing themselves from it!
Just to show you one of the kinds of stories to expect there:
From Randy Cassingham's book, The Stella Awards.
(2003, California) John, a Los Angeles real estate attorney, was skimming leaves from his pool when he noticed a palm frond caught in the power lines. His education had equipped him with sufficient acumen to become a successful litigator. Yet he was not shrewd enough to avoid becoming a toasty critter, when he reached up with the long metal pole and poked at the palm frond.
John was, for once, the path of least resistance.
Perhaps as an homage to his litigation skills, his family sued both the utility company and the pool supply store, for failure to disclose the danger of poking a metal rod into the power lines.
I mention the Darwin Awards because I was reminded of them when I was reading a story linked from Drudge Report at the Daily Mail website, titled "Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly":
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Let us thank Toni for protecting the planet from the stupidity of any potential offspring she might have!
I have always believed that stupid people should not reproduce. But what can you say about someone who is so stupid they voluntarily jump out of the gene pool?
Later in the article, the story mentions a couple, Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson, where he got a vasectomy in order to "reduce [their] carbon footprint". As a side benefit to the rest of humanity, they also reduced their genetic footprint.
Personally, I believe all environmentalists should follow the lead of these three people and self-sterilize. In order to promote this position, I would like to honor Toni Vernelli, Sarah Irving, and Mark Hudson, with a Darwin Award, for taking their insane political views to their logical extreme.
Thanksgiving Day Pick Results
For those of you who made Thanksgiving Day picks in our Pigskin Pick'em this week, how hard could it be to pick three games? Especially when only one of the games was even mildly contested?
Here are the results:
EdMcGon - 3
SoloD - 3
Bill Barker - 3
David Stefanini - 3
Audio Dave - 3
Robert A. George - 2
BL - 2
J. Mark English - 1
I will admit in most years there is usually one upset on Thanksgiving Day, but there was only one game this year that was between even remotely close teams, the Packers against the Lions. Based on how both teams have played the last few weeks, it was hard to see how the Lions could pull off an upset.
As for the Jets or Falcons pulling an upset, it was hard enough trying to imagine those two getting off the ground, let alone beating the superior opponents they were going against in the Cowboys and Colts.
Here are the results:
EdMcGon - 3
SoloD - 3
Bill Barker - 3
David Stefanini - 3
Audio Dave - 3
Robert A. George - 2
BL - 2
J. Mark English - 1
I will admit in most years there is usually one upset on Thanksgiving Day, but there was only one game this year that was between even remotely close teams, the Packers against the Lions. Based on how both teams have played the last few weeks, it was hard to see how the Lions could pull off an upset.
As for the Jets or Falcons pulling an upset, it was hard enough trying to imagine those two getting off the ground, let alone beating the superior opponents they were going against in the Cowboys and Colts.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Pigskin Pick'em - NFL Week 12 Picks
Per the Pigskin Pick'em rules, this week's Thursday games will NOT count towards the weekly or YTD standings. Feel free to pick them, but don't expect any credit for it.
With that in mind, here are my special turkey day picks:
Green Bay Packers at Detroit Lions: While the Lions tend to play better on Thanksgiving, I can't pick against the Packers here.
New York Jets at Dallas Cowboys: This is where the Jets meet the earth.
Indianapolis Colts at Atlanta Falcons: Even with the Colts in a seeming death spiral, they should have no trouble with the low-flying Falcons.
Now on to my regular weekly picks:
New Orleans Saints at Carolina Panthers: This game is a coin toss. The Saints just seem a little healthier.
Tennessee Titans at Cincinnati Bengals: The Titans should take out their Monday night frustrations on the Bengals.
Houston Texans at Cleveland Browns: Another close game for the Brownies.
Buffalo Bills at Jacksonville Jaguars: I have to feel sorry for the Bills. The Patriots followed by the Jags is one of the toughest two-game stretches any team could pull.
Oakland Raiders at Kansas City Chiefs: The Raiders could pull off the win, but I can't pick it.
Minnesota Vikings at New York Giants: The G-men by a mile.
Seattle Seahawks at St. Louis Rams: Bad news for the Lambs. The Hawks are playing better.
Washington Redskins at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: This game could go either way, but I think the Skins are just a little better.
San Francisco 49ers at Arizona Cardinals: Did you ever think you'd see the day when the 49ers had no passing game?
Denver Broncos at Chicago Bears: While the Bears might get an upset here, I just like what I have seen from the Broncos lately.
Baltimore Ravens at San Diego Chargers: This was a much better game last year.
Philadelphia Eagles at New England Patriots: Just keep taking the Pats until Brady or Moss blow out a knee.
Miami Dolphins at Pittsburgh Steelers: If the Steelers lose this one, Tomlin should be fired. Losing to the Jets AND Dolphins in consecutive weeks would be inexcusable.
UPDATE: Due to popular request (ok, two people asked for it), I will post a special Thanskgiving Day winners blog on Friday. This will have no bearing on the regular Pigskin Pick'em standings, and is strictly for fun.
Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
With that in mind, here are my special turkey day picks:
Green Bay Packers at Detroit Lions: While the Lions tend to play better on Thanksgiving, I can't pick against the Packers here.
New York Jets at Dallas Cowboys: This is where the Jets meet the earth.
Indianapolis Colts at Atlanta Falcons: Even with the Colts in a seeming death spiral, they should have no trouble with the low-flying Falcons.
Now on to my regular weekly picks:
New Orleans Saints at Carolina Panthers: This game is a coin toss. The Saints just seem a little healthier.
Tennessee Titans at Cincinnati Bengals: The Titans should take out their Monday night frustrations on the Bengals.
Houston Texans at Cleveland Browns: Another close game for the Brownies.
Buffalo Bills at Jacksonville Jaguars: I have to feel sorry for the Bills. The Patriots followed by the Jags is one of the toughest two-game stretches any team could pull.
Oakland Raiders at Kansas City Chiefs: The Raiders could pull off the win, but I can't pick it.
Minnesota Vikings at New York Giants: The G-men by a mile.
Seattle Seahawks at St. Louis Rams: Bad news for the Lambs. The Hawks are playing better.
Washington Redskins at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: This game could go either way, but I think the Skins are just a little better.
San Francisco 49ers at Arizona Cardinals: Did you ever think you'd see the day when the 49ers had no passing game?
Denver Broncos at Chicago Bears: While the Bears might get an upset here, I just like what I have seen from the Broncos lately.
Baltimore Ravens at San Diego Chargers: This was a much better game last year.
Philadelphia Eagles at New England Patriots: Just keep taking the Pats until Brady or Moss blow out a knee.
Miami Dolphins at Pittsburgh Steelers: If the Steelers lose this one, Tomlin should be fired. Losing to the Jets AND Dolphins in consecutive weeks would be inexcusable.
UPDATE: Due to popular request (ok, two people asked for it), I will post a special Thanskgiving Day winners blog on Friday. This will have no bearing on the regular Pigskin Pick'em standings, and is strictly for fun.
Pigskin Pick'em Rules:
1. Pick the straight-up winners of all this weeks NFL games (excluding any Thursday games). Picks will be accepted in the comments section of the following websites: Politics and Pigskins, Ragged Thots, and American Legends. All picks must be posted by 1 pm Eastern Time on Sunday (otherwise known as "The Barker Rule"), or by the kickoff of the first NFL Saturday game on weeks when that happens.
2. The winner gets...bragging rights! (you weren't expecting money, were you?)
3. And new for this year: I will be keeping a running tally for the season, so the person who gets the most picks correct for the whole season, including the playoffs, gets...even BIGGER bragging rights! (and still no money)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)