husid

[husid]

OSCARS 2022

[husid]

Uncle Huey’s 2019 Oscars Post!

A confession: I love the Oscars. 

A confession, extrapolated: I am an unabashed Oscars fanboy, who legitimately looks forward to the Academy Awards all year long. I love the opening montage where the host skewers self-righteous Hollywood stars, I love the cringeworthy banter of presenters pretending to have a non-scripted conversation (as if they were actual actors!), I love the montages reminding us why we should keep liking movies, I love seeing which recently deceased actors (it’s always the actors) cause people to break the “no-clapping-until-the-end” rule during the In Memoriam clip (Hollywood’s version of “you can only bring Valentine’s Day Cards to class if you give one to everybody”), I love the wildly reactionary vitriol thrown towards the Academy every time they make a decision about anything, I love the Academy reacting one-year too late to everything, I love the politics, I love the self-seriousness, I love the acceptance speeches in which you can tell the actor deeply resents his or her family, I love seeing the loser shots and trying to decide whether they’re legitimately happy for the winner (spoiler: they’re not), and I love seeing the same tired, rehashed Twitter jokes about how long the Oscars telecast is. 

Reading back through that paragraph, I realize how disingenuous my love for the Oscars sounds, but I do love the Oscars, if for no other reason than I really fucking love movies. And while I’m no critic, I do fancy myself a semi-educated film buff, and with that, as well as an uncredited extras role in The Flintstones In Viva Rock Vegas! that I ask that you indulge me in the first annual Hu’s the Boss Oscar Preview!

In the interest of full disclosure, this is where I tell you that I’ve only seen 11 of the movies nominated (Avengers: Infinity War, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Favourite, Isle of Dogs, Roma, Solo: A Star Wars Story, Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse, A Star Is Born), but whether it’s the utter predictability of some films (Green Book), or familiarity with a director’s work (Vice), I feel reasonably confident in my admittedly underinformed predictions.

You might have heard that the Oscars will not have a host this year, for the first time since 1989, and we all remember how that went! (I was 2 years old, I definitely don’t remember how that went, but the internet does, and yikes, it wasn’t good. Side note: I’d sooner tell my own grandmother that her matzo ball soup was overseasoned than do anything horrible enough to warrant Julie Andrews calling me an embarrassment in an open letter).  How did we find ourselves in this predicament? Blame the Academy. Well, also the internet. Maybe Kevin Hart too. President Obama as well. Let me explain. 

While in office, Obama had the opportunity to sign an executive order mandating that Amy Poehler and Tina Fey host every major awards show, but failed to do so. Given President Trump’s current feelings towards S&L, it feels like that window has closed. The Oscars are generally hosted by a mainstream comedian, and this year was shaping up to be no different, with Kevin Hart signed on to host. But then the unthinkable happened. The internet internetted, and found that Hart had performed some homophobic material back in 2009 and 2010. The backlash got real loud, real quick, and the court of public opinion sentenced the Academy to 10 years without Kevin Hart as host, with the possibility of parole once we realize that every comic who started writing before 2010 has included something homophobic in one of their sets. So you can blame Kevin Hart, whose jokes were clearly offensive; you can blame the Academy for either not vetting their host, underestimating the research capabilities of internet denizens, underestimating the outrage of the general public (hard to imagine, given the public reception of most of the Academy’s decisions of late), or, depending on your viewpoint, bowing too easily to internet outrage; or you can blame the outraged, for not understanding the evolution of standup comedy, or for making a stand when one may not be warranted.

I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions on who’s to blame for Hart not hosting, but I can tell you who’s to blame for there the absence of a host, period: Critics. Not since Billy Crystal hosted the Oscars for a 73rd consecutive time has any host be universally lauded. The host isn’t funny, the host is too mean, the host is too sophomoric, the host disappears for extended periods of time, etc. It’s been a thankless job for years now, and that was before a dissection of your extended comedy catalog became a prerequisite. Personally, I���d love to see the hosting job go to an up-and-coming comic and let them roast Hollywood for a bit. It would be a way to take the self-reverential mask off of Hollywood for a couple hours, and provide a massive opportunity for an up-and-comer. But ratings dictate that stars and stars alone must host, so I’m not holding my breath.

Ok. That sound you just heard is me jumping off my soap box. Back to movies.

“The field is wide open this year” is a great way to build up buzz for an awards show, but when it comes to Best Picture, it’s also a euphemism sugarcoating the fact that there were truly no great movies this year. Personally, I think nearly every contender has at least one seriously fatal flaw, and that, coupled with the rare lack of a huge late PR push for one movie above the others (a la The King’s Speech, The Artist, Argo, Birdman, etc.) mean that “wide-open field” isn’t just lip service, it’s true. Just not for the best reasons. Still, it makes for an exciting awards show, if you’re into that sort of thing, and probably means that the Academy won’t be on the hook for buying into one film’s hype and looking terrible for it down the line (Shakespeare In Love over Saving Private Ryan, The King’s Speech over The Social Network, Birdman over Boyhood, etc.). But these things aren’t always predictable, and maybe in ten years we’ll be talking about what an underappreciated movie Vice was in 2018.

Now on to the awards, where I’ll give my two cents on each nominee for Best Picture, then a brief thought on each subsequent category declaring my best guess for the actual winner and my personal favorite. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve watched the Golden Globes and the SAG Awards, and usually pay a lot of attention to movie/Oscars buzz, but I’ve generally tried to avoid Oscar prediction articles for the sake of this post. Again, I don’t claim to be a film critic, but I do have lots of opinions on movies, so take everything with a grain of salt. To further highlight any conscious or subconscious biases I have,  I’ve put the films I have seen in bold in each set of nominees.

THE OSCAR GOES TO

Best Picture

Nominees:

Black Panther – A wildly entertaining and legitimately good movie, but it’s not even the best Marvel movie ever. This feels more like an acknowledgment from the Academy that it respects superhero movies, than a legitimate contender for best picture.

BlacKkKlansman – Given the wild true story the movie is based on, it probably didn’t even need Spike Lee’s direction to shine, and yet I left somewhat underwhelmed. Everything was solid, but very little really stood out, aside from costume design and a few warranted but ham-handed references to our current political climate.  Spike is one of the most provocative filmmakers of the last quarter-century, but with a story that I expected he’d be able to knock out of the park, I didn’t fell like I gained an interesting perspective or was shocked by anything; a rarity for one of his films. Maybe that’s more reflective of the times we live in, or maybe I just set unfair expectations for Spike, given the subject matter. Either way, despite enormous potential, this had all the trappings of a good-but-not-great movie.

Bohemian Rhapsody – Rami Malek’s performance and the final Live Aid scene alone catapult Bohemian Rhapsody into this year’s contenders. Unfortunately, that was all that was Oscar-worthy about this movie. The rest was a by-the-numbers music biopic that tried to pack way too much into 133 minutes. It’s no wonder this movie took so long to get made and so many writers/producers/directors/actors were involved and uninvolved at one point or another (Sacha Baron Cohen was originally slated to play Freddie Mercury), because there’s a lot to untangle between  the rise and “fall” of the band, Mercury’s sexual awakening, and his HIV diagnosis, all while the real-life remaining members of the band did their best to ensure that we got a PG-13 version of Queen history devoid of any real dirty laundry. The final result was a watered down, factually dubious mishmash that doesn’t go deep enough in any direction to have a true lasting impact. Those music scenes though, still make it one of the best music biopics ever filmed.

The Favourite – Of all the Best Picture nominees, the Favourite and Roma were easily the least digestable for mass market audiences. Period pieces aren’t for everyone, especially ones that have little in the way of plot, and take place exclusively on the grounds of an 18th century British palace. But the Favourite managed to be thoroughly entertaining thanks to top-notch set design, Oscar-worthy performances by Olivia Coleman, Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone, sexual intrigue and two hours of steady, if a bit slow, mischievousness. 

Green Book – I have not seen it. Obviously the reviews are positive, but no one has yet convinced me that this movie isn’t entirely formulaic. I haven’t seen this movie, but I’ve seen this movie, and I’m pretty sure it’s fine.

Roma – A beautiful movie about an underrepresented social class in an underrepresented era in an underrepresented country. It’s shot well and acted well, and the camerawork makes up for a meandering plotline. It probably is the class of this category, but I can’t help but think that it might be 15% worse if it wasn’t shot in black and white. That was clearly a conscious choice by writer and director Alfonso Cuaron, who, between Gravity and Children of Men, among others, has more than proven he knows how to make a film beautiful, regardless of subject matter. But the Artist won Best Picture for its two-part gimmick of being black and white and silent, and I’m not entirely sure that Roma’s colorless palette shouldn’t be considered gimmicky as well.

A Star Is Born – The most classic Best Picture fodder on this list, by leaps and bounds, and not just because previous versions of this movie have been nominated for Best Picture, among a host of other awards. But Hollywood loves a movie about the entertainment business, not to mention a story about underdogs and redemption. This was a really well done movie across the board, and while I thought the Grammys scene was a little over the top, I now realize that was an integral scene to the previous three versions of the movie, so its inclusion is a lot easier to justify here. Aside from the acting, which was exceptional across the board (Andrew Dice Clay!), I think the most impressive part about this movie was that it was a big-budget film about superstardom, yet managed to feel very intimate, and resisted using tired crutches of story narration/plot forwarding by way of TV/radio news reports or newspaper headlines – something Bohemian Rhapsody was unable to pull off.

Vice – I have not seen it, which is odd, because of every movie nominated, it’s probably the most up my proverbial alley. The initial mixed reviews were a part of my missing it, though I imagine my love for Adam Mckay’s masterful balance between humor and the depression of irresponsibly-wielded power in the Big Short and Succession (to say nothing of his comedy genius displayed in Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Step Brothers et al.) would make me a more likely candidate than most to appreciate Vice. Alas, that’s all I’m able to really opine on.

Will Be: If there wasn’t a strong anti-Netflix bias in the Academy, as has been reported, I would go with Roma, but I fear that the safest choice here is Green Book, and in the absence of anything truly groundbreaking, that’s going to be the pick.

Should Be: I’m on the fence between Roma and A Star is Born. To me, Roma’s lack of plot and failure to explore its main character in depth separate it from A Star is Born, which really has no obvious flaws.

Actor in a Leading Role

Christian Bale – Vice

Bradley Cooper – A Star Is Born

Willem Dafoe – At Eternity’s Gate

Rami Malek – Bohemian Rhapsody

Viggo Mortensen – Green Book

Will Be: Having only seen two of these movies, it’s hard for me to make a real educated guess, but it’s also hard to imagine that Rami Malek won’t be rewarded for flawlessly playing one of the most eccentric entertainers in music history. All I know for sure is that Willem Dafoe will not be winning.

Should Be: Malek. Malek’s apparent real-life persona is shy and understated –essentially the exact opposite of Freddie Mercury’s – making his transformative performance that much more jaw-dropping.

Actress in a Leading Role

Yalitza Aparicio – Roma

Glenn Close – The Wife

Olivia Colman – The Favourite

Lady Gaga – A Star Is Born

Melissa McCarthy – Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Will Be: Glenn Close. When an actress from a movie you’ve never heard of keeps racking up awards, it’s a pretty safe bet the Academy will follow suit.

Should Be: I’m going to stick with Close, given how much consensus this pick seems to have. Of the movies I saw, I think Colman and Gaga are both very worthy. I can’t quite figure out Aparicio’s nomination. Given that she had never acted before, she was incredible, but the lack of dialogue and depth that the script afforded her puts her performance in stark comparison to the other women on this list. Close is the biggest lock in any of the acting categories.

Actress in a Supporting Role

Amy Adams – Vice

Marina de Tavira – Roma

Regina King – If Beale Street Could Talk

Emma Stone – The Favourite

Rachel Weisz – The Favourite

Will Be: Amy Adams. This is a really tight race that could legitimately go to anyone. With five very deserving nominees, the biggest differentiator is the fact that Adams has been nominated for an Oscar five times before, with no hardware to show for it. In situations like this, the Academy has shown it’s not above the unofficial lifetime achievement award.

Should Be: I’m a huge fan of every actress in this category, though my two favorites – Adams and King – are nominated for movies I haven’t seen. Given that, my pick would be Emma Stone, who portrayed innocence, quirkiness, resourcefulness, wittiness, ruthlessness and helplessness in one winkingly dry performance. Weisz was just as game from an acting perspective, but the script gave Stone a lot more to work with, making her performance more memorable.

Actor in a Supporting Role

Mahershala Ali – Green Book

Adam Driver – BlacKkKlansman

Sam Elliott – A Star Is Born

Richard E. Grant – Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Sam Rockwell – Vice

Will Be: Mahershala Ali. The Academy loves him, and with good reason. In a tight race, the fact that Rockwell deservedly won this award last year for Three Billboards probably disqualifies him. Elliott was exceptional in A Star Is Born, but had a considerably smaller role than the other actors on this list. I thought Driver was good, but not Oscars-good, and obviously I haven’t seen Grant’s performance, but the buzz is very positive, despite being in a movie that not a ton of people saw. There’s definitely a cynical side of me that thinks Ali is the most justifiable selection among all the minority Oscar acting nominees, and its hard to imagine there aren’t at least some voters who are still trying to erase the scars of #oscarssowhite (to say nothing of minority representation over the course of film history) by essentially casting a vote for inclusion. But ultimately he may just be the best choice in a tight category.

Should Be: Ali. I’ll be rooting hard for Elliott, both because he tends to be my favorite part of any movie or show he’s in, and because it’s nice to see the older guys finally win one. Since Ali and Rockwell already have a statue, there may be some sentimentality votes going his way, and his career in mainstream American cinema spans much longer than fellow elder statesman Grant. Again, I haven’t seen Green Book, but I know Ali is as game as any of the actors in this category, and had the biggest role of anyone in the category. That’s good enough for me.

Directing

Spike Lee – BlacKkKlansman 

Pawel Pawlikowski – The Cold War

Yorgos Lanthimos – The Favourite

Alfonso Cuaron  - Roma

Adam McKay – Vice

Will Be: Alfonso Cuaron. There’s talk of this going to Spike as a “my bad” award from the Academy for never having even nominated him for best director (not giving him even a nomination for Do the Right Thing borders on criminal). But he did receive an honorary Oscar from the Academy in 2015, and that, coupled with BlacKkKlansman being just a good movie make me feel like this isn’t Spike’s year. Vice is a very hype-typical movie that isn’t getting much hype, and Cold War is the only movie on this list not nominated for Best Picture. That leaves Roma and the Favourite, and the Academy has proven it loves Cuaron’s work, not to mention Roma is the most unique, visually stunning film on this list, which are usually two of the major criteria for this award.

Should Be: Cuaron, for all of the reasons listed above, but I wouldn’t be upset with Lanthimos taking it.

Adapted Screenplay

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

BlacKkKlansman

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

If Beale Street Could Talk

A Star Is Born

Will Be: I really have no clue on this one, but I’m confident that The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and If Beale Street Could Talk are the first two out. The remaining three are all unlikely to win in the other major categories so voters might simply choose their favorite of those three to ensure they win something. If that’s the case, my guess is the most popular among them is A Star Is Born.

Should Be: I won’t rehash my thoughts on BlacKkKlansman again, and I haven’t seen Beale Street or CYEFM, but when considering adapted screenplays, I like to vote based on degree of difficulty jumping from the source material to the screen. That’s why A Star Is Born falls short for me, given that it was adapted from three previous versions of ultimately the same movie. To me, that makes the writer’s job easier, not harder. I definitely have a Coen Brothers bias, so my vote goes to The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, which managed to take a collection of short stories written over the course of 25 years and transform them into a series of visually stunning, dialogue-rich (aside from Tom Waits’ story) vignettes that somehow formed a (great) movie.

Original Screenplay

The Favourite

First Reformed

Green Book

Roma

Vice

Will Be: First Reformed is getting buzz for this award, and it might be a way for voters to give some gold to a movie than many felt was snubbed in other categories. My take is that if voters loved the screenplay so much, it would have been nominated for those other categories. So the most likely pick here is Roma, a movie about an upper-middle-class family in Mexico City with a relative dearth of dialogue or plot lines that somehow ends up being as captivating as any other movie this year.

Should Be: I thought The Big Short’s screenplay was incredible, so if Vice is comparable in both style and quality, I’m sure I’d love it. But critics are saying otherwise, so I’m going to go with The Favourite, whose screenplay managed to make a thoroughly beguiling and darkly humorous film out of what could easily have been just another dry period piece.

Foreign Language Film

Capernaum – Lebanon

Cold War – Poland

Never Look Away – Germany

Roma – Mexico

Shoplifters – Japan

Will Be: We can pretend Cold War has a chance, but the award has all but been handed to Roma already. If it’s the only movie on this list that managed to be worthy of a Best Picture nominee, logic would dictate that it’s the only movie worthy of winning Best Foreign Language Film

Should Be: Having only seen Roma, I don’t have any great insights to add here, but I’m still confident in saying it deserves this one.

Best Animated Feature

Incredibles 2

Isle of Dogs

Mirai

Ralph Breaks the Internet

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Will Be: Despite winning two of the last three years, Pixar doesn’t have the stranglehold over this category that it once did. In most years, Incredibles 2, Isle of Dogs or Ralph Breaks the Internet would have a great shot to win, but this is simply Spider-Man’s year.

Should Be: I liked Isle of Dogs, but Spider-Man was probably my favorite movie of the year, and quite possibly the best. Sorry Pixar.

Cinematography

Cold War

The Favourite

Never Look Away

Roma

A Star Is Born

Will Be: Roma. Sweeping cityscapes, countryscapes and beachscapes (are those things?) + historical time period + black and white = Oscar.

Should Be: Roma. Sweeping cityscapes, countryscapes and beachscapes (are those things?) + historical time period + black and white = Oscar.

QUICK HITTERS

Production Design

Black Panther

The Favourite

First Man

Mary Poppins Returns

Roma

Will Be: Roma

Should Be: The Favourite

Costume Design

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Black Panther

The Favourite

Mary Poppins Returns

Mary Queen of Scots

Will Be: The Favourite

Should Be: The Favourite

Death, taxes, and a Victorian(ish)-era drama winning Best Costume Design are the only certainties in life.

Visual Effects

Avengers: Infinity War

Christopher Robin

First Man

Ready Player One

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Will Be: Avengers: Infinity War

Should Be: Ready Player One

This pick is based entirely on the trailer and my 1980s and 90s nostalgia.

Original Song

All the Stars – Black Panther

I’ll Fight – RBG

The Place Where Lost Things Go – Mary Poppins Returns

Shallow – A Star Is Born

When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings – The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Will Be: Shallow

Should Be: Shallow

Along with Roma winning for best Foreign Film, this is easily the biggest lock of the night. It’s also a really good song.

I don’t really have anything of substance to add for the rest of the categories, and if you’re somehow still reading, you’re probably not anxiously awaiting my take on all the documentary shorts I haven’t watched.

Happy Oscars Night, everyone! Looking forward to seeing you again next year, when we’ll get to predict the winners of the Academy’s new categories:

Worst Performance By A Best Actor/Actress Loser At Time of Award Announcement

Most Terrifying-Looking Live-Action Genie

Best Performance By People Trying to Bring Matt Damon Home

The Wes Anderson Lifetime Achievement Award for Contributions to Whimsy

Worst Acting Performance by a Musician Who Now Thinks He/She Can Act Because of Lady Gaga

Worst Singing Performance by an Actor Who Now Thinks He/She Can Sing Because of Bradley Cooper

Best Use of “That Guy” (Andrew Dice Clay!)

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter - Super Bowl LIII Edition

How have you been the last eight years?

I, like most blog writers am just fine and not at all wallowing in existential doom questioning my own self-worth. But this isn’t about me, this is about you, the beloved readers. So back by the popular demand of no fewer than two people, is a special pre-Super Bowl edition of Wednesday Morning Punter!

