NFL myths and truths... NFC

Ok... I took a couple of weeks off, but am back refreshed and recharged and ready to tackle the NFL after an interesting week 7. I will also be posting my week 8 picks column on either Thursday or Friday this week.

So... *looks around*... anything new in the last couple of weeks?

Ok, ok... here we are in week 7. And it seems that this is about the time every year (week 5 - 7) when teams start over-reacting to slow starts, over-estimating their value after fast starts, and making itchy trigger-finger decisions. This year is, of course, no different. What I like to do at this time of year is try to look at the popular myth about each team, and then identify it's proximity to the truth. So for the next two columns I'm going to list each team, pose a statement that seems to be the popular myth about that team (or some aspect of it) currently, and then rate that "myth" on a "truth quotient" scale of 1 to 10 on how close it approximates the truth, in my opinion, with 1 being far from the truth, and 10 being pretty much on target. I'll do the NFC today, and the AFC tomorrow. I'll break it down by divisions, and start with maybe the most difficult to analyze division in football: the NFC East.

NY Giants
Current "myth": The Giants seem to play to the level of their competition, and while they are inconsistent on both sides of the ball, are probably the favorite to win the division.

Truth quotient: 8.  The Giants really do seem to have this issue. They really get up for games against good teams (Philadelphia, Buffalo), but seem to sleepwalk against below average teams (Seattle, Arizona (a game they should have lost), and St. Louis... yes they won, but looked awful doing so against a really bad Rams team). The good news is that their schedule features a few more good teams in the second half, so that should keep them playing at a high level.  The "Real Redskins" are beginning to surface, the Cowboys and Eagles are going to be up and down all year... I really do think the Giants are the favorites in this division. But I could be wrong. And wouldn't be surprised a bit...

Philadelphia Eagles
Current "myth": The Eagles are an elite team that simply wilted under the pressure of the "dream team" expectations and will soon round into form as a top team.

Truth quotient: 3. No way... this Eagles team has been overrated from the start of camp. They have real issues on both offensive and defensive lines. They have a QB who, while dynamic and electrifying at times, has always made poor decisions and tried to take more than what is there... and that hasn't changed. Vick will make as many terrible throws as jaw-dropping throws in a game, and unfortunately that's not really a good ratio. He also takes a ton of punishment and will still struggle to stay healthy. On defense the team is undersized at linebacker and safety and can be run on all day. Too may major holes on this team to consider them elite. They will be better, but will still struggle to be relevant come playoff time.

Dallas Cowboys
Current "myth": Tony Romo is too inconsistent for the Cowboys to ever be considered superbowl contenders.

Truth Quotient: 6.  I mostly agree with this. Romo is wildly inconsistent... we knew this to a large degree coming in to this year, but a good NFL QB will improve things like decision making and reading defenses from year to year. Now in his 6th year as a starter, Romo shows no signs that he's improved in either of those areas. In my view, his biggest problem seems to be in reading defenses when he's forced to look past his first read. In watching him, it seems that if his first read is open, he'll usually make a good throw. Or if he's scrambling and a receiver breaks free, he'll make the throw to the open man. But if forced to read and react quickly, he seems to not fully recognize zone coverages and gets in trouble. This is a real problem for an NFL quarterback, and one I don't think Romo can overcome. That said, he's still talented enough to win games on his own at times, and if he can play within himself and make those first read throws, this team is talented and could be a real contender, if everything falls just right. I personally don't think it will.

Washington Redskins
Current "myth": The Redskins early success was done mainly with smoke and mirrors, and they are playing more or less true to who they are at this point.

Truth quotient: 8. I never really bought the 'Skins as a top team, despite their excellent play in the first 4 weeks of the season. I thought they played over their heads, faced some teams that were either not very good or not playing well that day, and relied on fairly good defense and balanced offense, while getting uncharacteristically mistake-free play from Rex Grossman. This of course didn't last and Grossman has since been benched for John Beck. Not altogether sure that's an upgrade to be honest. At the end of the day this team just isn't that talented at the skill positions. They lack experience and talent at the QB, RB, and WR position... not a good formula for sustained success. They are well coached and play hard, but eventually talent and depth win out. This is a 7-9 team. They were at the start of the year and they will be when it's all said and done.

NCF North


Chicago Bears
Current "myth": Jay Cutler looks worse than he really is at times because of a poor offensive line and the offensive scheme of pass-crazy Mike Martz.

Truth quotient: 5.  The truth about Cutler on this Bears team lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, Martz still calls plays like he's got Kurt Warner and the 1999 Rams O-Line... yes, he at times totally ignores the running game depite having a pro-bowler in Matt Forte who's having a banner year... yes, his scheme calls for routes that take a long time to develop... and yes the WR corps in Chicago is somewhat less than elite. But let's not forget that Cutler was run out of Denver when they literally had NO ONE else behind him. This has to tell you something. Cutler has a reputation for being petulant and a little spoiled. He has terribly body language and doesn't seem to possess the leadership qualities that you'd want in a franchise QB. His arm is unquestioned: he has a cannon. But he's erratic... inaccurate and often too trusting in the skill of that arm. He forces balls in to tight coverage and overthrows his receivers. He's never really learned the art of the touch throw. So while I think Martz' offensive scheme really does hurt Cutler as a QB, I think he'd struggle even in a basic drop back west coast offense with a good line.

Detroit Lions
Current "myth": The Lions' defense in general, and Ndamukong Suh specifically, play dirty.

Truth quotient: 6. I think this is partly overblown, but still true. I think the Lions' defense has begun to develop a bit of an identity... they play mean, with an edge, and aren't afraid to show it. I think Suh is probably one of those players that opponents see as dirty, but teammates see as simply vicious (reminds me of John Randall a bit in that way). And most importantly, I see this as a GOOD thing for the Lions. This was a team that just two years ago was the joke of the NFL... the cupcake on the schedule that no-one took seriously. Now they are getting a reputation as dirty bullies with a mean streak. This is clearly a good thing.

Minnesota Vikings
Current "myth": It was time to move on from Donovan McNabb and see what they have in Christian Ponder.

Truth quotient: 2. Of all the QB changes made over the last two weeks, this one is the one that makes the least sense to me. Let's forget for a moment that actually Ponder played pretty well against the defending superbowl champs... what could the thinking possibly have been with the Vikings coaching staff? Look... it's clear that the Vikings are not a playoff team this year. They have too many holes in too many places... not just at the quarterback spot. Yes, Donovan McNabb is a shell of his former self. It's clear his time is pretty much at an end. But he wasn't a TOTAL disaster. So unless you really think Ponder has the goods, as a rookie, to deliver this team into the playoffs... what are you accomplishing by throwing him into the fire as a rookie, against the Packers, no less, and completely alienating McNabb 7 games into the season in the process? The right move would have been to keep playing McNabb and let Ponder take some reps in games that are out of hand. I think you find out more about Ponder after a year of learning the position at an NFL level and then putting him in after building the offense and the playbook around his skills. All you're going to find out now is what he can do on a bad team with a confidence problem and now perhaps a divided locker room. That's how you want to evaluate your QB of the future? Really? Ponder is not NFL ready, and I think could still have learned a thing or two about playing quarterback in the NFL from McNabb, who let's not forget was once one of the top 5 QBs in this league. I don't understand this move, or what it means for this team this year. Makes no sense to me at all.

Green Bay Packers
Current "myth": This is a team that could possibly make a run at matching the Patriots perfect 2007 regular season.

Truth quotient: 3. There's a large number of analysts and hand-wringing pundits lobbying points of concern at the admittedly poor Patriots pass defense... but in case you're wondering, the Pats' pass defense actually ranks 31st in the league. Wanna guess who's 32? Yup... the Pack. This is obviously the best team in the league and the team I think will represent the NFC in the superbowl. And very well could win it. But they won't win every game in a 16 game schedule with that pass defense. It will improve, I think, but it's still susceptible enough to drop a game here or there... in fact look out for the Chargers after the bye week...

NFC South


Tampa Bay Buccaneers 
Current "myth": The Bucs are showing that they were a bit of a fluke last year and are not ready to make the leap to the upper-echelon of NFL teams.

Truth quotient: 7. The Buccaneers were one of the youngest teams in the NFL last year, but overcame that youth to post an impressive record and seemed poised to make the jump to "very good" team status. This year, however, a tougher schedule and some injuries to their running backs have brought them back down to earth. What we see now is probably more what we should have realistically expected from them entering the season. This was a classic case of over-valuing a team's performance from a prior season and setting expectations that were probably unrealistic. This is still a very young team... young and aggressive. Which means they will look gang-busters at times, but will also be mistake-prone. Josh Freeman is still only in his second full season as a starter... so he will still have some growing pains. All that said, this team is still underperfoming a bit at times and seems to lose focus... a common characteristic for young teams and a challenge that Raheem Morris will have to overcome.

Atlanta Falcons
Current "myth": The big win against the Lions will put the Falcons back on track towards being a legitimate playoff contender.

Truth quotient: 4. This was indeed a big win for the Falcons. They've underachieved by any measure this year and don't look at all like the team that was the top seed in the NFC last year. The win against a good team in the Lions showed that they still do have the capability of playing at a high level, but I've outlined the reasons why I think they have been terribly overrated many times... they are a play-action team predicated on running the ball well then making big plays in the passing game off of play-action. They can't run the ball this year and teams are not playing up in the box to stop the run like they were last year, taking away much of the effectiveness of play-action. This is still a good team, but nowhere near the elite-level team most had them pegged as to start the year. They will struggle to finish at 10-6 and will be fighting for a wildcard spot with at least 3 other teams at about the same record.

Carolina Panthers
Current "myth": Cam Newton is a pro-bowl QB right now.

Truth quotient: 8. Yeah... I'm buying that. Look, in the NFC obviously you have your two top QBs in Rodgers and Brees... but after that who has outperformed Cam Newton in the NFC? Matt Ryan has had an inconsistent year, as has Jay Cutler. Eli Manning continues to be a chucker who relies on the skill of his receivers to pull his prayers out of the sky. Don't even mention Tony Romo. Matt Stafford? Ok... maybe... but are you going to tell me he's been better than Newton? No way... this guy has lit up some pretty good defenses... I had my doubts about him coming in, but I'm a believer. He makes accurate, strong throws both on the move and in the pocket. He still needs to learn to read defenses a bit better but I'd expect that from rookie. What I didn't expect was his leadership and moxie as a rookie. In my view, yes... Cam Newton is a pro-bowler now as the third QB in.

