Thoughts on Wild Card weekend

With some important other things going on this weekend, I didn't see all of any of the games, with Baltimore-KC being both the least interesting game of the weekend and the only that I really saw in more-or-less real time. But there are a couple of odds and ends:

• Obviously, the Seahawks pulled off a huge upset. I had seen the halftime score on this one, and assumed that Seattle had jumped out to a lead and managed to keep it. I was shocked, when reviewing it on the DVR later, to discover that the Saints had actually jumped out to the lead. And scored a late touchdown. In between, Seattle beat them 41-10. Absolutely shocking. They scored 25% more points than in any of their regular season games. Even if you could envision the Saints' offense struggling without its running backs, how did they give up 41 to the moribund Seahawk offense?
  
  Part of that was a highlight run that we'll see for the rest of our lives, as Marshawn Lynch broke tackles from almost every New Orleans player on the field in the course of a 67 yard touchdown run that put the game away. For you young football players, this is why you keep your legs moving, this is why you don't arm tackle.
• I thought that the Colts mis-managed the end of the game. Badly. They were in field goal range and, instead of forcing the Jets to use one of their timeouts, they threw an incompletion that stopped the clock and preserved the Jets' first timeout, then later used on of their own preserving the Jets' second. And obviously, the kickoff return just killed them. It's a very different situation if Sanchez takes the field with one timeout needing 45 yards instead of needing only about 20 with two.
• I said last week that the Chiefs were a fraud team. This game would seem to have provided some validation for that position.
• The Packers-Eagles game should have been compelling. It finished close. But I never got into it, and have no comment other than it appeared to me that both teams were a) talented and b) sloppy.
• Three of the games went about the way that I envisioned, the obvious exception being in Seattle. I did expect the Colts to win, and when they got to the 36 with less than two minutes less, I was confident that they had. But they didn't, so I was 0-2 on Saturday and 2-0 on Sunday.

Let me just say one thing, as the week dawns, about the upcoming New England-New York re-rematch: I'm not predicting, I'm not talking trash, and anyone can win anywhere on any given Sunday, as we saw this weekend in Seattle. All that said, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which New England plays poorly enough on Sunday to lose to the Jets.

NFL Playoff previews: AFC Wild Card game 1

Saturday, January 8 - AFC Wild Card Game 1

New York Jets (11-5) at Indianapolis Colts (10-6)

By the numbers:

NY Jets @ Indianapolis

Team	W	L	PF	PA	Dif	Pyth
NY Jets	11	5	367	304	63	.610
Indianapolis	10	6	435	388	47	.567

The Jets finished with a better record than the Colts while playing a tougher schedule. The Jets were, by the numbers, a significantly better defensive team. They have a better winning percentage and a better pythagorean winning percentage.

They also have Mark Sanchez playing QB.

The Colts have won their last four, going into the playoffs on a high note after a midseason struggle, while the Jets are only 2-2 over the last month.

Reason to pick the Jets:

They have a better defense and put together a better record against a tougher schedule.

Reason to pick the Colts:

Peyton Manning. Mark Sanchez. 'nuff said...

New York wins if:

They can score without asking Mark Sanchez to do much.

Indianapolis wins if:

Peyton Manning plays like traditional regular season Peyton Manning, not like traditional "throw-the-ball-to-the-other-team-in-the-playoffs" Peyton Manning, the defense plays moderately well and Pierre Garcon actually catches balls that hit him in the hands.

My Pick:

Indianapolis

Super Bowl XLIV

I started watching late, but watched almost all of the football game. I missed a few plays after the start of the 2nd and 4th quarters, and the Colts three-and-out after the Saints failed to score just after the 2-minute warning of the first half. I didn't watch any of the ads (though I've now seen a couple on-line and have been profoundly unimpressed.) I also saw not a single second of the pre-game, half-time and post-game shows.

But I saw almost all of the football.

• Let's get this out of the way, right up-front - I derived an unhealthy amount of pleasure from the fact that the Saints essentially iced the game on a Peyton Manning interception returned for a touchdown. Manning's a great QB, possibly the greatest QB ever, but the coverage of him borders on hagiographic, and I tire of it. Throwing a pick-six with his team down seven and driving, inside four minutes to go in the Super Bowl - I enjoyed it. It speaks ill of me, I think, that I reacted that way, but I did.
• Along the same line, I enjoyed Reggie Wayne dropping a ball on fourth down that would have given the Colts a TD and a chance to on-side kick.
• Happy for Drew Brees, who seems like a good guy. And happy for the Saints.
• One of the things that we enjoyed about the pick-six in my house is that it meant that Brees didn't have to throw the ball again, leaving him tied with Tom Brady for the most completions in Super Bowl history, rather than passing him.
• And good for Sean Payton, who played the game to win. There were people criticizing the decision to go on fourth down in the second quarter - I loved it. (I didn't necessarily love the play call, though - they'd already demonstrated that they were having trouble getting outside, but that they could move the line off-tackle.) And settling for the field goal there would very likely have resulted in a bigger half-time deficit, as the Colts would have played differently if they're received a kickoff at the 25 than starting at their own one.
• Loved, loved, loved the on-side kick. The Saints went in to win, and did.
• I've heard some people putting goat-horns on Pierre Garcon for a key drop. I don't know which drop they're talking about. Looking at the game play-by-play, there are two "Manning pass incomplete to Pierre Garcon" plays. One was in the middle of the first quarter with the Colts at the NO 20 and no score, which resulted in a fourth down and a Colt field goal for a 3-0 lead. The other was halfway through the 2nd quarter, with the Colts at their own 28 with a 10-0 lead, and resulted in a 4th down and a punt. Was there another one that the play-by-play mislabeled? It's hard to see that either of those plays cost the Colts the game. So despite the fact that I saw almost all of the game, I hear that talk and don't know what they're talking about.
• One of the questions that has kind of floated around in the ether this season is this - what, exactly, is Jim Caldwell doing as the coach of the Colts? By all accounts, Manning's running the offense, including, from the looks of it, whether they're going on fourth down or punting. Which decisions is Caldwell making? Is he just staying out of the way? How much of their success was a result of Jim Caldwell making decisions, and how much was him just letting the players and position coaches do their things? Unanswerable from the outside, and maybe he did everything just right. But the only difference between looking "calm and placid" on the sideline, and looking like a deer in the headlights, is the scoreboard. Caldwell transitioned from the former to the latter after the Manning pick.
• Can we stop the "maybe the Colts are really the team of the decade for the 'aughts'" talk now? I don't see how they can even pass Pittsburgh for second.

NFL Championship Weekend

Odds and ends on the NFL's just concluded Championship Weekend...

• We finally got a good game. Saints vs. Vikings was a bit sloppy to be a classic, but it was competetive all the way through, with some great plays as well as some really bad ones.
• I've said before that Brett Favre is one of the most overrated great players in NFL history. I've said that no quarterback ever did more to keep both teams in the game. One play doesn't provide proof that either of those things is true, but it's hard to argue against either of them this morning.
  