Just in time for the final game of the NFL season before real football gets started, today’s issue will tackle a Super Bowl LIII preview, the all important Legacy Stakes, missing prop bets, the unenviable existence of a Patriots atheist living in Boston, and some NFL hodgepodge.

So without further ado, Let’s Punt!

What to Expect When You’re Projecting

What I can guarantee about tonight is that there will be nearly universal disappointment regarding the Super Bowl commercials, Maroon 5 will bring out a halftime show guest singer that will appeal to neither millennials nor baby boomers, and Twitter will have a much needed night focused on something other than Donald Trump, Howard Schultz or AOC.

What I cannot guarantee is just about everything else, starting with the winner of the game. Anecdotal research leads me to believe that most of the experts are picking the Patriots, which is incredible for a team that No One Believes In (more on that later), but it’s by no means a slam-dunk. We know that both teams deserve to be here (Saints fans may disagree, but one call aside, it’s impossible to conclude that both teams aren’t at the very least among the top two teams in their respective conferences). The Pats quickly worked out of an early 1-2 hole to reel off six straight wins and finish at a respectable if somewhat human 11-5, good enough for the AFC’s two-seed. The Rams were even more dominant, busting out of the gate with eight straight wins en route to a 13-3 record and the NFC’s two-seed. Both won their divisional playoff game relatively convincingly before squeezing out dramatic overtime victories in their conference championship games, thanks primarily to resilient offensive play. The two teams didn’t play other this year, but did have five common opponents, including the entire NFC North, and the Chiefs. I don’t put much stock into common opponents as a means of assessing a head-to-head advantage – both because strengths and weaknesses versus one opponent aren’t necessarily transitive, and because the highs and lows every team experiences in a season mean that an opponent one week does not equate to that same opponent on a different week – but for those of you who do, both the Rams and Pats beat the Chiefs in tight regular season games (and the Pats again two weeks ago), and each went 3-1 against NFC North opponents, with the Patriots losing a demoralizing week 3 matchup in Detroit, and the Rams falling in week 14 to Chicago in a defensive showdown.

Frankly, the Patriots are easy to predict. They’re going to show up with a solid game plan, Brady is going to be accurate and minimize mistakes, and the defense will play bend-but-don’t break defense to keep the Pats within striking distance at any point in the game.

The Rams, on the other hand, are a bit more of a wild card, despite being the more consistent team during the regular season. LA only has one offensive star (Todd Gurley), yet finished the year in the top-2 in total scoring and yards per game, and the top-5 in both rushing and passing. But Gurley disappeared two weeks ago (literally and figuratively), starting quarterback Jared Goff is still pretty green, and the Rams D is very much a middle-of-the-road unit.

So what will ultimately decide whether the scrappy Patriots will finally be able to celebrate in Foxborough, or LA pretends like it actually cares about pro football for at least an offseason? My best guess:

• The Gronking of Over-the-Hill House: No one’s worried about his post-game performance tonight at the Gold Club (I know it’s gone, but my knowledge of Georgia strip clubs begins and ends with that fabled establishment), but my confidence in his elite on-field level is not what it once was. Despite his ability to still make a big play, Gronkowski generally looks like a shell of his former self, and my money’s on Sunday being the last day he plays an NFL game. Of course when he’s playing to his ability, he’s one of the most unguardable players in football.

• Aaron Donald Has A Show: Donald was undoubtedly the best defensive player in the NFL this year (an NFL positional record 20.5 sacks for a defensive tackle), but oddly he’s still not quite a household name (the NFL’s refusal to market any defensive player other than JJ Watt could comprise a whole other post).  Fighting through double-teams and keeping Brady on his heels could be the key difference in whether TB12 is able to pick apart the Rams secondary, or is too uncomfortable to get into a consistent rhythm. There’s a good chance the whole country knows his name after tonight.

• From Dusk Till Sean: I can’t remember ever seeing a Sean this hot, and I live less than a mile from Southie. But lost in last week’s questionable victory was the fact that Rams coach Sean McVay was a missed pass interference call away from dealing with an entire offseason full of questions about his game plan. Since we still haven’t heard any indication that Todd Gurley was injured, his benching for most of the NFC Championship game is baffling. Giving your (and arguably the league’s) best player five total touches with a Super Bowl appearance on the line simply doesn’t add up – particularly since Gurley’s backup, CJ Anderson, was no more effective with his 17 touches – and a similar utilization of Gurley on Sunday will make Bill Belichick’s job a lot easier. If the rushing attack remains stymied, will McVay have Goff ready to shoulder the load? McVay is like that cool, mysterious guy who transfers to your high school for sophomore year but no one knows much about him. He might be the man, he might just be a boring introvert, but his parents are gone next weekend and he’s about to throw the first party at his place. Will he have enough booze? Will he invite those weirdos he went to school with last year? Will he freak out when the first Bud Ice (is that still a thing?) spills on the carpet? Will he trust his buddies enough to take care of things while he shows his crush where he practices his guitar? The spotlight is finally on. Be cool, Sean McVay, because high school kids can turn on you fast.

• Master of Run: It’s no secret that Gurley’s production had tailed off a bit, even before last week’s unjustified benching. Gurley has now eclipsed 100 yards rushing just once in his last four games. Maybe last game’s light load was a gift, Todd, but if he starts the Super Bowl rushing like he has since late December, will Gurley be able to do enough through the air to make an impact? Given his overall season, it’s pretty shocking that this is even a reasonable question.

• A Series of Gameplanned Events: Beginning with his plan to take Marshall Faulk out of Super Bowl XXXVI, Belichick has earned his reputation as a master tactician, which shone through in the Patriots next two Super Bowls (both victories). His track record since then has only further solidified his status as the best coach in NFL history, reaching six more Super Bowls and failing to make the playoffs just once since 2002, when Brady was shelved for the season (and Matt Cassel still led New England to an 11-5 record). But he’s just 2-3 in subsequent Super Bowls, and in each of the three losses he was squarely outcoached in at least one major facet of the game: His failure to account for the Giants ferocious pass rush rattled Brady all game in Super Bowl XLII and forced him to play dink-and-dunk football in Super Bowl XLVI, which neutralized his big-play ability. In last year’s Super Bowl, Belichick’s defense couldn’t find an answer for journeyman Nick Foles, and his thoroughly mediocre receiving corps. We’ll never know if BB’s head-scratching decision to bench struggling but proven starting cornerback Malcolm Butler (a legitimate explanation for which we still haven’t received) would have been the difference in the game, but it’s nearly impossible to conclude that Butler would have made the Patriots secondary worse on that day. So the question remains, will Belichick have an effective plan in place to mask his team’s weaknesses (the secondary) and accentuate its strengths (steady rushing attack, relentless short passing game), or will he fall victim to an unforeseen Rams wrinkle, or worse, his own ego?

• Santa Clarita Quiet: When Jeff Fisher went to Jared with the first overall pick in the 2016 draft, there were more than a few skeptics, all of whom seemed vindicated by Goff’s rookie campaign. Since McVay took over as Rams head coach in 2017, however, Goff has been nothing short of a top-tier quarterback, culminating in a 2018 in which he finished with a 101.1 passer rating (8th among qualified QBs), 4,688 passing yard (4th), 8.4 yards per attempt (4th), and 32 touchdowns (6th, though it should be noted that of the quarterbacks with more TDs, none had a top-tier RB for the entire season). But the fact remains that despite how great a season the Rams have had, the media attention thrust on pro football players in Los Angeles has landed somewhere between “Sugarfish No Longer Finds Bluefin Tuna to be Ethically Sourced” and “Ponytailed, Meisner-Reading Papyrus Employee Doesn’t Actually Have Passion for Stationary,” allowing Goff, who has never lived outside of California, to live a relatively pressure-free life. Since the playoffs started, Goff’s numbers have gone down a bit, as can be expected against better competition, and that on the surface isn’t alarming. But he’s about to play the biggest game of his life on the biggest stage in American sports, after two weeks of the most intense media scrutiny he’s ever experienced. Some quarterbacks wilt under that pressure, some excel, and others are simply unaffected (see: Manning, Eli).  We’ll see which bucket Goff falls into.

My Pick: Rams 29 Patriots 27 Confidence level: 2 In the Brady/Belichick era, each of their eight Super Bowl matchups has ended in a one-score game, and most of them have looked a lot more lopsided on paper before kickoff than this one. I picked the Patriots to beat the Eagles last year, refusing to believe that Belichick could lose to someone like Nick Foles in a Super Bowl. But ultimately players play the games and I don’t see a clear improvement in the Patriots defense from the one that gave up 41 points to the Eagles last year. Now they’re playing a much better offense and likely a better quarterback than Foles,  so much like the Chiefs game, the Patriots defense will have their hands full.

On the other side of the ball, the Patriots have Tom Brady, so any argument for why the Pats will win could justifiably end there. His receiving corps, while far from elite, seems to be gelling at the perfect time, and could not have been more clutch than they were against the Chiefs. The Rams defense on the whole won’t strike fear into Pats offensive coordinator Josh McDaniel’s heart, but Aaron Donald will be the toughest individual force he (or anyone in the league) will have to game plan for all season. I think Donald and Ndamukong Suh will be able to minimize rushing success for the Patriots, and will get just enough pressure to force Brady to get the ball out quickly and allow the Rams’ back seven to sit on the short outs and crossing routes that have allowed the Patriots to move the chains all season long.

But ultimately, in a one-score game – which I’m betting this will be – one play can make all the difference, and all the pre-game analysis is worthless. I don’t expect a true shootout, but I do see an offensive battle that ends with the Rams defense getting that one crucial stop down the stretch that the Chiefs failed to get two weeks ago. That said, your guess is as good as mine.

Other Super Bowl Notes and Tidbits

• The Defenders: The Patriots finished seventh in the league in scoring defense, but much of that has to be attributed to the dreadful offenses of the rest of the AFC East. In their six games against the Dolphins, Bills and Jets, the Pats D allowed 6, 7, 13, 33, 12 and 3 points. In four games against top-10 scoring offenses on the other hand, the Patriots gave up 24, 40, 31 and 17 points, to the Colts, Chiefs, Bears and Steelers, plus another 31 to the Chiefs two weeks ago. You’d think this would be a bad omen for New England as it prepares to stop the league’s second-most prolific offense, but despite the gaudy numbers allowed to elite offenses, the Patriots are 4-1 in those games. Essentially, while we can be confident the Rams will put up points, the type of game that would dictate that flow wouldn’t necessarily put the Patriots at a disadvantage.

• Oldzark: “Experience” is always talked about as a factor in determining who wins a big game, but I’m not sure that has a ton of merit, given that players have to be able to win big games to even get to the Super Bowl. Looking at the last ten Super Bowls, eight featured quarterback matchups in which only one starting QB had started a Super Bowl previously. In those matchups, the team with the Super Bowl-experienced quarterback is 4-4. Looking beyond the quarterback, teams that had been to the Super Bowl in the previous five years (an objective number, but one that’s likely to incorporate the team having an experienced, returning corps) are 3-3 when playing teams that had not been to the Super Bowl in that same span. Draw your own conclusions.

• The Vinatieri Method: Both teams should feel very comfortable with their kicking situation going into Sunday. Stephen Gostkowski has established himself as one of the most reliable field goal kickers of his generation, while Greg Zuerlein just KICKED A 57-YARD FIELD GOAL IN OVERTIME TO SEND HIS TEAM TO THE SUPER BOWL. Zuerlein was unfairly robbed of national glory, due to a brutal combination of the refs overshadowing the Rams win, and Joe Buck, as he’s wont to do, delivering the call of an incredible feat in an incredible situation as if he was narrating his wife picking up her first alimony payment before leaving the house for good. “Meredith will attempt to steal my money along with my soul… she has the check, she’s getting into the Tesla of Miles, a 30-something brand ambassador… AND SHE’S GONE! We’ll see you later tonight at the country club gala so as to keep up the appearance that we’re amicable divorcees!” Zuerlein actually sprained his foot at halftime of that game, which is something to be aware of, but given how he kicked in the second half and overtime, it’s not something I’d be too concerned about.

• Big Mouth: I could not be less interested in Media Day or any of the PR shenanigans that go on between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. I get why the NFL does it, and I’m sure journalists appreciate that they get something to write about beyond another position-by-position breakdown, but wake me up when it’s time to clock the national anthem length. That said, it’s worth taking note of all the players who basked in the glow of the media attention, because a good chunk of them will inevitably blame the media for stirring controversy down the road. Like it or not, the media has as much to do with sports being as popular as they are (and player contracts being as big as they are) than the players themselves. If you’re going to use it to your advantage when things are going well, you can’t bitch about the negative coverage when the good times stop rolling.

• Lost in Grace: Living in Boston and not being a Patriots fan sucks. Not because they always win, or because the Celtics and Bruins can be in the midst of playoff runs and the Boston sports media’s top story will still be which flavor Coolatta Gronk is going to be drinking in his upcoming Dunkin’ commercial, but because of all the faux-narratives that the team puts forth and the fans eat up. There was the “Patriot Way” which preached loyalty and selflessness, just to see Belichick ship off beloved stars and community staples like Lawyer Milloy, Richard Seymour and Chandler Jones (side note: I’m not saying these moves didn’t work out or were uncouth, just pointing out the disingenuousness of pretending to view your players as anything other than football players). There was the myth of only valuing team-first players, then signing guys like Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, Aaron Hernandez, Albert Haynesworth, Chad Johnson/Ochocinco, Brandon Meriwether and Josh Gordon. There’s still the idea that the team should never give the media any controversy fuel, while Belichick writes a letter of support to Donald Trump (that he had to know was going to be made public) and Brady displays a MAGA hat in his locker.

And now we’ve reached a new one, and possibly the most infuriating one. I understand that every team, at one point or another uses “no one believed in us” as a rallying cry or source of motivation, and sometimes its true and sometimes its not. But Xerxes and the Persian Empire had a more viable claim to the “no one believed in us” mentality after Thermopylae (read a book) than the Patriots do now. Brady and Belichick have presided over two separate dynasties in consecutive decades (for what it’s worth, I don’t think a team can go ten years between titles and still be considered a single dynasty) and are about as far from being an underdog year-to-year as any team since the 1960s Celtics. My problems with this whole charade are two-fold. First, it’s flat out wrong. Until this year’s AFC Championship game, the Patriots with Brady starting had not been underdogs IN 69 CONSECUTIVE GAMES. The chart below (courtesy of footballperspective.com) reveals as much, with the blue dots indicating regular season games, the red dots indicating playoff games, and the empty dots showing the four games Brady was suspended for to start the 2016 season. 

So not only is the narrative flat-out silly on the surface, it’s based on no evidence whatsoever. Yes, there are a lot of people who like to root against the Patriots, and there are some corny studio analysts looking for attention who will make exaggerated but transparent claims like “the Patriots era is over,” but not a single one of them is surprised that the Pats will be taking the field in Atlanta tonight.

The second part of this argument that really grinds my gears is that among the actual Patriots doubters, the vast majority live in New England. Listening to Boston sports radio all season, you’d think the Pats were flirting with a .500 record, and wondering whether they should just start tanking to move up in the draft. Sports bars around the region were filled with people lamenting Brady’s fall from best quarterback in football to merely top-5, wondering if the defense could stop a good offense in the playoffs, and pondering whether Matt Patricia was really the brains behind the whole operation (that last one is an exaggeration, but only slightly). So in essence, Patriots fans are projecting their team insecurity onto fans of the rest of the league –none of whom actually doubt the Patriots’ ability to win each game– and then criticizing the straw men they’ve created while they themselves doubt their team privately under the cover of a New England winter. It’s madness.

Listen, I get it. Winning is awesome, and it gets less awesome when that’s all that’s expected of you. No one roots for the house at a casino, no one is pulling for the shark in Jaws, and no one outside New England wants the Patriots to win, because they always win. So if you have to convince yourself that you’re not going to win because that makes it more fun when you inevitably do, go for it. But leave the rest of us out of it. Because even when we don’t think you’ll win, we still kind of do think you’ll win. That’s should be a badge of honor, not a knock.

Legacy Stakes

I usually like to do a section about what’s at stake for each team and its players from a legacy perspective. Sadly, this combination of teams doesn’t give me much to write about. The Pats can tie the Steelers for the most Super Bowl wins of all time (six), but Brady and Belichick are already the best quarterback and coach of all time, respectively, so another Super Bowl win pads their stats, as it were, but won’t do much in terms of validation. Sure, if they fall to 5-4 all-time in Super Bowls, it will give a little extra fodder for the people who say they’d rather be 4-0 in Super Bowls  (a la Joe Montana) than 5-4, but those people are woefully misguided anyway, so it’s hardly worth debate.

On the other side you have a team full of young stars, including its coach. Obviously winning a Super Bowl is a form of career validation regardless of when you win it, but no one on the Rams is even close to “can’t win the big one” territory, so the feel-good storyline of the wily old veteran finally winning a ring that we’ve had in years past (Charles Woodson with the Packers, Anquan Boldin with the Ravens, Demarcus Ware with the Broncos, etc.) is noticeably absent this year. The lone obvious exception is Ndamukong Suh, but he’s kind of an asshole, so I don’t think people are rooting hard for that story.

The Prop Bets That Weren’t

For those without a true dog in the fight, the best thing about the Super Bowl, aside from the food (bar food is the best food, don’t @ me), is the betting. Much like Adam Silver and ESPN, the general Super Bowl-watching populace has embraced casual betting more in recent years, leading once-cheeky prop bets like which Gatorade color will be poured on the winning coach or how long the national anthem will last to almost be considered passé.

Sadly, the creativity on prop bets has waned, forcing me to take matters into my own hands.  Place your bets before 6:00 EST (Just kidding…)

Ndamukong Suh Personal Foul Penalties Called (includes declined penalties) O/U .5

Tom Brady Berates An Official After Getting Knocked Over O/U 4.5

Tony Romo Accurately Predicts A Play Call Pre-Snap O/U 8.5

Age of the First Guest Singer to Join Maroon 5 O/U 38.5

Times I Consider Subscribing to the WWE Network During Halftime So I Can Watch Halftime Heat Instead of Maroon 5 O/U 5.5

Shots of Rams Fans Wearing Sunglasses Indoors O/U 326.5

Decibels Jim Nantz’ voice drops during the first CBS promo for the Masters O/U 46.5

References to Sean McVay’s Paid “Hold Me Back” Guy O/U 1.5

Commercials With Thinly Veiled Criticisms of Trump’s Immigration Policies O/U 2.5

Commercials For Movies Starring Dwayne Johnson O/U 3.5

Jim Nantz Refers to Romo as “Partner” O/U 5.5

Rams Fans at LA’s Super Bowl Parade (if applicable) O/U 13.5

Welp, that’s all I got for you today, folks. Next week we’ll have recap of the Super Bowl and its inevitable fallout, some non-football sports thoughts, and a little  TV/Oscars talk. Until then, thanks for reading, and keep punting!

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

I hope you like the Packers, folks, because they might be the reigning 2010 Super Bowl champions for the next two years...

Welcome welcome to the Super Bowl wrap-up edition of Wednesday Morning Punter, likely the last WMP until at least the NFL draft (aka the last time we see players and owners smiling in the same room on the same day for quite some time). In today's edition, we do nothing more than take a look back at the Super Bowl. If you'll allow me, I'd like to stick almost exclusively to talking about the game. If you want my opinions on the two other major NFL storylines over the last couple of weeks, I'll do that very briefly right now.

Super Bowl seats that weren't: Major screwup by Jerry Jones and the NFL. Sounds like the NFL however, has, and is continuing to do more than enough to make it up to the fans that got screwed. At this point I'm having a very hard time feeling sorry for those fans, seeing as most of them got seats anyway, and they're all being compensated handsomely.