New Orleans Saints
Current "myth": The Saints are the only real threat to unseat the Packers in the NFC and go to the superbowl.

Truth quotient: 8. I think this is largely true. I look at the other top teams in the NFC: the Lions are up and coming but still a year or two away from being good enough to beat the Packers in a playoff game at Lambeau. The 49ers are playing way over their heads, but again... not a real threat to the Packers. No-one in the NFC East should scare them at all. But the Saints have just the right ingredients, I think, to upset the Packers. They have one of the 3 most prolific passing attacks in football, an all-world QB, an excellent coach, and a better than you think defense that might be able to make just enough plays to let the Saints outscore the Packers... and they have a better running game than Green Bay. So while I still think the Packers are the clear favorites, I think the Saints have the only real chance to beat them come January.

NFC West


Seattle Seahawks
Current "myth": The Seahawks have the worst offense in football.

Truth quotient: 9. Yup. With all due respect to Jacksonville, Miami, Indianapolis and St. Louis, the Seahawks have the fewest total yards in the NFL this year, and are rushing for a pathetic 80 yards per game. That's embarrassing. When the Seahawks let Matt Hassleback walk away I was ok with it, assuming they had a plan in mind to make a push for maybe Carson Palmer, or some other viable option at QB... but once they brought in Tavaris Jackson I completely lost any belief that they have the slightest clue what they are doing up there in the Pacific Northwest. I have no idea why this guy keeps getting chances at being a starting QB. He's awful. There's no two ways about it. Just flat out horrible. And he's never shown himself to ever be anything but at BEST an average backup option. I don't understand what Pete Carroll, who by all accounts is a pretty good evaluator of talent (at least a the college level) saw, or continues to see in this guy. I'd have made a stronger argument for St. Louis except that I think their problems are mainly injury related and if they were healthy and intact they'd be a much better offense, in my belief. Now... if we were talking about the worst offense in football just this week... well, that honor would go to the Baltimore Ravens, who put on the worst offensive spectacle I've seen since... well, since the Jets played Baltimore a few weeks ago. Oh my word that was unwatchable... literally...  I couldn't watch it. I actually turned the channel to watch the Iron Chef Halloween Candy battle. It was way more entertaining.

Arizona Cardinals
Current "myth": The Cardinals may have made a mistake in putting all their eggs in the "Kevin Kolb" basket.

Truth quotient: 5. I'm torn on this one. Part of me wants to agree with it... Kolb hasn't really looked like a guy who can put his team on his shoulders and carry them to the playoffs. He throws off his back foot, doesn't seem to make great reads, and gets a little jittery in the pocket. His accuracy is questionable and he hasn't learned the art of the play-action fake very well yet. He too often looks overmatched on the field. If I were a Cardinals fan, I'd be a little worried about the long term prospects with Kolb. That said, this team is really full of holes, especially on defense, where the Cards seem to have a thing for shedding talented defensive backs. Well, the result of that propensity has been one of the worst pass defenses I've ever seen. Say what you want about the Patriots and Packers' stats... the actual worst pass defense resides in the Arizona desert. Add that to a porous offensive line and a virtually non-existent running game, and I sometimes think maybe Kolb is actually doing pretty well with what he has. Bottom line, I'm not sure if I agree with this yet or not. Ask me again after the season. I'll probably be even less sure.

San Francisco 49ers
Current "myth": Coach John Harbaugh has transformed all-time draft bust Alex Smith into a legitimate NFL quarterback.

Truth quotient: 4. Not quite on this one. John Harbaugh is just a great coach, and maybe an even better motivator, but he's not literally a Genie... which is what it would take to make Alex Smith a decent NFL quarterback. What Harbaugh has done is learned to protect Smith and put him in a position to just do the basics: he never has to make more than 1 or 2 reads... he's told to get rid of the ball within a certain amount of time or throw it away... he hands the ball off to a talented stable of running backs, and he has learned not to force the ball. He is still not very accurate, or strong-armed, and doesn't possess a high football IQ, but Harbaugh knows what he has, and what he can do, and doesn't ask him to do any more. If they were to get way behind in a game, though, I don't think you could ask him to bring you back. And I think next year the Niners will still be looking for their next QB.

St. Louis Rams
Current "myth": After the Eagles, the Rams are perhaps the most disappointing team in the NFL.

Truth quotient: 7.  Honestly, I struggled to come up with a real "myth" for this team. Not only is this team a bad team, they are also completely and utterly uninteresting. So much so that I initially left them completely out of my initial post without realizing it. This is a team with zero buzz. None. And that's sort of a mystery, because they came into the year as one of the potential up-and-comers along with Detroit and Tampa Bay. Oh, how that has gone by the wayside. Earlier I mentioned Seattle as the worst offense in the NFL... well, the Rams are not really that far behind (as a side note... how bad is the NFC West? This division has been terrible for years and shows no signs of getting appreciably better. Mediocrity of this magnitude for this prolonged a period of time is not supposed to happen in today's NFL. It's bizarre to me). Honestly I can't really put my finger on exactly why this team is this bad. They have some good pieces on defense, a true franchise QB in Sam Bradford, and the makings of a fairly decent running game. True, they have injuries at the WR and RB position... but this team has been rebuilding for several years now, and here's where I come down: despite having several years of high draft picks, the Rams have failed utterly at building depth through the middle of their roster. And they don't seem to have a real identity either offensively or defensively. Bottom line: I think the front office and coaching staff are not getting the job done here.

Click here to jump to the AFC portion of this column.

NFL: Week 5 Accounting

Week 5 is behind us, and my reality is beginning to crumble. Like Mr. Anderson in "The Matrix", I'm not entirely sure if I'm dreaming or awake. I watched the games this weekend, but was what I saw real? Some things seemed to follow the normal logic I've become accustomed to... they made sense... they fit the reality I've come to know. But others things seem completely and wholly unlikely... even impossible. For example, while I watched the best team in the NFL overcome a bad 1st quarter to fairly easily run over the over-matched Falcons... and while I watched the Patriots put up another 30 points on a very good defense... and while I witnessed the Chargers yet again struggle to beat an inferior opponent early in the season, you know, things I expected and have come to accept as reality... I also witnessed an offense led by Alex Smith score 5 touchdowns and blow out a decent team en route to a 4-1 record and sole possession of first place in the NFC West. I saw a bad team (Denver) replace their quarterback, put in a guy who completed less than half his passes, none of which traveled more than 10 yards in the air, for 79 total yards, lose the game at home, and have their fans celebrating like they'd won. I saw one of the worst offenses in the NFL (Seattle) put up over 400 yards on the road against what was considered a pretty good defense, and win by over 10 points. I saw a team of veritable superstars outplayed, out-hustled, and out-coached... in 85 degree weather... in Buffalo... in mid-October. And I gazed upon a Detroit Lions team that three years ago went an entire season without a single win, standing as one of the last two undefeated teams in the NFL.

Clearly I have slipped into some sort of subconscious or alternate state of reality. Like in the movie "Inception", I must initiate a "kick" to bring me back to reality... but before I throw myself off a building, here's the recap of my picks for week 5 (correct picks in green, incorrect in red):

Bills (+3) 31, Eagles 24
I'm going to spend a couple of minutes on this one because I have some interesting viewpoints on both these teams. First... look, it's been talked to death. The Eagles are in trouble. We know. What's surprising to me is how many people are surprised by this. If you look waaaaay back at my NFC East preview column you'll see that I was not sold on this "Dream Team". The pieces they bought in the off-season were big splashes, but not the pieces they actually needed to address. What they needed was help on the offensive and defensive lines. Especially the Offensive line. It's terrible. Vick is getting hit on almost every play. However this has always been the issue with Vick. To be honest I'm not sure how much of the fault lies with the line and how much lies with Vick and his style of play. About half of the plays Vick runs are improvisation. How does the line block for that? O-Lines in the NFL can hold back a pass rush for 3 seconds... maybe 5 if they are pro-bowl players... but after that the defense will be past them. Vick has the ball at least that long every time he drops back, because he relies on his running ability to extend the play. So when he drops back he might have the ball for up to 10 seconds. How can the line sustain that play after play? They can't. And outside of a post or fly route, what kind of routes can you call for a guy who's got the ball for 5, 6, 10 seconds every snap? Andy Reid is a west-coast offense coach. He can adapt, and has, but at the end of the day he still draws up plays that use passing routes that are designed to be completed within 3 - 5 seconds of the snap of the ball. After that it's just backyard football and hope someone gets open enough. But in the NFL where the defense is just as athletic as the offense, this just doesn't work. Coaches in the NFL have film... and the film on Vick and this offense is out, and has been widely distributed. You don't call aggressive blitzes... you play 3 or 4 down linemen and let the play develop... play run gaps to stop the run, and if it's not a run wait for Vick to choose a direction and then release and attack. You drop 6 DBs into a zone, play a deep safety to take away Jackson's deep posts, and make Vick, who has never been good at reading defenses, force the ball into the underneath zones where your LBs and safeties can undercut routes. This has now worked in 3 consecutive weeks, as the Bills employed the same defense against Vick and the Eagles as the Niners and Giants. If the Eagles are going to have any success on offense now that the blueprint is out, he's going to have to fundamentally change Vick and this offense, and I'm just not sure that's possible at this point.