  Look, the best QBs will sometimes throw bad picks. And there are a lot of things that cost the Vikings the game, including a very questionable (OK, BAD) pass interference call in overtime. That said, Favre did what he's done so many times before - he cost his team dearly because he was undisciplined and threw a ball that he should not have thrown. Scrambling to his right, throwing across his body into coverage. Had he run five yards and gone out of bounds, the Vikings would have lined up for a game-winning field goal with less than 10 seconds left in the game. But he didn't. He had a clear path to pick up that yardage and go to the sidelines, but he threw the ball into triple coverage instead, and the Saints picked it off. End of drive. End of game for the Vikings offense. End of season for Minnesota.
  
  Maybe they wouldn't have been there without him. But that's the essence of Brett Favre's career - lead his team to the brink of success, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
• Has there ever been a worse penalty than the Vikings' 12 men in the huddle? Coming out of a timeout? It moved them out of field-goal range and set up the Favre interception.
• The Vikings put the ball on the ground six times, and lost three of them.
• The overtime rule is just plain not fair. I know the arguments - defense and special teams are part of the game, those players get paid, too. And the team winning the toss only wins about 50% of the time. (I don't know that that's still true.) Those arguments would carry a lot more weight if you ever saw someone win an OT coin toss and choose to kick. But you don't. The advantage of having the ball first in a sudden-death period is a significant advantage, and everyone knows it.
• I wanted the Saints to win, and I'm glad that they did, but they had a lot of help from a) the Vikings, b) the officials and c) the coin.
• The AFC Championship game was painful in that there was no way both teams could lose. While it's always good to see the Jets lose, I would have derived more pleasure yesterday from a Colts' loss. Oh, well...
• The Colts played very well after the two-minute warning of the first half. It took them a little bit of time and a couple of blown coverages to wake up, but once they did - well, the second half was not competitive.
• For the Boston media Chicken Littles claiming that the Patriots dynasty is over, the Patriots were 1-2 against the two teams in the AFC Championship game, with the two losses coming on the road by 6 and 2 points, the loss to the Colts being a loss by mere inches resting on a questionable spot by an official. There's no reason whatsoever to think that they aren't going to be one of the top teams in the AFC again next year.

UPDATE: One more thing I meant to mention. The play on which Brett Favre's ankle was injured should have been flagged. He was hit below the waist from behind, in as dangerous a play as a DL could make in that situation. It was unacceptable, and I couldn't believe that it didn't get called - it should have.

More Belichick decision reaction

A couple of things have become clear - I'm not in such a minority as it looked yesterday, and the arguments are a lot clearer, data driven and rational on my side of the street...

Alok Pattani:

The result: .805 is greater than .790, so Expected Win Probability When Going For It is greater than Expected Win Probability When Punting.

Using these estimates, the decision is very close. The Patriots' expected win probability when going for it is greater than the expected win probability when punting...

Bill Barnwell:

Too close to call.

It's not the satisfying answer to the Great Belichick Debate, which has seen him declared by most observers to be either an infallible genius or overzealous tinkerer, but it's the most accurate one.

Did he make the right decision?

Too close to call.

No matter how we fiddle with or adjust the probabilities to account for the game situation and the quality of the two offenses and defenses, it's difficult to find a dramatic difference between the choices of going for it or punting.

...

The key factor that the cacophony of responses seems to be missing is that you can't judge Belichick's decision by the fact that it didn't work. As we've mentioned more than once in these pages, you cannot judge decisions by their outcome. You have to consider the process that goes into them, and then decide whether they're right or wrong at the moment they're made.

Adam Kilgore:

Among the countless criticisms hurled at Patriots coach Bill Belichick for his decision to go for it on fourth down Sunday night, former Colts coach Tony Dungy summed up the most popular when, speaking on NBC, he said, “You have got to play the percentages and punt the ball.’’

What Dungy did not realize, though, is that “the percentages’’ dictated that Belichick do exactly what he did.

...

going for the first down gave the Patriots a 79 percent chance of winning. Punting gave them a 70-percent chance to win. Even after Burke made tweaks, the win probability never dipped in favor of the punt. If anything, factoring in how explosive the Colts’ offense is, the team-specific adjustments only made going for it more favorable.

“A lot of criticism is probably way over the top,’’ Burke said. “At the very least, it’s defensible. It’s not crazy. It’s not reckless.’’

Steven Levitt¹:

I respect Bill Belichick more today than I ever have...He has been excoriated for the choice he made. Everyone seems to agree it was a terrible blunder.

Here is why I respect Belichick so much. The data suggest that he actually probably did the right thing if his objective was to win the game.

...

If his team had gotten the first down and the Patriots won, he would have gotten far less credit than he got blame for failing. This introduces what economists call a “principal-agent problem.” Even though going for it increases his team’s chance of winning, a coach who cares about his reputation will want to do the wrong thing. He will punt, just because he doesn’t want to be the goat. ...What Belichick proved by going for it last night is that 1) he understands the data, and 2) he cares more about winning than anything else.

So hats off to Bill Belichick. This decision may have hurt his chances for the Football Hall of Fame, but it guarantees his induction into the Freakonomics Hall of Fame.

Gregg Easterbrook:

On Sunday night in Indianapolis, Bill Belichick, with his team leading 34-28 just before the two-minute warning, went for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28. As I'm guessing you heard, the try failed...Though the try failed, Belichick did exactly the right thing.

...

Which seems like a better gamble -- 2 yards to win the game, or two minutes to shut down Peyton Manning when the Colts are hot? In 2007, AccuScore did thousands of computer simulations of the punt-or-go-for-it question for TMQ. One finding was that between your own 21-yard line and your own 35, you should go for it on fourth-and-2 or less. In test after test, doing this improved a team's chance of victory -- though, of course, there is no guarantee. No coach can control what happens on the field. Had New England punted, Indianapolis might have run the kick back for a touchdown, for instance. All the coach can do is make a decision that improves the team's odds. Belichick made such a decision.

¹ - Levitt is an economist, and the author of the best-selling Freakonomics. Note that he echoes (with correct terminology) the exact phenomenon that I mentioned this morning:

The risk of taking exactly the kind of roasting in the press that Belichick is taking now is too high to make that move for any reason like that. There's one reason, and only one reason, that a coach would make that move - the honest belief that it gives his team the best opportunity to win the game. And part of what makes Belichick great is that he's willing to put his team in the best position to win regardless of the "heat" that follows.

And the beatdown continues...

I love Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback column. It's one of the things that I look forward to every week. Peter has great sources, lots of interesting material and he writes well. And he has, at his fingertips, all of the conventional wisdom of life in the NFL, even the conventional wisdom that contradicts the other conventional wisdom. I know that this reeks of damning with faint praise, but it is not intended that way. Even when I don't agree with him, I always learn something, and he's a very good writer, producing a long and interesting column first thing Monday morning, every week, which I know from experience is not an easy thing to do.

And Peter didn't like Belichick's decision. Well, that's fine. He's certainly not alone. The usual suspects and quoters of conventional wisdom seem to be nearly unanimous here. But Peter doesn't want to be seen as merely parroting conventional wisdom (even as he does so) so he gives us some numbers and analysis to demonstrate that it was a horrible decision.