The lockout: I agree with the owners that there needs to be a rookie wage scale, rookie contracts are simply absurd. Owning the first pick shouldn't be a burden on general managers. I agree with the players that revenue sharing should stay the way it is (or at least much closer to what the players want (and the owners agreed to in 2006) than what the owners want). I agree with the players that an 18-game season is both ridiculous and remarkably hypocritical. Overall, I'm siding with the players. I seem to be more negative than most, but I don't believe there will be an NFL season next year. And if you think either side is going to give in an inch with the fans' best interests at heart, you're profoundly naive.

Now that we got that out of the way, on to the game. Let's Punt.

Other than the phantom facemask called on the packers, the refs completely stayed out of the game, which is all you can hope for. Jordy Nelson had a good game, but each of his (3 or 4?) drops was a huge one. That can't be understated.

Speaking of Nelson, Aaron Rodgers played a helluva game and deserves plenty of praise, but the media couldn't stop gushing over the fact that he kept throwing to Nelson after his drops, which obviously paid major dividends down the stretch. What else was he supposed to do? Simply ignore his no. 2 receiver (Donald Driver was out at that point) when the Steelers are ignoring the Packers run game? I think Pittsburgh might have caught on if Rodgers had thrown to Greg Jennings on every down. Again, I don't want to take anything away from Rodgers' performance, but praising him for continuing to throw to Nelson seems like overkill to me.

Greg Jennings is the fourth receiver since 1966 with 20+ receptions, 300+ yards and two touchdowns in a single postseason. First of all, I'm a bit surprised at how rare that is, but I also feel like Jennings did it as quietly as a receiver could, seemingly not a huge factor in any of the Packers' playoff games this year outside of Atlanta.

Shaun Suisham: Yikes. He may be on the short list, along with Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins and Scott Norwood of people who might never tell their grandchildren they played in the Super Bowl.

Troy Polamalu, as he was for much of the last 7 weeks or so, was a complete non-factor in this game. Surprising is really the only word for it.

We're really gonna call a penalty for a player (a defensive player no less) dropping to his knees after scoring a touchdown in the freakin' Super Bowl? I'm referring of course to Nick Collins' impressive interception return for a touchdown in the first quarter. The NFL is not quite the totalitarian regime that David Stern is running, but we're headed in the wrong direction. If a player is not taunting anyone and not making a spectacle of himself, what about dropping to your knees after making the biggest play of your life in the biggest game of your life is "unsportsmanlike?" I'm not knocking the ref, I'm knocking the absurd rule.

Rashard Mendenhall's fumble to open the fourth quarter was simply inexcusable. Aside from it being the result of not covering up the ball (as opposed to a good strip by the defense or a helmet popping the ball loose), it took away all the momentum Pittsburgh had been building up for over a quarter.

That third quarter was one of the worst I've ever seen from a team in a Super Bowl, let alone a team that ended up winning it. Great resolve by the Packers to turn it around in the fourth, but, ugh, that was gross.

I absolutely loathe the argument frequently cited by announcers that a coach should challenge a play that he almost certainly won't win, just because it's a significant play. If a team scores against you, a team scores. Move on, and don't throw away a timeout (or a challenge, for that matter) that likely will be very important down the line.

I know I'm not the first to say this, but given the injuries sustained by the Packers during the game, their Super Bowl was remarkably indicative of their entire season.

Breathe easy, Patriots fans. It's going to be a long time before Ben Roethlisberger is compared to Tom Brady again. Roethlisberger: Three Super Bowl appearances, three subpar performances.

Given that we just witnessed Mike McCarthy win a Super Bowl and Bill Belichick falter in the clock management department in the same playoffs, maybe it's time to realize that clock management either isn't quite as easy as we make it out be, or involves a lot more luck than we previously considered. Food for thought.

Please stop being surprised by how bad the commercials are. Not to sound like some sort of elitist, but physical humor in commercials stopped being funny for me when I was about 12. Loved the NFL ad with the various tv characters in NFL jerseys, highlighted (for me, at least) by Seymour Skinner sporting Lions gear. Other than that I was predictably underwhelmed, and can't for the life of me, figure out why the Darth Vader commercial was so universally beloved.

It seems a bit baffling to me that the fact that very good teams play one less playoff game a year than the good teams (and by that I mean the 1 and 2 seeds vs. the 3-6 seeds in each conference) is never, ever mentioned in regards to team and individual stats and wins. Just sayin'.

I've yet to hear Mike Tomlin respond to a question in a manner I don't find close to perfect. He always seems to say the right thing, never disrespecting an opponent, always giving a thoughtful answer and never seeming insincere. That's very rare. If I were to pick anyone to coach my team, I think it would have to be Tomlin or Bill Belichick, and no one else is really that close.

Deion Sanders said Christina Aguilera intentionally screwed up the national anthem because the pre-game schedule was running late and "she was sweet enough to help us out." I found this to be a surprisingly admirable move by Sanders (unless CBS told him to say it, which is not unfathomable but pretty unlikely), but a. no one's buying it and b. I'm no Hacksaw Jim Duggan, but the thought of altering the words to our national anthem on the one day a year more people worldwide are listening to it than any other day disgusts me, if done to accommodate sponsors/television schedule. But yes the most likely scenario is that Aguilera is in fact a moron.

Hey guys in Steelers jerseys standing on the field behind the ESPN postgame set, smiling and waving: Looking good, everyone watching was definitely thinking about how dedicated fans you guys must be for staying even after the game was over.. Jackasses. That's all I got for you guys. I think the Super Bowl lived up to -though didn't surpass- the tremendous hype that surrounded it, which is a pretty rare thing. We got a good game with some great performances, and a worthy champion.

Thanks for following me all season long (or just this week, as the case may be). We'll be back for a couple more off-season Punters, and, if the stars align, hopefully for the elusive 2011 NFL season. Until then, may your team be blessed with a great off-season. Good Punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

No controversy here, if you don't punt, you're not going to be in my team picture.

Welcome back to your last in-season Wednesday Morning Punter, boys and girls. In today's issue we tackle Roger Goodell: Man of the People, one gm who deserves a few apologies, what the Super Bowl means to the unique legacy of Ben Roethlisberger and a few other nuggets to chew on as we get ready to watch what should be a good football game and talk about how disappointing the commercials were for the 27th year in a row. As the great George Halas once said, "Let's punt."

Roger Goodell said he will accept a salary of $1 if there is a work stoppage after the Collective Bargaining Agreement expires. That would truly be a noble gesture if it weren't for the fact that he makes $10 million a year. I don't think too many NFL fans are going to take Goodell having to live off the $30 million he's made over the past three years as consolation for not having a football season next year. I'll tell you what, if the NFL pays me $5 million in 2012 and 2013, I'll try to get the owners and players to agree on a new CBA in 2011, and I'll do it for just 99 cents. Boom, how good of a guy am I?

Chad Ochocinco is changing his name back to Chad Johnson. The only person I feel worse for than the people who actually give a shit about this news is Chad Johnson himself (ya know, as bad as you can feel for a multi-million dollar professional athlete who can get pretty much any woman he wants). It's hard to tell if he's enhanced his career or done it a disservice by all of his off-the-field shenanigans that some people, apparently, care about. On one hand, he's simply gotten annoying, with all his me-first parading around and celebrating, tweeting and focusing on becoming a media star rather than a star athlete, which has resulted in a lot of people who genuinely dislike him, and even more people who question his desire to actually win football games. On the other hand, he's as recognizable as any wide receiver in the game at this point, which is pretty noteworthy for someone who has ranked 31st, 26th and 56th in receiving yards in the last three years. I suppose it is rare this day in age to find a talented wide receiver who works his ass off year-round (looking at you Randy Moss), stays completely out of trouble off the field (ahem, Marvin Harrison, Braylon Edwards, the list goes on), and despite his tomfoolery has never torn a team apart (let alone three teams like Terrell Owens). And yet the more of a non-factor he is on the field, the more infuriating his shtick becomes. If you need to change your name back to what it was originally just to garner attention, it's a bit pathetic, but I suppose Chad has never really cared why people are paying attention to him, just that they are, and his delusions of how good he is (despite his best intentions, it's gonna take a virtually unprecedented turnaround in what should be the twilight of his career for Johnson to sniff the Hall of Fame, one of his many stated expected goals), make it that much sadder (or perhaps frustrating) to watch. It shant be long before Chad gets out of his Escalade in front of Gillette Stadium and proclaims "Alright Mr. Belichick, I'm ready for my close up."

Well I guess that paragraph summed up exactly why Chad does stupid shit to get attention: because it works.

The Packers are the first team since the the AFL-NFL merger to never trail by more than seven points at any point in the season. While that is truly amazing, you would expect that such a team would be playing in the Super Bowl. You certainly would not expect that such a team would have lost 6 games. Of those losses four of them were by 3 points, while their heavy defeats were at the hands of the Lions and the Patriots, by 4 points each.

It is time now to reflect on one of the most interesting players and subplots of Super Bowl 45: Ben Roethlisberger and his legacy. For the sake of this paragraph, I'm intentionally omitting his-off the-field/"character" issues, as the discussion of someone's legacy as an athlete -as opposed to a person- has nothing to do with crashing motorcycles and harassing women, and everything to do with how he conducts himself on the field and in the locker room. With that disclaimer out of the way, let us discuss the man who may be on the precipice of winning his third Super Bowl in seven NFL seasons, all be the age of 28. Big Ben and finesse go together like Hosni Mumbarak and democracy (topical humor!). Roethlisberger is never going to blow anyone away with pinpoint accuracy or seamless run-and-gun offense. The praise for a player that he "makes it look easy" is frustratingly overused, which is why it should be an indication of his style of play that this compliment has never been paid to Ben. He is a gritty, herky-jerky mass of a quarterback who rarely makes a pretty play but even more rarely makes a dumb one. My intent here is to differentiate Roethlisberger from the most obvious comparison, the most recent quarterback to win three Super Bowls, Tom Brady. Brady, who in 2005 (2004 season) won his third Super Bowl in four years (his first four years as a starter, mind you), seemed destined to win at least a couple more rings before the decade was over. At the time, the comparisons to Joe Montana, though seemingly premature, were unavoidable. The argument against that at the time (though now forgotten) was that the three Patriots championship teams were very much defensive-minded teams. Tedy Bruschi, Ty Law and Willie McGinest led a defense that throttled opponents, and while I won't discredit Brady and his various patchwork offenses by merely saying "they did enough to win," the truth is that Brady was a smart, mistake-proof quarterback who made plays when it counted, but, at least for the first two Super Bowls, was by no means a dominant offensive force. Sound familiar? Regardless of what happens on Sunday, all three of the Steelers Super Bowl teams under Roethlisberger will have been defense-first teams. The offense, while good for all three years, has not had to be amazing but has had to make plays.    So as we continue to judge Roethlisberger's career going forward, it bears mentioning that Brady wasn't always an offensive superstar, and though it has much more to do with guys like Bruschi, Law, McGinest, Ted Johnson, Mike Vrabel, Lawyer Milloy and Rodney Harrison all leaving the team or retiring at some point over the last seven years, the Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since Brady became the offensive threat he is today. Brady and Roethlisberger have never been similar people or quarterbacks in any facet there is, except for the two most important: They make big plays when their teams need them to, and they win.    Now, assuming Roethlisberger never makes the offensive leap from a numbers standpoint that Brady did (and given his quarterbacking style, it's much less likely than it was for Brady), I think he's going to need to get to five rings without Tommy winning another in order to justifiably move ahead of him on any "best quarterbacks of all time" list. Of course, that's no knock on Ben, given that Brady is arguably one of the five best quarterbacks to ever play the game and almost certainly in the top 10. All this is of course to say that these arguments/rankings can change drastically on a year-to-year basis, and, as will be the case between Saturday and Sunday, a day-to-day basis. Thus, despite my best efforts it is ultimately futile to have this discussion now, and will only be slightly less so Sunday night. We should be happy enough that, despite the cliche, we are truly living in a golden era of quarterbacks, where Brady and Manning are well on their way to cracking the top 5 of all time, Ben may have his third ring before his 29th birthday, Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers perennially put up obscene numbers that belie their ages and Drew Brees, on any given Sunday, could be the best out of any of them. These arguments and discussions, while fun and thought-provoking, ultimately mean nothing until the subject at hand calls it a career.

Unbelievably difficult trivia: Who is the punter pictured at the top of this column, and why did I choose him?

As for the discussion of whether or not the current Pittsburgh Steelers -if they win on Sunday- can be considered a NFL dynasty, I've given this a lot of thought, and my conclusion is a resounding no. A dynasty implies some form of dominance on a year-to-year basis, an extended period of time  where that team is unquestionably the team to beat. Not to keep gushing over the Patriots but they are obviously the most relevant and recent dynastic comparison. The Patriots in 2001 (the year their dynasty began) ended their regular season on a six-game winning streak, having won eight of their final nine games, their lone loss in that span being a one-touchdown defeat to NFC Champion and eventual Super Bowl opponent St. Louis. The Pats won their division, earning the 2nd overall seed in the AFC (the Steelers, interestingly enough were the top seed in the AFC), and obviously didn't lose until the following season. That season (2002, in case you're not keeping track or are remarkably horrible at counting) was the turd in the dynastic punchbowl, a 9-7 disappointment that saw the Patriots come in second in the AFC East, the first team on the outside of the AFC playoff picture looking in. In 2003 the Pats came back with a vengeance, posting a league best 14-2 record, putting together 12 straight wins to close out the regular season (winning 15 of their final 16), followed again by three playoff wins and a Super Bowl Championship. Given those credentials, the Patriots quite obviously were the team to beat that season. 2004, the last year of the New England dynasty, saw the Pats start the season 6-0, setting the record for most consecutive regular season victories (18, since surpassed by, you guessed it, the 2006-2008 Patriots) and consecutive total victories (21). That streak was stopped by the Steelers, before the Patriots reeled off victories in 8 of their final 9 regular season games, earning them another AFC East crown at 14-2 and a #2 seed in the AFC playoffs (the Steelers, believe it or not, were 15-1 during the regular season). Again the Patriots ran the table in the playoffs (including a drubbing of the Steelers in the AFC Championship) en route to their third Super Bowl in four years. Given how tedious that was to write, I can't imagine how it was to read, but bear with me. The point is that three titles in four years is grounds for the dynasty label under almost any circumstances, but certainly much more so when that team was clearly the "team to beat" in two of those three years. Yes, the Steelers had the better regular season, record-wise, in '04, but given that the Patriots were not only dominant, but set one of the great football team records in existence, I hope you'll trust me when I say that they were the NFL's unofficial top team during the regular season, and obviously in the playoffs.      As for the Steelers, the fact that this current version hasn't won back-to-back Super Bowls should end the dynasty argument right then and there. For the sake of this argument we'll assume the Steelers will win on Sunday. In their three Super Bowl seasons, the Steelers entered the playoffs as the AFC's sixth, second and second seed, respectively, the latter two years finishing as AFC North champions. Impressive to be sure, but far from dominant. None of the three teams were ever viewed as the "team to beat" and considering that none of these seasons even happened consecutively, I'd say the discussion is just about over. Of course, there's no real definition of a dynasty and the analysis above is simply based on my criteria, so take that for what it's worth. I think we need to establish some other term to recognize teams that excelled over an extended period of time, but may never have been dominant on a year-to-year basis. The Steelers of course fit that category, as would the Spurs (to give you a cross-sport example), who, with the same basic nucleus, have won four NBA titles (the first one was sans Parker and Ginobili, but it was the beginning of the Duncan-Popovich era) and are threatening for a fifth this year. But in that span the Spurs never won back-to-back titles or even back-to-back conference titles, so while this era of Spurs basketball is comparable to that of any other NBA team ever not named the Bulls, Celtics or Lakers, I would hesitate to call it a dynasty.

Ok, no more grandiose points or tangents, I promise.

Antonio Cromartie, take it easy man. Jesus. While I agree with his overarching point that both sides of the CBA need to just get in a room, suck it up and sort it out, I suspect the NFL Players Association didn't find his comments particularly helpful, and something tells me Cromartie was never exactly waiting in line to sign up as a player rep in the NFLPA. His immature spats and (over)reaction to Matt Hasselbeck's Twitter ribbing, paired with his um, less than stellar off the field reputation don't exactly make him the voice of reason in this whole CBA discussion.

Since no one else is willing to make an official ruling on this, I will. Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey will not play in the Super Bowl. Doug Legursky will be making his fifth career start in Pouncey's stead, but his first at center. Now two weeks should be plenty of time for he and Roethlisberger to get their snap count down, but it's hard to a imagine a more intimidating game to be snapping in for the first time than the Super Bowl, let alone one in which big ol' B.J. Raji will be lined up directly across from you in Green Bay's 3-4 defense.

Sunday will mark the first Super Bowl since Super Bowl II (and we all remember that one) that there will be no cheerleaders on the sidelines. The Steelers and Packers are two of six NFL teams that do not employ cheerleaders. The others? The Bears, Browns, Giants and Lions. Not to sound like your grandpa, but I, for one, am just fine without the pointless distraction that is cheerleading. I have no real problem with cheerleading, to be sure, but it certainly seems right that a Packers-Steelers Super Bowl would be void of pom-poms (but towels on the other hand, that's manly)... Ironically, this noteworthy aberration in Super Bowl history comes at the home of probably the most iconic cheerleading team in the country, if not the world.

Ya, I continue to find all of these Clay Matthews/Troy Polamalu hair comparisons both insightful and hilarious. No, not really.

Jeff Fisher and the Titans parting ways was a bit of a surprise to me, if only because the Titans announcing their intention of getting rid of Vince Young seemed to indicate that Fisher was "their guy." I guess both sides just decided "it was time" to part ways. Whatever that means.

Given his historic fall from grace over the past year, it's easy to overlook the fact that even after his first reneged retirement, a lot of people had no problem with Brett Favre. In fact, many NFL fans and media personalities took Favre's side as he played the victim to Ted Thompson's evil gm, pushing an aging legend out the door and then having the nerve to not want to trade Favre to a division rivalry. Oh, the humanity. Instead of becoming a witting hostage to Favre's whims, Thompson eventually gave first-round draft pick, long-time Favre mentee, and Packers quarterback of the future, Aaron Rodgers, the starting job and basically told Favre, in choice words, to go fuck himself. As it turns out, Brett Favre is, in fact, a bit of an ass, and it certainly stands to reason that had Thompson handled things differently, the Packers would not be in the Super Bowl on Sunday and might not have arguably the brightest future of any team in the NFL. So kudos to Thompson, whatever the hell kudos are, and may those who criticized Thompson at the time (and surely won't admit that now) recognize that said criticism was unjustified.

And finally, we discuss the actual Super Bowl. I'm really not sure which way to lean on this one, despite reading numerous columns with profound headlines like Peter King's "Why Super Bowl XLV Could Be One Of the Best Ever" (umm, doesn't every Super Bowl have the potential to be one of the best ever?). I'm not sure why such an overwhelming majority of people are taking the Packers, not because I don't think they'll win, but because I think these two teams are remarkably close in talent level. Two good offenses and defenses, both teams able to win shootouts or defensive affairs. The Steelers have more of a playoff pedigree, to be sure, while most of the Packers players had never even won a playoff game a month ago, let alone a Super Bowl. But recent history has shown that when it comes down to one game, experience only takes you so far. Of the last ten Super Bowls, six have featured a team that had won a Super Bowl in the previous three years (2001 Rams, 2003 Patriots, 2004 Patriots, 2007 Patriots, 2008 Steelers, 2009 Colts). Their opponent in each game had not been to a Super Bowl in at least 5 years (or in the case of the 2008 Cardinals or 2009 Saints, ever). Those teams are 3-3 in those games (2003 Patriots, 2004 Patriots and 2008 Steelers were the winners among those teams), so that's a pretty good indication of how much or how little stock one should put into experience as a factor in one game. I think Mike Tomlin is a better coach than Mike McCarthy but Bill Belichick was a better coach than Tom Coughlin, Mike Holmgren was supposedly a better coach than Bill Cowher and Mike Martz was supposed to be a better coach than Bill Belichick, so again, who the hell knows. The bottom line is that with football, unlike baseball, basketball or hockey, it is simply one game for everything. Anything can and often does happen in one game, and trying to predict it, much more so than predicting a best-of-seven NBA series, is virtually impossible. And so the argument to be made is who is the better team. To be honest, a week ago I probably would have said Pittsburgh, but when you consider how many injuries the Packers have had to fight through and still never see a deficit greater than 7 points, I'm inclined to take the Pack. When they go down 10-0 in the second quarter and the announcers beat you over the head with that stat, however, I may reconsider.   That being said, if I were a betting man, I'd take the Steelers +3 (I would've taken whichever team was the underdog, considering how even I believe these teams are) and the under at 45 points. But hey, your guess is as good as mine.