Ok, on the the Bills... Look, I don't want to take a thing away from this team, but man, they are playing on the edge... and have been every week since week 2. They are way better than anyone expected and should be given credit, but now they're looking to be seen as one of the elite teams in the NFL, and in that light they have some serious issues. Most notably on defense. They have the third-worst defense statistically in the NFL. (before you all scream about the fact the the Patriots have the statistically worst defense, I'll remind you that all stats are not equal. The Pats are not playing in nip-and-tuck, close games... they are generally jumping out to leads and forcing teams to throw all over the field. You'll note that the Pats are actually pretty good against the run (13th), This is not the case with the Bills, who are giving up huge yards both on the ground and in the air, in generally close games or games they are behind in. I'm not saying the Pats' defense is good... they are pretty weak overall, but this Bills defense troubles me much more for those reasons). The Bills are winning games right now for one reason and one reason only: turnovers. The Bills are averaging almost 4 turnovers a game... a pace that statistically simply can not continue. They had 3 against the Chiefs, 2 against the Raiders, 4 against the Pats, 2 against the Bengals and 5 against the Eagles. The last 4 games for the Bills have been decided by 3 points 3 times and seven points once. And here's the most important factor: in 3 out of the Bills' 5 games they've had an interception return for a touchdown. You simply can't count on those plays week in and week out.  I'll also point out that the Bills' have only faced one opponent with a statistically good defense: The Bengals. And they lost that game while looking very pedestrian on offense. So while I'm still very impressed with the Bills, I still also see reasons for concerns over the long term.

Chiefs (+1) 28, Colts 24
I said at the time I was concerned about this pick. And I was right to be. The Chiefs got a whif of confidence and remembered they actually won a bunch of games last year, and the Colts are just not very good on either side of the ball right now. It's amazing... I've never seen a team so completely built around a single player on BOTH sides of the ball as this Colts team. Their offense is built specifically around Manning and his ability to read defenses, change plays at the line, and call the perfect play for any given situation. He doesn't need a ton of talent to get the most out of his offense. And you can clearly see that outside of Reggie Wayne, there really isn't much talent on this team offensively... yet with Manning I'd bet they are 3-2 at worst right now. And on defense, they are clearly built to play with the leads Manning usually provides: small and fast, built to rush the passer and not be concerned with the running game as a primary weapon. This defense doesn't work as well when the offense struggles to put up points. So this Colts team is clearly going to finish with a very bad record... and if it's bad enough for the first pick (I don't think so... I think that will go to Miami or Jacksonville), what do you do? There you have Andrew Luck... the last time a QB came into the NFL with as many pure, polished, NFL-ready measurables, the Colts grabbed him with the first pick in the 1998 draft. By all accounts Luck is a once in a generation franchise QB. And Manning is 36 and coming off several neck surgeries. At this point we don't know what the impact might be on the rest of his career. If I knew Peyton was coming back and would be the QB he has been, I'd expect 3 - 5 more years of top level QB play, and the choice would be easy. I'd package the no. 1 pick to the highest bidder for a boatload of picks (two no. 1's, two no. 2's at least) and build a better support system around the team for a run at at least 2 or 3 more championships... but what if Manning's future is still up in the air come draft time? What do you do? Honestly, it's a pretty damn good problem to have and I frankly hate the Colts all the more for their dumb lu-... err... fortune.

Vikings (-3) 34, Cardinals 10
You laughed at my last line in my picks column, didn't you. Yeah, well... even in clear exaggeration for comical emphasis I was almost right. Peterson ran over, around and through the wet toilet paper that is the Cardinals defense. I don't care what the statistics say, this is the worst defense in the NFL right now. And it's not close. The best thing the Cardinals have going for them is that they won't have to play the Packers, Patriots or Saints this year. Records would likely be smashed. In other news around this game, Donovan McNabb should donate his game check to Peterson, because no-one will be talking about how below-average McNabb was again in this game, so he'll likely keep his job one more week.

Seahawks (+10) 36, Giants 25
Why do people keep making excuses for Eli Manning's mistakes? He threw 25 interceptions last year, yet mostly what we heard was about how his receiving corps let him down or tipped balls hurt blah blah blah... and here we are again, the Giants offense underachieving, and after 5 games Eli has thrown 5 picks and lost 3 fumbles. Yet once again, I hear excuses being made... Victor Cruz tipped the ball right to a defender (even Eli couldn't bring himself to accept responsibility in his post-game press conference, again blaming the "tipped ball"... even he's believing his own hype). OK... fine... but the ball was thrown away from Cruz into triple coverage on the outside where if it is picked there is no-one to stop the defender. The ball should never have been thrown. The first interception was a poor throw off his back foot where Eli didn't read the safety coming over the top. And the other interception was also a tipped ball, but again thrown into double coverage with a safety directly trailing the play. These are throws the Eli consistently tries to make... pressing the ball into tight coverage while not being all that accurate. I'm going to call it what it is: Eli is a chucker. He was in college and he is now. He's got a great arm, but he has always made a habit of simply chucking a ball and relying on his receivers to make great plays (like Cruz made on a badly underthrown ball for a touchdown... that should have been picked too). Unfortunately he hasn't had too many great receivers in the past few years to rescue his thrown prayers. I have never bought into Eli as an elite QB, and the last year and 5 weeks just keep confirming what I already knew. Eli is a chucker, and if he doesn't have tall, athletic receivers bailing him out, will continue to make bad throws and interceptions. I said in my picks column that I wasn't sure how god the Giants were... well, honestly I'm still not sure. They had no business losing this game at home to a bad team, but they did put up some gawdy offensive numbers. I think this is an 8-8 team at this point... maybe 9-7.

Steelers (-3.5) 38, Titans 17
And believe me, folks... the game wasn't as close as the score. After four weeks the Titans really had me believing. They were playing good defense, and were balanced on offense. They looked like a tough out, while the Steelers seemed to be reeling a bit. But, like about 3 or 4 other teams in the NFL this year, the Steelers are a Jekyll and Hyde team. This week they were dominant on both sides of the ball and the Titans looked inept. I don't take much from this game at this time other than the Titans just had one of those games. It happens... I'm not sure what it means for the Steelers, though... I think ultimately they are still flawed. They aren't playing to their identity, running the ball and stifling defense, consistently right now. Maybe that changes... they've got a couple of cupcake games coming up against the Jags and Cards, before taking on the Patriots, so they have a chance to really correct some holes.

Saints (-7) 30, Panthers 27
The Panthers might lose more games by less than a touchdown than any team in history this season... and believe it or not, that's a compliment. This team, with holes all over the defense, a poor O-line, and very little running game and a raw rookie QB with only a year of experience as a starter in college, has no business being right in these games against the likes of the Packers, Bears and Saints... that they are is nothing less than a testament to the skill and competitive drive of one Cam Newton. The Panthers are the king of the back-door cover, and I will keep taking them as long as Vegas keeps making them 7 point dogs. As for the Saints, they need to start closing out games more authoritatively... they are just a couple plays away from being 2-3 and could easily have lost this one.

Bengals (+3) 30, Jaguars 20
As I said in my picks column, I still have no idea why the Jags were favored in this game. The Bengals are one of the better "good bad teams" in the NFL right now, and I really like AJ Green. That dude's gonna be a good receiver in this league for a long time... looks a lot like Andre Johnson to me. And truthfully, Bengals ownership looks even dumber than ever for not trading Carson Palmer. It's clear Andy Dalton is going to be at least a pretty good QB in this league, and had they traded Palmer they could have added a couple more pieces around him (maybe O-Line help) and in 2 years this team could really be dangerous. As it is, they are just not deep enough or talented enough yet to be considered a real threat. The Jaguars are just almost unwatchable. Just ask people in Jacksonville.

Raiders (+6) 25, Texans 20
Had I known about the death of Al Davis before I posted the picks column, I would have likely put real money down on this game. The Raiders were already going to be tough enough to beat without the added "spiritual motivation" that always gives teams an extra boost. The Raiders aren't going to make any noise in the playoffs or anything, but they are a team going in the right direction. I still don't like their QB situation... but imagine this team if, say, Carson Palmer suddenly dropped into their lap? Could happen... I'll be interested to see how the passing of Al Davis impacts the Raiders down the road in the off-season. I've long believed that good free agents haven't gone to Oakland because of Davis at this point... wonder if that changes with him passing. We'll see. And if you are Houston... look... you can't continue to ask to be taken seriously and lose these games at home. Yes, the Raiders are a tough team... yes, they had a little extra motivation. Doesn't matter. These games are statement games... chances for you to rise up and serve notice. Elite teams don't lose these games... yet year after year the Texans always seem to lose these games. This is why I can't buy into them and take them seriously as contenders.

49ers (-3) 48, Buccaneers 3
Yikes. Tampa Bay has got to be the most disappointing team in the NFL this year, don't they? This was the sexy pick before the season... the team everyone thought was on the cusp... ready to make the jump... they had young talent, speed, and a gifted young athlete at quarterback. And they've really fallen apart in a hurry. It's bad enough to get whupped by, let's face it, despite the record, what is widely considered a mediocre team. But you score 3 points. Total. In the first quarter. I honestly don't know what's wrong with the Bucs... can't put my finger on it but they really haven't looked right this year at all. And look, it's pretty clear the difference in the 49ers right now. It's coaching, plain and simple. Jim Harbaugh can coach. Period. The Niners played a well balanced, well executed game... they were coached up. I joked about Alex Smith earlier, but the truth is he's not being asked to carry this team. Jim Harbaugh knows he can't win doing that, so he asks him to do only so much. Make quick reads... take open receivers, throw the ball away in a hurry if it's not there. And Smith is doing what he's asked. Smith's numbers won't jump out at you, but the Niners run the ball well and play solid defense, so he doesn't need to do much more than manage the game. They will struggle against the better teams, but they're a much better team than they were a year ago and in my view, that's mainly due to coaching.

Chargers (-4) 29, Broncos 24
OK, Denver fans. You got what you wanted. Say hello to the Tim Tebow era. Honestly, fans sometimes just make me shake my head. There is nothing... NOTHING that anyone could have possibly seen at the pro level from this guy to make ANYONE believe he's going to be a viable starting NFL QB. But he was a college legend, the Broncos have been awful for years so the fans are desperate for a hero, and he's also overtly religious, which you can never underestimate the power of in the good ol' USA, especially in the mid-west. I think fans genuinely believe God will take this mechanically poor, inaccurate, wildly inconsistent thrower and miracle him into a super-bowl winner overnight. I'm here to tell you, Bronco fans... it ain't gonna happen. (I remember as a Patriots fan in the mid-90's fans were getting frustrated with Bledsoe and were clamoring for college phenom and pre-season star Michael Bishop... same kind of QB... let's just say I think we're all glad the coaches never gave in to that fan pressure). I think John Fox has basically thrown his hands up, and has gotten sick of the local fans and media insisting they know more than he does. So he's opening up Pandora's box and will sit back and let this disaster unfold. Oh, there will be some exciting moments for sure. Tebow will make some dazzling plays... escaping the pocket and hitting wide-open receivers occasionally, running for first-downs while diving head first. He might even steal a game or two against average opponents on his legs and guile alone. But on balance, he will be what he is. He will make horrible throws, miss receivers, throw bad interceptions, take hard hits too often, and it will take probably a full season of this before fans and True Believers finally acquiesce and admit maybe he's just not that good. What should be really interesting is if Tebow plays just well enough to win a game or two, and is regularly exciting enough... and the Broncos wind up with that first pick and a chance at Andrew Luck. We might actually see an honest to goodness holy war break out in the State of Colorado.