Let's place the odds of Brady getting two yards at 60, 65 percent. The odds of Manning going 72 yards to score a touchdown in less than two minutes ... that's maybe 35 percent...Even it you think you've got a two-out-of-three chance to make two yards deep in your own territory, the cost of missing it is too great. The difference between Manning driving 29 yards for the winning touchdown and 72 is too great. Too many chances for him to err in 72 yards, as he'd been doing occasionally during the night.

OK, Peter, let's do that. We'll use your numbers. We'll use the conservative side of the numbers, too, so we assume that the Patriots had a 60% change of converting. According to your analysis, the Patriots have got a 35% chance of losing the game if they punt. If they go for it on fourth down, on the other hand, they've got a 40% chance of giving the Colts the ball on the 29. Surely, the odds of the Colts scoring from the 29 were something less than 100%. And the odds of the Colts scoring with enough time for the Patriots to get into field goal range were non-zero. If we assume that the probability of scoring a touchdown decreases linearly as yards from the end zone increase¹, then Peter's 35% at 72 yards becomes 87% at 29 yards. So the Patriots have a 65% chance of winning the game if they punt, and a (conservatively, using Peter's numbers) 1 - (.4*.87) = 65.2% chance of winning the game if they go for it.

So according to Peter King's own probability assumptions, going for it on fourth down gave the Patriots a better chance to win the game!

And Peter doesn't even see it.

All in all, I hated the call. It smacked of I'm-smarter-than-they-are hubris. Let Manning, with the weight of the world on his shoulders and no timeouts under his belt, drive 72 yards in two minutes, with his mistake-prone (on this night) young receivers and the clock working against him. Sure he could do it. But let him earn it. This felt too cheap. It was too cheap. Belichick's too smart to have something so Grady-Littlish on his career resume, but there it is, and it can never be erased.

Here's the thing that people are not understanding. It isn't arrogance, or hubris, or ego, that would have a coach make that decision. The risk of taking exactly the kind of roasting in the press that Belichick is taking now is too high to make that move for any reason like that. There's one reason, and only one reason, that a coach would make that move - the honest belief that it gives his team the best opportunity to win the game. And part of what makes Belichick great is that he's willing to put his team in the best position to win regardless of the "heat" that follows.

Belichick's an economist. He understands cost-benefit analysis. He knows the benefit of going for it there, and understands the costs. He understands the benefit of punting and understands the cost. There's far, far too much of the analysis of this move that is based on nonsensical assumptions to the effect that the Colts couldn't possibly fail to score a touchdown from the 29, but there's no way on God's earth that they could have moved 40 yards to get there on their own.

If the Patriots punt, they've got one chance to win the game - they need to stop the Colts from going 75 yards for a touchdown in 2 minutes. If they go for it, they've got three chances to win the game

1. They make the first down.


2. They stop the Colts from going 29 yards for a touchdown.


3. The all the Colts to score quickly enough to get the ball back for a field goal attempt.

Belichick made the right choice. The fact that he's the only coach in the NFL that would have done this is a testament to his decision-making process, not an indictment of it.

BTW, the best columnist currently working in the mainstream sports press, Joe Posnanski, gets it exactly right."

The conventional choice there is to punt. In fact, "conventional choice" does not begin to describe it. It was the obvious choice. The incontestable choice. I suspect 31 other NFL coaches would have punted there without even thinking twice about it. I suspect that had Belichick decided to punt there, nobody -- not one interviewer, not one talk show host, not even one radio caller -- would have second-guessed him there (and anyone who would second-guess him there would have been mocked and told to learn about football). I simply cannot remember any team going for it in a similar situation. You punt the ball and make Peyton Manning and the Colts go 70 yards to try to score the game-winning touchdown. It's as obvious as bringing Mariano Rivera in the game in the 9th.

But ... Belichick went for it. And here's the reason: He doesn't care about any of that stuff. He doesn't care about sentiment or history or what every other coach would do. He doesn't care about anything at all except winning the game.

Amen, Joe. Amen.



¹ - This actually isn't a great assumption. Probability of scoring increases with proximity to the end zone, but not linearly. The last 20 yards tend to be the hardest to get, as the field shrinks, and it becomes impossible to extend a defense. The back of the end zone makes a lot of stops on red zone plays. So really, that 87% is probably more like 75-80%.

A minority, but not a minority of one

I know that mine is a minority position (and the majority is very loud and vociferous) but I remain convinced of its rightness. And there are some others that agree...

advancednflstats.com:

You can play with the numbers any way you like, but it's pretty hard to come up with a realistic combination of numbers that make punting the better option. At best, you could make it a wash.

Neil Payne:

...even if you believed that Indy would win 70% of the time if you failed on 4th-and-2 and only 30% if you punted, it still comes out a wash... There's no doubt Belichick made the right decision.

Chase Stuart:

I doubt you can come up with convincing math that says it was overwhelmingly a bad call to go for it here.

The dumbest call in history? I don't think so...

That was a revolting performance last night by the Patriots. Fantastic through three quarters, awful in the fourth. And there are any number of plays that contribute to a loss, but the focus this morning is all on one decision by Bill Belichick. The Patriots went for it on 4th and 2 from their own 28 on the last play before the 2-minute warning, rather than punting. The histrionics in the media thus far, at least the ones that I've heard, are nothing if not predictable, and they're well over the top. "Indefensible" is about the mildest term applied thus far.

I thought it was the right decision. I thought so before the play, I thought so afterwards. "Belichick cost his team the game" is what I'm hearing on the radio, but I disagree. Strenuously. That assumes that a) the game would definitely have been won if they'd punted and the Colts had had to go 75 yards with two minutes and one timeout and b) the game could not possibly have been won when the Colts got the ball on the 29 yard line and c) the failure to convert the 4th down play was inevitable.

None of those are true.

1. "The Patriots would definitely have won if they'd punted."
   
   How anyone who watched that game could think that escapes me. Yes, they had stopped the Colts several times. But the Patriot defense was obviously tiring, and two of Indianapolis last three drives had been touchdown drives of 79 yards in 2:04 or less. I had no confidence in the defense preventing a touchdown from being scored too late for the Patriots to respond.



2. "The game was lost when they didn't make the first down."
   
   Actually, the game was lost when they tackled Joseph Addai at the one with a minute and a half left. If they'd let him score, they'd have gotten the ball back with more than a minute on the clock, needing only a field goal to win. They could have won the game by forcing a turnover, or keeping the Colts out of the end zone or letting them score with enough time to drive for another field goal. When the officials ruled that Faulk didn't make the first down, the Patriots still had a couple of ways to win. They win if the Colts don't score. They win if the Colts score quickly and the Patriots score another field goal. They only lose if Indianapolis scores a touchdown inside the last 40 seconds or so.



3. "That play had no chance of succeeding."
   
   I thought it did. I still think it did. They couldn't challenge because they had no timeouts, and there's probably not a conclusive angle anyway, but I believe that Faulk had control of the ball at the 30, which is a first down.

Let's make a couple of assumptions. Let's assume that the Patriots had a 90% chance of winning the game if they convert the first down. Let's assume that the Patriots had a 90% chance of losing if they fail to convert. And let's assume that they've got about a 63% chance of converting¹. If those are accurate, then going for it on fourth down gives them a slightly better than 60% chance of winning the game.