The  trivia question answer: Chiefs great Jerrel Wilson, who has the highest career Super Bowl punting average of all-time at a sparkling 46.5 yards. Wilson punted 11 times over the course of Super Bowl I and Super Bowl IV, the latter being the first and only Super Bowl title in Chiefs history.

Thanks everyone for reading this season, we'll get a final season wrap up edition next week. Until then, let's hope for a Super Bowl befitting of the most competitive decade of Super Bowls ever. Good luck, and Good Punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

If you bet on Caleb Hanie to throw more touchdowns than Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers combined on Sunday, you're a rich man (or woman). Hey hey kids, and welcome to a Super edition of Wednesday Morning Punter (do you see what I did there?). In this week's Punter, we take a look back at the fairly suspenseless but eventful conference championship games, some early Super Bowl storylines, the Pro Bowl (just kidding), a Stanley Hudson reference, and more. This week we'll go more in depth in looking back and analyzing the Conference championship games, and next week will be more of a quick-hit thoughts edition, with, of course, a Super Bowl preview.  Before our first football-less week since the Summer (something we all may as well get used to, and I'm not just talking about this offseason), Let's Punt.

That sound you don't hear is the Jets for the first time since Rex Ryan took over for Eric Mangini. Ironically, the one time the Jets attempted to show class, they lost. I hope that doesn't provide incentive for them to be even more boisterous next season, but something tells me it will. The Jets were squarely outplayed in Pittsburgh on Sunday. The poor play (and playcalling) by just about every Jet in the first half was enough to offset their impressive and commendable second-half comeback. Say what you want about Rex (and I've said plenty), but his players clearly respond to him. Being down 24-3 at halftime in Pittsburgh is an unenviable and daunting position for any team, let alone one that thinks so highly of itself. Ryan clearly struck a chord with what must have been a shell-shocked locker room, because the Jets came out firing in the second half, particularly the defense. Alas, the first half hole was simply to big to dig out of.

Lost in the Steelers victory analysis was how terrible Pittsburgh looked in last two quarters. As I've said many times in this space, a win's a win and certainly more so when it means a trip to the Super Bowl, but the Steelers anemic offensive second-half performance would have me a little bit concerned if I were Mike Tomlin, particularly given how well the Packers defense has been playing. 

That being said, this was the kind of impressive defense we should stop being surprised to see from the Steelers. Though Troy Polamalu still doesn't look like himself, the secondary stepped up and the d-line completely shut down Shonn Greene/LaDainian Tomlinson (as much as Tomlinson exceeded expectations this year, Greene has to be on any list of 2010's offensive disappointments). But what really stands out to me about Pittsburgh's defensive is their linebacking corps. As stellar as the Steelers linebackers have been historically -names like Lambert, Greene, Kirkland and Porter come to mind- I think this current edition is not only vastly underappreciated, but may be a group we reference down the line as one of the best linebacking squads ever. James Harrison gets his due, but LaMarr Woodley and Lawrence Timmons are two of the most overlooked defensive players in the league and James Farrior continues to be a Pro Bowl-caliber player year after year. Seeing as Brian Urlacher and Ray Lewis are still probably the most recognizable linebackers in the NFL, perhaps there's an underlying problem league-wide about how we appreciate linebackers. Defensive backs got a lot of attention for interceptions, pick-sixes and monster hits on receivers, and defensive ends are usually the ones planting quarterbacks and compiling sacks, but it seems like linebackers, who do both but do both less than d backs and d ends to their respective things (I swear that makes sense), get lost in the fray. Maybe it's just me that thinks this, but I have noticed a number of outstanding linebackers who get overlooked (the aforementioned Steelers, Patrick Willis and Jerod Mayo come to mind, among others), and I'm not quite sure why. Analysts frequently cite defensive pressure up front or lockdown coverage in the secondary as the keys to winning football games, forgetting to mention the guys who do both of those things. Again, I don't know if I'm the only one to notice this (the Giants, judging by their linebacking unit year after year obviously haven't) but I thought I'd point it out.   

Sorry for that tangent. I feel I'd be remiss in not mentioning Rashard Mendenhall's tough 121-yard, one touchdown game against one of the best run-stopping defenses in the NFL. Mendenhall is a supremely tough, talented ball carrier for whom fans have been waiting to be a bit more consistent. It's games like Sunday's that would make me more than satisfied with my running back situation if I were a Steeler fan.

I don't think anyone has brought this up, particularly since injuries are part of the game, and injuries that occur in week 1 are largely forgotten at this point in the season, but that could've been a much different football game if the Jets had Kris Jenkins to plug some of those gaps that Mendenhall was running through.

Ironically, the player who plays the most important position on the field for the Jets is seemingly the only one who carries himself the right way (yes Jets fans, that's a generalization, I realize there are other classy players on the team). After a solid but not great performance, Sanchez accepted responsibility for the loss, saying he needed to play better. He's got a lot of work to do before he becomes a great quarterback, but it certainly seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders.

As for Rexy, his postgame press conference was highlighted by his saying that the Jets fell short of their goal and the goal for next year is to win the Super Bowl, all of which, is of course, fine. He then told reporters "People wanna criticize us, then you go ahead, but you really got no right.” That comment really bothered me but instead of going on a 500-word rant, I'll let Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio eloquently and concisely sum up my feelings: "...But the Jets and Ryan crave attention.  With attention comes scrutiny.  With scrutiny comes criticism. So Ryan saying that people who choose to criticize the Jets “got no right” to do it is no less ridiculous than saying to Ryan that he’s “got no right” to seek attention. Ryan started this process with his “look at me” propensities.  If he wants people to pay attention to him and his team, he’s “got no right” to complain when folks think they see a wart or two."  Well put. I'll give Ryan the benefit of the doubt here, since he was probably coming off the toughest loss of his career, but c'mon, man.

On to the other game...

The Packers beat the Bears on Sunday more soundly than the score would indicate. The Packers impressive opening drive, capped by an Aaron Rodgers rushing td, belied how entertaining the rest of the game would be. Not much else happened in the first half, save for the fact that Jay Cutler tore his MCL, though no knew that was the case until Monday (more on that later). The second half was a bit more interesting, beginning with Aaron Rodgers throwing an interception to Urlacher and then making the Roethlisberger-esque touchdown-saving tackle, which ended up being the difference in the game. Cutler played one series in the third quarter before being yanked (or yanking himself, we may never know) for abysmal backup Todd Collins, much to the chagrin of the unenthused Bears fans. Neither team was able to do anything until Bears third-stringer Caleb Hanie came in and provided most of the scoring from that point forward: One touchdown, another impressive drive capped by a Chester Taylor touchdown, and one pick-six to B.J. Raji, who had a heckuva game. Hanie showed Jonathan Moxon-esque poise, which is more than you could say about any other Bears offensive player on Sunday, but in the end the better team won, and Green Bay is off to the Super Bowl.

Bears fans, who were left without any excuses, seeing as Hanie was infinitely more effective than Cutler on Sunday, rang incessant boos down on Cutler and have since been trashing him, along with a host of NFL players, questioning his toughness. My feeling is that an MCL tear is not an ACL but it's also not bruise. I'm no doctor but playing on an MCL is debilitating at the least and dangerous at worst. My guess is that doctors and Lovie Smith gave him the option, and after feeling it out for one series Cutler either felt he couldn't play on it or couldn't be effective on it, or both. The reality is that Cutler, plain and simple, has been a dick for the entirety of his career. When you're a dick and you win championships, no one really cares (see Roethlisberger, Ben and Jordan, Michael, among a ridiculous amount of examples). But when you're a dick and you don't win championships, all people think about is the fact that you're a dick. Thus when a somewhat controversial (I guess, I think the whole thing is a little bit overblown) incident occurs, the lack of goodwill you've accrued comes back to bite you in the ass, and the benefit of the doubt is hardly in play. This is exactly what happened to Cutler. If the same thing had happened to Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan I can guarantee this would not be nearly as big a deal. Since it's Cutler, and people see an opportunity to take a jab at him, they will.  I will say that of all the criticisms people have had of Cutler over the years, I can't recall his toughness ever being one of them. In fact, for some reason I had it in my head that he was a pretty tough dude. That of course means nothing, but my guess is, in the most important game of his life, Cutler did not just decide he didn't feel like playing anymore. As for retired players like Mark Schlereth who say that in their day they played on two broken legs and would've had to be dragged off in that situation, I don't put a ton of stock in their words. By all accounts Schlereth was a tough SOB, but every retired athlete thinks that he and the players of his era were much tougher than the ones that came after them. That's how it has always been and that's how it will always be. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but it's pretty easy to knock a guy for having to come out (especially before anyone even knew what the injury was) while you're sitting in a nice warm studio and will never have to get hit again.       Still though, you gotta love Twitter.

As good as Raji and Packers cornerback Sam Shields (two picks) were on Sunday, the unquestionable MVP of that game, in my opinion, was Packers punter Tim Masthay, who rendered Devin Hester a complete non-factor in the return game, even when he kicked directly at him. At an oft-overlooked position, Masthay had the game-changing kind of day a special teams coach dreams of (not that I know any special teams coaches, but you know, you can imagine). It seemed oddly appropriate that Masthay (in the picture above) looks like he was destined to be a Packer (and if you don't know what I mean, you've obviously never been to Wisconsin).

Despite Rodgers' mediocre performance, I assume that the Packers (as I would) are thinking they're glad he got his stinker out of the way in this round and not the Super Bowl, rather than being worried that this is a sign of things to come.

Now I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to any of you that I'm fairly pleased with this Super Bowl matchup. I've ragged on both the Jets and the Bears a lot this season, though for two very different reasons: My feeling on the Jets is startlingly similar to how Stanley Hudson feels about Michael Scott on The Office. And I quote: "You are a person I do not respect. The things you say, your actions, your methods and style, everything you do, I would do it the opposite way." Substitute "team" for "person" and I really couldn't have put it any better myself; I didn't rag on the Bears because I particularly disliked them, rather because I simply felt throughout the season that they weren't a very good football team. Despite how close they came to the Super Bowl, I don't feel my thinking was very far off. That being said, both teams got farther than I expected at the beginning of the season and both teams have to be somewhat pleased (the Bears much more so, despite a controversial sour note on which their season ended) with their seasons as a whole.

But the simple fact is that the Steelers were one of the three best teams in the AFC and the same can be said of the Packers in the NFC. Any year you get that kind of Super Bowl matchup, you can't be too disappointed.

Thanks for tuning in. Enjoy the Pro Bowl, Celtics-Lakers, college basketball or, if you're Mel Kiper or live in Alabama, the Senior Bowl, in lieu of actual football this weekend. We'll be back next week with thoughts on Roger Goodell, Antonio Cromartie, Roethlisberger's legacy, whatever meaningless Super Bowl controversies arise in the next week unrelated to team photos and a boatload more. Until then, good punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

Welcome welcome to your first playoff edition WMP of the year. We had a little bit of everything in this past weekend's four games: a blowout, a comeback, an upset and arguably the greatest postseason game a quarterback has ever played. Lets Punt.

I've got a couple leftover thoughts from last week's column that never ran, so indulge me in a few comments.

Don't blame Drew Brees for the Saints loss. The reason the Saints went from borderline playoff team in '08 to Super Bowl champs in '09 was that the defense reached another level. They didn't for a lot of this season and they certainly didn't against the Seahawks.

By blowing that game in Seattle, the Saints did all NFL fans a profound disservice. The Saints were probably one of the 5 to 7 best teams in the NFL, not to mention arguably the most entertaining team in football (as they have been since 2008). The Seahawks, to put in nicely, are not. Instead of a Saints-Bears offensive-defensive showdown in Chicago, we saw a Seattle team -who clearly felt they had already won their Super Bowl- lay over and die. Unless you're a Bears fan, there was very little entertainment value in Sunday's matinee, and now the Bears -the Bears- are one very plausible win away from a trip to the Super Bowl and the opportunity to be in the discussion of worst Super Bowl champions of all time. But that's a different story for a different time. Bottom line: The Saints ruined the NFC playoffs.

Standing in the way of Chicago's trip to North Texas is Green Bay and the seemingly electric, infallible right arm of Aaron Rodgers. All Rodgers did was go 31-36 with 366 yards, 3 td's and no picks. I don't know exactly how the quarterback rating system works, but if Rodgers' performance didn't warrant a perfect rating, no game should. The Pack got a solid performance from their D, including a demoralizing (if you're a Falcons fan) pick six from Tramon Williams off a Matt Ryan throw with under two minutes left in the first half. The score would be the third of five straight touchdowns for the Pack, stretching from the second quarter to the fourth, where the run would be halted by a too-little-too-late td reception by Roddy White. At the (extremely high) risk of sounding like a northeast sports elitist, the Falcons lost on some level justified the lack of Atlanta games I watched this season, despite the fact that they were arguably the best team in the NFC.

I know Matty Ice still hasn't won a playoff game, but Falcons fans have reason to be as excited as any NFL fanbase about the future.

I just hope the Bears-Packers game is as good as people who remember watching Bart Starr play think it's going to be.

Teams with a first-round bye this year: 2-2 In the AFC, the Steelers had a memorable comeback against division rival Baltimore in Pittsburgh. Despite a 21-7 halftime lead, the Ravens in the second half looked more bewildered than Micky Ward's mom in the condom aisle of CVS, coughing up three turnovers in the third quarter alone, while gaining just 28 second-half yards. Baltimore's two biggest offseason acquisitions couldn't have made GM Ozzie Newsome look worse in this game, with Anquan Boldin dropping a touchdown pass in the second half, and T.J. Houshmanzadeh dropping a perfect 18-yard pass on fourth-and-17 that sealed the win for the Steelers. While this was no doubt a choke job of Matt Dodge proportions by the Ravens, these are the types of games in which Mike Tomlin consistently gets the most out of his players. Despite a bizarre first half and a daunting halftime deficit, Pittsburgh hardly played like a team on the verge of panic. More than any team still alive, the Steelers are solid at every position and can never be counted out.

If I knock the Saints for doing the NFL and its fans a disservice, I certainly must do the same to the Patriots. With a perfect opportunity to show all in the the football world that cheap trash talk, off-the-field distractions, putting individual grudges and successes ahead of the team's, putting ability ahead of character and annoying everyone who doesn't root for you, will, and should always fall to humble players who show solidarity with their team and coaches and don't talk shit to opposing players (especially if they have the greatest coach and quarterback of a generation and homefield advantage), the Patriots fell on their face. Instead, New England just didn't look ready to play, failing to make any the key plays that have generally come to characterize the Patriots over the last decade (though not, as many have noted, in their last three playoff games, all losses, the most recent two at home). Tom Brady probably had his worst playoff game, well, since his last, against Baltimore last year, though his first career playoff loss, against Denver in '06 ('05 season) was the one that initially came to mind. The young Patriots defense, rightfully heralded over the second half of the season for maturing and coming together, looked almost as confused as the offense. Devin McCourty, the much lauded rookie Pro Bowl cornerback for the Pats allowed Braylon Edwards to rumble through him for a touchdown late in the first half, in what, in retrospect, was probably the key turning point in the game.

As unlikable as I continue to find them, much credit is due to the Jets. Rex Ryan and the Jets d literally made Brady look like a rookie quarterback (one of the highest compliments a defense can receive). Even when Brady had time to throw, he couldn't find anyone open, resulting in five sacks and his first interception since the Millard Fillmore administration, a badly thrown ball, though one that BenJarvus Green-Ellis could probably have caught or at least knocked down if he had put his hands up (something no one, including our trusty announcers, felt was worth mentioning). On the other side of the ball, Offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer called an impressive game, allowing Mark Sanchez to throw for 3 touchdowns in just the kind of game Sanchez is able to manage best (short fields, no big deficits, time to throw, good pass/run balance). The Jets may not be a better team than the Patriots, but they certainly were on Sunday. 

I can't help but think that football Gods have something extra bitter prepared for the Jets, who have broken just about every rule in the football Bible.   If that's the case, there's no way Nick Folk isn't involved. Perhaps Folk earned a little peace and quiet for drilling the game-winner over Indy two weeks ago, but after missing a glorified extra point in the first quarter on Sunday, Folk has to be thrilled by the nature with which the Jets won, taking pressure off of himself. Sure it was only the first quarter, but by missing, Folk gave away the momentum his own team had following the Brady interception and gave it right back the Patriots, who could (and probably should) have used it as a boost on a scoring drive.  Everyone knows a good kicker is one of the most valuable assets a playoff team can have (I know this isn't fair, but it bears mentioning that the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since Adam Vinatieri was playing in Foxboro). Of the remaining kickers in the playoffs, the Packer's Mason Crosby and Folk are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Can we stop with the "Is the Pats dynasty over?" shit? First of all, before this year the Pats had gone 5 years without winning a Super Bowl, and the year before that, four years, etc. The point being that a team can't go years at a time without winning and still be considered part of a dynasty. Still, if people think this era of Patriots football is over, they're sorely mistaken. We now know, as we should've known for a while, that if the Patriots are in the playoffs, they won't automatically be in the Super Bowl, ok? That being said, the Patriots were unquestionably the best team in the NFL during this regular season and entered the playoffs with as good a shot as any team to take home the Lombardi Trophy. It's football folks. There are no seven-game series' and the best team doesn't always win. Patriots fans have learned that the hard way since 2007 (though amazingly they continue to forget, as evidenced by the borderline smug confidence most of them had in the week leading up to Sunday's devastating loss), and fans of every team learn it at some point. Upsets happen and all you can do is put yourself in the best position to win, year after year. The Patriots, along with the Steelers and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Colts, have done that better than anyone in the NFL over the past ten years. I see little reason why that won't continue in the coming years.

With the Saints loss last week, this year marks the fifth straight season the Super Bowl champion hasn't won a playoff game. That's a pretty crazy indication of how hard it is to win in the NFL. If anything, this nugget and what I wrote directly above give me more of an appreciation for what the Patriots did from 2001-2004, and what the Cowboys, 49ers and Steelers have done during their respective dynasties.

Arite folks, short but sweet this week. The problem with only having four teams left is every storyline or info nugget has been beaten to death or rererehashed. Which brings me to Brett Favre...

Just kidding.

See you next week, when we find out who'll be playing for football's ultimate prize (well, other than the Grey Cup). Good Punting this week, and for the love of all things Tagliabulian, may we not wake up in world where the Jets and Bears are playing for a Super Bowl.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

The playoff field is locked and loaded and 20 NFL fan bases are shit out of luck, either due to bad coaching (Dallas, San Diego, Minnesota, Denver, San Francisco), players quitting on their coaches (Dallas and Minnesota again, Miami, Cleveland), choke jobs down the stretch (Houston, Giants, Jacksonville), overall organizational ineptitude (Washington, Carolina, Tennessee, Cincinnati), or a simple lack of talent (San Francisco and Carolina again, Arizona, Buffalo Detroit, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Oakland, though the latter four have reason to be hopeful for next year).