I should also mention here that the Chargers continue to underperform. Really this should never have been this close. Just don't like the way that team plays so inconsistently.

Patriots (-8) 30, Jets 21
Would have been a score higher if not for Aaron Hernandez letting a ball right at him in the endzone go right through his hands and into a defender's hands just before the half. The score isn't really indicative of how inept the Jets are on offense. They had two drives of any real consequence in this game. The third score came after an 88 yard kickoff return that set them up at the 18. This was not as close a contest as it should have been given the expectations of the Jets this season... and in almost surreal fashion, the Jets were talking about moral victories after the game, like a team that never expected to win in the first place might do. I expected them to be mad... angry... truculent... acting like the better team didn't win. But they didn't. They just... accepted it as if it were a foregone conclusion. This Jets team thrives on its swagger and confidence, a direct extension of the coach, but they left Foxborough a beaten team bereft of any swagger. I don't like the vibe of this team right now. Rex has gotten it turned around in a hurry there before, but something about this team feels different. I'm not sure they can turn it around this year. The Patriots, meanwhile, are starting to hit a stride, I think. I never did think their defense was as bad as the stats showed, nor as bad as the pundits were claiming. This is not a great defense by any stretch, but they play the scheme very well. They carry out the game plan and do it with success. The plan was to limit the running game and get off the field on third down, and they did that very well Sunday. When they get healthy, I think they will be a pretty good defense... certainly good enough to win with in the playoffs. I still would like to see them get some CB help, though. Just not sure there's much out there. On the offensive side it's getting rather silly. I mean, the Jets defense actually played pretty well I thought, on balance. The Pats didn't score on their opening drive for the first time all year, they turned the ball over in the red zone and struggled a bit at times... and yet they once again put up 30 points and over 400 yards of offense and made it look effortless. It's a real joy watching this team operate on offense. And now that they've found a true "thunder and lightening" inside-outside running combo with Green-Ellis and Ridley, they are going to be even tougher to defend.

Packers (-6) 25, Falcons 14
Not much to say here that I didn't already say in my picks column. Ho-hum win for the Pack... got off to a slow start but were never really in danger of losing this game... and that right there is the sign of a championship team: when you watch them go down by two touchdowns in the first quarter and never ever think for a moment that they might actually lose the game. I will also add that I've never seen any QB, ever... not Favre, not Steve Young, throw the ball on the run with so little effort and so much zip and accuracy as Aaron Rodgers. I think Tom Brady is the best QB in football, and might be the best of all time, but Rodgers has just incredible ability in that arm and does things on the move that Brady couldn't dream of doing. When Brady retires, this guy is the best in the NFL and it's not even close.

Lions (-6) 24, Bears 13
Lions are good. Bears are not. And Mike Martz is going to be arrested for being an accomplice to murder when they scrape Jay Cutler's deceased carcass of the filed at some point. There are only two QBs I've ever seen with a release quick enough to play in Martz' "zero-protection" style offense: Kurt Warner and Dan Marino. Jay Cutler isn't close to either of those guys. Martz needs to go before Cutler gets really hurt. I'm serious.

Record this week: 8-5

NFL Week 5 Picks

Onward to week 5 in the NFL, and an interesting slate of games. Teams will start to assert themselves as being worthy of being taken seriously or not... Was last week's loss to the Bengals and Rookie QB Andy Dalton an aberration or simply the Bills' coming back to the middle of the pack where they really belong? And is Cincinnati worthy of some attention as being better than we thought? Can the Manning-less Colts get off the schnide against the seemingly hapless Chiefs? Or was last week's win the start of KC righting the ship? How long do the Vikings stay with Donovan? How will Houston fare against a team that can push them around on the ground? Will the other players in my fantasy league remember that bye-weeks start this week?

Trust me, I have no idea... but I'll give it my best shot. The only thing I know for sure is that Tony Romo won't throw any game-killing, soul-crushing INT's this week. Or maybe I shouldn't be so sure of that... Anyhow, on to the picks! Home teams are in CAPS.

Philadelphia (-3) over BUFFALO
I actually do think this Bills team is pretty good. And I almost went with them, getting points at home against a desperate Philly team. But then I repeated to myself that this is a desperate Philly team. And while Buffalo is pretty good, they aren't as good as people were thinking at 3-0. Philly has too much talent to lose like they have been every week. Buffalo has issues in their secondary. I think Philly plays mad and runs up a pretty good score. Would not be surprised at all though to find out I was dead wrong on this. Oh... and it might interest all you Mike Vick fans to know that Vick is now below .500 as the Eagles starting QB. Let's see... Vick playing the role of tantalizing talent... plays that make you gasp... looks unbeatable at times, and yet somehow loses more often than he wins, seems to make mistakes at the worst possible times, hurt too often... where have I heard this song before? Can any Falcons fans out there tell me if this sounds familiar to you?

INDIANAPOLIS (-1) over Kansas City
I went back and forth on this game several times. And again, I think if it were Kerry Collins starting this would be a much easier call for me. In the end I think Indy manages to pull out a close, low scoring game at home. But I don't feel great about it... dammit I hate this week already.

MINNESOTA (-3) over Arizona
This might be Donovan McNabb's last chance to show he has anything left and keep what might be his last starting QB gig in the NFL. And I think he will. This Minnesota team could easily be 3-1 right now if they had any ability to hold on to a lead. Against the awful Cardinals defense I think the Vikes will jump out to an early lead, and unlike prior games, will hold on to it. Look at Adrian Peterson to carry the ball about 60 times for approximately 350 yards. What... you think that can't happen?

NY GIANTS (-10) over Seattle
Yeah, I know... 10 points is a lot, and I've been regularly saying how much I doubt how good the Giants are. But here's a couple of things I do know: If nothing else, the Giants can still get after the QB. And last I checked, Tavaris Jackson is still at the helm for Seattle. The G-Men will be on him all day like stink on an ape. Seattle will be lucky to score 10. Take the points.

Tennessee (+3.5) over PITTSBURGH
This line has dropped like a stone this week from 6.5 to 3.5, which would be normal if there were some serious injury to a critical player. The injury to Harrison does hurt, but not enough to drop this line 3 points in a matter of days. What likely happened is that when Vegas released the line, so much cake was being dropped on Tennessee they were forced to adjust the line... and rightfully so. This Steelers' team is in trouble. They can't run the ball and they can't protect Big Ben, and their defense isn't what it used to be, especially in the backfield. The Titans are a pretty damn good defensive team, and have one of the more balanced offenses in the NFL, even without Kenny Britt. This line might be a pick 'em by Sunday. I'll take the 3.5 today and the Titans on the road.

CAROLINA (+7) over New Orleans
I'm on-board with Cam Newton as a legit NFL future star. He's got his issues, like any rookie, but the kid can chuck it. New Orleans is one of those "dome teams" like Atlanta, Indianapolis (the Manning version) and Philly (yeah, I know they don't play in a dome, but they have a team that was built to... which is sort of dumb when you think about it). They do well on fast surfaces with the noise of their indoor crowd. While there isn't another monsoon scheduled in Carolina, the playing surface will level out the field a bit between these two. I still like the Saints to win this game, but Cam's Cats will keep it close again and cover. Erm.. ok... I promise I will never use the phrase "Cam's Cats" again. I'm so ashamed...

Cincinnati (+3) over JACKSONVILLE
There's one of these lines every week it seems... a team that is favored for no reason I can possibly discern. It seems Vegas doesn't think much of the Bengals. Frankly I don't either, but I do think enough of them to think they can beat Blane Gabbart and the Puddy-tats. The Bengals' defense is better than you think... and here's a challenge for you: name any two receivers on the Jag's... heck, name any ONE. Couldn't do it? You're not alone. I'll take the Bengals on the road (and you can count on one finger the number of times you'll likely hear me say that again this year).

Oakland (+6) over HOUSTON
OK... repeat after me one more time... I will NOT be sucked in to thinking this Texans' team is really that good. The Raiders do one thing very well: run the ball. Houston can be run on. I think the Raiders can push the Texans around a bit on offense. And without Andre Johnson, the Texans' passing attack isn't nearly as threatening. I'll take Oakland for cover and the outright win. (hmmm... i'm just looking back over my picks so far, and it's beginning to occur to me that this could be a very ugly week for me... at least three times I've already said to myself "no... did I really pick that?" This could get messy... stay tuned.)

Tampa Bay (+3) over SAN FRANCISCO
If you had predicted this line at the beginning of the season I'd have asked you if Josh Freeman was planning on tearing his ACL in week 1. Tampa has really lost some respect from Vegas with below expectation performances thus far, but if you ask me, favoring the Niners in this game means trusting Alex Smith to put together 3 straight very good performances... this time against a decent defense. And we're really not ready to go there... right? Right? Oh please don't tell me I have to live in a world where Alex Smith has become a solid starting QB... nothing in my world will make sense after that.

San Diego (-4) over DENVER
Truthfully, of all the "obvious" games this week, this one scares me the most. I just have a strange feeling this is going to be one of those inexplicable games Denver seems to have every year where Kyle Orton goes nuts for 375 yards and 4 TDs and the Broncos score 45 points. So while I'm going to take the "obvious" pick here and go with the Chargers getting less than a touchdown against what should be a lesser team in Denver, I don't feel good about it. Hell, just add this game to the long list of games I don't feel good about this week. Actually, though... I'm kind of looking forward to watching the entire city of Denver go completely apoplectic when the Broncos struggle and John Fox finally does pull Kyle Orton... and puts in Brady Quinn. Can we make this happen? Please? Oh pleeeeease?

