2010 NFL Preview

So apparently there's a football league that begins play tonight, or something? Yes, at long last, the NFL is back. Various NFL Films treats on Hulu have helped me to pass the long summer, but nothing beats a new season.

This will be my 3rd year of predictions in this space. Here are my previews from 2008, and 2009, for mockery's sake.

I thought quite a bit about how to approach my Super Bowl pick. I almost bogged myself down with too many rules: Don't pick prior participants because that's too easy, don't pick teams that are popular choices among others, and don't pick any teams you have a personal affinity for. But if you impose too many of these limitations, you're left picking the Raiders against someone from the NFC West. So every option is on the table. Rules? THERE ARE NO RULES!!! And away we go...

2010 Predicted NFL Standings

AFC EAST

New England 11-5
NY Jets 10-6*
Miami 9-7
Buffalo 3-13

TOTAL: 33-31 (Last season: 32-32)

Until the Patriots fall flat on their faces (a day I look forward to), I can't go against them. I can't ignore the Jets as a contender either, but expectations are sky high and Mark Sanchez still has a lot to learn - starting of course with how to not throw almost twice as many interceptions than touchdowns. Miami will be good. Buffalo will not.

AFC NORTH

Pittsburgh 11-5
Baltimore 10-6*
Cincinnati 6-10
Cleveland 5-11

TOTAL: 32-32 (Last season: 33-31)

Roethlisberger's suspension is only 4 games, and Pittsburgh's reasonable early season schedule will help them stay where they want to be. And this team just seems to thrive with lower expectations. The Ravens, like the Patriots, are always around. The Bengals, with Owens and Ochocinco together, are bound to implode. The Browns are the Browns.

AFC SOUTH

Indianapolis 12-4
Houston 10-6
Tennessee 8-8
Jacksonville 5-11

TOTAL: 35-29 (Last season: 37-27)

Houston closes a lot of ground, but they're still at least a year away from finally dethroning the Colts. Not much going on with the Titans and Jags, but the difference between these two teams is Jeff Fisher's consistency: only 4 losing seasons in 15 as head coach. So even a weak Tennessee team being terrible is unlikely.

AFC WEST

San Diego 9-7
Denver 7-9
Kansas City 6-10
Oakland 6-10

TOTAL: 28-36 (Last season: 30-34)

Not much to get excited about here. Norv Turner's Chargers will again win the division by default, only to exit the playoffs early. Oakland will improve the most, mainly thanks to the addition of the capable Jason Campbell. The Broncos and Chiefs are just kind of, eh, "there."

----------------------

NFC EAST

NY Giants 11-5
Dallas 11-5*
Philadelphia 10-6
Washington 8-8

TOTAL: 40-24 (Last season: 34-30)

A couple weeks ago, I talked about the reasons why the Giants should be better, even agreeing with Peter King in the process. They're healthy - the biggest acquisition in the NFL might have been the Giants getting Kenny Phillips back from injury - they added more depth to the defensive line, they replaced ineffective defensive coordinator Bill Sheridan with Perry Fewell, and a mostly young offense that was never the problem, is still intact. It will be a close race, but they'll win the NFC East over Dallas and Philadelphia, who won't look much like Super Bowl contenders for many weeks at a time, but will hang around. In Washington, bringing in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to run things, replacing dum dum Vinny Cerrato and poor, overmatched Jim Zorn, is worth at least 4 wins alone. And McNabb is an upgrade over Campbell, though not as much as people might think. The Redskins will be a .500 team, with or without Haynesworth.

NFC NORTH

Green Bay 11-5
Minnesota 10-6*
Detroit 7-9
Chicago 4-12

TOTAL: 32-32 (Last season: 32-32)

I see Aaron Rodgers taking another step forward, this time to MVP status. While I see the Vikings taking a slight step backward. This will be the year Favre doesn't start all 16 games. I have a couple friends who are Lions fans, and I think they'd be delighted to see their team go 7-9, especially if it contains shows of promise by their young core. 4-12 for the Bears might be harsh, but if I can alter a quote from Joakim Noah..."What, you think Chicago's cool? What's so good about Chicago?"

NFC SOUTH

New Orleans 12-4
Atlanta 10-6
Carolina 8-8
Tampa Bay 4-12

TOTAL: 34-30 (Last season: 33-31)

I don't see any reason why the Saints can't be dominant again this year. The Falcons will again be tough, but again just miss the playoffs. Carolina just screams out "mediocre," and the Bucs are still years from being competitive.

NFC WEST

San Francisco 7-9
Arizona 6-10
Seattle 6-10
St. Louis 3-13

TOTAL: 22-42 (Last season: 24-40)

What can be said about this division that hasn't already been said about a dirty sidewalk in Calcutta?

PLAYOFFS!???