Whether the decision makes sense depends entirely on your entirely subjective assessment of the odds of stopping the Colts after punting. If you think that Manning and the Colts, at that time, on that field, against that defense, had a 45% chance or better of going 75 yards in two minutes to win the game, then you go for it on fourth down, because that gives you the best chance of winning the game. Period. If you think it's 35% or less, then you punt.

I had no problem with the decision. No problem whatsoever. I think he gave his team the best chance to win. And the talk about it being an "indefensible" call, about the coach having cost his team the game, is overheated, hyperbolic and just plain silly.




¹ - 63% is apparently their conversion percentage on 4th and 2 or less in the Brady-Belichick era.

NFL divisional playoff picks

A couple of things.

One is my performance in round 1. I was wrong on 3 of the 4, which is far more like my expected performance standard than what I managed this year.

The second is this. History suggests that the home teams will win. It also suggests that at least one of them will lose. I don't see any of the home teams losing. I think that Dallas is the most likely home team to lose, followed by Green Bay, followed by, I suppose, New England. That's not because I think that the Colts are better than the Patriots, but because I think that the Jaguars are much better, and much better coached, than the Chargers. I don't see either AFC home team losing, and will be very surprised if the AFC Championship game is not Indianapolis at New England.

Now, on to the picks...



Seattle(+8) at Green Bay - I was more impressed with the Seahawk defense last week than I expected to be. That said, if a Seahawk had touched the ball on the kickoff that the Redskins ran in to the end-zone, they'd have lost. Washington would have been up by eight, and the game would have been very different. I still think that the Seahawks are overrated, and I don't see them winning this game. But I do think that they keep it close.

Pick: Green Bay 27 - Seattle 21



Jacksonville at New England (-13) - The Jaguars and Patriots had four common opponents this year. Against Indianapolis, San Diego, Buffalo and Indianapolis (including the post-season), Jacksonville was 4-2, scoring 25.3 points per game and allowing 23.2. The Patriots were 5-0, scoring 38.0 points per game and allowing 12.8. There's going to be a huge national audience for this one, and a lot of people rooting for Jacksonville to knock off the Patriots. The Jaguars are a trendy pick in some places. The fact is, New England is a better team than Jacksonville, playing at home, play-off and pressure-tested, and well-equipped to take advantage of Jacksonville's weakness in pass defense. This may be close for a half, but it won't ever be in doubt.

Pick: New England 35 - Jacksonville 17



San Diego at Indianapolis (-8.5) - The Chargers did, in fact, beat the Colts this year. In a game in which the Colts were adjusting to the absence of Dwight Freeney, Peyton Manning threw six (6!) interceptions, and Adam Vinatieri missed a chip-shot game-winning field goal at the end. In San Diego. This one will be in Indianapolis, with the Chargers probably missing (or playing with a significantly hobbled) Antonio Gates. Kick-off will come at about 1:05 Sunday afternoon, any hope for a San Diego victory will be gone by 1:35.

Pick: Indianapolis 34 - San Diego 13



NY Giants (+7.5) at Dallas - My exhaustive scientific* evaluation of the football punditocracy has revealed that the Giants are the chic pick of the weekend. It is obvious** that Tony Romo is distracted by his relationship with Jessica Simpson***. Eli Manning has finally settled in to becoming a first-rate QB****. And the Giants are going to go into Dallas and shock the world*****. I'm thinking, just possibly, not. Yes, the Cowboys haven't played well the past few weeks. Yes, the Giants have played their two best games of the season the past two weeks. I'm still not buying. The Giants keep it close, but their magic carpet ride comes to an end.

Pick: Dallas 29 - New York 24




* - Evaluation was neither scientific nor exhaustive, consisting mainly of something I thought I heard someone say as I was changing radio stations.
** - There is no actual evidence available to anyone that demonstrates that Tony Romo is distracted by his relationship with Jessica Simpson.
*** - Who is Jessica Simpson? How did she become a celebrity?
**** - Eli Manning's played two (2) good games in a row. Make of it what you will - I suspect that many are making far, far too much of it.
***** - Although, as I say, the world won't actually be shocked by a Giants victory. Many people will actually be more shocked if the favored Cowboys win.

NFL week 10 wrapup

Week 10 in the NFL...

• Mixed emotions watching the game last night. Obviously, there was the whole "wow, is this pathetic - what a horrible team San Francisco is" thing, but as a rule, when watching a neutral game, we tend to root for the underdog. Goliath's supporters support Goliath - everyone else supports David. And I don't like the Seahawks. And there was a tremendous urge to root for Mike Nolan, after the death of his dad, as the greatest possible storyline for the night.
  
  On the other hand, the Patriots get the 49ers first round draft pick, so I want the 49ers to lose. I wanted to root for Nolan and the 49ers, but just couldn't do it.



• After dropping their first two games, the Giants reeled off six straight wins, leading people to think that they might be a real team, and might challenge the Cowboys in the NFC East. After a thorough demonstration on Sunday that that's not the case, people went back to that six-game winning streak.
  
  5-4 Redskins.
  4-5 Eagles.
  1-8 Jets.
  3-6 Falcons.
  2-7 49ers.
  0-9 Dolphins.
  
  That streak was obviously far more about the level of competition than the Giants' performance.



• The Colts came out slowly, as I thought that they might, but were clearly the better team on Sunday night. They were just never able to overcome one of the worst special-teams performances of all time. In the first 9 minutes of the game, they gave up both a kickoff return and a punt return touchdown. They missed a field goal at the end of the first half, they missed a field goal at the end of the second half. And they lost by two. If they make the play on any one of those four special teams plays, they probably win the game.
  
  Which is not, actually, to say that they played well. Manning was pretty bad. The amazing thing is that San Diego was worse. But they had those two big early plays, and just hung on for dear life.



• Everyone's played nine games, now, so you can look at things like these:
  
  • Pittsburgh, Indiapolis and Dallas are 2, 3 and 4 in point differential, having outscored their opposition by 127, 116 and 101 points respectively. The Patriots have outscored their opposition by 208.
  
  
  • The Patriots point differential is higher than the number of points scored for 22 of the NFL's 32 teams.
  
  
  • In their first three games, the Patriots scored 114 points. The San Francisco 49ers have scored 104 in their first 9. In 2 games, weeks 7 and 8 combined, the Patriots scored 101.
  
  
  • In 48 weeks of NFL football over three years, 1990-1992, the New England Patriots won as many games (9) as they won in the first 9 games of the 2007 season.
  
  
  • The offense has (rightfully) gotten the lion's share of the acclaim thus far, but the Patriots have allowed fewer points than all but four other teams, despite several games against some of the NFL's best offenses. (They've played the top-3, and 5 of the top-9 non-New England teams in the points scored list.)
  
  



• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say [and there's a lot of it this week]:
  
  

  Dallas at NY Giants - "The Cowboys spanked the Giants in week one, but New York is currently on a six game winning streak. They've been beating up on the little sisters of the poor, however, and the questions about the actual quality of this Giants team have not been anything close to answered. We may get some answers this weekend. Until I see them do something against a real team, I'm an unbeliever."
  
  Minnesota at Green Bay - "Minnesota is undefeated when Adrien Peterson runs for 296 yards. There's a good chance, however, that Green Bay won't spend the afternoon in a nickel defense. Since the Vikings can't do anything else to score, it's tough to pick them unless you think that Peterson's going wild. So I'm not picking them. Packers win, Packers cover."
  