This season brought us six new division winners, the two teams successfully defending their titles being (surprise, surprise) the Colts and the Patriots, while five teams that watched the playoffs from home last year will be participating this year, those being the Falcons, Steelers, Bears, Chiefs and Seahawks. Another predictably unpredictable season in the NFL, we can only hope the playoffs follow suit.

In this week's Punter, we'll talk about a dubious record set by the Raiders, ESPN's uncharacteristic oversight of a crucial aspect of this year's NFL draft, some of my hits and misses this season and more.

The regular season is over folks, let's punt.

First let me begin with a futile attempt at predicting how the playoffs will play out.

AFC Wildcard: Colts over Jets, Ravens over Chiefs

NFC Wildcard: Packers over Eagles, Saints over Seahawks

AFC Divisional: Patriots over Ravens, Steelers over Colts

NFC Divisional: Falcons over Packers, Saints over Bears

AFC Championship: Patriots over Steelers

NFC Championship: Saints over Falcons

Super Bowl: Patriots over Saints

Now that we have that meaningless and ultimately humbling exercise out of the way, let's move on.

Oh, so that's why people were up in arms over NBC's decision to flex the division-deciding game between Seattle and St. Louis to the Sunday night game. As it turns out, a game between to mediocre-at-best (for now) teams will be, well, mediocre at best. Even that seems like too much credit to give the Snoozefest in Seattle that lacked the Sam Bradford coming out party many of us were expecting/hoping to see and instead put a merciful end to play within the worst division in NFL history. After beating up on a mostly lackluster Pac-10 for so long at USC, it only seems appropriate that Pete Carrol's 7-9 team would win the war of attrition in this year's NFC West and have the bashful honor of hosting the 11-5 Saints in the first (official) round of the playoffs. Carrol and Matt Hasselbeck/Charlie Whitehurst have the opportunity to shut a lot of people (i.e. everyone who watches football outside of Seattle) up this Saturday afternoon, but I'm just not seeing it.

The Oakland Raiders became the first team in the Super Bowl era to sweep their division and not make the playoffs. Pretty crazy. What's crazier is that the Raiders came in third in the division behind Kansas City (2-4 in the division) and San Diego (3-3). I guess that's what happens when you go 2-8 against every other team you play.

Still though, even the most ardent Jason Campbell supporter couldn't have envisioned a much better season for Oakland than 8-8. The Tom Cable firing simply makes no sense to me, considering how young this team is and how well they played for most of the season. Then again, I probably should have stopped trying to make sense of Al Davis' decisions a long time ago   (cue the shot of Lane Kiffin nodding fervently).

When a ref explains a call and then says "by rule" and further explains the penalty, isn't that pretty redundant (then again, so is the term "pretty redundant"). But isn't it pretty much assumed that when a ref makes a call, he's doing it "by rule." I mean, say what you want about the state of officiating in the NFL (pretty good by officiating standards in my opinion), but I don't think anyone is assuming the refs are just making up rules on the fly, right? Ed, if you're reading this, we get it, no "by rule" disclaimer necessary.

So we're getting our usual NFL prospect and draft insights that we've come to expect from Mel Kiper, Todd McShay et al., but there seems to be a glaring omission in the discussion of which underclassmen are likely to jump to the NFL. Bueller? Anybody? Why is no one mentioning the fact that we're probably not going to have an NFL season next year, as it relates to players going pro? I have not heard this referenced once. Andrew Luck is a different case than most, because he knows he'll be the no. 1 pick in the draft and that comes with no. 1-pick-in-the-draft guaranteed money, whether he plays in 2011 or not. But for other players, do they think playing another year will make them a better player and boost their draft stock, while all the pros are taking the year off? Even if they feel their stock may not get higher do they realize that they will simply be better players by playing in college for another year than by being drafted but not playing in the NFL in 2011? Is this a factor? What are agents/coaches/Cam Newton's father/Marcus Dupree's minister/other greedy scumbags masquerading members of the clergy telling these kids?  HOW COME NO ONE IS WRITING ABOUT THIS??

Good for the Bears for trying to win that game at Green Bay. I think we're slowly moving toward a point where conventional wisdom is going to be that a team with it's playoff seed locked is still going to try to win a week 17 game. The three people we have to thank for that?   1. Tom Coughlin, for trying to beat the Patriots in week 17 in '07, and in the process giving his team a spark that was crucial in their Super Bowl run. 2. Bill Belichick for going all out to keep the undefeated streak alive and forcing Coughlin's hand in the first place. 3. Jim Caldwell for resting the Colts for two straight weeks last season and not winning the Super Bowl despite being the favorite.

Speaking of the Bears, anyone else a little surprised that Jay Cutler has never played a playoff game before? When you consider that he went to Vanderbilt, which never played in one of those SEC "for all intents and purposes, this is a playoff game for them" type games, it'll make his debut that much more interesting (though he did lose to San Diego in the division-deciding, essentially-a-playoff last game of the season two years ago, completing Denver's historic collapse).

I didn't think Titans owner Bud Adams had it in him, but I don't think he'll live to regret his decision to back coach Jeff Fisher and get rid of Vince Young, who, aside from being a whiny, lazy, undeveloped headcase, just wasn't very good. Young was Adams' boy, the guy Adams thought would be quarterbacking Tennessee for a long time to come, so I'm sure this wasn't an easy decision for him. All the more reason to laud him for what was clearly the right choice.

A look at some of my good and bad predictions from the first few weeks of the season  after the jump...

Now for a look at the Punter in review. I've taken a look back at my posts from weeks 1-8 and taken out some good nuggets where I was either dead on or way off, with a little wiggle room in between. I've taken the direct quote along with the NFL week after which I wrote it, so you can judge for yourself (you know, since no one ever gets misquoted). I've given myself a little less credit for things that might have been thought by a lot of others as well, but for the most part I tried not to include things that were too obvious.  Enjoy.

Downed Inside the 5

"Clay Matthews is this years Jared Allen." Week 1

"The biggest thing I’m taking away from this game however, is how rusty Brett Favre looked. I realize a lot of people were saying the same thing a year ago, but this ankle problem didn’t exist last year, and it certainly sounds like it’s of the lingering variety. This is the year Favre finally misses a start. You heard it here first (or maybe fourth or fifth, but still)." Week 1

"And speaking of the Falcons… Matt Ryan and his team may be having the season this year that everyone expected last year." Week 3

"I simply will never understand how a punter can become a starter for a professional football team and not be good. Giants punter Matt Dodge is the inspiration behind this mini-rant, but it happens every year to at least one or two teams (Patriots Super Bowl champion punter Ken Walter comes to mind as well). How do you get to the professional level and simply not be good?" Week 4      Little did I know Dodge would play a mighty big hand in ruining the Giants season.

"Any good nicknames for the Giants menacing d-line? 5 knocked out qb’s in 5 weeks (all of them legal by the way). Something tells me if the Vikings were playing the Giants this week instead of the Patriots, Brett Favre’s streak would come to an end." Week 7. The team Favre sat out against, ending his streak? The Giants, in week 14. He would regrettably start the following week, in what would ultimately be his last game played.

Touchbacks

"Foster: Australian for holy shit. I was a big buyer of the Texans no. 1 running back in fantasy drafts, but you’re a damned liar if you say you saw this coming." Week 1. This quote may not make it clear, but I was a huge believer in Foster before the season started.

"Sorry for starting off with a fantasy note, and it’s not a big f-you to Michael “22 yards/game” Crabtree (ok, I guess it is), but rather a note about the most coveted free agent I can ever remember in fantasy football: Brandon Jackson. Good thing he scored a touchdown because 11 rushes for 29 yards is not what people who invested their entire free agent budget on Jackson (actually happened in one of my leagues) were looking for. If he’s putting up 2.6 y/c against the Bills, what does he think he’s going to be able to do against the Cowboys, Jets and Giants later this season?" Week 2

"No one was more impressed with Alex Smith’s play down the stretch Monday night against the Saints, but I don’t know if I’m buying the “maybe we’re finally seeing what kind of quarterback Alex Smith really is” bandwagon. If it’s a no. 1 draft pick’s fifth season (he missed all of ‘08) and we’re still wondering what kind of player he is, don’t we know exactly what kind of player he is?" Week 2

"I’ve seen a lot of Cameron Wake this season, and I don’t watch the Dolphins much. Dude can flat-out bring it (is what Stuart Scott would say)." Week 4 (Wake is a Pro Bowler and finished 3rd in the league in sacks)

Kicked it right to DeSean Jackson instead of out of bounds

"As it is, Vick will be the starter on Sunday and you have to wonder what is really going through owner Jeffrey Laurie’s head. If Vick sucks and the Eagles lose, the debate is over and Kolb comes back without a complaint. If Vick plays as well as he did last weekend however, we have an interesting scenario on our hands. Philly fans and Skip Bayless will be calling for Vick to start the rest of the season, which would be devastating for the development (not to mention confidence) of young Kolb. You have to think Reid and Laurie are rooting for an old-fashioned defensive victory, void of the flash and excitement that earned Vick so many fans not so long ago." Week 1   One of many shortsighted comments I made about Vick/the Eagles quarterback situation in the early weeks of the season.

"The bottom line here is that the Patriots are a worse team than than they were two days ago. Much like Richard Seymour getting traded before the start of last season (and like virtually all of Belichick’s moves), this was a move made with the future in mind." Week 4, right after the Patriots traded Randy Moss for a third-round pick. If it's not clear, I was referring to the long-term future of the franchise, not "later this season" future.

"Perhaps team chemistry will improve, but the (Patriots) offense -the weak link in Monday’s beatdown of Miami- just got worse." Week 4

"...and the Redskins are better than the Bears." Week 7  In reality there were a host of comments I made about the Bears that might belong in this space, and while I think I was well within reason to say that the Redskins were Better than the Bears three days after the Redskins beat the Bears, this was the one comment about the Bears I wrote that turned out to be clearly wrong. Most of my other knocks on the Bears were in regard to Cutler being inconsistent and the o-line not being good enough for the Bears to make a deep run, neither of which have been proven wrong to this point.

"Bottom line, he’s been severely underachieving since that bewildering start, and while I feel confident he’ll survive this season, the Broncos are going to have to make great strides in the remaining 9 weeks in order to go into next season on the not-really-but-may-as-well-be called cold seat." Week 7       Well I was right that he sucked, wrong that he'd make it through the season.

"The Pats may be the default no. 1 team in everyone’s power rankings (that’s a different rant for a different time), but from someone who’s watched every Pats game this season, I’d be worried if I was a New England fan. Brady simply has not looked very good this year, at least by his standards. The Pats keep finding a way to win, and there’s certainly something to be said for that, but neither the offense nor the defense is reliable on a game-to-game basis." Week 8    In fairness, the Patriots and Brady, at the time, did not resemble the juggernaut they became over the last half of the season. But ya, if I were a Pats fan, I wouldn't be too worried. Certainly no more worried than fans of any other team.

Well I hope you enjoyed that retrospective. As usual, you've been a great audience. We'll try to get to my visionist's history of this year's playoff teams before Saturday, but no promises. Until then, or next week, happy playoffs, and good Punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

One last final last week to shore up a couple playoff spots, crown the winner of the worst division in NFL history and say good riddance once and for all to Brett Favre. In this week's Punter, the Carolina Panthers are on the clock, the NFL's aggressive Brett Favre investigation comes to a merciful end, Brandon Meriweather makes the Pro Bowl and how one team has proven that quick-fix head coaching hires may be nothing more than a myth. Without further ado, let's punt.

Though a lot of seed shifting is likely to occur this weekend, 5 of the 8 playoff teams are already locked in. The Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Chiefs and Jets are all dancing in the AFC, while the AFC South winner is yet do be determined. The Jaguars have been a gritty team down the stretch, but they must win at Houston and have the Colts lose at home against Tennessee in order to knock Indy out of the playoffs for the first time since Alan Ameche stopped running off tackle for them. While unlikely, I don't totally buy into the "they have nothing to play for" argument. A team that is in the playoffs and has their seed locked is one thing, but a team so far removed from the playoff picture, like the Titans, should revel in the opportunity to play in a meaningful, relevant game. If the Titans, a team oft-cited over the second half of the season as having quit and performed well below expectations can't get up for the opportunity to knock the longtime AFC South standard bearer out of the playoffs in what might be their longest-tenured coach in the league's last game, then they have about as much pride as Tony Soprano when AJ tries to kill himself. The Vikings-Eagles game last night was a fairly different situation, but featured a mediocre team with nothing to play for that came out firing and shocked a much-hyped division winner. It does happen.

As for the NFC, the Falcons, Bears, Eagles and Saints are in while two spots remain undecided. The Packers have the inside track to the second wild card seed (the first is either Atlanta or New Orleans), as all they need to do is beat the Bears in Green Bay and they're in. The Giants need to win at Washington and have the Packers lose, the odds of which took a big hit Tuesday night as Philly's loss clinched the 2 seed in the NFC for Chicago, meaning the Bears technically have nothing to play for. Still, I find it hard to imagine the Bears, a historically gritty, tough-minded team, are just going to roll over for a division rival with an opportunity to sweep the NFC North on the line. Sure, the line should probably shift a point or two in the Packers direction, but this game is no gimme.

The last playoff spot will be awarded to the winner of Sunday night's Seahawks (6-9) vs. Rams (7-8) game, along with the unenviable answer to the trivia question of who won the worst division in NFL history?. Count me among the seemingly few who are excited for this game. If the definition of a playoff game is that the winner advances to the next elimination round and the loser's season ends, then Sam Bradford and Charlie Whitehurst will be dueling in this season's first playoff game (yes that sounded as weird in my head as it does on paper). More than a few people were up in arms over NBC's announcement that they were going to flex the NFC West showdown to the Sunday night game. I think this makes complete sense from NBC's standpoint, seeing as it is the only game that will definitely have playoff implications, we finally get a chance to see Sam Bradford and Steven Jackson (I know, right?) in prime time, and, as mentioned above, it's a playoff game. If you love the game of football, I don't really understand what there is to complain about.

On a related note, I think it's best if media folks will stop referring to the division as "the wild NFC West." If we're going to call it anything other than the NFC West, how 'bout "the NFC West that's so shitty it's become mildly interesting"?

So after all the disciplinary actions, rah-rah speeches and that terrifying wooden cross around his neck, it turns out Mike Singletary just isn't a very good head coach.

The last few years I've oft found myself wondering how it is that the Colts and Patriots manage to play each other every single year. "Isn't there a very specific system that determines NFL schedules?," I thought to myself. "Is the NFL just rewriting the rules so they can get the highest-rated matchup on tv every year?" Well, as luck (or thousands of other people wondering the same thing) would have it, Peter King provided the interesting and uncanny explanation in his Monday Morning Quarterback column: "Scheduling formulas are set years in advance, most often pairing teams from other divisions in the same conference against teams finishing in the same slot. The Patriots and Colts have met every year since 2003. So go back to 2002, and look at their places in the standings. Both finished second in their divisions 2002, then first in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, then second in 2008, then first in 2009, and then -- if the Colts win or Jags lose next week -- they'll both finish first in 2010. No gerrymandering there, just very, very odd that two teams finish in the same spot in the standings nine years running."      So there you have it. On a side note, I know I tend to add a King insight into this space fairly often. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there's no NFL writer that is more in-the-know than King, or one that knows how to craft an insightful and well-written column based upon this information. Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen certainly have their finger permanently affixed the pulse the NFL, but their job is to find information and get it out as soon as possible. By working for Sports Illustrated rather than ESPN, King has the luxury of actually writing, not just distributing information one paragraph at a time. Frankly, if you consider yourself a real NFL fan, you're doing yourself a profound disservice by not reading King, particularly MMQB.

Michael Turner picked a bad time to stop rushing effectively in this week's loss to the Saints. Not only did the Falcons fail to clinch the top spot in the NFC as a result, but thousands of fantasy leagues were likely won or lost based on Turner's 48-yard, one fumble lost performance.

Carolina Panthers, you are now on the clock. Andrew Luck, being the number one pick in the draft is completely in your control right now. Not really sure what he's going to do, but Carolina's decision becomes a lot hazier if Luck isn't in the pool.

If I want to shoot myself in the face every time I listen to Matt Millen and Joe Theismann call a football game, I can't imagine how Bob Papa must feel everytime he has to do the play-by-play between the two of them. I hope the NFL Network is rewarding him handsomely.

The Pro Bowl rosters were announced on Tuesday and, given that not everyone deserving of the honor can be named to the roster, I have no real issues save for one. Having watched virtually every Patriots game this year, I honestly have no explanation for Brandon Meriweather being elected. Not only does he not help the Pats as a starting safety, but quite often he hurts the team, whether he's going for the big hit (and penalty) instead of the ball, taking his corners out of the play with bad angles or any of the other on-the-field brainfarts that characterize talented but dumb football players (See: The U). I don't even know who should've been picked ahead of Meriweather but just about any other starting AFC safety would've done.     This brings me to my broader point, however, that being named a Pro Bowler really means nothing. The fact that Meriweather has now been named to more Pro Bowls than Rodney Harrison was in his entire career should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of this "honor." Much like MLB Gold Glove awards and NBA all-star fan voting, award recognition is based almost entirely on name (unless you think Derek Jeter was really the best defensive shortstop in the AL this year).   Furthermore, by the time players bow out of the Pro Bowl due to injury, "injury," not attending enough practice (happened to Bryant McKinnie last year), or because they'll be playing in the Super Bowl, you essentially have a whole other team comprised of replacement players. Yet those replacement players will go down as "Pro Bowlers" without so much as an asterisk. Eventually, it feels like every starter in the league is a Pro Bowler.    Let's take last year for example. Philip Rivers, Tom Brady, Wes Welker, Jake Long, Brian Cushing, Jairus Byrd, Nate Keading, Brett Favre, Steven Jackson, Larry Fitzgerald, Sidney Rice, Andre Gurode, Kevin Williams, Lance Briggs, Charles Woodson, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and Patrick Willis were all named Pro Bowlers but didn't play in the Pro Bowl due to injury. Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Antoine Bethea, Drew Brees, Jonathan Stinchcomb, Jahri Evans, Jonathan Goodwin, Jonathan Vilma, Darren Sharper and Roman Harper were all named to the Pro Bowl but didn't play because they were in the Super Bowl. That means by my count, 31 players elected to the Pro Bowl not only didn't play in the Pro Bowl but had replacements fill their spot (I didn't include McKinnie since I don't know for sure that he was replaced). That's 62 Pro Bowlers right off the bat for last year's game, and that's not even including the original players named to the Pro Bowl who actually played in it.   Still don't see my point? Well, I got nothing else, so I don't know what to tell ya.

Brett Favre's punishment, the best sports days of the year, the NFL coaching landscape and more, after the jump...

Well done, Joe Webb. Let the Minnesota quarterback controversy begin.

So Brett Favre got fined $50,000 for "failure to cooperate" in the Jenn Sterger investigation (for the sake of clarity, I included a picture of Sterger, so you, my beloved readers wouldn't confuse her for another Jenn Sterger) 

  Now it's fairly easy to criticize the NFL for not really aggressively investigating this case and giving Favre essentially a slap on the wrist. That being said, it's better that the NFL do this now, than continue to drag out the investigation, finally concluding that they don't have enough evidence to do anything to Favre, who's season would have been long over anyway. At least this way, they found a reason to punish Favre (albeit minimally) while the season is still going on, thus making it fairly public, which is what Favre deserves. My one issue is that it's $50,000. I'm a big believer in the theory that fines should be handed out based on salary, just like income tax. A $50,000 fine would be a lot for a third-round rookie, but given that Favre makes over $11,000 per minute of football, he's giving up less than 5 minutes worth of pay. Hardly a number that's going to make any other football player in the middle of an investigation "cooperate."