Wild Card Round:
Patriots over Ravens
Jets over Chargers
Packers over Vikings
Cowboys over 49ers

Divisional Round:
Colts over Patriots
Steelers over Jets
Giants over Cowboys
Saints over Packers

Championship Round:
Giants over Saints
Steelers over Colts

Super Bowl:
Giants over Steelers. That's right, I'm picking the Giants. Forget cautious optimism, forget not wanting to jinx your team, and forget the collapse of 2009. Do not be afraid to love again! Wooooo! And it's going to be all the sweeter when this comes true.

Finally, last season I think I said it well enough that it doesn't need changing, so I'll just repaste...

*And one final disclaimer: Reason # 13,661 that the NFL is so awesome, is that the landscape changes so quickly, and week-to-week it is like looking into a kaleidoscope. So, I fully expect that by week 2, these picks will look as dated as bellbottoms, long sideburns, or the goatee. (2010 add: or "Jersey Shore" references.)

Prediction Season!

It's a special time of year. The time when all kinds of prognosticators, with varying levels of direct access to the NFL, make bad predictions for the upcoming season - myself included. I'll have mine posted sometime before the start of the season. But for now I wanted to point out that Peter King picks the Giants (video embedded in Ross Tucker's column, for some reason) to win the NFC East. This terrifies me. And the fact that he puts together a solid argument why, terrifies me even more. But I'll set aside the obvious - that it's Peter King making the prediction, which means you should lean...no, run...in the other direction.

In 2007, the Giants thrived while little was expected of them. Coming into that season, they were seemingly a team in disarray, with coach Tom Coughlin on the hot seat. Of course, we all know what happened after that - only the greatest triumph in the history of organized team sports. On the other hand, in 2008 and 2009, they came in heavily favored, only to collapse.

Right now I have no clue what kind of Giants we'll see in 2010. But I'll try to keep my expectations low.

One network's bonehead mistake is another network's discovered gem

We saw two similarly colossal blunders made in broadcasting over the past year, and both have now been righted.

The first blunder happened in December 2009, when Steve Czaban's radio show, wildly successful for 7 years, was canned by Fox Sports Radio. I won't even mention his replacement beceause he doesn't deserve the publicity obtained by being mentioned on a sports blog with 7 readers, but trust me, he's been predictably awful since replacing Czabe.

The second came in January 2010, when NBC yanked Conan O'Brien from the Tonight Show after just 8 months, in favor of former host and current has-been Jay Leno. ("Ehhhhh, Kato Kaelin in the news again...")

Fast forward to August. Conan is less than 3 months from beginning his new late night show with TBS. And this glorious announcement came yesterday: Steve Czaban is returning to the morning sports radio landscape, joining the Sporting News Radio network in September.

NBC's and Fox's losses are examples of how arrogant, clueless network executives can screw up something that didn't need changing. But their losses are TBS's and SNR's gains, simply doing the common sense thing and scooping up tremendous talent that should have never become available in the first place.

The good news for TBS and SNR is, these common sense moves will pay huge dividends for years to come...provided they too don't screw up a good thing.

Today's free agent signing is tomorrow's expiring contract

For a General Manager in the NBA, the 2009-10 season was largely about expiring contracts. They just couldn't wait to get these bad deals off their books so they could go after the free agent class of 2010. If you listen to enough NBA General Managers, you'd think that these albatross-like contracts just magically appeared all over the league.

2010 was the biggest focus for freeing cap space, but it was hardly the first. We've been hearing this for a generation now. If a team could just get out from underneath these bad contracts, they could rebuild the right way and their problems would be over.

So what do they do when they're finally freed of these terrible contracts? Start being responsible? Nah...they use that cap space to sign more terrible contracts.

I have no problem with the top guys making $20 million a year. They are the ones bringing in the majority of the revenue. What does irk me though, are scrubs and also-rans getting $8, $10, or $15+ million. Also keep in mind, the NBA says it's feeling the recession. With that said, just look at some of the deals signed this summer:

Houston - Kyle Lowry - 4 years, $24 million. Career averages: 9.1 PTS, 4.5 AST, 39% FG.

Phoenix - Channing Frye - 5 years, $30 million. Career: 8.9 PTS, 4.7 REB.

Atlanta - Joe Johnson - 6 years, $119(!!!) million. For a non-difference-making 29 year old shooting guard.

Milwaukee - John Salmons - 5 years, $40 million. Career: 9.7 PPG, 3.0 REB, 2.3 AST. 30 years old.

New Jersey - Travis Outlaw - 5 years, $35 million. Career: 9.5 PTS, 3.4 REB. The Nets lost out on the marquee free agent sweepstakes...so hey, they've got to spend it on someone, right?

Toronto - Amir Johnson - 5 years, $34 million. Career: 4.7 PTS, 4.2 REB. I consider myself well-informed about the NBA and I have never heard of him before two weeks ago.