  Cleveland at Pittsburgh - "I know that Pittsburgh went into Cleveland and won big in week 1. That resulted in Charlie Frye being dispatched to Seattle and, since then, the Browns have been very competitive. More than that, they're 5-2, and 5-1 outside of New England. They kept the Patriots game relatively close, and only a last-second fumble return for a touchdown prevented them from losing by just 10. Pittsburgh will win this game, but it won't be a blowout, and 10 points is too many against a team with Cleveland's offense."




• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite):
  
  

  St. Louis at New Orleans - "The Rams averaged 40 points a game last year - if they score 7 this week, it'll give them 40 for the season. OK, both of those figures are obviously lies. Hyperbole, exaggeration, literary license, "meant to give an air of artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." Suffice it to say, the St. Louis offense has been weak. Bad. Practically non-existent. The Saints spent a month that way, too, but unlike the Rams, have chosen to actually play the NFL season after taking the first four weeks off. 12 points is a lot to ask of any non-Foxborough-based team to cover, but since it actually only requires that they score 13 (OK, more exaggeration - bear with me), I'm willing to give the points."
  
  Atlanta at Carolina - "Well, here's a scintillating division game. Not. I can't believe that I'm actually picking the Panthers to cover a 4-point spread, but the alternative, picking Atlanta on the road, is equally unpalatable."




• For the week:
  Winners: 7-7
  ATS: 7-6-1



• For the season:
  Winners: 92-52
  ATS: 74-61-9

NFL week 9 wrapup

Week 9 in the NFL...

• I covered the Patriots-Colts game yesterday, and don't really have much to add. Yes, the Colts had some injury issues but everything else, including some of the worst officiating in the history of organized football, was against the Patriots, and New England scored 14 points in 2:26 of possession time in the fourth, forced two fumbles, and put together an extremely impressive 6+ minutes of football to walk out with the win.



• The storyline, which was being talked about already, gathers strength - can the Patriots finish 19-0? They've been favored in every game they've played so far and, assuming that Brady doesn't get hurt, will be favored in every game left to play. They've got to win 10 straight through the Super Bowl to match (and, frankly, significantly surpass) the feat of the 1972 Dolphins. Well, they've done that before, as the 2004 Patriots, led by Brady and Belichick, won their last 15, 12 in the regular season and three in the playoffs. There were columnists talking about them needing to lose before they got to the playoffs that year. They didn't, and they didn't lose in the playoffs that year, either.
  
  If you assume that they are 80% likely to win each of their remaining games (and Pythagoras thinks they're actually about an .817 team), they have a 20% chance of finishing the regular season undefeated, and about 10% chance of running the table to finish 19-0.
  
  I wouldn't bet against them.



• Perception tends to lag reality. For some reason, people seem to still believe that the Baltimore Ravens have a dominant defensive football team. While it's true that they were (before last night) fairly high on the points-allowed list, they've done so by playing offensive cripples. They gave up a total of 10 points, for example, to St. Louis and San Francisco, two of the worst offensive teams in football. They've also played the NY Jets, Buffalo and Arizona. Against the decent offenses they've played, they allowed 27 to the Bengals (in one of Cincinnati's two wins) and 27 to the Browns. And now 38 to the Steelers (though the Raven offense had a lot to do with Pittsburgh's total.) The fact is, defensively, they are not a great team, and I was surprised by the number of people that thought the spread on last night's game was way too high.
  
  (I first said this two months ago, by the way.
  

  I'm developing a level of skepticism about the Baltimore defense. If they were what people think they are, they wouldn't have let the Jets drive down the field with a QB making his first NFL start and tie the game inside the last two minutes. What's that? They didn't? Well, yes, they did. The Jets just failed to score the points. McCareins dropped one touchdown, Clemens overthrew a second. No credit to the Baltimore defense.

  
  It was there for everyone to see, but most seem to have chosen not to.



• How on earth did the Broncos beat the Steelers two weeks ago?



• Were the Minnesota Vikings not aware that missed field goals can be returned? Antonio Cromaritie ran the entire length of the field without a Viking getting within hailing distance. Missed tackles are a bad thing, but better to have few of those than what actually happened, which seemed to be the Viking field goal team heading to the sideline as soon as the ball was kicked.



• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say [and there's a lot of it this week]:
  
  

  Seattle at Cleveland - "On my pre-season list of "Phrases That Won't Be Needed During The 2007 NFL Season," sandwiched between number 3 ("it's a long bomb from Pennington to Cotchery!") and number 5 ("the 49ers are ready to assert control over the NFC West") was number 4 ("Cleveland just has too much offense for the Seahawks to match.") So the list needs some editing. Because, frankly, Cleveland just has too much offense for the Seahawks to match."
  
  Dallas at Philadelphia - "Philadelphia could win this game. If they bring their absolute best performance and Dallas plays their 'C'-'D' game, and Philadelphia wins the turnover battle +3 or more. Otherwise, the Cowboys win. Comfortably."
  
  Baltimore at Pittsburgh - "If the Ravens really had the defense that people seem to think that they do, 9 points would be far too much for the Steelers to give. But they don't. Baltimore's inept offense will score 10 or fewer, and the Steelers will score 20+ for the cover."




• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite [slim pickings, in one of the best weeks I've ever had.]):
  
  

  San Diego at Minnesota - "I knew that the Chargers would go up to Green Bay and win. I was wrong. While I sometimes learn from mistakes, I know that the Chargers are going to go up to Minnesota and win."
  
  Green Bay at Denver - "The Saints have awoken. But how good are they, really? And who's playing QB for the Jaguars this week? Do I care? I can see a New Orleans win, but I'm going with the better team from the better conference."




• For the week:
  Winners: 11-3
  ATS: 9-4-1



• For the season:
  Winners: 85-45
  ATS: 67-55-8

Colts cheating?

(Gathering into one post...)


Earlier I said that

There have been accusations for years that the Colts were "pumping in" crowd noise, accusations that were denied, of course, because that would be "cheating." Listen to this and tell me that isn't the sound of pumped in crowd noise. The "loud crowd" starts skipping, and then cuts off instantly. It will be interesting to see whether the people who started in on the Patriots the next day after the camera incident actually start on this.

I will make one comment here, though - if the Indianapolis Colts were artificially inflating the noise in that dome when the opposition had the ball, and turning it down when the Colts had the ball, that is far more of an advantage for them than anything that could possibly have accrued to the Patriots by videotaping opponents signals.

UPDATE: There have been a couple of reports that the sound does not appear on the radio broadcasts, which would implicate CBS and exonerate the Colts. Don't know, haven't heard them.

Presumably, if either of the radio broadcasts demonstrates that noise, we'll hear it at some point, and that would be conclusive, or close to it. Interestingly, no one is saying, "Gosh, the Colts would NEVER do that..." We are, in fact, seeing references to past accusations of the Colts...piping in crowd noise.

UPDATE: Initially, the allegations were based on the CBS broadcast with no on-site confirmation. Now, according to yahoo sport, "observers at the game said there seemed to be a "skip" in the sound during the game Sunday..." And apparently, the Patriots complained to the league before they left the stadium.