With four coaches already being canned this year, and Jeff Fisher, Tom Coughlin, Gary Kubiak, Marvin Lewis and John Fox all on the proverbial hot seat, much has been rumored regarding who may replace the potentially fired coaches. Names like Cowher, Gruden and Harbaugh get thrown around the most since all are reasonably young, Cowher and Gruden each have a Super Bowl ring a pretty solid track record, and Harbaugh is arguably the hottest coach in college football. My message on this subject is simple: Don't Believe the Hype. I'm not saying that Cowher, Gruden and Harbuagh aren't going to be successful coaches in their next NFL head coaching stint (no, I did not feel the need to use "if" in any of their cases), but adding a storied or hyped or previously successful coach is by no means a quick-fix solution, as the fans of whichever teams those coaches sign with will surely expect. Tony Dungy basically built a stellar Tampa Bay team from scratch, left them for the Colts and Gruden stepped in and won a Super Bowl. Gruden was a fantastic coach, but much of the work had already been done for him. Bill Cowher finally won a Super Bowl team in his 14th (second to last) season with the Steelers. While Cowher had unparalleled success (from a wins and losses and division championships standpoint) in that time, his teams were .500 in the playoffs prior to the Super Bowl year. The fact that Mike Tomlin stepped in the next year and immediately won the Super Bowl may or may not reflect how good a coach Cowher was. He certainly built a great team, but the ease with which Tomlin won a Super Bowl in his first year was eye-opening. (I know, the blurbs about Gruden and Cowher seem contradictory, but my point is that a lot more factors go into winning a Super Bowl than simply having a good-or great- coach). Finally Harbaugh, plain and simple has never been the head coach of an NFL team.            I'm sure there are more examples to back up my position than the opposing one, including several from one team in the last decade alone. Ladies and gentlemen, your 21st century Washington Redskins! The Redskins started the decade with the hiring of Marty Schottenheimer, a hiring I don't think belongs in this category, as Marty was an established, current head coach, and one who I don't think was incredibly hyped coming in. Two years later, however, the 'Skins made the bold and very hyped hire of longtime Florida Gators coach Steve Spurrier. The Ol' Ball Coach was given the largest coaching contract in NFL history to that point (5 years/$25 M) despite the fact that his only professional coaching experience was a three-season stint as head coach of the USFL's Tampa Bay Bandits for three years (1983-85) before the league dissolved. A Patrick Ramsey, Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews later, the Redskins were no better off under Spurrier, and he resigned after two lackluster years. Dan Snyder and his braintrust's next great idea in 2004 was to hire a 64-year-old man who hadn't coached football in 11 years. Given that said coach was Joe Gibbs, who in his first stint with Washington ('81-'92) won three Super Bowls, this too was a hyped coaching hire. In Gibbs four seasons back at the helm, the Redskins went 30-34 in the regular season and 1-2 in the playoffs. The game had clearly passed Gibbs by, and another coaching hire was imminent. The next two disappointing years saw Jim Zorn at the helm, the former Seahawks quarterbacks coach with no prior head coaching experience at any level. Given his lack of credentials, this too was less hyped than the hirings before and after him. Finally, going into the 2010 season, Washington finally had its savior. Mike Shanahan, the longtime head coach of the Denver Broncos who led Denver to back-to-back Super Bowl victories in the late 90s had been signed by Dan Snyder. Lauded for his offensive genius, the fact that Denver hadn't had a championship-caliber team in a weak division since John Elway retired following the '98 season had to have been mere coincidence. Shanahan was the man who was going to return the Redskins to glory, or so the media and Dan Snyder had everyone believe. This season, Shanahan's first in Washington has been nothing short of a disaster. The Albert Haynesworth controversy may not have been Shanahan's fault, but he certainly brought a lot more negative attention to Washington than was necessary. The Redskins currently sit at 6-9 and have seemingly been out of the playoff hunt since week 2. Aside from a poor record, Shanahan has been involved in multiple controversies involving quarterback Donovan McNabb, whom Shanahan traded for, it should be noted. Shanahan first benched McNabb for Rex Grossman for a potential game-winning drive against Detroit (needless to say, the Redskins didn't win the game) later offering multiple, unrelated reasons for his decision, in one of the stranger weeks by a head coach this year. Then, two weeks ago, Shanahan spontaneously decided that Grossman would be the starter for the final three games of the season, and that McNabb, wouldn't even be the backup, but the third-string quarterback. So, after one year (not even), offensive genius Mike Shanahan had a terrible season on the field, made an awful trade, has to have created some unrest in the locker room and the frontrunner to be his starting quarterback next year is Rex Grossman. Yikes.   Trust me, the 21st century history of the Washington Redskins was no more exciting for me to write than for you to read, but it illustrates my point, namely that head coaching in the NFL is as much about the situation as it is about the coaches (check out Bill Belichick's tenure in Cleveland. Not exactly coach-of-the-century stuff). The right combination of coach and team is required for a new head coach to make an immediate impact, and that is rare. The Redskins organization has pretty much been a disaster since Dan Synder bought the team in 1999. From ownership to the front office to the coaches to the players, very little has gone right in Washington. At some point Snyder has to look in the mirror. In today's NFL some coaches aren't really given a fair chance to succeed given the team they're required to turn around. Now perhaps Gruden and Cowher will be different, as they'll basically be able to pick whichever job opening they want, as opposed to most coaches who have to interview hard for the opportunity, thus allowing them to pick the situation that they think is best for them. But coaches are after all just coaches, and for a fan base to expect that one head coaching hire is going to completely turn around their team in a season or two is at best premature and at worst profoundly naive.  My guess is that none of the three return to coaching next year (if there is a next year). It sounds like Gruden will stay in the booth for one more year. Cowher is rumored to be interested in the Giants and Texans jobs above all others, and my feeling that both Coughlin and Kubiak will be given at least one more year by their teams has me convinced that Cowher too will spend one more year away from the sidelines (the literal sidelines. He'll be on the proverbial sidelines, as in not in the NFL). Harbaugh I'm less sure about. As is the case with Cowher and Gruden a lot depends on exactly which jobs are available, but with Harbaugh, I think Andrew Luck's decision may play a factor.

The best days in sports (in no particular order) are Opening Day, the day in early April where we get the Final 4, baseball, hockey and basketball, the first day of the college and pro football seasons, the day in late October/early November where we get the NFL, the World Series, hockey and the first week or so of basketball, Thanksgiving and perhaps the greatest of all, New Year's Day. The NHL Winter Classic has been an outstanding addition to the first day of relevant bowl games, featuring the Gator, Outback and Capital One Bowls (the latter two have turned into very good competitive bowls over the last few years), the Fiesta Bowl (a regrettable matchup this year (Oklahoma vs. UConn (blah)) in what is usually a great game) and of course, the Grandaddy of them all, the Rose Bowl. All this on top of a standard slate of NHL and NBA games. Lovely.   White it's New Years Eve that always gets the hype, New Years Day is the true champion, in my humble opinion. 

Whatever your preference is, enjoy both. You earned it loyal readers. See you in the new year with a locked and loaded NFL playoff slate for our season-in-review edition of WMP. Until then, Happy New Year, and Good Punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

As the NFL season winds down to its final two weeks, we know as much, and as little, as ever. No teams are struggling with the conundrum of whether to rest their players or not, as the playoff picture remains far from cleared up.

In this week's Punter, I start to turn the corner on the Bears, we'll discuss the Meltdown at the Meadowlands, my (hopefully last) take on Brett Favre, and wow, have I mentioned you've got beautiful feet?  Let's punt.

All season long, the talk of parity and everyone beating everyone has centered around the notion that there are no truly great teams this year (perhaps in recent weeks, some would concede that the Patriots may be the exception, but I digress). From what I've seen, however, I'm inclined to say that the opposite is true: There are very few really bad teams. The adage "On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team" is as old as the NFL itself, and perhaps never more true than in 2010. In a season in which the Browns crushed the league-leading Patriots, the 3-win Bengals trumped the Ravens and the Saints lost to the inept Cardinals, the unpredictability of the week-to-week slate is more the result of a common degree of competency among NFL teams than a lack of greatness. The Panthers, almost certainly the worst team in the league, may also be the only team lacking anything resembling what college analysts would call a "signature win."  My point is that we're witnessing one of the most interesting seasons in the history of the league. Instead of blaming parity on "a lack of great teams," let's revel in the unpredictability of a season defined by talent across the board, and, what we as fans should want more than anything, no easy outs.    

What a stupid non-story story that came out of Minneapolis this past week. Strapped with the unimaginable burden of having to play a football game outside, Vikings players, most notably punter Chris Kluwe complained about their playing surface at TCF Bank Stadium, with Kluwe calling it "unplayable." For a team that plays outdoors in Green Bay and Chicago every year, it was pretty lame to hear complaints about the playing conditions. Sure, Brett Favre was concussed after being hit hard and slammed into the turf, but I've seen more debilitating concussions this season from much lesser hits (like Aaron Rodgers' ), so it's hard to blame the field. The fact that there were no other serious injuries (from what I recall at least) is probably more telling of the "unplayable" field than anything else.

Gotta love Bud Grant. Something tells me he and Kluwe didn't have much to talk about after the game.

Speaking of Favre, virtually every media talking head has been very reluctant to give his or her opinion on whether Favre will actually retire for good after this season. It's sort of tough to blame them for obvious reasons, I suppose, but, I mean, come on. Let me be the first person to GUARANTEE that Brett Favre does not play in the NFL next season. Anyone that's watched Favre this season has seen him take an absolute beating, more than a few times hobbling off the field like an old baseball legend coming back 40 years after his retirement to throw the ceremonial first pitch from halfway between the pitcher's mound and home plate, who needs two people to hold on to as he slowly walks back to the dugout.  When Favre signed with the Jets for the 2008 season, he was sure he had plenty of football left and wanted to show up Packers GM Ted Thompson, whom Favre felt had unfairly pushed him away from the Packers. On some levels, that made sense. After a disappointing season in which Favre was hobbled by a couple nagging injuries and was surrounded by a mediocre cast, he again knew he had more and better football left in the tank. The opportunity to join the Vikings the following year could not have been more perfect, as far as Favre was concerned. First of all, the Vikings were more than willing to name Favre the starter as soon as he signed the dotted line (likely before, actually), something very few teams were willing to do. Secondly, Favre would play the Packers twice a season, giving him the opportunity to stick it in Thompson's face. Lastly, and hopefully most importantly to Favre, he was coming to a very talented Vikings team, one that many believed was just a good quarterback away from being a Super Bowl contender. On a lot of levels, that made sense. Favre proceeded to have one of the best seasons of his career. A crucial brainfart by Favre in the waning minutes of the NFC championship game may have cost the Vikings a Super Bowl appearance, but, whether Favre and Vikings fans will admit it or not, the season was as successful as most people could have hoped. Favre again retired, only to be coaxed back into playing this season by a rather pathetic display from teammates who flew down to Mississippi and flew back with Favre in tow, having convinced him to play one more season. Favre had had a career year the season before and was so close to the Super Bowl he could taste it.  He had the same team in front of him and, with a season of familiarity under his belt, would have an even better shot at a Super Bowl than the previous year. Or so he thought (he wasn't alone, by the way). On some levels, this too made sense.   But what about now? Favre had one of the most miserable and disappointing seasons of his career this year. The Vikings were one of the biggest embarrassments in the league, Favre took maybe the biggest beating of his career, his consecutive games started streak-by all accounts, his most coveted record- was finally halted, not due to retirement, but to injury (and possibly the justified fear of the Giants pass rush), he's been in the midst of a sexual harassment scandal that has been shadowing him all season, and oh, by the way, he's had one of the worst statistical seasons of his career, posting his worst touchdown-interception ratio since he was a Falcon and looking like a shell of his 2009 self. So, really why would he come back again? At this point even Favre should know that his body can't take the beating anymore, that he's not an elite quarterback anymore, that the Vikings next year may not be a Super Bowl caliber team regardless of who's playing quarterback, that there's a good chance the Jenn Sterger investigation will still be hovering over him next year and that at this point, the only thing he can do in the interest of self-preservation (both literal and image-wise) is to disappear for a while.  I'm not sure he's thrown his last pass, as it certainly wouldn't surprise me to see him lined up under center for the Vikings last game of the season, but Brett Favre will not be in the NFL next year.

Yes, I do realize how hypocritical I am by criticizing the media for obsessing about Favre, whil I've probably talked about Favre more than any other individual in this space. If it makes it any better, usually when discussing Favre, I do so in the in relation to how the media is portraying the story at hand. If it makes it any better.

Which leads me to a brief note on the Favre-Sterger investigation (I promise it'll be brief). Since Roger Goodell has taken the reins of NFL Commissioner, I've been largely supportive of his messages and actions. While I think the fines and crackdown on violent hits and, well, just about any hit on a quarterback are getting out of hand, I think Goodell's actions and rulings on players' off-the-field incidents have by and large been appropriate. The Favre-Sterger incident is the exception. It seems quite obvious to me, and anyone else who has paid this story even a little attention, that Goodell has no intention, nor has he ever, of reprimanding Favre for what I think we all know he did. The NFL's investigation, intially deemed "aggressive" (by the NFL) has been absolutely dragging it's feet through the mud, so as to avoid making the the league look bad by having its Golden Boy (another thing I don't understand. Why the NFL still thinks that Favre is the universally beloved figure he was when he was a Packer) missing games or being fined for an embarrassing sex (or sexual) scandal. The NFL claims it is still gathering evidence, which obviously means that they hope Favre retires and that'll be that. By doing so, and hoping that eventually everyone will just forget about all this, the NFL is sending a not-so-subtle message to anyone that's really paying attention that some players are in fact above the (NFL) law. Boo, I say.

Much more, but nothing about Brett Favre, after the jump.

Despite what was a slight hiccup against a Packer team missing their quarterback, the Patriots, and Tom Brady in particular, look pretty unstoppable. I was critical of Brady for the first half of the season, as, despite his impressive numbers, he didn't look particularly sharp if you actually watched the games. Always a great game manager, Brady was missing his deep throws and just looked less comfortable than the pre-knee injury Brady, as I thought he did for most of last year as well. It turns out, all he needed was for Randy Moss to take a hike, because he's been pretty lights-out since, and sits as the deserved frontrunner for the MVP this season. That being said, if you haven't been watching Brady during his streak of 268 consecutive pass attempts without an interception, I implore you to throw that stat out the window. In the past three weeks alone, he's thrown at least six balls that could've, if not should've been picked. Yes, every quarterback has balls that should be intercepted but are dropped, and 268 straight passes is impressive under any circumstances, but it's not like Brady has shown robot-like precision to the point that defensive backs don't have a chance on any of his balls.

Very interesting stat from Kerry Byrne's SI.com article comparing Peyton Manning to Tom Brady (one of the better, agenda-less Manning-Brady comparison articles I've read, actually): The last guy to lead the league in passing yards and win a championship was Johnny Unitas back in 1959.       Ya, so that's before they even started playing the Super Bowl. I don't think that stat means anything, just thought it was interesting.

This Rex Ryan and his wife's foot fetish thing is just weird. I don't really know how else to describe it.

That Giants collapse was one for the ages, one of the worst regular season stomach-punch losses (to steal a Bill Simmons term) I've seen in a long time. Giants rookie punter Matt Dodge, quite frankly sucks, and has since game one of this year. Giants fans have been calling for his head since the first punt he shanked in September, and it seems they've all been justified in their claims after Dodge made one of the most boneheaded plays by any player this season. Giants coach Tom Coughlin has backed Dodge (in public at least) all season, with Giants brass believing that he has the raw skills to become a great punter. While I personally don't think that's enough to offset someone who consistently buckles under pressure, it is, unfortunately, not my decision to make. Dodge said on Monday that he's still confident following the loss, which makes absolutely no sense considering he was never confident to begin with. Still, I think Dodge has become a victim of the Bill Buckner treatment. Many casual sports fans recognize Bill Buckner as the first baseman who blew a sure Red Sox World Series victory by letting a ball roll through his legs, allowing the Mets to score the game-winning run in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. What most people either don't know or choose to ignore is that Red Sox pitching had already given up two runs in the bottom of the 10th inning, allowing the Mets to tie the game. In essence, the game had already been blown before Buckner's blunder, he just made it official. What fans also don't know or choose to ignore is that that game merely tied the series and the Red Sox had a 3-run lead going into the bottom of the 6th inning in game 7. Essentially, while Buckner is history's goat, plenty happened before and after his error that resulted in the Red Sox loss.     Similary, the Giants had already given up a 21-point lead with seven minutes left in the game when Dodge decided to punt straight at the most dangerous kick returner in the NFL (sorry Bears fans, I think he may be slightly better than Devin Hester, though I you could justifiably argue either way). Dodge's boner (because anytime you can use the word boner in a non-sexual context, you really have to) was merely the last straw, the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, if you will, the final means to the inevitable.   Like the '86 Red Sox, the Giants have the opportunity to turn their season around yet. They still control their own destiny, and likely only need to win one of their next two games (at Green Bay, at Washington) to make the playoffs. Should they fail to do so, Sunday's game, and Dodge's punt in particular will be remembered as the catalysts for the season collapse, but if this team has any heart, pride and leadership, they'll forget Sunday and make the playoffs.         What seems to be forgotten is how well the Giants played for 52 minutes of the game. I'll be the first person to point out that a game is 60 minutes long (ok, probably not the first, but, you know, up there), but what the Giants defense did to Mike Vick for the first three and a half quarters was unbelievably impressive. In the Giants two losses to the Eagles this season they've played two of the three most impressive defensive games against Vick this season (the Bears victory over the Eagles was the other). Of course, it means nothing now, but if the New York and Philadelphia met again in the playoffs, I'd be hard-pressed not to pick the G-Men to win. An unfathomable series of events in the last seven minutes led to the Giants collapse, which were equal parts defensive lapses, questionable coaching, inability to sustain a drive on offense, boneheaded special teams play (aside from the punt, don't forget the onside kick that the Giants looked incredibly unprepared for) and tremendous execution and playmaking by the Eagles. The Giants were, after all, up 3 touchdowns on the Eagles in the fourth quarter. Does it reveal character that they blew the game? Absolutely. But not nearly as much as the rest of the season will.

I don't mean to minimize the comeback from the Eagles perspective. It was spectacular, no doubt. But based on how the final 7-8 minutes played out, I found the Giants perspective to be more interesting.

Mike Vick noted (not complained, mind you, but noted) that the Giants walked off the field without shaking hands, and while it was unsportsmanlike, he understood how they must have felt. I think that's a totally fair comment by Vick, but as I've written in this space before, I never like seeing players who just lost yukking it up with players that just beat them. It minimizes the rivalry, intensity and desire and dedication to winning that we as fans all like to think our players feel, and so I would have a much bigger problem with Giants players, after such an epic collapse, chatting and shaking hands at midfield than them running straight to the locker room.  I honestly don't know if Coughlin and Andy Reid shook hands after the game (though the fact that I haven't heard anything leads me to believe that they did) but I think with coaches, it's a different standard. Coaches are supposed to be more professional and even tempered than players.

Also, lost among the wreckage of the collapse, the fact that not only is Andy Reid an awful coach who makes awful decisions, he could be one of the worst coaches in the league. No one in Philly loves Vick and DeSean Jackson more than Reid this week, I can guarantee you that.

Nice to see a player as talented as Jackson remain so humble.

No, not really.

The NCAA has suspended five Ohio St. football players, including Terrelle Pryor for the first five games of the 2011 season for receiving improper benefits. If those players are indeed guilty of said violation, then why exactly, you ask, are they eligible for the Suugar Bowl in a couple weeks? I'll let Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs explain.