NY Jets (+8) over NEW ENGLAND
Augh... oww... owwwww... OOOOWWWWWW. That hurt. DAMMIT but that hurt. Ok... shake it off. You're a pro. Suck it up, take a deep breath and get on with the rationale... OK, so... here it is: the Jets struggled mightily last week against the Ravens defense and just looked awful. But their defense played pretty damn well. And this Patriots defense is nowhere near the same caliber of the Raven's. So, even though Mark Sanchez is still playing like a rookie in year 3, and even though the Jets' offensive line is awful (especially if Mangold is still unable to come back), and even though this game is at Gillette, where Brady hasn't lost a regular season game in like 30 years, and even though the Pats seem to have found a running game, and even though the Jets don't seem to be able to run the ball and control the clock... wait... what the HELL am I doing? Hold on...

NEW ENGLAND (-8) over NY Jets
Ahhhhhhh... there. MUCH better. Yes... I can sleep in peace now.

Green Bay (-6) over ATLANTA
I just don't see any way Atlanta, now pretty well exposed as being way over-rated at the start of the season, can keep up with a Green Bay team that started clicking on all cylinders about half way through their week 3 game. And while there was a Roddy White sighting last week, I think Matt Ryan is going to be getting a great look at the underside of the Georgia Dome roof for a good portion of this game. Take the Pack and give the points.

DETROIT (-6) over Chicago
I think Ndamukong Suh should play a little game... I'm pretty sure Jay Cutler doesn't know how to spell his name, so I think Suh should yell a letter of his name at the smug-pussed QB every time he drills him into the Ford Field turf. "ENNNNN!!!!", "DEEEEE!!!", "AAAAEEEE"!!!!, etc... And after the ninth letter is screeched at him somewhere in the middle of the third quarter he should calmly say "that's how you spell 'Ndamukong'... now you know dat".

NFL: Week 4 Accounting

Ughh... you're right, it does smell like Indian food

Time to take a look back at my week 4 picks and face the music... 


Well, well... looks like I'm not such an idiot after all. After a wacky week 3, week 4 played out more or less as I thought it would and I've made a remarkable comeback this week! It's still mighty early, but things are starting to take a little bit of shape in the NFL. By the way, Bills fans, that very loud THUD was the sound of reality landing directly on top of you. So... on the the picks review. As always, games I picked correctly are in  green, games I whiffed on are in red. 


New Orleans (-7) 23, Jacksonville 10
This game was much closer than it should have been. New Orleans has this terrible habit of playing down to their competition... just ask last year's Seahawks. Seems they lose some focus and intensity when the opponent is less of a "threat". This could be problematic down the road.


Detroit (+1.5) 34, Dallas 30
Ahhhh... there's the Romo we all know and love. I've never seen a single game so completely and perfectly represent one player's entire career like this one did for Romo. Unquestionable athletic ability and talent. Can control a game and improvise his way to great plays. And then can just inexcusably throw the ball into places he shouldn't, make poor decisions, try to do too much and ultimately kill you. And in the end you wind up with an exciting team with a QB they can't win without, and can't win with. Good luck with the rest of the Tony Romo era, Cowboy fans. I think I'm moving to Dallas and opening a blood pressure clinic... I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams before the Romo experiment is permanently shut down. Oh... and Calvin Johnson is pretty good for a number 3 receiver, I gotta say... we need to start noticing that guy. 


San Francisco (+9) 24, Philadelphia 23
The most surprising aspect of this game wasn't just that the Eagles lost... but that their defense, and in particular their secondary, was just awful... especially in critical situations. I'll say this right now... the Eagles front 7 is simply too small to compete against power running teams... or teams with even a decent running game. And that "wide 9" technique is going to get them run over up the middle every week until they change something. And the gazillion dollar defensive backfield allowed way to many big plays against Alex Smith. Yes... that Alex Smith. So far the Eagles have played St. Louis, the Giants, the Niners, and a vastly over-rated Atlanta team. None of these teams are very good, offensively. What do you think teams with high-powered offenses like Dallas and New England are going to do to this defense? Luckily for Philly they really don't play any high-end offenses outside of those two teams. Philly has an enormous advantage schedule-wise this year and if they make the playoffs it will be because of that, but this team is going nowhere with that defense and an offense that at times seems too fast for itself. 


Washington (-2) 17, St. Louis 10
Speaking of cupcake schedules... the entire NFC East has so far benefited from the schedule. There are two 3-1 teams in that division and I simply have no idea if they are any good because they have only really played the Cardinals, Rams, Niners, and each other. The Redskins have a pretty decent defense, I think. They have an ok running game, I think. And they have Rex Grossman at QB. The Bears couldn't win with this guy on a more talented offense and one of the best defenses of the last decade... I just don't see them actually being as good as their record right now. Wake me up when anyone in this division plays a legitimate playoff team outside of their own division.

Tennessee (+1) 31, Cleveland 13
I still have no earthly idea what made Vegas favor the Browns in this game. This Titans team is for real. They have a top 10 defense, a decent QB who can actually throw downfield with accuracy (when's the last time a Titans QB could do that?) and one of the best running backs in the NFL who is only just now starting to find his form. And speaking of running backs... if Peyton Hillis continues the season the way it's gone so far, I'm going to have to start putting serious stock into the "Madden Cover jinx" theory. As a fantasy player, this guy just kills me... he killed me last year because he was grabbed late in the season and single-handedly ran that person right to the league championship, and now he's killing me this year because I took him in the second round and he's been a dud outside of one week. Oh... and in case you're wondering... my first round pick was Chris Johnson. And my top WR was Kenny Britt. Needless to say I'm not doing well in my fantasy league this year. Feh.

Cincinnati (+3) 23, Buffalo 20
I live about 3 hours from Buffalo in central NY and I took SO much crap for this pick.  Well, all I can say is EAT IT. I knew what I was talking about. The Bills came into this game with an attitude they haven't had in YEARS: they actually EXPECTED to win. (I don't want to hear it from players on that team who say "we always expect to win"... no you don't... that's a lie. When you're on a mediocre or bad team, you think you can win, you try your hardest to win, you hope you will win... but you don't expect to win. If you did, you wouldn't hold a team-wide, middle of the field huddle and celebration like you just won the superbowl after a win against a good team in week 3. Just sayin.) The Bills played with decidedly less edge, less urgency, and less "want-to" than they had in their 3 prior wins. This team is simply not that talented. They are good in several areas, and very good in one or two... they need that "underdog" mentality to maintain that edge. They didn't have it on Sunday and got beaten by a somewhat lesser team. I expect they will play better at home against the Eagles next week, but I also think the Eagles are spitting mad right now and may just run roughshod over them... but that's for another column.

Kansas City (+2) 22, Minnesota 17
As I suspected, the hangover from 3 straight 20 point collapses has clearly affected this team's confidence. They look dazed right now. A total mess. Kansas City is just not a good team... and they weren't in this game. The Vikings could have and should have won this game, easily. But they seemed to be just going through the motions for the most part. I shall heretofore refer to them as the "Zombie Vikings", until something drastically changes or they show some signs of being actually alive. As for KC... there was far too much celebrating and back-slapping for a team that won their division last year and essentially brings back the same team (yes, losing Charles hurts, but they sucked well before he went down). You guys shouldn't be this excited to simply get an ugly win at this point in the season following what you accomplished last season. What happened to this team?

Chicago (-6) 34, Carolina 29
I thought the Bears' defense would present a difficult challenge for Cam Newton. I really did. I was wrong. Again. I think I need to just stop saying things about Newton and just accept that he's a star in the making that will undergo some growing pains and poor decision making like virtually every other rookie QB in the NFL has. This guy doesn't have the speed and burst on his feet of a Mike Vick, but he's a better pure passing QB than Vick ever dreamed of being. And he's not that far behind Vick in terms of footwork and speed. This guy has officially entered "scares the shit out of me" territory when the time comes for the Pats to face him. Chicago was outplayed in this game and should thank the Panthers for having no tackling ability whatsoever and being dumb enough to kick the ball anywhere near Devin Hester. That's the only reason they won this game.

Houston (-3.5) 17, Pittsburgh 10
After watching both the Ravens and the Texans shred the Steelers O-line, I think it's time to officially be concerned for Ben Roethlisberger's health on a weekly basis. The Steelers still have a very good defense (although not nearly as dominating as it once was... this is maybe the 10th or 11th best D in the league right now) but their offense is a shambles. That line is a mess. They can't pass block, they can't run block. They commit penalties, they are beaten around the edges by faster defensive ends, and up the middle by stronger defensive tackles. The Texans have both flavors in their front 7 and the Steelers had no answer for them. The Texans D was all over Big Ben all game, sacking him 5 times, intercepting him once and forcing a fumble. This is an improved Texans D, but not so improved to have dominated the Steelers O-Line the way they did with such ease. Steelers are in trouble.

Atlanta (-4.5) 30, Seattle 28
I've said it every week so far and I'll keep repeating it... this Atlanta team is over-rated, and not nearly the team they were a year ago. This is a really bad Seattle team with a horrendous offense that managed to put up nearly 400 yards and 28 points on the Falcons. Atlanta is still struggling to put up 7 in the red zone. All that said, there's no greater home field advantage in the NFL than Seahawks... err... Qwest... err... CenturyLink field in Seattle. The stadium's design is brilliant... it looks almost intimidating and the acoustics are perfectly deafening... an amazing feat for an outdoor stadium and a stark contrast to other newer outdoor NFL stadiums like Gillette, where noise seems to just evaporate into the air.  They need a quality team there again, soon.

NY Giants (-1) 31, Arizona 27
A game the Giants had no business winning. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the "player giving himself up" rule, the modern day successor to the "tuck rule". Just like the "tuck rule", that play has been called the same way for years... I've found no fewer than 5 examples of nearly identical plays that were all called fumbles recovered by opposing teams, just as exact similar plays were called fumbles for years prior to the "tuck rule" game. But, like the tuck rule, the ruling made on the field was correct according to the letter of the rule. It's just never been called that way before that I can ever remember in a similar situation. Unlike the tuck rule, however, I think this rule should be, and will be changed. This isn't college, where the play is over when the player goes to the ground untouched. In the NFL, that's a fumble. The rule needs to be changed to define "giving yourself up" as sliding feet first. And even then, if a player is stupid enough to let go of the ball before the whistle blows, he deserves to lose it. As for the 3-1 Giants and how good they actually are, please see my point about the Redskins above. Same thing applies. I have no idea.