If the radio broadcasts could either confirm or refute, I would expect to have heard about it by now. Which makes me think that this story is going to last for a few days.

(How would you like to be the San Diego Chargers right now? They got the Patriots the week that everyone was piling on New England. Next week, they get the Colts, who could conceivable be operating in the same "us against the world," "everyone's running down our accomplishments" mode.)

Update: CBS checks in - "CBS has informed us that the unusual audio moment heard by fans during the Patriots-Colts telecast was the result of tape feedback in the CBS production truck and was isolated to the CBS broadcast. It was in no way related to any sound within the stadium and could not be heard in the stadium." So, whether they're doing it or not, they're apparently off the hook for this one. Which makes the previous San Diego Chargers comment inoperable.

C'est la vie.

Update: From Michael Felger in the Boston Herald - "One final note: We don’t believe CBS. It felt artificially loud at the RCA Dome."

WEEI has a sound byte from a cameraman who was at the game for one of Boston's local stations, who was told (don't know by whom) that the Colts were picking up the crowd noise and playing it back over the PA.

So, regardless of the CBS statement, it apparently has enough legs to start another day here in Boston.

One more Pats-Colts note

After Manning's TD made the score 20-10, the Patriots had three more possessions. The final one, they led, and one first down enabled them to run out the clock. Their two drives while trailing covered 124 yards in 10 plays for two touchdowns, and consumed a total of 2 minutes and 26 seconds.

Patriots 24, Colts 20

Thoughts on "Super Bowl XLI 1/2"...

• The New England Patriots are the best team in football right now. There are three NFL teams at 7-1 - two of the three losses that those teams have are to the Patriots. Despite the claims that "the Patriots haven't played anyone" or "the Colts have had a much tougher schedule," according to Jeff Sagarin's ratings, the Patriots are now 4-0 against the top 10 NFL teams. The Colts are now 1-1. The Patriots are the only team to have beaten either the 2nd or 3rd ranked team, and they beat both of them on their own home fields.



• The Colts played a tremendous game, got several gifts from the officials, had a fluke touchdown on a dump-off when three Patriots ran into each other, got the worst game that the Patriots have played this year, and still couldn't hold a 10-point lead with less than 10 minutes left. Now, the excuses from the Colts point of view are legitimate - Marvin Harrison didn't play, Gonzalez went out with a bad thumb early, the Colts were playing without wideouts. There's no question that that's true, and it affected their performance. And it is equally true that much of the Patriots poor performance was forced by the Colts. But there were advantages that offset at least some of that. And the Patriots helped them out for a while. As good a play as the 2nd quarter touchdown was for Joseph Addai, that was poorly played by 5 Patriot defenders who had him surrounded. The Brady interception that set that up was a great play by Bethea, but a great play on an underthrown ball - if that ball is thrown three feet further, it's a touchdown for the Patriots, because Stallworth was behind the defense.



• If the Colts had won, given the way New England played for 45 minutes, discussion of the the officials would be whining and off limits. Since the Patriots won, we can do this.
  
  The officials were awful. The first thing was the challenge required on Morehead's first quarter catch. He clearly came down on the sideline, there were two officials right there watching, and the Patriots had to burn one of their challenges in order for the officials to get the call right.
  
  And the Patriots were penalized 10 times for 146 yards. That set a new team record for penalty yardage. Many of those penalties were legitimate. But there were at least three that were questionable, or worse. I'm willing to give the officials the benefit of the doubt on the Assante Samuel pass interference call for 37 yards that set up the Colts first score. It looked like it might have been legitimate at game speed, though on replay it looked as if Samuel had good position on a ball that was overthrown. But the Ellis Hobbs call was absurd. Hobbs was in perfect position and Reggie Wayne pulled him down from behind. An awful, terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad call. As was the Randy Moss offensive pass interference in the fourth quarter.
  
  Oh, and I missed a blatant non-call. Gary Brackett hooked Kevin Faulk on a third-down throw, turning his body and preventing him from catching the pass. Faulk and Brady both went off at the officials on that, it was obvious, it was blatant, it was clear. And it wasn't called.
  
  This isn't just me, and it isn't just Patriot homerism. As the comments from Mike Sando's ESPN blog would attest.



• There have been accusations for years that the Colts were "pumping in" crowd noise, accusations that were denied, of course, because that would be "cheating." Listen to this and tell me that isn't the sound of pumped in crowd noise. The "loud crowd" starts skipping, and then cuts off instantly. It will be interesting to see whether the people who started in on the Patriots the next day after the camera incident actually start on this.
  
  I will make one comment here, though - if the Indianapolis Colts were artificially inflating the noise in that dome when the opposition had the ball, and turning it down when the Colts had the ball, that is far more of an advantage for them than anything that could possibly have accrued to the Patriots by videotaping opponents signals.
  
  UPDATE: There have been a couple of reports that the sound does not appear on the radio broadcasts, which would implicate CBS and exonerate the Colts. Don't know, haven't heard them.



• Right now, it's tough to picture a realistic scenario that doesn't involve a re-match in Foxborough for the AFC Championship Game.

Update: Welcome to yahoo and craigslist. I've gathered the "Colts cheating" updates into one post here. And for my thoughts on the Patriots "cameragate," as well, click here...

Keys to the game...

The Onion has the keys to the game. But apparently, they stole some of them from CBS...

New England - Keep playing better than anyone else in the history of football...

Indianapolis - Remember to win game, or else undefeated season is over...

And more...

Week 9 - NFL picks

Carolina at Tennessee (-4) - The Panthers were a fraud team even when they had their quarterback. The more time passes, the more Carolina's appearance in Super Bowl XVIII looks to have been a fluke of epic proportions.

Cincinnati at Buffalo (+1) - This is a very dangerous game. Buffalo has been decimated by injuries, but they've played tough, disciplined football, and are two plays (one against Denver, one against Dallas) from a 5-2 record. They're one of only two teams who have actually led the Patriots this season for any time at all. But an offensive juggernaut, they aren't. The Bengals won't play defense, but they don't need to this week. The question is this - can the Bills hold the Bengals under 17? If so, they've got a chance to win. The Bengals have got the skill players to make that iffy. I'm going with Buffalo, but have no great amount of confidence - I could easily see Palmer connecting with Johnson a couple of times, and putting 21-24 on the board, and the Bills just don't have the offense to overcome that. I'm picking the Bills anyway.

Denver at Detroit (-3) - Because the Lions are just a better team. (How long as it been since that was a true statement?)

Green Bay (+2) at Kansas City - What do you do when two teams that you always pick to lose match up? Particularly, when you're alway wrong on both of them? Well, my feelings about Kansas City are stronger than my feelings about Green Bay, so I'll pick the Packers (thus, probably, ensuring a Chiefs victory...)

Jacksonville (+3) at New Orleans - The Saints have awoken. But how good are they, really? And who's playing QB for the Jaguars this week? Do I care? I can see a New Orleans win, but I'm going with the better team from the better conference.

San Diego (-7) at Minnesota - I knew that the Chargers would go up to Green Bay and win. I was wrong. While I sometimes learn from mistakes, I know that the Chargers are going to go up to Minnesota and win.