Minnesota - Darko Milicic - 4 years, $20 million. Career: 5.6 PTS, 4.1 REB. Sure, he's been a resounding bust everywhere he's gone...but WE CAN CHANGE HIM!

So, when it's 2015 or whatever and NBA GMs are giving you the "woe is us" routine over these very contracts, we'll know better. These contracts have to come from somewhere. As The Offspring once said, it all just happens again, way down the line...

The desert is hot now...who knew?

If you'll recall, last month I beamed about how mild the summer temperatures here in the desert had been up to that point. But now, I'm afraid there's nowhere to hide.

I don't quite have the "kinda-kidding-but-not-really" arrogance of Bill Simmons where I think I can jinx weather the way he can jinx NFL outcomes with his picks...but this is just more of an observation.

Here is how it's been the past 8 days:

87
90
91
91
89
84
91
85

Oops, those were the overnight lows. Let's try again:

106
108
110
108
107
106
107
105

Dagger.

Because I love anything from Steve Sabol

You might say that much like Michael Bolton falsely claimed in Office Space, I celebrate NFL Films' entire collection. So when I heard NFL Films President Steve Sabol filled in for NFL Buffoon Peter King at SI this week, I couldn't wait to read what Sabol had to say. He did not disappoint, touching on players he felt made the biggest impressions on him, the differences between follies, blunders, and bloopers, and why Hard Knocks is the most challenging show they do.

And I just love the way he wraps up the column:

I think I'd like to close with this: Erma Bombeck once said, "If a man watches three football games in a row, he should be declared legally brain dead." I say, "What a way to die."

Soccer jihadists, we're telling you for the last time...

First, a disclaimer. I don't require people to agree with me, but my plea is always that they argue fairly and within the bounds of logic. And when encountering someone who is genuinely misguided, it is important to respond fairly and logically, even if their position is mind-blowingly idiotic and they're not arguing fairly themselves. Just calling someone stupid won't convince them of anything. Therefore, there is value in practicing how to respond to a bad argument. With that said...

I came across this Youtube video via Uproxx: If George Carlin's Baseball and Football was a 75-yard touchdown pass, then this weak offering by John Cleese about football and soccer is a feeble Monty Burns throw that lands right at his feet as he lets out a lifeless, "feh." Among the cutesy, yet strangely disdain-soaked arguments made:

*Football has breaks in action so TV can have commercials - even though football was invented like 50 years BEFORE TELEVISION.

*Soccer is "creative" (always the go-to saying of the soccer jihadist), like jazz music. (You know, the kind of jazz music where you get grazed in the chest and flop like you've been shot in the head.)

*Coaches call plays. Therefore football players don't use their brains at all. (Interesting. Do you think strategy and playcalling makes for a better quality game, or worse? Would it be better to send the players out to the field with no plan whatsoever? "Alright men, just go out there and be creative.")

*Generic "Dick Cheney is bad" joke. (Even Jay Leno thinks Cheney jokes are tired. "Ehhhh, Monica Lewinsky in the news again...")

I'm not going to blame Cleese fully because maybe he was told to say everything as part of this show, but come on. Other than the name being "foot-ball" he's got nothing. And even then, his beef is with whoever named it in the late 19th century. I wouldn't have chosen "football" myself, but in fairness to the founders, when the game was invented field goals were worth more points than touchdowns so there was more emphasis on kicking than there is today. And near as I can tell, the title came from when the split was made between "association football" (note the "s-o-c" in association), and "rugby football," which was shortened to just "football."

Worst of all, it's supposed to be funny but just isn't. I'd gladly shrug off all the vertebrae-breaking reaches if there were some laughs involved.

The World Cup gives soccer the stage every 4 years to show us just how lame and boring it really is. The reason Americans don't like soccer is that we simply invented better sports.

It's funny how football fans are secure enough to not have to entertain comparisons between the two sports; yet so often we see soccer fans going out of their way to tell us how much better soccer is than American tackle football. As Shakespeare once wrote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

So please, for the last time soccer fans, enjoy your World Cup but try to tone down the inferiority complex - it's unbecoming. Only 32 days until camps open...

Colin Curtis: A reminder of why we love sports

A special moment in Phoenix last night, as Yankees rookie Colin Curtis, just called up two days ago, got his first major league hit - an 8th inning two-run double to deep center - in a 9-3 win over Arizona. Curtis is a 2006 4th round pick from Arizona State University who overcame testicular cancer at age 15.

Seeing him earn a once-in-a-lifetime experience, with his family in attendance, just made me think that this is the kind of heartwarming feeling sports can deliver sometimes.

It's good to keep stories like that of Curtis in mind, when hearing about how Albert Haynesworth and his $21 million signing bonus didn't report to Redskins minicamp because they couldn't lure him with a big enough bacon and cheese cart.