San Diego (-7) 26, Miami 16
I truly believe that had Chad Henne not gotten hurt, the Dolpins are in this game at the end. Something about Norv Turner's teams... they just aren't always where they need to be in terms of focus, discipline and intensity. The Chargers had more trouble putting this game away than they should have, and I think they would have found themselves in more dire straights had Henne not gotten hurt... flawed as he is.

Green Bay (-12.5) 49, Denver 23
This was my most accurate prediction of the week. Packers are too good to not throttle a team like the Broncos. They were due to break loose on someone. They still should be troubled somewhat with their defense... but it's forgiveable to allow a team to put up big yards when you're comfortably ahead... oh, speaking of which...

New England (-4.5) 31, Oakland 19
This was a sucker bet if there ever was one. We should have all known that New England was in a different class than the Raiders, and that this game was going to be won easily by Brady coming off a 4 interception game. You can count on one hand the number of back-to-back losses the Pats have had in the last decade. Wring your hands all you want about their last place defense... as I said in my other column, the Pats are 3-1 with the statistically last place defense... the Bengals are 2-2 with the first place defense. Who would you rather be right now?

Baltimore (-3.5) 34, NY Jets 17
I wrote that I thought the Ravens were a Jekyll and Hyde team, and that they would revert to Hyde against the Jets. I wrote that Flacco and the Ravens offense would struggle against a complex, aggressive Rex Ryan defense. Well, I was right about that, and the Ravens really didn't do much with the ball on offense. What I completely forgot, however, is that Mark Sanchez is the quarterback for the Jets, who by the way can't run the ball. I should have known that was a recipe for total disaster against the Ravens defense. That was just stupid of me, and I deserve to be flogged.

Tampa Bay (-10) 24, Indianapolis 17
My instincts told me that 10 points was too much to give on this game, even with Johnny Bravo... err.. Curtis Painter at QB for the Colts. Now, normally I can't go wrong by ignoring my instincts... but in a rare glimmer of wisdom, they turned out to be right. I'm probably still safer continuing my practice of ignoring them, though.

This week's record: 11-5

Defensive stats don't tell the whole story

The Patriots went across country this past weekend, after a tough loss to the very game Buffalo Bills, to face the NFL's best rushing attack in one of the toughest places to play in the NFL: Oakland's O.co Coliseum, where the Raiders just last week ran the Jets right out of the Stadium. This was going to be a test for the Pats, and of course an opportunity for every sportswriter in the Greater Boston Area to completely miss the point when analyzing the final outcome... and of course the Boston Media doesn't disappoint (they rarely do).

So after running roughshod over a pretty good and well respected Oakland defense, taking advantage of some stupid mistakes (this is the Raiders after all) and putting the game out of reach by early in the 4th quarter with a satisfying 31-19 road win on the other side of the country, some of the headlines in the local rags read "This win gift-wrapped", and "Why is Pats defense so terrible?"... there was article after article talking about how this year's team was no better than last year's team (forgetting of course that last year's team was a pretty-tough-to-improve-upon 14-2... but why let details get in the way of a good hand-wringing? We all know that playoff success is the only valuable barometer 'round these parts, and in that light the Pats' are wading in '08 Lions waters, aren't they?).

Pardon me while I digress for a moment.... let me just say that it can be absolutely unbearable being a Boston sports fan at times. The city's sports media is unlike any other. The strange thing about the city's teams' recent string of success is that it's given the long-standing roots of curmudgeony sports-writers a whole different angle to pursue their incessant bitching and overall negativity from. Prior to 2001 and the "decade of champions" in the Hub, sports writers had their staple of years of abject, gut-wrenching, total and abysmal failure to feed off of. The Sox, Pats, Bruins, and even once marquee Celtics were perennial punch-lines, achieving new and glorious heights of futility year after year, until the Patriots came along and shocked us all with a great win by a likable team that personified everything good about team sports. And for a time the mood shifted... the Pats became the model franchise, Belichick the perfect coach. Even the Sox won a World Series and got the likes of Shaughnessy and Massarotti (always two there are with the Sith... a master and an apprentice) to stop complaining and actually embrace their local clubs... for a time.

This, of course, lasted only long enough for the focus of misery to shift from complaining about years of futility, to complaining about not living up to now lofty expectations (and Spy-Gate, of course, which I still think was hatched in the maniacal mind of Dan Shaughnessy). The perceived model of success was the same (playing devil's advocate, finding fault, seeing the "hidden truth" under the success, and general negativity apparently sells subscriptions), the angles had just shifted. Outside of a select few beat writers, like Mike Reiss (a talented reporter and rare actual sports journalist) who rightfully found greener pastures with ESPN, and Chad Finn (still relegated to essentially role of "blogger and contributor", despite being wildly popular among the readership), rationality, objectivity and fair and balanced reporting are not coveted qualities among the Boston Sports media coterie. I've long believed that the widely held stereotype of the Boston sports fan (morose, crotchety, suffering from an enormous inferiority complex) is in large part a derivative of the incessant fog-horn of negativity that has flowed from the keyboards of Boston's most revered and well-read sports journalists for decades. I was once one of the "fellowship of the miserable", until I moved away from Boston and got some distance from the Boston media machine, and some perspective. Once separated from that it's amazing how my entire outlook on my beloved teams had changed. I found I could be hopeful AND critical at the same time... that I could see flaws AND be rational in analyzing them, while still expressing an appreciation for the overall high level my teams regularly competed at. It was freeing... like being released from the darkness of solitary confinement and squinting at the brightness of the sun for the first time in years. And just like the once-confined convict who now has a loathing of small, dark spaces, I find now that I have a keen dislike of the frothing, aggressive, arrogant and pithy style of far too many of the sports writers on the Boston scene... and the worst part of it is the way that style eventually seems to infiltrate the souls of otherwise decent young writers, as if they realize they must join the dark side, or perish.

Ok... I got WAY sidetracked there. Where was I... oh yes, the Patriots defensive performance in Sunday's game. Yes, a great deal is being made about the Patriots last-ranked defense. And to a certain degree, I can understand some of the hand-wringing. But while I'm analyzing the defense, I like to take a rational approach and look at the larger picture and take all the numbers in context. First, let's try not to get hung up on the "statistics" and rankings, as far as defense goes. For example, the top rated defense belongs to... why the Cincinnati Bengals of course. Now... any of you that say you knew that before either looking it up or just reading that are liars. So, what are we to make of that? Are the Bengals the best defensive team in football? No... of course not. And the Pats are not the worst defensive team in football. Not by a long way. Also in the top 10 are Dallas, San Diego, Cleveland, and Houston. Make of that what you will. Like most of you I've watched a lot of football this year and I couldn't have guessed at that.

A more relevant statistic, in my opinion, is points per game allowed. This is usually a better indication of how a team is doing... but even still, after only four weeks, it's tough to really tell. For instance, the top ten in points allowed still includes teams like the Bengals and 49ers... whom we all would consider mediocre at best. The Pats are 20th in this statistic... not great but also not dead last. The Pats are at the bottom half in most defensive statistical categories... this shouldn't surprise anyone.

But those statistics aren't relevant by themselves. To get a full picture you need to add offensive statistics. This is important for a couple of reasons: first, a team with great offensive stats will often find themselves looking somewhat weak defensively because teams will be playing from behind, throwing on every down, and piling up garbage time stats while the team in the lead is trying to just make the clock tick while letting opposing offenses move between the 20's, if it means chewing clock. This is born out in the statistics, as 5 of the top offenses in football this year, New England(1), New Orleans(2), Green Bay(5), Oakland(8) and Buffalo(9), are all in the bottom half of the league in total defense (Saints 15, Bills 27, Packers 28, Raiders 29, Pats 32). Yeah, I know the Saints at 15 isn't technically "bottom half", but you get the drift. In many cases there is an inverse relationship between high-scoring offense and total defense... often it's simply the nature of the game: you score lots of points, teams go full-throttle to catch up, and unless you have one of the truly elite defenses in the league, you're probably going to allow some fat yardage as a result. And second: an offense's proficiency will often dictate the style of defense played. Teams with high-powered offenses often employ "bend-but-don't-break" style defenses predicated on playing with big leads. The Colts defenses of the 2000's and Saints of the past few years did this with great success, as have Patriots teams over the past decade. They won't lead in any statistical categories, but they will be effective for that particular team's scheme.

The key here isn't in how many yards you allow, but in how you allow them and how many points they turn in to, at what point in the game. Ever since Belichick has been the coach of the Patriots he has held a philosophy on defense that has little to do with holding opponents down statistically. His approach is to take what you do best and shut it down, or at least limit it. He feels that if he achieves this, he will beat you, no matter how many stats you put up outside of that area.

Coming in to the Miami game it was thought that the Dolphins would try to establish the power running game and attack the middle and the perimeters of the line with Reggie Bush (this was dumb... Bush is not an every down back and certainly doesn't have the game to run the ball up the middle consistently). The Pats shut the running game of the Dolphins down completely. And while they were lit up through the air, the Pats jumped out to a big lead and were content to let the Dolphins chew up the middle of the field late in the game. But Miami was never able to control the lines and were forced into a shootout, which they are not built for. This was Belichick's plan... he knew the Dolphins could not match them in a shootout. Scrap the yards, the plan was for the most part executed.

The plan for the Chargers game was to not allow them to beat the Pats up the middle with Gates and running backs out of the backfield. This plan worked to a certain degree, but Pats' DBs were burned on the outside all night long. While the plan was successful on holding Gates to no catches, the Pats gave up several big plays in the passing game. But ultimately they were able to make big plays and again get out to a sizable lead, forcing the Chargers into passing almost every down, racking up stats late.

