This is an experiment. But since I figure most games are played by two fairly evenly matched teams, there must be a third or fourth or fifth ingredient that causes one team to win and one to lose. The first one is MOMENTUM, easily understood (but not necessarily useful this early in the season). The second is SCHEDULE: some teams (I've notices over the past 40 some odd years of watching or listening to NFL football) "must win" over what they consider a "lesser" team because the next few weeks see them playing "contending" teams which presumably also need to win. Also, some teams have such a "weak" schedule that all pressure is off and sometimes, just sometimes, one of those "weak" teams pick up on this and pull an upset (this won't explain the Pats upset last week...rather than consider the Dolphins "lowly" or "weak", I would say "successfully rebuilding" or "rebounding" might be more like it. 2008 is a brand new season and you must never make the mistake of judging a team by what they did in 2007. Now, the Rams, Chiefs, and Lions--these guys are definitely weak or lowly!). Third, QB vs. QB or QB vs. pass defense or secondary: one of my picks is based on performances by both QBs against the same pass defense...I picked the team who was more successful against the same pass defense. Fourth is DIVISION RIVALRY. Who is in a better position and who "needs it more"? Again, I could give a rat's behind about how any team did last year, whether they were #### poor (Fins) or contender or almost contender (the Browns, for instance). Of course, in the case of clear mismatches, it is precipitous to pick the clear winner...not that an upset couldn't happen... Week Four predictions (note: I have no dog in any of these, as the Fins have a "bye-week"...) Baltimore @ Pittsburgh: Common sense says the Steelers because clearly they had their momentum broken up last week, while the Ravens got #### out of Houston by Ike and thus lose their "bye week" altogether. But, being possessed of "uncommon sense", this pick is based on who needs it more. RAVENS Philly @ Chicago: the Eagles are questionable due to all those injuries to key players. Besides, McNab, if he plays, wants to impress the Bears (there is a rumor out there that he might want to go to chicago since that's where he's from). Nothing against the Bears, however....EAGLES San Fran @ NO: Everyone loves the way the Niners are coming and all that JT O'Sullivan biz...but the Saints really really need this one! SAINTS Houston @ Jacksonville: My heart goes for the Texans, who are really better than their record indicates...but the Jags are coming off Colts win and, now that they know they can beat a good team and must win to be competitive with the Titans, I say JAGUARS Cleveland @ Cincinnati: Whenever I think of flaky teams the Bengals immediately come to mind, and the only dege they have over the Browns is the home field advantage and their passing game. BENGALS Atlanta @ Carolina: these two teams are mirror images of each other, but the Panthers have beaten better teams than the Falcons; therefore, PANTHERS Arizona @ NYJ: Logics says the Cards, but this is not a "logical" pick, but one based on the record of Warner and Favre vs. the same defense: the Fins. While both QBs beat the Dolphins, Warner really clobbered their pass defense and secondary, exposing this weakness that (I hope) "the Sparanos" can get worked out by the end of the season. CARDINALS Minnesota @ Tennessee: These two are so similar it comes down to the fact that I trust Frerotte (who I liked playing with the Fins in 2006, leading them to 6 straight wins) over another journeyman QB I know nothing about. And, the Vikes need it more. VIKINGS Denver @ KC: A clear mismatch. BRONCOS GB @ TB: The son of Bob Griese won't pull a second-straight huge come-back, and the Packers are better than the Bears. PACKERS SD @ Oakland: The Raiders are DEFINITELY better than their record indicates, and could easily pull and upset. But the Chargers MUST get this get this win, as they face, in succession: Miami, New England, Buffalo, and New Orleans in London. Everyone is saying they will beat the Fins, but the fact is the 2008 Fins are NOT the 2007 Fins, and, further, the Fins will have had that bye-week off so their pass defense can learn and practice how to keep Rivers from going long as well as how to manhandle LT the way they did the Pats RBs. I'd rather the Raiders won, but...CHARGERS Buffalo @ St. Louis: Another mismatch. BILLS Washington @ Dallas: This being the last time the Skins get to beat the Cowboys in Texas Stadium...REDSKINS
First I have to put up with no one taking my Super Bowl quiz I spent 2 hours writing. Now I have to put up with half the Fox Sports blogosphere accusing NFL officiators of throwing Super Bowl 40 to the Steelers. And the other half--all you Steelers fans--saying stop your bellyaching, our team is the next football dynasty (number 2! Hey let's go for "one for the thumb"!), so get over it!