Here's to this being the start of a long and prosperous career for Colin Curtis.

Fun with heat

It's the first day of summer, but here in the desert this rarely marks any type of significance. Most years we're well into triple digit temperatures by now, and usually have been for about a month.

However, this year has been different. The unseasonably cool April and May were absolute gifts. I didn't use my home's air conditioner until late May, and in this region that's almost unheard of. June has also been - dare I say - "not so bad," with highs most days in the upper 90s. And even when it's topped 100, it's been in the 101-103 range. Again, I can't believe I'm saying this, but that's not so bad. At least not compared to insane 110-115 degree heatwaves, which we're sure to see every summer for at least a few days at a time. Sure, 100 is hot, and 115 is hot, but failing to recognize a difference would be another good old line drawing fallacy.

The Farmer's Almanac long range forecast predicted this June would be 5 degrees below average, and so far they're spot-on. But what about July-September, which are expected to be just as bad as usual? Don't you worry, I've got a positive spin to put on that.

You see, I usually count April and May as part of the heat. And the pain usually leaves as September comes to an end. That makes 6 hot months out of 12 we're working with. Two of them are over, and the 3rd is almost over. Why, after this week we're right on July's doorstep!

So we've barely faced any awful summer heat thus far, and I'm declaring it half-over. Do you like how I did that?

Me neither. See you (outdoors) in October.

Why I don't have facebook

Facebook has taken the internet by storm over the past couple years. Everybody's doing it. Your boss, your grandma, everybody. ("Stan, why didn't you friend your grandma?") It's essentially the same thing as myspace (more on that later), but I used this transition period of the herd moving from myspace to facebook, as the perfect way to quietly slip out of the social networking business. I love the freedom and privacy, and I don't plan on coming back. Many people ask me why I'm not on it though, and I feel it deserves mentioning here. Not only as a personal explanation, but as a service to those who might be on the fence.

I know I'm out on a limb here. This isn't like saying "Brees is better than Manning," where most people can see both sides and it's maybe a 60% majority I'm going against. While I'm aware that there are people - wise people - who are leaving by the thousands, I know I'm part of about 10% vs. 90%.

So here we go! First, a couple disclaimers:

*Didn't you used to have a myspace?

Yes, and I don't regret it. That was a nice little two year era that helped me pass time while working weekend overnights before I got a house, a job with more responsibility, and in general a busier life. I won't go all the way and say I don't have any time for it - but I don't have as much free time anymore, and certainly not enough to where I'd want to spend it on facebook.

*What about this very blog?

There is a vast difference between a (mostly) sports blog, and facebook - in privacy levels (notice there are no full names, photos, birthdates, or other personal information anywhere to be found here), and in time commitment (with 4-6 posts a month, I admittedly don't devote as much time to this as I could). Failure to recognize the difference would be to fall victim to what the logic community calls a line drawing fallacy; they're not the same, and it isn't an "all or nothing" proposition.

Speaking of myspace, I find it hilarious when someone who is currently all about facebook, will go out of his or her way to rip myspace and say how stupid and worthless it is. I'm afraid this is common in human nature - it's easiest to condemn something that you yourself have overcome...or something you feel are in no danger of doing yourself. Like the insecure person who says, "Not only am I not gay...I hate gays!" Again, this isn't everyone, or even the majority of social network users, but I've heard it enough that it resonates with me. Where will these folks go when the next big site comes along? I bet they'll leave facebook for it, then talk about how lame facebook is/was.

Now, my friends and family don't really use facebook in the narcissistic "Hey everybody, look at me!" way, so I'm going to skip that argument here. But another problem I have is that many seem to feel facebook can take the place of real communication. Social networking communication can be misinterpreted, or missed altogether. A couple weeks ago I had a friend who wanted to put an event together. Whereas he used to email me personally, this time he only sent it via facebook, perhaps thinking it's now his "one-stop-shop" for friend communication. It did get to my girlfriend, but she misunderstood what it was. So if it wasn't for the fact that I called him on the phone out of the blue last week - something friends actually used to do - I may have missed the event altogether.

Still don't accept my reasons? How about this: Facebook owns everything you post...forever...even if you take it down. I don't know about you, but that gives me the willies.

If you're my friend, I hope you'll respect my desire to not have facebook. Please communicate with me directly - I don't care so much whether it's by email, phone, text, or singing telegram...just don't assume facebook is the only way to communicate anymore. I'll never say never, but I can safely say I won't be joining unless I can find a way to make it comfortable for me - such as by using an alias, by creating a page as a different person altogether, like movie hero Zap Rowsdower, or by simply not sharing enough information that it's all a good hacker needs to steal my identity. But it's still a long shot.

Thanks for reading, and happy facebooking. By the way, it saddens me that "facebooking" is used as a verb...