The players are eligible for the bowl game because the NCAA determined they did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred, Lennon said.

"We were not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department," Smith said in a statement. "We began to significantly improve our education in November of 2009 to address these issues. After going through this experience, we will further enhance our education for all our student-athletes as we move forward."      Ohhh, that makes sense. Only not at all. So the NCAA screwed up by not adequately explaining what constitutes a violation. But at the same time, the players knew enough that they shouldn't have done what they did? Which is it, NCAA? If the rules weren't explained extensively enough then I'm not sure why the players are being sanctioned. But if they did know the rules and violated them, as the NCAA is basically saying is the case, then they should be suspended. Only not for the Sugar Bowl?   Hmm, maybe, just maybe, the NCAA is catering to their sponsors and bowls and are actually more interested in the money more than doing what's right?

The NCAA continues to be as corrupt, self-serving, hypocritical and nonsensical as ever before. Come on Mark Cuban, your move.

And lastly, I feel I must give some credit where it is due, namely on the shores of Lake Michigan, or as people from the Midwest call it, Justlikeanocean. No one has given less credit to the Bears for their 10-4 season that so far has seen them sweep their division, than me. While they still have to win at Green Bay in week 17 in a game that will most likely mean a lot more for the Packers than the Bears in order to complete the sweep, I don't think anyone would have predicted that the Chicago would be 5-0 in the NFC North. Sure the Bears are 19th in the league in points scored, and 25th or worse in passing yards, rushing yards and total yards, but this is the Bears after all, and they're not built to win shootouts, they're built to grind the shit out of you until you submit. The Bears defense has exceeded expectations -no small feat when you're talking about the Bears- while the offense, just might not be as bad as the numbers would imply after all. Over the last few games Cutler has cut down on his mistakes (important to differentiate "cut down" from "minimize") while offensive coordinator Mike Martz has finally started consistently calling effective plays that don't require a five-step drop, or, as it's called in Chicago, a sack. The offense, it seems is starting to recognize what it is, namely, not as good as it thought it was. Johnny Knox is a good big play receiver and that's about it. Devin Hester is never going to be an offensive superstar, but he can be a solid receiver. The verdict is still out on Matt Forte, who, in his almost three NFL seasons has been about as consistent as Sandra Bullock's acting prowess, but can be very effective running or catching the ball when he's feeling it. Cutler is a week-to-week case as well and perhaps it is unfair to judge Forte and Cutler considering their porous offensive line. But knowing your offensive capabilities is as important having a capable offense, and the Bears, it seems, finally know who they are (ironically, not who we thought they were). I don't mean to let their o-line off the hook (ok, I'll stop now), but they're figuring out ways to get first downs despite them, not because of them. I realize this is coming after a beatdown of the Vikings, not the Steelers, but suddenly, the Bears look like they might be able to win a game or two in the playoffs, which is more than I was willing to say about them at any other point this season. I'm not gonna crown their ass (promise, I'm really done now), but I will admit that they're better than I've given them credit for to this point.

That's it that's all this week folks, have a merry Christmas (and if you're Jewish, as I am, don't be an asshole about it, enjoy the Christmas season spirit). See you next week, until then, good punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

Ahoy hoy readers. My sincere apologies for being out of commission over the last several weeks. I'll forego the excuses and get right to punting. I've had a lot of thoughts over the last few weeks, so if some of them seem like they should've been written a couple weeks ago, they probably should've. We ride north.

That silence coming from the tri-state area? That's the shock of Jets fans who just realized what most of the rest of the country has been thinking all along: The Jets don't play well against good teams, which may be an indication that, well, they're just not a great team. Don't believe me? The Jets haven't beaten a team currently above .500 since a week 3 victory over Miami. Since then, they've played three games against such teams: A shutout loss at home against Green Bay in week 8, an absolutely embarrassing 42-point loss in New England, and a pitiful 10-6 loss at home against the Dolphins. So, just to hammer my point home further, the two teams they've beat with winning records this season (the Pats and the Dolphins in weeks two and three, respectively) have in turn beat them in fairly embarrassing fashion in the last two weeks. When you add in the fact that the NYJ required a significant amount of luck in order to garner victories at Denver, Detroit and Cleveland and at home against Houston, and we may be looking at a flat-out mediocre football team. I don't mean to totally rag on Gang Green, but if we're going to have Rex-mania stuffed down our throats when the Jets are winning, we better hear it loud and clear when they're not living up to the hype.

And a quick note on Sal Alosi. The trip was scummy, moreso than his alleged instructions to form a wall along the sideline. Still, most people in the know say very, very little happens within an NFL organization without the head coach's direction, or at least awareness. I don't think Rex Ryan ordered Alosi or anyone else to trip the Dolphin gunner, but I would be very surprised if Ryan hadn't conceived the wall idea, or at least ok'd it. ("There's no question, that's something one of Buddy Ryan's sons would do," my father -forever a hater of the Ryan family patriarch- said, as if he were John McClane in Die Hard With a Vengeance, figuring out that Simon Gruber wanted the cops to think he blew up hundreds of millions of dollars, just like his brother Hans). The Jets had to suspend Alosi to save face, but if he's literally taking one for the team by not outing Ryan -and I suspect he is- I hope Woody Johnson and co. are taking care of him for his loyalty.

I meant to write this a few weeks ago, but I have a bone to pick with a lot of Vikings fans. Though there seemed to be almost universal satisfaction in the Land of 10,000 lakes over the firing of Brad Childress, Viking fans need to take a good look in the mirror. Most of them were convinced that Childress needed to do whatever it took to get Favre back for one more Super Bowl run, which is exactly what he did. Childress may not be a good coach, but it's not his fault that Favre is old and reverted to his hobbled, interception-throwing ways that characterized his Jets (and much of the end of his Packers) tenure. Chilly did exactly what most of his Viking-fan constituents wanted him to do in the offseason. The fact that it blew up in the Vikings' face was part of a calculated risk that Viking fans, as well as Childress went all in on. It seems awfully hypocritical to jump all over Childress for the consequences of him doing exactly what you wanted him to do in August.

As for Favre, he's as easy a target as there is in the NFL right now, but his tremendous streak of 321 consecutive starts (it makes no sense to me why his regular-season record of 297 should be the recognized streak, as if January games in Green Bay shouldn't count) is not only the toughest record I've ever witnessed (Cal Ripken's streak, while tremendous, is a distant second as far as I'm concerned) but quite possibly the most impressive I've witnessed in all of sports. I realize it's a silly argument to even begin, but Favre's style of play may have made him the least likely of his contemporaries at any stage of his career to maintain a consecutive starts streak of this length, and yet he outlasted every single one of them (though Peyton Manning could still potentially break it). So hats off to Brett Favre. I'd like to get him a gift to congratulate him, like clothing or something. I just wish I knew what kind of jeans he wears.

I can't help but feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode whenever NFL announcers start to talk about Norv Turner. Not that Matt Millen and Joe Theismann conjure up images of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow when it comes to information, objectiveness and professionalism, but to hear them still praising Turner for his coaching, offensive genius and playcalling is like hearing Roger Ebert laud Kevin Costner for being one of the best actors in film right now: It ignores all evidence we've been given over the last decade. Turner not only is not a good coach, he's one of the biggest underachievers in the NFL since his Chargers tenure began. The need for announcers to stick with a previously solidified stance, despite the fact that is completely outdated, is part of the reason fans are more critical and frustrated by boobs like Thiesmann than ever before. To be fair to Thiesmann (probably the first and last time I'll ever write those words) he's hardly alone in terms of his Norv-love. Rick Reilly's joke of a column on Turner from a year ago, which fails to use the word "playoffs" once, succeeds at proving Reilly wrong within his own column by revealing what so many announcers and analysts seem to have so much trouble accepting: That you can be a great coordinator and a terrible head coach.

Was it dirty? Sure, but I'm not going to say I didn't enjoy seeing Richard Seymour slap Ben Roethlisberger to the turf. I think most people would agree Big Ben had that one coming.

The University of Indiana, among other schools who have been searching for a new head coach in the last few months, have enlisted the services of Tony Dungy as a consultant. Since when has Dungy become the consultant/spiritual adviser/all-knowing-Mr.-Rogers-figure to every pro and college football team and player in the country. Does winning one Super Bowl, acting as a mentor to Mike Vick and appearing to be a really nice guy (you know, aside from the whole being homophobic thing that everyone is ok sweeping under the rug) really earn you that much clout? It all just strikes me as very odd.

And speaking of coaching hires, for the first time that I can remember, I've heard several references to college athletic departments hiring coaching search firms. Seriously.  Isn't finding coaches one of the most important jobs of an athletic department? Seems a little ridiculous to hire a third party to find someone that's the right fit for your own program, but hey, it's not my money.

The Bills may not have a lot of talent (other than the underrated Fred Jackson), but they've got moxie (is what I would've said if I were 68). Despite finding innovative new ways to lose heartbreaking games, this team never gives up, which is more than I can say about a lot of other teams.

Which brings me to the Bengals, who, at 2-11 are quietly making a run at the most disappointing team in the league award, previously thought to be headed to Dallas or Minnesota.

The Saints are becoming one of those teams who are so underrated they may be becoming overrated. Still, no one outside of New England has been hotter and, just in case you forgot, they are the defending Super Bowl champions.

Surprise, surprise, rumors of Peyton Manning's demise have been greatly exaggerated. The Colts may well fail to make the playoffs for the first time since 1926, but if I were an Indy fan, Peyton Manning would be at the bottom of my list of concerns for the forseeable future.

I've been a Vince Young hater since he left Texas, and each year my stance becomes easier and easier to defend. He's not nearly good enough to justify putting up with his immaturity and selfishness. Titans owner Bud Adams is doing his team and his fanbase a profound disservice by maintaining faith that Young is the Titans quarterback of the future. I mean maybe if he had someone like Randy Moss to throw to.. Oh, that's right.

The chop block is football's equivalent to the balk- very few fans actually know what the rule is, but when they see what they perceive to be specific aspects of a chop block/balk, their team better get the call.

Arian Foster may go down as my greatest fantasy call of all time.

Michael Crabtree will not.

With Aaron Rodgers, the Packers have been been an underachieving team but still have the talent to make a deep postseason run if they can make the playoffs. Without Rodgers, they're 100% done.

"They came in here, our field, our weather, and pounded us."- Brian Urlacher after the Bears' miserable loss at home in the snow to the Patriots, 36-7. Evidently Urlacher didn't major in meteorology at New Mexico, as he probably would be aware that's it's been known to snow in Foxboro from time to time as well. In fact, I feel like the Patriots may have even played a home game or two in the snow before...

      ...but I could be wrong.

Speaking of the Bears, the Punter has made it no secret that I believe the Bears record has belied the team they've been putting out on the field all season. While my opinion was beginning to waver after Chicago's impressive week 12 performance at home in a five-point victory over Philly, the Bears last two weeks (an unimpressive four-point win in Detroit and the aforementioned debacle in "their weather" at home against the Patriots), it seems the Philly game may have been the aberration, not the rest of the season.  If we're going to give the Jets shit for compiling 9 wins thus far against weak opponents, we must take a look at the Bears schedule as well. I don't see this as giving the Bears shit, as, unlike the Jets, they, nor their fans nor the media has claimed that the Bears are a great team. The Bears and Jets do have several similarities aside from their identical records. Both teams boast defenses that, while good, probably aren't good enough to mask their offensive inefficiencies in the long term. Both teams have talented but very inconsistent running games. While Jay Cutler and Mark Sanchez are completely different quarterbacks, they are both very inconsistent and neither is a particularly good or trustworthy decision maker. And, perhaps not surprisingly, the Bears and Jets have easily the lowest point differentials among teams with at least nine wins, at +25 and +31, respectively. Now, a look at the Bears' schedule. Three of the Bears' nine wins this year have come against teams that are currently above .500. A three-point home victory over Green Bay in week 3, a 16-0 shutout win at Miami in week 11, and the aforementioned Eagles game. I'll give them a slight bonus point for beating Dallas by a touchdown in week 2, since I'm a firm believer that you should be judged for how you play against a team as that team was then, not as they ended up at the end of the season (the same reason why I don't put much stock in the Jets week 2 victory over the Patriots. That was a profoundly different New England team than Bill Belichick has now). Aside from that, Chicago has two very weak wins over the Lions by a combined nine points (including the infamous Calvin Johnson "catch rule" game), a beatdown of the lowly Panthers, a three-point squeaker at Buffalo and a two-touchdown victory over the Vikings. Now on the surface, this may seem like a "you can only beat who you play" scenario, but perhaps it's the Bears' losses that may be more telling. Chicago got bullied by the Giants in a fourteen-point loss in New York that exploited just how bad their offensive line is, they had dismal back-to-back three-point home losses to Seattle and Washington, and the New England game. In summary: The Bears have feasted on their own underachieving NFC North, going 4-0 with two division games left, both on the road, against the Vikings and the Packers. Outside their division they're 5-4, the Eagles victory being the only game they can really hang their proverbial hat on. But this is not the BCS (thank God), this is the NFL, and while a lot can happen in the next three weeks, the Bears more likely than not will be headed to the playoffs, where they can prove whether they're legit or not where it counts.

Is it so much to ask the Chiefs, Broncos or Raiders to just once be good enough to teach San Diego a lesson that they can't coast through the first two months of the season and still expect to make the playoffs?

I'm not sure what it says about our society that we're now willing to forgive Mike Vick for what he did, not because he did his time, but because he's winning, but I don't like it. This isn't a judgment on Vick, he seems to be doing and saying all the right things. It's just unsettling to me that if McNabb had never gotten traded or Kolb hadn't lost the starting job that the nationwide sentiment toward Michael Vick, the person, would be drastically different than it is now, as if winning football games has anything to do with whether Vick is a changed man or not.

Matt Schaub played one of the most impressive halves you'll ever see a quarterback play in the second half of Monday's Texans-Ravens game. He followed that up with one of the worst passes you'll ever see a quarterback throw.

As for the Ravens, they're obviously good, but they're going to have to stop blowing leads to inferior opponents before I'm convinced they're Super Bowl contenders.

Thanks all, you've been great. I know this was a long one, and I can only hope you look at this as a reward for tolerating three absent weeks, rather than further punishment. See you next week. Good Punting.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

 Another wacky week of NFL action, another confused Wednesday Morning Punter. Without any further ado, let's punt.

I don't know how they do it, but the Jets just keep finding ways to win. At this point you might start to think maybe it's not luck, but, well, I've actually watched the games. Still, I felt very similarly about the '08 Steelers, thinking at the time that eventually their luck would run out. Pittsburgh went on to win the Super Bowl that year, the only thing running out on them being whomever Ben Roethlisberger locked in the bathroom.

After an embarrassing loss to the Browns, the Patriots came out firing against the Steelers, pretty much dominating all three phases of the game from start to finish. Few times have we seen Tom Brady as fired up as we did Sunday night. Brady should keep listening to whatever he was pumping on his iPod before the game, as he played easily his best game this year, and quite possibly his best since the 2007 season.

Speaking of the Patriots, doesn't it seem like every year the media is saying that Bill Belichick is doing the best coaching job of his career? Call me crazy, but taking a guy who hadn't thrown a regular season pass since high school and having him lead an NFL team to an 11-5 record is tough to beat. Belichick is doing a fine coaching job this year (and, well, he should be, considering he's probably one of the 5 best NFL coaches of all time) but it'll be very tough to top his 2008 performance.

Enough already people. Can we stop acting like there's any chance Minnesota and/or Dallas will make the playoffs? That conversation is a bigger waste of time than trying to explain Twitter to my mom for the third time.

Maybe it's just the games I was closely tuned in to, but didn't it seem like there were more missed extra points and field goals this week than any in recent memory? (Cut to Scott Norwood: "See assholes, it's not so easy.")

Maybe the biggest addition to game-watching experience this year has been Fox's hiring of former NFL Vice President of officiating, Mike Pereira. Pereira now serves as Fox's "Officiating Expert" who provides detailed explanations for why a call was made and/or why a play is under review and what the officials are looking for. In hindsight, it makes little sense that Fox nor CBS nor ESPN nor the NFL Network thought of this earlier, given how frequently controversial calls are made, and how big of an impact they often have. His explanation for why Kevin Walter's touchdown (1:27 mark) this week against the Jaguars was ultimately ruled a catch, while Calvin Johnson's week 1 touchdown was ultimately ruled incomplete (by the same referee, interestingly enough), seems to make sense, until you realize that the shot Pereira shows of Walter holding the ball up, is taken during the tenth of a second Walter looked like he had control before he dropped it.

As for the end of that enjoyable game, who doesn't love a good Hail Mary every now and then? (Sorry, couldn't help myself, here you go). The conventional wisdom for as long as I can remember for a defensive back in that situation has always been that you should just "knock it down," presumably so as to prevent a back from trying to catch it and then having the ball snatched away by a receiver (I guess?). So, we now find ourselves at a crossroads: Is it still smarter to just knock the ball down, or does it make more sense to just catch the damn ball if you're able to? I really don't know the right answer, but I do know that getting on Texans cornerback Glover Quin for knocking the ball down and forward instead straight down is pure nitpicking, not coaching.

Gus Johnson: What more is there to say?

Ready for the weirdest stat you'll hear all week? Only twice before Sunday in NFL history has a quarterback tossed a game winning touchdown of 50 yards or more with no time left on the clock. That's not the weird part. The fact that both times Tim Couch was that quarterback, is.

It's comforting to know that despite his traumatic experience on the Island, Walt from Lost has changed his name to Brandon Lloyd and is currently the leading receiver in the NFL.      Think I'm kidding? Do you remember Walt's last name in the show?: Lloyd!

The Dolphins have been sneakily good this year. Not sure that can continue with both Chads on the mend in Miami, but don't forget that Tyler Thigpen was better than serviceable two years ago in Kansas City.

The AFC West is just wacky and unpredictable enough for us all to forget how bad a division it is, and actually give a shit.

Desean Jackson on Philadelphia's dismantling of the Redskins: "We were like pit bulls, ready to get out of the cage." Hmm, I'm not sure he thought that analogy all the way through..

Finally a note on Donvan McNabb, or more appropriately on how the media reports contracts. Reporters are so anxious to be the first person to tweet about a new contract that they ignore the specifics and give you the boldest headline they can, as quick as they can, details be damned. When the "story" "broke" Monday, reports were saying that McNabb was given a 5-year extension worth $78 million, with about $40 million guaranteed. My initial thoughts were as follows: 1. You gotta be fuckin' kidding me. Again, Dan Snyder? 2. I wonder if the actual contract is anything close to that.   I tell you this not as a means of boasting about my intuition (if my instincts were so spot on, I might be employed at this point) but rather to reveal how predictably inaccurate reporters choose to be for the sake of efficiency. The bottom line is, for many reporters, being the first (or second or third or fourth) reporter to post breaking news on Twitter or their blog is simply more important than getting the story right. McNabb's actual contract can be examined here: http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/11/17/the-truth-about-the-mcnabb-deal/?boxes=businesschannelsections, but suffices to say, McNabb at this point is only guaranteed $3.75 million, and as Adam Schefter (this time accurately) reported, "the deal's maximum value is $88.5 million if McNabb leads his team to a Super Bowl victory every year." So there you have it.

Great Web site that let's you know exactly what NFL (and every other sport) games you'll be receiving in your area, without having to rely on Curt Menefee: http://the506.com/sports/?cat=14

You guys have been great, I'll see you next week. Now let's go eat a goddamn snack.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

With the exception of one game in particular (my Matthew Berry "I Hate to Say I Told You So (not really) game of the week") we had a Dennis Green week in the NFL, in that most teams are who we thought they were.