So let's get all this out in the open...I dare all you bloggers, all you experts who think snorky is just another ####, ignoramous on football, probably just a dumb female...to prove what you are all thinking but are too wimpy to say: that Supe 40 was fixed.
Heck, that's what my son thinks (in fact, that's what he thinks all NFL games are, fixed).
I am sure it wasn't. Heck, now, why would NFL officials want to throw the game to the Steelers? Maybe they feel sorry for all those folks that have to live in a dreary rustbelt city like Pittsburgh so they want them out in the snow celebrating their team...the only reason it might be worth living in Pittsburgh? Maybe Jerone Bettis's folks bribed them by feeding them a heckuva down home cooked meal like they did for their son's team? Or maybe they read my blog, where I explained why the Seahawks were the Bengals of the NFC, and they were just trying to make it look that way?
Here's my point: get over it, whiners! IT IS ONLY A GAME, fixed ot not!
So I was wrong about Hasselbeck--he's playing very well (and Delhomme doesn't look like he can find the broadside of a barn let along Steve Smith)--and Alexander's playing very well also. So I was wrong, and now you Seattle fans can gloat. But so far I'm NOT taking back my comment that the Hawks are the Bengals of the NFC--heck, even the Bengals play well sometimes. When the Hawks win consistently in the playoffs over several years like the Steelers and others have done, that's when I'll take it back.
It is nw halftime of the Seattle game, and if the "Cats" come back and win it'll be a miracle...
Now, as to the Steelers-Broncos: Congrats to the "Bus" who gets to (maybe) win a Supe in his home town, and the rest of Cowher's crew. But I wonder, not to take anything away from Steelers' play, but I wonder if the Bronc weren't looking behind them, to taking out the "Patriot dynasty", when they should have been look toward the Steelers?
Oh, what the heck, everyone else is doing it...making predictions on the AFC and NFC Champ games this weekend, and "everyone else" probably knows more than I do about the Steelers, Broncos, Seahawks and Panthers.
Especially the Panthers!
Like I said in my 1st post, I haven't seriously followed the NFL since the mid-80s. Fact is my spouse hates football, and not only that, when we moved into our house out here deep in the west Texas mountains, we didn't have TV for many years until 1999 when we got our DirecTV dish. Because our son liked to occasionally watch a football game, we let him but I never really got to get back into it...I had moved on and didn't want to get back to the point where football meant so much (confession: I was a fanatic in the 70s to the point where I was like those of you who claim to "live and die" by your team.). And I still don't. I started getting interested again this year because the way things looked it seemed it was time that perhaps maybe the Pats would not get back to the Super Bowl, which would make things more interesting.
I have NOTHING against the Patriots, by the way...it's just that it's good to have other teams win the "Big One" once in a while. And, if you read my 1st post, you'll notice I have a fascination for sports dynasties. So anyway...
Steelers over Broncos, and Panthers over Seahawks....
Since I have almost NO knowledge of the Carolina Panthers, why am I picking them to beat Seattle? That's because while I know almost nothing about Carolina I know something about the Hawks, again from history. In my 1st post I said Seattle was the Bengals of the NFC. Historically, the Bengals have been EXTREMELY INCONSISTENT...flaky, winning when they should lose and losing when they have the talent to win, and always (back in the 70s and 80s, anyway), disappointing fans and prognosticators. In other words, the Bengals, defying all logic, always found a way to lose when the #### was up (and they proved that again vs. Steelers in first round...but who would have thought it would be because Palmer was injured?). Seattle, even when they made playoffs, has had the same tendencies. Though it isn't recorded anywhere on the Internet, I have always thought the Hawks were the Bengals of the AFC West, and now that they are in the NFC... Besides, Jake Delhomme just seems more gutsy and impressive than Matt Hasselback (spelling?)...nor do I know if Shaun Alexander is really ready.
To me, the Steelers and Broncos are pretty much evenly matched everywhere, but the Steelers are behaving the way they did in the 70s right now, dominant and finding any way they can to win. Plus, while Denver is also playing very well right now, too, it could be they became so caught up in beating the outgoing dynasty that they may forget about winning against perhaps the next one.
A return of dynasty to Pittsburgh? That's pure speculation, and a lot depends on how the team reacts to Bettis' possible retirement. Bettis shows just how long I've been out of this game...he was a rookie in Steelerville when I stopped watching football, period. Until now. And Cowher is (probably) no Chuck Noll.