The Bills game presented a challenge in simply not knowing the Bills' particular strength. I think ultimately Belichick decided to play to stop the run. Unfortunately this led to a great deal of man-to-man coverage where the Pats DBs were routinely burned. The Pats got out to a big lead and I think started playing a little soft (and forgot to run the ball). The Bills were good at both running and throwing the ball, and the Pats killed themselves with turnovers. We know how this one ended. Whatever the plan was, it didn't work in this case.

Against the Raiders the goal was fairly simple. Stuff the Raiders' top ranked running attack. This was going to be accomplished using 4 man fronts and LBs on the edge, playing man on the outside and zone underneath. Say what you want about the final statistics... yes the Pats gave up over 500 yards total offense. Yes they allowed Jason Campbell to throw for 344. But what was the game plan? Stop the run... do not allow the Raiders to establish a running game, chew up the clock, and keep the Pats offense off the field. And they effectively accomplished that. Yes, the Raiders gained 160 on the ground, but almost half of that was racked up in two plays: a 41 yard run by McFadden in the 2nd that led to the Raiders only non-garbage time TD, and a 30 yard end-around to receiver Jacoby Ford just before the Chung interception in the 2nd. The Raiders never established the running game as a force. McFadden was a non-factor after that 41 yard run. Take away those two big runs and the Pats held the Raiders to 89 yards on 25 carries, a 3.5 yard average. Oakland had the ball a bit longer, but only had 5 more total plays. This game was never really in doubt after the first quarter, and about 99 of those total yards came in total garbage time in the last minutes of the game when the pats played WAAAAAYYYY off and let the Raiders simply march down the field. Whatever... score and give us the ball back so we can kneel and go home, ok?

So on balance, I think the Pats defense performed well given the goals of the game: control the running game, get off the field, let the offense go to work. Do I have concerns with this defense? Of course... I'd be a liar (and a moron) if I claimed otherwise. They are terribly thin, injury ravaged and inconsistent. They have literally 2 practice squad players in the defensive backfield, and still give up too many big plays over the middle of the field where defenses go right at that soft underneath zone. And whether by design or not, they generate almost no pass rush... but they execute, for the most part, the key elements of the defensive plan and allow the high powered offense a chance to put games out of reach. If they can get healthy in the backfield (Bodden is the key here and I think he's close), and get Haynesworth back into the D-Line rotation, I think they will be fine. Safety is a concern... I think they need to go get a player or two there.

So really here's where I come down... the Patriots are 3-1 with the last-ranked defense, and the Bengals are 2-2 with the top-ranked defense. Who would you rather be right now?  Yeah... that's what I thought...

NFL Week 4 picks

OK, week 3 is behind us... I'm almost over the shock of having to admit that the Bills might actually be good, and the Sox are done gakking their season away, so now I can better focus on the games ahead, and with any luck, put together a better showing than last week, where I spit up all over myself. So... without further ado... on to the picks. As always, home team is in CAPS.

New Orleans (-7) over JACKSONVILLE
I'm not sure we learned anything about the Jaguars new rookie QB Blane Gabbert given the monsoon they played in last week. But I do know about the Saints. They've added a bit of balance in the running game and should win this game by at least 10.

Detroit (+1.5) over DALLAS
Detroit might have taken a half to get unstuck last week on the road against Minnesota, but I can't for the life of me figure out what oddsmakers saw from the Cowboys Monday night to have them favored over the Lions. Lions' defensive pressure + Ndomukong Suh + Romo's cracked ribs = painful 2nd quarter exit.

San Francisco (+9) over PHILADELPHIA
Too many points, and Mike Vick is going to be taking snaps and holding the football with a bad hand, broken or not. I see lots of turnovers here... not enough to allow the Niners to win, but they'll keep it close enough to cover.  Vick separates his shoulder and Eagles immediately look for a QB that's a little less injury prone, and sign Humpty-Dumpty to a 1 year contract.

Washington (-2) over ST LOUIS
Rams are a mess offensively, and aren't doing much on defense either. Washington was exposed a bit last week and played more like the team I think they really are, but their defense is still very good and should keep the Rams off the scoreboard for the most part.

Tennessee (+1) over CLEVELAND
This game is all about the running backs. Both teams will try to get their star RBs back into the groove after slow starts and injuries, and control the game on the ground. The loss of Kenney Britt will hurt, but I think Tennessee will be able to do enough through the air to win. In other news, Colt McCoy voted "player with best Porn Name in the NFL" by his peers.

CINCINNATI (+3) over Buffalo
No, this isn't a "sour-grapes" pick... so shut up. The Bills played their superbowl last week and this has all the makings of a "let-down" game. You don't get yourself up mentally for a game and you can find yourself sleepwalking through it and getting beat by a lesser team before you know it. I'll take the Bengals for the straight up win. Also, now that the Bills appear to have a decent team with a couple of decent players, the Bills' Pro Shop outside of Ralph Wilson Stadium is scrambling trying to figure out what to do with all the Brian Moorman jerseys they ordered before the season.

KANSAS CITY (+2) over Minnesota
Blech. If you're betting on this game, you probably should seek help, because you have a pretty serious problem. Both of these teams are reeling... but I think the Vikings loss after being up by 20 at home might have lingering effects.

CHICAGO (-6) over Carolina
Not so much because I think Cutler won't get sacked another 5 times and probably turn the ball over thrice, but I like this matchup from the perspective of the Bears' D. I think Cam Newton has another tough week against a more sophisticated defense than he's seen so far.

Pittsburgh (+3.5) over HOUSTON
I'm sorry, but I will NOT get sucked in to believing this Houston club is for real for yet another year. Steelers have some issues, but rarely play bad games back to back under Coach Tomlin.  I'll happily take the 3.5 points. At some point in the game, I predict Troy Polamalu will deck Andre Johnson coming across the middle, knocking the all-world wide receiver a little silly. While Johnson lies on his back and Polamalu stands over him apologizing, a still fuzzy Johnson wonders why the dude standing over him looks a little and sounds a lot like his sister. (Note... if I ever manage to be fortunate enough to write about the NFL in a capacity that allows me to actually interact with the players, I will be deleting that last line and denying any and all reference to its existence).

Atlanta (-4.5) over SEATTLE
Atlanta has been exposed to a certain degree, but still are good enough to take down the woeful Seahawks. Atlanta really should use this game to rediscover their ground game. Without it, an offense predicated on play-action becomes much easier to defend. By the way, didn't Roddy White used to play for the Falcons? Man... if only they had that guy on their team still then... huh? Oh.... I see... sorry...

NY Giants (-1) over ARIZONA
Do the Giants have any idea whatsoever how cosmically fortunate they are? I don't know what to make of this team... they looked awful in the first two weeks (despite winning against St. Louis, that offense looked terrible), but looked like a different team against the Eagles. I still have my doubts about Eli and this Giants offense, but they are benefiting in a major way from the schedule right now. After this game two of the next three are against weaker opponents (Seattle and Miami, with the feisty Bills sandwiched between) and they'd better take care of business in those games, because after that they must run this gauntlet: @NE, @San Fran, Philly, @NO, GB, @Dallas, Washington, @ Jets, Dallas. Good luck G-men.

SAN DIEGO (-7) over Miami.
Do I think this should be a no-brainer? Yes I do. Do I think this line should probably be about 4 points higher? You betcha. Would I be surprised in the least if the Chargers allow 2 kick returns for TDs, miss a late field goal and lose the game outright? Not even a little.

GREEN BAY (-12.5) over Denver.
The Packers sputtered a little over the first few weeks, but I think are going to start hitting their stride. This week their stride goes right over the decrepit carcass of the Denver Broncos. Hey, at least Kyle Orton won't have to suffer the humiliation of playing in front of his own fans. Might actually be good for him.

New England (-4.5) over OAKLAND
Yes, the Rrrrrrrrraidah's running game scares the bejeezus out of me, and yes I worry about the Pats secondary, but two things come in to play in this pick: one, the Pats match up better defensively in this game: they have a decent D-Line against the run, and have done well against the run so far this year... and the Raiders are not nearly as gifted a passing team as SD and Buffalo. And two, nothing would scare me more, were I an opposing team, than the thought of Tom Brady and the Pats offense coming off a four-interception loss to a division rival. I think the Pats put up close to 40 and win in a bit of a shoot-out. Plus, Tom Brady was so pissed after the game last week he cut his hair. You're screwed, Oakland.

NY Jets (+3.5) over BALTIMORE
NOTE: I hate the Jets with a burning passion that emanates from deep within the bowels of my very existence... I loathe picking the Jets... but I try to be as objective as possible when putting out these picks columns... so... objectively here's what I think: I have a theory that the Ravens are the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde team... Great week one, awful week two, great week three... it's time for the Hyde version of the Ravens to surface. There are lots of people who really like Joe Flacco... but one thing I'm noticing is that he is mistake prone against complex or pressure defenses. I think the Jets ride their defense again and force a couple of turnovers. They keep it close and cover... maybe winning outright. There... now where's my Ipecac? I need to puke.

TAMPA BAY (-10) at Indianapolis
If Kerry Collins starts this game, I think 10 points is too much to lay and I'm taking Indy. But I've never seen anything from Curtis Painter to make me think he's capable of scoring more than 14 points against a good team on the road. And I think the Bucs will put up 28 or so... so I'll take the Bucs.

The fallout begins...

Somebody needed to take the fall.

In the wake of the Red Sox' historic collapse it was clear that there would be major repercussions. This morning Fox Sports is reporting that Tito Francona will be the first (but not likely last) victim of that backlash. It's unfortunate, but I think this had to happen.

Reflecting on the last month of the season for the Sox, I've come to the stark realization that this collapse wasn't just historic by sheer numbers of games lost and size of the lead given up... it's much much worse because of the payroll and talent level of this team. This isn't the '78 Sox who squandered a lead... this is a team built to win the World Series now, with no expense spared. A team with an enormous payroll and all-stars up and down the lineup. But this was also a team that lacked depth, cohesiveness, and fortitude. Other than a couple of gritty scrappers like Pedroia and Youkilis, this is a team that seems almost aloof in its approach. It lacked that fire of intensity and sense of urgency. This is a team that looked and played scared down the stretch. And while ultimately the fault lies with the players who did not perform, you can not minimize the impact of the leadership and management on a team of superstars. Those people need to be held accountable.