San Francisco at Atlanta (-3) - Somehow, the San Francisco 49ers have won two football games. Part of me thinks that they don't win again. Part of me hopes that they don't win again. They may win again, but it won't be 2500 miles from home.

Washington (-3) at N.Y. Jets - There has, occasionally, appeared to be a "Patriots Hangover Effect." That is, teams that lose to New England get beaten up physically, get beaten up emotionally, and have their weaknesses exposed to the cold light of day. Fortunately for the Redskins, they face a team that is unequipped to take advantage of that.

Arizona at Tampa Bay (-3) - Since I think Tampa Bay is going to win and cover, I should be taking the Cardinals. But the specter of Kurt Warner, held together by baling wire, twine and duct tape, is just too frightening. Now, 3 points is a lot for the offense of the Buccaneers to cover. But I have confidence that they can do it.

Seattle at Cleveland (pick 'em) - On my pre-season list of "Phrases That Won't Be Needed During The 2007 NFL Season," sandwiched between number 3 ("it's a long bomb from Pennington to Cotchery!") and number 5 ("the 49ers are ready to assert control over the NFC West") was number 4 ("Cleveland just has too much offense for the Seahawks to match.") So the list needs some editing. Because, frankly, Cleveland just has too much offense for the Seahawks to match.

Houston at Oakland (-3) - In a game that will seen by families and close friends of the players, but not acquaintances, the Raiders and Texans play a game that is ugly enough to crack television screens. Fortunately, there won't be any tuned to it.

New England (-6) at Indianapolis - The Patriots have played better offense relative to their competition than the Colts have. The Patriots have played better defense relative to their competition than the Colts have. The Patriots are going to have better field position because of better special teams. The idea that a dominant Super Bowl champion can be undefeated, blowing out the competition and a 6-point underdog at home is mind-boggling, but the Patriots make the line reasonable. And they'll go out to Indy and cover. Again.

Dallas (-3) at Philadelphia - Philadelphia could win this game. If they bring their absolute best performance and Dallas plays their 'C'-'D' game, and Philadlphia wins the turnover battle +3 or more. Otherwise, the Cowboys win. Comfortably.

Baltimore at Pittsburgh (-9) - If the Ravens really had the defense that people seem to think that they do, 9 points would be far too much for the Steelers to give. But they don't. Baltimore's inept offense will score 10 or fewer, and the Steelers will score 20+ for the cover.

Patriots-Colts Preview

It's the first meeting ever between two NFL teams at 7-0 or better. It's a meeting between two teams that have won four of the last six Super Bowls, and three of the last four. They are lead by certain Hall of Fame coaches and certain Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

And they are running roughshod over the rest of the NFL.

"They" are, of course, the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts, and they're meeting this week in Indianapolis for what everyone assumes is a preview of the AFC Championship Game. And there's absolutely no reason not to so assume.

• The Colts, after several years of falling to New England, have won the last three meetings between the two teams. The last of these was the last loss for the Patriots, last year's AFC Championship game, when the Colts came back from a 21-3 deficit to win 38-34. The Colts appear to have improved. The Patriots appear to have improved more. On the field for New England will be the following players who were not active for that game: Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth, Wes Welker, Rodney Harrison and Adalius Thomas.



• The Colts are allowing 14.6 points per game, while the Patriots are allowing 15.9. Advantage Colts? Nope. The Colts have played a far weaker offensive schedule. Removing the points allowed by the Colts and Patriots, the teams on Indy's schedule are averaging only 20 points per game, while the Patriots opposition is averaging 23.7. The Patriots have played 4 teams (Cowboys, Browns, Bengals, Chargers) who score more than than the highest-powered offense the Colts have played (Texans). The Colts have held opponents to ~73% of their average point production. The Patriots have held opponents to ~67% of their average point production. Advantage Patriots.



• The Colts are averaging 32 points per game against teams that allow 18.6. The Patriots are averaging 41.4 against teams that allow 21.7. The Colts are scoring 70% more against their opposition than they normally allow. The Patriots are scoring 90% more against their opposition than they normally allow. Advantage Patriots.



• If the Patriots weren't weakened by the flu, I believe that they'd have won their fourth Super Bowl last year. But they were and they didn't. And the Colts put on a tremendous performance, and deserved to win.



• But they won't win this week. They'll score some points, but they will not be able to stop the Patriot offense. The Patriots have always been able to put up points against the Colts, and this is far and away the best offense that New England (or, possibly, anyone else) has ever put on the field. This one won't be a blow-out, there are unlikely to be cries about running up the score, but I'm not at all certain that the Patriots streak of 17+ point wins ends.

NFL week 8 wrapup

• The NY Giants have scored 200 points. There are three teams that have scored more. The Colts have scored 224, the Cowboys have scored 227. (They've each played 7 games, while the Patriots have played 8.) The Patriots have outscored their opposition by 204.
  
  The Patriots have 43 touchdowns and 18 punts.
  
  The biggest point differential in the NFL over the past 5 years belongs to the 2005 Indianapolis Colts. They outscored their opposition by 192 points. To repeat, through 8 games, the Patriots have outscored their opposition by 204.
  
  I don't know what the record is, but whatever it is, they've got to be on pace to shatter it.



• The Patriots have been accused, a couple of times this year, of "running up the score." I defended them running the ball against the Cowboys - diving into the line on four straight downs, when the game would have ended without a score if the Cowboys hadn't called a timeout doesn't constitute "running up the score" in my opinion. The fake spike play against the Dolphins - it was the first half. Brady coming back in the 4th - they've lost a game in Miami late with a big lead before, just three years ago when they finished 14-2 and the Dolphins finished 4-12. So I don't have a problem with that one.
  
  And I don't have a problem with running the ball on 4th down up 38-0 in the 4th quarter. Better than kicking a field goal. And I don't have a problem with the backup quarterback throwing the ball on 4th down - people whining about a 21-yard pass should take note that they actually threw the ball 7 yards on 4th and 7 - let the Redskins make a tackle, instead of whining about how far they threw it.
  
  But throwing the ball into the end zone with a 38-0 lead and less than 10 minutes left strikes me as tacky. And to have Brady doing it strikes me as unwise. That game was decided, and, while players play, it would have been better long-term strategy, and better sportsmanship, not to have him playing at that point in the fourth quarter. I don't like that one.



• That said, I think that this is the appropriate take on it. "Fourth down, when you're in field goal range, that's a tough one. Do you kick another three points there and pile it on, or do you give them a chance to stop you by running the ball on 4th down, and if they stop you they take it back, which is what happened in the Buffalo game."
  

  - Bill Belichick, 10/29/2007

  
  
  It's not New England's job to stop New England from scoring. It Washington's job to stop New England from scoring.
  
  And it isn't as if Patriots fans have no experience with being on the other side of that situation. The 1990 1-15 team lost by scores of 37-7, 41-7, 42-7 and 48-20. Just three years ago, San Diego beat New England 41-17, the final touchdown scoring with 46 seconds remaining in the game when a safety intercepted the ball and lateraled it rather than going down to seal the victory. Was that "running up the score?" Wouldn't "good sportsmanship" and smart play have dictated taking a knee rather than lateraling the live ball? I don't remember this topic being loudly considered at that time.