I don't remember the year...'84? '85? Anyway, I haven't paid much attention to NFL football since around that time, until January 2002 when God appointed the New England Patriots to be the Super Bowl winner.
Oh my gawd, you think, another one of those Religious Right freaks. Heck no. In fact you can take Pat Robertson and blow it out his butt.
Anyway, the 2001 Pats were God's team. Was the Dallas Cowboys still America's team? If this doesn't sound familiar, then you didn't follow football 20 years ago.
So the Pats are God's team...but was it really because of September 11, 2001?
Rational exhuberance, to use Al Greenspan's phrase (No, Al doesn't write sports columns!), said "yes" but history said "no." Perhaps God preferred the new Pats logo. I much liked the old Continental Army guy in the three-point-stance; on their new helmets I couldn't tell the difference easily between the Pats and Broncos this past playoff game won by the Horses. Yeah, yeah, I know: Pats management changed the logo so they could feel disassociated from the old days when Miami ruled the AFC East and the Pats were the Patsies.
So. did Brady and Co. win Super Bowl 36 (and 38 and 39) because they are called the Patriots? Is it significant that in each game they won by 3 pts.?
History says "no." History, meaning human and football suggests otherwise. The Pats simply were in the right place (there is no better place to begin a so-called "dynasty" than the AFC East--which has been either very strong or very weak in the past almost 40 years--at the right time (after the Bills, who ruled it in the earlier 90s, had quit, and after the Dolphins, who ruled it the rest of the time, realized they had nothing to show for Dan Marino's spectacular play [note: is Peyton Manning the Dan Marino of the 21st century?] and for screwing over Don Shula), with the right coach (Bellichik, or is it Billechek? I write it one way but I say it the other way!). And yes, because despite everything else, the Jets are still the Jets.
And speaking of history, I have serious problems with calling the Pats or anyone else in recent football history a "dynasty." When one thinks sports dynasties they immediately think the New York Yankees, who had dominating teams lasting decades and which gave rise to the call, "Break Up the Yankees!" Also, the 50's, 60's, and 70's Montreal Canadiens also qualify, as well as the Celtics of the 60s and John Wooden's UCLA Bruins of the 60s and 70s (I'll never forget that 1974 NC State win over UCLA which effectively ended the Bruin Dynasty).
However, in defense of the notion of dynasty in football I have to admit that due to the nature of the game--it is often brutal--shorter "dynasties" may suffice; even so, the teams that come closest to actually having dynasties are the Steelers of the 70s and the 49ers of the 80s (and maybe the 60s Packers and perhaps the 71-74 Dolphins, if only because they did go unbeaten in 72-73).
Whether you think the Pats were a dynasty of not, it was fitting that it ended this past Saturday, and the Broncos ended it. First of all, the Broncos, in the late 70s, who, along with the Raiders (appropriately!), assured the world the Steelers would not win another Super Bowl for a few years after 9 and 10 by winning the AFC in 1977. In other words, Denver was trying to build a mini-dynasty of their own (and, like the Bills, they accomplished that by winning AFC championships throughout the 90s). so why is it fitting that the Pats "dynasty" came to an end? Perhaps to make room for "Dolphin Dynasty II" (hah hah!) under Rick Saban (and Gus Ferotte? Surely I jest!).
And speaking of the Steelers...I can't be a Steeler fan because I root for some other team (no, it's not the Bungles...er, the Bengals), but if I could I would. This is a team that took about 30 some odd years to go from outhouse to powerhouse overnight from 1971 to 1972, dominated the later 70s, made the playoffs into the 80s, and, after rebuilding, went to the Super Bowl again into the 90s, and, now that they have rebuilt again, are poised to do it again, all Bengals aside. I have nothing but respect for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
But back to where I started this...I have watched games occasionally since that 2002 Super Bowl. My son started watching games late in the 2004 season when I noticed the Pats looked like they were going to wind up winning another Super Bowl, a second-straight, and I just knew someone, either a player or management, would label the Pats a "dynasty." After that I went to my other blog and said that this labelling would be the end of the Pats dynasty. You see, football historically, when a team called itself a dynasty that signalled the end of it. Example: after Miami's second straight (Supe 8), the Miami Herald blared this headline-- "Dolphin Dynasty? You Bet Your Superfish!" About a month later, Csonka, Kiick, and Warfield were headed to the fledgling WFL, which ended that fledgling dynasty!
Next: LIF 102: If Life Imitates Football, it'll be Steelers vs. Panthers (and why the Seahawks are the Bengals of the NFC)