Let me start by stating that in my opinion, Terry Francona is a very good manager. He was the perfect manager to handle the gritty "dirt-dog" teams of the early and mid 2000s... he was well liked and well respected by players... he had a great sense of how to handle the brutal Boston media, and how to shelter his more quirky players from the harsh spotlight. He was always calm, cool and collected. He was a likable guy by any account. But, he was not always the most effective game-manager... especially when it came to making the hard choices with veterans. Tito has always had a habit of playing favorties with some of his veterans... of staying too loyal and giving too much rope. He played too much with his lineups... he overused effective relievers. His game management skills have often come into question.

These issues were more glaring, in my view, this year more than any other. From the get-go this team had talent, but also had some holes. a 2-9 start left the team pressing from the start of the season. The rocky start affected some players' confidence... and for some, like Carl Crawford, the handling of those early struggles caused irreparable harm. I think the handling of Crawford is one of the big reasons that Tito is not going to be managing this team any longer. It was clear early on that Francona lost faith in Crawford, and began juggling him all over the lineup. Crawford is a marquee player... and like any marquee player he has an ego. To his credit, Crawford has never let that ego out into the focused beam of the public microscope. But deep down, it has to hurt your confidence when a player who has been one of the best in the game, and the premier player on his team, suddenly finds himself badly struggling and being shuttled between 7th and 9th in the lineup. This should never have happened, and Francona needs to take the blame for that. Crawford is a top-of-the order player. He has been his whole career. You can't take a guy like that, still in his prime, after having so much success and do what the Sox did to him. I said this in a previous article, but the Sox should have slapped Crawford into the number 2 or 3 slot and left him there, struggles or not. This isn't the friggin Royals or A's lineup. This lineup had more than enough talent and depth to have been able to make up for his struggles while he worked his way out of them. Dropping him like they did, and then moving him up and down so capriciously based on one or two performances in either direction would wear on anyone, let alone a star player who's never had to deal with a lack of confidence in his entire career.

This is one of Francona's biggest weaknesses: managing the lineup. The Sox used more lineup combinations than any contending team in baseball and more than any team I can remember over the last 10 years. Baseball players more than any other professional athletes are creatures of habit. When you play every day over the course of 162 games, having a routine you can count on day in and day out offers a real mental stress release. Players want to know their roles... they want to understand their routines and know what to expect every day. With the Sox, players were left guessing day to day about the lineup. Other teams don't do this. The Yankees have employed essentially the same lineup day in and day out for years. And as a result, despite injuries and age, they remain a consistent hitting team not prone to prolonged offensive slumps. Players are given a chance to work their way out of slumps while having a modicum of confidence in their role and their spot in the lineup.

Hitters also alter their approach depending on their spot in the lineup. It's the nature of baseball... top of the order guys tend to take their approach to hit for average and high OBP. Middle of the order guys tend to try to hit for power, drive the ball and get runs in. Bottom of the order guys feel their role is just to contribute any way they can. When you begin moving guys around the lineup you may cause them to change their approach, which is never good for a regular player in the middle of the season. I've always wished Francona would settle on a lineup and go with it. The lineup this year should have looked like this:
Ellsbury (L)
Pedroia (R)
Crawford (L)
Youkilis (R)
Gonzalez (L)
Ortiz (L)
Scutaro (R)
Drew/Reddick (L)
Saltalamacchia / Varitek (sw)

You put this lineup out there every day. You stick with it, and you only change it in one or two spots if needed, and make those changes long-term. There's no reason this couldn't be done. Players will go through slumps. It's hard enough to work out of a hitting slump without having your confidence shellacked by being dropped down to the bottom of the order.

Handling the lineup is one thing, but another job of the Manager is handling the clubhouse... and by all accounts this Sox clubhouse had become fractured and somewhat dysfunctional. This is of course the risk you take when you endeavor to employ a roster of highly paid (overpaid?) athletes. I think there are some bad attitudes and pervasive negativity from certain elements of the pitching staff (ahem, John Lackey I'm lookin' at you). From the outside this team was becoming unlikable to both fans and media alike. Far, far gone are the wild and hairy days of Damon, Millar, Pedro and Manny. Terry Francona was the perfect manager for that bunch. Loyal, approachable and reasonable, he was the steady hand at the helm of a party boat. The captain that everyone loved and respected. This team is not that group. Not close to it. And Francona doesn't seem as well equipped to handle it. Now, say what you want about the players needing to be accountable for this behavior, but the reality is that with the contracts and expectations of this team, its makeup is going to remain largely intact, with perhaps the exception of the pitching staff. So if the current manager is not the right person to effectively handle the clubhouse... how can you justify not moving on?

Additionally, I think Tito's handling of the bullpen this year, and the pitching staff in general, was sub-par. This is partially his fault and partially the fault of Theo Epstein (but we'll get to him in m moment). Tito falls in love with certain relievers, and has a tendency to stick with them, overuse them, and not realize when it might be good to give them a 4 or 5 day break. He did this with Daniel Bard, who was dominant for the first 3/4 of the season, but was so overused he couldn't have gotten me out by the end of September. I won't be the least bit surprised to hear about his needing some sort of off-season procedure or therapy on that over-used right arm.  By the end, Francona was too hesitant to use fresher arms like Albers or Atchison in pressure situations, and made some odd matchup choices (often throwing Bard out against fastball hitters when a pitcher with softer stuff with movement would have been the better choice, in my opinion). Alfredo Aceves was an absolute steal, and a gem in the bullpen. But he's got starter stuff and has been a starter, and frankly should have been made a starter permanently when it was clear the Sox had lost Bucholz effectively for the season. Instead Tito kept throwing Wakefield and Lackey out there, start after start, spotting teams 5 and 6 runs right off the top. His loyalty to Wake was admirable, but disastrous considering the stakes for this team. It was clear by about mid-June that Wakefield simply didn't have it this year, and might not ever be viable as a starter again. It seems that Terry Francona was the only person not to notice this. Aceves should have been inserted as a starter back then. But then again, depth in the starting rotation was a problem almost from the beginning for this team, which is really the fault of the GM, speaking of which...

If the Red Sox are going to throw Terry Francona under the bus for the total failure of this team, the guy under one of the other wheels should be Theo Epstein. For whatever reason, Theo has been the target of perpetually miserable Sox fans for years. They point to his shaky deals, like JD Drew and Julio Lugo and Edgar Renterria... but somehow conveniently forget about Curt Schilling and Kevin Millar and Bill Mueller and the countless other key cogs and savvy moves he made to assemble two championship teams. I've defended him every step of the way, and I still think he's a clever, savvy and worthy GM. However, at some point he needs to step up and take responsibility for this team's collapse... and more than anything else for the pitching staff he's assembled, and the lack of pitching depth in the minors. The biggest failure to me was an evaluation he made at the beginning of this year. Coming in to the season the Sox were looking at a pitching staff of Lester, Beckett, Lackey, Bucholz and Matsuzaka, with Wakefield as a possible long reliever / spot starter. At first glance most pundits saw this as a pretty formidable staff. Lester was an ace in waiting, Beckett was a proven vet who seemed to be over his injury problems, Lackey actually had a better year, statistically, then most realize, Bucholz had one of the league's lowest ERA's and was a revelation, and Matsuzaka, while maddeningly inconsistent, was still capable of dominating at times and looked pretty good as a no. 5 starter. However a deeper look should have revealed concerns right away. Matsuzaka hadn't been a consistent, viable starter in over two years. Lackey looked to be out of sorts in Fenway, a place where he had little success in his career prior, and just never seemed comfortable on the mound with the Sox. Beckett had not been healthy and had not pitched well in a couple of years, and Bucholz had but one year of success. I saw potential problems with this staff from the beginning. I felt the Sox should have, and could have made a run at Cliff Lee. They did not and instead went after Carl Crawford for about the same money. This was a calculated move on Theo's part, but not well thought out in my opinion. Crawford was a top-of-the-order bat... the Sox already had 2 of those guys. He was an outfielder, and the Sox did need an outfielder, but I think there would have been some decent options there outside of Crawford.  And lastly, outfield is a position that can be filled by depth in the minors or with a fair number of players available via trade or free-agency. Quality starting pitching, however, especially in this past pre-season, was woefully thin.  It was Lee, and then a huge dropoff. Theo didn't ask the question "what if this rotation falls apart... what if Beckett is injured again, or Bucholz can't duplicate his season, or Lackey continues to struggle, or I'm forced to accept that Dice-K just sucks... what do I do then?" He didn't ask that question. I know this because if he did, and spent any time thinking about it, Cliff Lee would have been a member of the Red Sox. Because behind that starting rotation the Sox had next to nothing. In the minors they had Felix Dubront, a talented lefty with control problems who might never be major-league ready; Kyle Weiland, a possible up and comer still a few years away, and not much else. The minor league system has maybe one or two potential highly regarded pitching prospects. Theo should have seen that pitching depth was going to bite him at some point.

Compounding the problem was Theo's handling of the trade deadline. One of the things I will never understand is this: At the trade deadline the Sox had a possible deal for Rich Harden. They backed out after reviewing his medical issues. The scuttlebut was that they then went out and traded for their next option in Eric Bedard (also with medical questions... actually recovering from an injury and still weeks away from being a viable contributor at the time). My question is this: Given the state of the Sox starting pitching at the time, with two starters out for the season and two more who were absolutely atrocious, why was this an either / or scenario? Why not get both Bedard and roll the dice with Harden? That way you have two potential options, even if one winds up injured. Given the needs, the Sox should have been looking for two pitchers anyhow. Are you telling me they didn't have the pieces to make both those trades happen? Hogwash, of course they did. And they should have. Another miscalculation by Theo.

So all tolled, I think both Francona and Theo share a large part of the blame for the Sox' performance by the end of the season... but I think the Sox' future is still in good hands with Theo (who I believe will learn from this mistake and really go all-in for pitching depth in this upcoming off-season). And while Terry Francona has been the best manager the Sox could have had over the last decade, and his contributions to managing a challenging clubhouse full of diverse personalities should never be underestimated nor forgotten, I think this team needs a new voice... a new presence and direction.

It sucks that you have to go out this way, Tito... you deserve better. Much better. But someone has to take the fall... and I think it's probably for the best for everyone that you're moving on.