• The big problem, the reason that the topic has been so prevalent, is that the Patriots have just decimated everyone they've played. There are big scores every week in the NFL, there is usually a good team that will be a bad team by 17 or more 3-4 times a year. What's happening here is that the Patriots don't look like they belong is this league right now. They look like bullies, like a division 1 varsity team playing against a division 3 JV squad. Every week. The Redskins came into the weekend as one of the better teams in the NFC, with (supposedly) one of the best defenses in the NFL. The Patriots scored 52 points, and the game never looked, or was, competitive. They've played 8 games, and not one of them has been close late. No one has been within 17 points of them at the finish. They haven't failed to score 34 or more. They have outplayed the competition so significantly and so consistently that they've created the impression of being on a different level. They can't just play football - they're so much better that it isn't fair, and they need to take it easy on the opposition. At least, that's the way it looks. People forget that both teams are professionals, that both teams are spending to the same salary cap and that everyone on the field is one of the best football players in the world. The Patriots are just doing everything so much better than the teams they're playing that it ceases to be sport. Sport implies competition, and they haven't had any.



• The name that I can't get out of my head right now is Icarus...



• As impressive as the Patriots have been, you could argue that the Colts have been just as good, beating (some) better teams. But that argument is a little weaker now than it was. The Colts have played 3 teams that are currently over .500, and have beaten them all by an average score of 27-11. Pretty damned impressive. The Patriots, however, have played four teams (Chargers, Browns, Cowboys, Redskins) that are currently over .500, and they have won them by an average score of 43-16.
  
  We don't really have a context for what we're watching. They're off the charts, playing at entirely different level than everyone else. If a team wins a game by the score of 41-16, that's a blowout, and people talk about what a great week it had. The Patriots average week, through 8 games, is a little bit better than that.
  
  There have been 108 non-Patriot NFL games so far. 6 teams, 7 games (Cleveland twice) have scored 41 or more points. The Patriots are averaging over 41.
  
  There have been 7 games with a final score differential of greater than 25. The Patriots average differential is 25.5.
  
  Again, what they're doing has not been done before, not in my memory.



• If I remember the hype preceding the Dallas game correctly, there has never been a match-up of NFL teams in which both were 7-0 or better. The New England-Indianapolis game is shaping up as one of the great NFL regular season games ever.



• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say:
  
  

  Cleveland at St. Louis - "So it's come to this. The Rams are underdogs. At home. To the Cleveland Browns. And I think that the spread is low."
  
  Houston at San Diego - "What the Chargers are going through this week is very hard, and it is understandable if some of them are distracted. But this can also be a team-building experience, where they focus on football and each other as a means of escape, and rise above the external circumstances. If they do, this could be a blowout, as the Chargers are the more talented team. That's the way I'm going."
  
  Washington at New England - "Sherman's march to the sea continues, as I try to come to grips with the realization that I am now rooting for the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees. Not literally - figuratively, as that's what my teams have turned into."




• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite [and this evidence continues to pile up]):
  
  

  Buffalo at NY Jets - "The Bills are actually ahead of the Jets right now, at least developmentally, because Trent Edwards is gaining experience and they're learning what he can do, while Kellen Clemens and the Jets organization are watching Chad Pennington play well enough to lose. But the Jets manage to pull this one out at home, gaining revenge for Buffalo's win in week 4."
  
  Green Bay at Denver - "The Bronco's defeat of the Steelers last week allows them to extend the illusion that they're relevant in the AFC competition this season. By default, anyone one the fringes of AFC contention is better than an NFC team."




• For the week:
  Winners: 10-3
  ATS: 8-5-0



• For the season:
  Winners: 74-42
  ATS: 58-51-7

NFL week 7 wrapup

• The Patriots numbers thus far are just silly. They have outscored the opposition by a total of 159 points in just 7 games. They've been "held" to 34 just twice. They've scored 36 touchdowns, over 5 per game - only three other teams have more than 20, led by Dallas 27. The average NFL team has 13 more punts than touchdowns so far. Just three have more touchdowns than punts. The Cowboys have 1 more touchdown than punt. The Colts have 6 more touchdowns than punts. The Patriots have 20 more touchdowns than punts through 7 games.



• What we don't really have any idea about, yet, is the quality of the Patriots defense. They haven't had a big defensive stand late in a game, but they haven't had to. Some of the apparent weakness is a result of the situations they've been in. In the first half on Sunday, the Dolphins had the ball 5 times (plus a 1-play end of the half "drive.") They scored one touchdown, lost one fumble, and punted 3 times. 24 plays, 95 yards, 10:38 time of possession. That's a good defensive half for the Patriots. The 2nd half started with New England up 42-7, and the Patriots put (and left) their nickel defense on the field. The Dolphins, rather than try a hurry-up offense, just ran their normal offense against a prevent defense. And the Patriots let them, their main goal being the preservation of a huge lead while letting time run off the clock.
  
  We don't know what the defense is, but we know that in points allowed/game, they're in the top 10, and in yards allowed per game, they're in the top 5. And teams aren't running out the clock on them - they're ahead all of the time, and people are trying to score. I suspect that they're better than they've looked. We'll find out.



• The Patriots scored with 33 seconds left in the second quarter. That made the score 42-7. And somehow, that's now considered "running up the score." Presumably because it was New England doing it.



• As impressive as the Patriots have been, you could argue that the Colts have been just as good, beating (some) better teams. Certainly, the Patriots victories over the Jets and Dolphins don't look that impressive. But the Chargers and Browns are both .500 and they're over .500 in non-Patriots games. And Dallas is 6-1.



• If I remember the hype preceding the Dallas game correctly, there has never been a match-up of NFL teams in which both were 7-0 or better. The New England-Indianapolis game in two weeks is shaping up as one of the great NFL regular season games ever.



• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say:
  
  

  NY Jets at Cincinnati - "How can the Bengals be a 6 point favorite over anyone? Oh, it's the Jets. I see. Cincinnati inspires absolutely no confidence right now. But if both teams play badly, as I expect, they've got enough talent to accidentally score enough points to cover. The Jets don't. I wouldn't put a nickel on this game, but I expect Cincinnati covers in a game that's painful to watch."
  
  Minnesota at Dallas - "The Cowboys cannot stop a big passing game, but the Vikings don't have one. The real question here is whether the Cowboys have Patriots hangover. It wouldn't be shocking, and they wouldn't be the first team to struggle after being taken apart by New England. I think that they get it together, though, and pull away in the second half."
  
  Atlanta at New Orleans - "Two bad teams. Too bad teams. Too bad, teams. The Falcons won't win, the Saints won't cover."




• Evidence that you should be listening carefully to what I say (and betting the opposite [and this evidence continues to pile up]):
  
  

  Chicago at Philadelphia - "the Bears lost at home to Minnesota last week - I'm supposed to pick them to go to Philadelphia and win? I'd love to, but I won't. "
  
  Tampa Bay at Detroit - " If they play this game 10 times, the Lions win 3 of them in blowouts, the Buccaneers win 7 close. This is one of the seven."




• For the week:
  Winners: 8-6
  ATS: 7-7-0



• For the season:
  Winners: 64-39
  ATS: 50-46-7