The Saints and the Packers -along with the Cowboys the cream of the preseason NFC crop- both had perhaps their most convincing wins of the season, albeit to probably two of the three worst teams in the NFL (Panthers and Cowboys, respectively). The Vikings are just good enough to beat the Cardinals, the Bengals are just bad enough to put up a fight against the Steelers. The Chargers and Texans informed us that their respective second-half surge/slump has been renewed for another season, while the Jets and Bears, with two more narrow wins against lousy teams, sport records that continually belie their play on the field.

Meanwhile the Giants are still waiting for the 12th Man to get to the stadium in Seattle, the Iggles wish they could play Peyton two more times instead of Eli, and Oakland wins the first battle of the 2010 pleasant surprises not from Tampa.

More on some of those games, a quarterback named Colt, postgame handshakes, my midseason MVP and more. In the words of Michael Buffer, "Let's Get Ready to Punnntttttt."

Another week, another intriguing plot twist in "The Most Underachieving Team Ever: The Saga of the 2010 Dallas Cowboys." After a nationally televised beatdown (in every sense of the possibly nonexistent word), Wade Phillips was finally, mercifully shown the door by Jerry Jones, who, let's be honest, kind of looks like a jackass for not firing Phillips 3 YEARS AGO, but of course Jerry would have to have admitted to a mistake at that point, and, as we know, Jerry doesn't make mistakes. Jason Garrett, whose title of wunderkind lasted only slightly longer than that of Ryan Howard (no, not this Ryan Howard, that Ryan Howard--> ) has taken the proverbial reigns on an interim basis, with plenty of speculation as to whether Garrett will maintain the title of head coach beyond this season. Personally, I couldn't care less, if only because I'm so damn sick of hearing about the Cowboys (and yes, I'm plenty aware of my hypocrisy, given how much of this space is dedicated to the 'Boys, but they're such a mess, they're too intriguing not to talk about).

Last note about the Cowboys: At one point during the game, Aaron Rodgers was 8 for 8 throwing at Mike Jenkins. Out of all the Cowboys' problems, their soft, overpaid secondary might be the biggest.

Just past the midway point of the season, my NFL MVP is... Scott Hanson. No, not longtime Lions Kicker Jason Hanson, Scott Hanson, the host of the greatest thing to happen to football since the yellow first down line, the NFL RedZone Channel. In case you're not familiar with the RedZone channel-and you really should be- it's a channel that goes from game to game, focusing on games in the red zone so that you see every single scoring play in the league. What's so impressive about Scott Hanson? His transitions are impeccable, like he's closely watching every single game at the same time. He never misses a beat, even letting us know (fairly accurately I might add) if a call is likely to get upheld or overturned. Most impressive, however, is the fact that Hanson goes from 1:00 to the end of the last 4:00 game, without taking a break to eat, piss, or really do anything other than watch football. Big Time Timmy Jim   Tim Lincecum? Please, Scott Hanson is my Sportsman of the Year.

Colt McCoy: In three starts has lost to Pittsburgh and beat New England and New Orleans. Not terrible...

Maybe it's because I watch virtually every Monday Night Football game, but Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth seem to be just a bit off pace from their epic announcing year of '09. This past Monday, Hines Ward scored a touchdown with 2 minutes left in the first half. The announcing duo, however, failed to mention that on the replay, Ward's knee was clearly down with the ball short of the endzone, (2:30 mark) even after MNF went to break with the video stopped exactly at the point where Ward's knee was down. Instead of challenging the play (Marvin Lewis had just lost a challenge, so it would've been his last) and giving Pittsburgh 4th-and-goal at the one, the Bengals gave the Steelers a touchdown, in a game where that might've been the difference.

It's always frustrating when, during postgame handshakes, players on your team look much less pissed about a loss than you are.

I'm still failing to see the logic behind benching Chad Henne for Chad Pennington. I didn't realize Herm Edwards was coaching the Dolphins.

Why does the media have an obsession with teams returning to past glory? The Chiefs and the Raiders are both decent for the first time since anyone can remember, and suddenly this is the game of the week? Why is the Ravens and Titans being good any less compelling than the Raiders, who have written the book over the last 10 years on how to not run a franchise? What's worse is that the Raiders, while finally decent, certainly aren't one of the NFL's elite.   Listen, I understand that maybe college basketball is a little more fun when Georgetown is good, and the NBA becomes a little more interesting when the Knicks are in the picture, but by and large, other than the teams I root for and their rivals, I really don't care who else is good and who else is bad.

A report surfaced earlier this week that "at least 6" Minnesota Vikings players don't like Brad Childress and want him fired. I have a heard time believing that, out of 53 players per team, there aren't 6 on each team that hate their coach.

Why is the BCS treated as some sort of mythical formula that only a couple secret computers know, and the public isn't allowed to see their wizardry until Sunday when Fox tells us we can?  The BCS is a formula, right, presumably created by a group of humans at one point. Why aren't we allowed to know what it is, so we can figure out exactly who we should be rooting for/how each week will play out live, you know, like standings. Instead we put it on a pedestal and make the computer process sound more confusing that Flava Flav describing the plot of Inception. Why?

Screw you Joe Lunardi, for coming up with a bracketology article in the first week of the season, before most teams have even played. What a waste of time.

Sorry for the short and late nature of this post, been a hectic week, will try to be on time this week. Happy week 10.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

As the great Vince Lombardi used to say, "hello," and welcome back to Wednesday Morning Punter. In this week's edition, we'll talk Randy Moss, throwback unis, Donovan McNabb, the greatest flight of my life, and much, much more. Let's get to it.

I've become increasingly frustrated with some of the conventional wisdom around the league, namely the automatic timeout taken by a quarterback to avoid a delay of game. The first half is one thing, as timeouts generally don't come into play all that much at the end of the second quarter. The second half however is an entirely different beast. If you're in the third quarter of a tie game, with 3rd-and-4 from your own 33 yard line, is it really worth burning one of your three timeouts to avoid a 5 yard penalty, which would make it 3rd-and-9? In essence, a coach/qb is saying that 5 yards is more valuable than a timeout, which, given how often timeouts come into play at the end of a football game, seems borderline asinine, no? Sure it's a situational thing -if you have a fourth-and-goal from the half yard line, it's understandable to call a timeout to avoid having 4th-and-goal from the 5- but by and large, the ability to stop the clock at the end of the game not only gives your team more options both on offense and defense, but gives your opponent less options. 5 yards or one timeout? I'll take one timeout any day.

Mike Williams and Josh Freeman are one of the best wr-qb combos in the NFL right now. Real talk.

You'd think the one year the Cowboys are out of the playoff hunt early would be the year the media stops Notre Dameing us to death with them. Unfortunately, the Cowboys are so bad, we're still going to hear more about them than any other team. Is it so much to ask for them to be 3-4? They really have to have the worst record in the league?

It always seems unfathomable to me how an NFL can get shutout, as the Jets did this past Sunday. At home, no less. I hate the "Could college team A beat NFL team B?" argument, but I'm pretty sure Oregon would at least be able to put 3 points up on the Packers in Eugene. Just sayin'.

Jim Kleinsasser simply does not age, nor, apparently, switch teams. In my second ever fantasy football league in 2003, a friend of mine and I made a second-round joke about selecting Kleinsasser, the two of us already feeling like he was one of those guys that seemed to be around every year. Well seven years later, we still make the same (unfunny) joke, and Kleinsasser is not only still in the league, but is still on the Vikings (a quick wikipedia search informs me that Big Jim is the only remaining Viking from the Dennis Green era). I guess Kleinsasser is who we thought he was.

From a mobility standpoint, Brett Favre looked much better than I expected, particularly considering we've now seen video of Favre getting tackled against the Packers so many times, I half-expect to see a clip of him going across the monkey bars with Al Qaeda. Still, I've never seen a professional athlete look less able-bodied than Favre after he took a shot from Myron Pryor of the Patriots. For all the shit that Favre has (deservingly) received for, well, just about everything he's done since throwing an interception to Corey Webster in overtime of the 2007(8) NFC championship game, but the dude is a fuckin' warrior. If he makes it through this season with his streak intact, my respect for him will follow suit.

Speaking of Favre, when he had to leave the game, ESPN's bottom line was led by a flashing bright red "Breaking News" alert that Favre had gotten hit and left the game. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a lack of self-awareness, and ESPN, between "The Decision," "Who's Now," everything having to do with Brett Favre and everything involving Stuart Scott, is shameless, unnecessary and extremely annoying. You're the biggest sports information organization in the world (by a lot), get a fucking clue.

Chris Myers and Brian Billick is kind of an odd announcing combination on paper, but I rather enjoyed them during the Cardinals-Buccaneers game.

After Donovan McNabb was benched by Mike Shanahan in favor of wily veteran Rex Grossman (no, not really), Bob Costas, on Football Night in America, referred to McNabb as the Redskins franchise quarterback. I can't make this the Joe Theismann Memorial What the Hell is This Announcer Thinking? Call of the Week, if only out of the reverence I have for Bob Costas, but even before McNabb began his predictably mediocre season, how could a 34 year-old with one year on his contract and such a strong history of not playing to his potential that his longtime team traded him to a division rival, be considered a franchise quarterback?

What a pick by Devin McCourty (sorry can't find video on youtube).

Ok, Randy Moss, here we go. As I've mentioned before, one of the reasons I write this column on Wednesday (usually) is so I'm able to digest everything that happened Sunday/Monday night and the ensuing aftermath (is ensuing aftermath redundant? I think so). Given all that's happened since that fateful pass interference call during Sunday's Patriots-Vikings game, I'll give you my thought process throughout the Moss-related events that unfolded.

Sunday afternoon: Moss gets boo'd by the New England fans. Favre throws a deep ball to Moss, pass interference is called on the Patriots, ball falls incomplete.     My thoughts: Kind of lame of for Pats fans to boo the best receiver in the history of the franchise not named Troy Brown. Why is Troy Aikman completely neglecting to mention that despite the pass interference call, Favre's pass lands about 2 feet away from Moss? Given the fact that Moss is arguably the most athletic receiver with the best hands in the league, he probably would have caught the ball if he tried. Moss catches one ball for 8 yards in his first game against the team that traded him.

Sunday evening: Moss has a very strange press conference in which he wears a Red Sox hat, professes his love for the Patriots and Bill Belichick, tells New England how much he misses them, and says that from now on, he'll be conducting his own interviews, whatever that means.      My thoughts: Umm, what? It's pretty obvious that Moss is not fitting in well in Minnesota. Maybe it's because the Vikings aren't that good, maybe it's because Favre isn't looking his way as much, maybe it's because the post-practice food isn't that good, but something is definitely wrong. Randy's probably regretting running himself out of New England right about now.

Monday: Randy Moss waived by Vikings. No further information. Speculation on who may pick him up runs rampant. Bill Simmons tweets that he hopes the Patriots pick him up, just so the ESPN bottom line reads: Patriots trade Randy Moss for a third rounder and Randy Moss. Thousands of people copy tweet and claim as their own. Writer of Wednesday Morning Punter feels very smart for writing "One final note on Moss: If anyone feels sympathy for the Patriots (unlikely, I’m sure), don’t. Much like Manny Ramirez, each team that trades for him believes they’re getting away with robbery, while the team getting rid of him has the ‘don’t say we didn’t warn you’ mentality" four weeks ago.    My thoughts: Wow. At the same time one of the most and least surprising things I heard on Monday. I don't know how any team picks him up given that he's in the last year of his contract (so there's no point for a non-playoff team to spend roughly $3.5 M for a player who's not taking you to the playoffs and likely won't resign) and he had about as perfect a situation as possible in New England (Super Bowl contender, Hall of Fame Quarterback who likes him throwing to him, perfect slot receiver to take pressure off of him, coached by the guy Moss himself called the greatest coach in NFL history) and managed to screw that up somehow. At this point, isn't thinking about picking up Moss kind of like talking about getting a dog with your college roommates? You know it'll be fun for a while and get you a lot of attention, but ultimately it'll be a bad situation that will play out poorly over time.  A waste of time to think about who would pick him up. The Patriots probably would just to further prove their genius, but there's no way every other team in the league is passing on Moss.

Tuesday: Reports surface that Moss is disrespectful to a local restaurant owner who is catering the Vikings Friday post-practice meal, saying he wouldn't feed the food to his dog, and that he didn't have to eat that kind of food now that he's rich. Said outburst was at least a factor in Moss getting waived, though likely not the whole reason.     My thoughts: What a dick. Still, if a star player being an asshole was grounds for waiving, there's be a lot of unemployed superstars right now. There had to be something else.

Wednesday: Titans pick Moss up on waivers.    My thoughts: If Moss is going to be fired up to play anywhere, I can't think of a much better place. Moss is close to home, on a Super Bowl contender, and is playing in a pretty good offense. From the Titans perspective, they got an elite receiver, which will help both Vince Young and Chris Johnson. A couple weeks ago, this may have been considered a luxury, but with the loss of Kenny Britt, it may be a necessity in order for Tennessee to be a true contender. Stay tuned...

More after the jump

Why are uniforms instantly cooler when they become throwbacks? I don't think anyone ever said the Patriots '70s and '80s uniforms looked awesome at the time, but 20 years later, they're suddenly amazing. It's like taking an average girl and putting her on tv. Suddenly you'd do anything to be with her even though the girl in the cubicle next to you is twice as hot and you've never hit on her.

Bonus points for Steven Jackson, in Rams throwbacks, wearing the Eric Dickerson goggles in pregame.

I was on a flight this past Sunday from 5-8:30 pm. Why didn't it suck? Because I was on Jet Blue, which happens to have NFL Sunday Ticket, including the Red Zone channel. Amazing. Even better, there was no one sitting in the seat next to me, so I had two tv's to watch and control. Literally a better viewing situation than if I had been in my living room.

I think I can honestly say I've never seen a game end with 0:00 left in overtime before the Chiefs-Bills yawnfest on Sunday.

The Pats may be the default no. 1 team in everyone's power rankings (that's a different rant for a different time), but from someone who's watched every Pats game this season, I'd be worried if I was a New England fan. Brady simply has not looked very good this year, at least by his standards. The Pats keep finding a way to win, and there's certainly something to be said for that, but neither the offense nor the defense is reliable on a game-to-game basis.

Aaron Rodgers: See above.

I saw two of Jon Kitna's three inceptions on Sunday and blaming Kitna for them is like blaming Justin Kirk (the guy who plays Andy Botwin) for seasons 4 and 5 of Weeds sucking.

I really don't see the point  of pre-season All-America/All-Conference/Watchlist teams. We always complain when a guy who hasn't started a game gets voted in as a starter in the NBA all-star game or an outfielder wins a Gold Glove based exclusively on reputation. So why then, do we go a step further and anoint players as All-Americas before the season even starts? It's sort of like a college football team starting the season unranked and having to work their way up through the rankings: it's simply an uneven playing field.

Enjoy Week 9, see ya on the other side.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

Welcome back welcome back to  your week 7 edition of Wednesday Morning Punter. I'll try to keep the long rants that dominated last week's edition to a minimum and give you a quick hits version of WMP this week. We'll see how long that lasts.

Save for the Super Bowl champion Saints inexplicably falling to Cleveland at home (pretty typical that the Browns' biggest win in years would be away from Cleveland), this may have been the first week this season that made some sense. In my estimation, the better team probably won every game on the slate this week, the exceptions being the aforementioned Saints and arguably the Niners losing to Carolina. At this point the Raiders are a better team than the Broncos (not 45 points better, but better) and the Redskins are better than the Bears. The Saints and Raiders games aside, the only other score that didn't make complete sense was Baltimore only beating Buffalo by 3, but despite the cliche, in the NFL, a win is very much a win.

At this point in the evolution of football and its positions, why is it that a lot of running backs don't catch many balls out of the backfield? If you reach the highest level of football as a running back, shouldn't the ability to catch be in your skill set? For example, the Vikings the last two years generally brought in Chester Taylor as their third down receiving back. Why couldn't Adrien Peterson, probably the best running back in football, play that role as well? I just can't wrap my head around the fact that starting NFL running backs need to be replaced on passing downs because they can't catch well enough. How does this make sense?

Riley Cooper had the catch of the week and probably my fourth favorite catch of the season behind one-handed beauties by Randy Moss, Pierre Garcon and Calvin Johnson (yes, in that order). Cooper came back to a poorly thrown ball by Kevin Kolb, snatching it between two Titans defensive backs and coming down inside the Titans 10 yard line. That's exactly the type of play that gets a rookie respect in this league.

Despite the Philly loss, a little part of Andy Reid has to be happy that his decision to start Michael Vick this week was made with a lot less controversy than if Kolb had played well against Tennessee.

Is the AFC really that much better than the NFC (still)?

So we're done calling Brett Favre a smart quarterback, right? We've learned our lesson, right media? We can all agree on this? His drive-and-game-killing interceptions aren't cute anymore?

Just found out that Peyton Hillis went to Arkansas. Which is the more impressive college football backfield of the last 7 years? Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown and Brandon Jacobs at Auburn (before Jacobs transferred to Southern Illinois), or Darren McFadden, Felix Jones and Hillis at Arkansas?

I still have no idea what is going on with the Saints. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the defense regressed a bit from last year's effort when everybody decided to have a career year like the White Sox starting rotation in '05, but what's the excuse for the defense? Brees looks very mortal, no receiver has really stepped up yet, and Pierre Thomas just isn't as effective as he was the last season and a half. Reggie Bush can't really be the difference maker here, can he?

This column is officially the only thing that Jon Hamm is yet to narrate. He's a white Morgan Freeman.

Buffalo has a defensive back whose last name is Corner? Why wasn't this brought to my attention earlier?

The 49ers obviously aren't a very good team, and they don't do much to help themselves, but holy shit, no one's been this unlucky since John Rocker had the misfortune of being born in the late 20th century.

A year from now when Cowboys fans are blaming this year's playoff absence on Tony Romo's injury, don't forget that they started the season 1-4 before Romo went down.

And speaking of the Cowboys... Yes, we all know they suck, but year after year it's their secondary that never ceases to amaze me. They always have big names and Pro Bowl appearances (think Roy Williams, Mike Jenkins, Terence Newman), yet it's always one of the softest, least intimidating, worst tackling units in the league. If I were a possession receiver (the going-across-the-middle type) I would be very happy to play against the 'Boys.

Not to keep harping on it, but Jesus, Wade Phillips is a bad coach. Nobody has looked that confused since a girl asked Antonio Cromartie to wear a condom.

And for the record, I think Jon Kitna will be ok. The Cowboys won't be, but Kitna will.

Any good nicknames for the Giants menacing d-line? 5 knocked out qb's in 5 weeks (all of them legal by the way). Something tells me if the Vikings were playing the Giants this week instead of the Patriots, Brett Favre's streak would come to an end.

Mike Williams (Tampa) is a man. I reckon he's the real deal. Mike Williams (Seattle) 'aint bad either. We now have a pair of receivers named Mike Williams and a pair of receivers named Steve Smith, all of them pretty good. If only there was another Devin Aramoshadu...

You can show me all the scoring stats about last weekend that you want. I watched the games and the "new" defensive rules/fines had virtually no effect on play.

Speaking of which, Jerome Harrison, who last week took a day off from practice to "contemplate retirement" due to the "new" rules, said that he didn't take a shot at a defenseless Ronnie Brown because it would've been helmet-to-helmet and he was thinking about the "new" rules. Umm, Jerome, a. Helmet-to-helmet hits have been illegal for quite some time now, b. It's kinda fucked up to begin with and c. Don't act like you did a great service for the sport by following the rules and not hitting a defenseless player in the head.

Now on to the NFL controversy of the week, the Ben Roethlisberger goal line fumble and the ensuing call. As was the case with the Calvin Johnson non-touchdown call in week 1, the ref made the right call after the review based on the actual rule, which I think is more founded than the elaborate "catch" rule that took a win away from the Lions. Roethlisberger definitely fumbled before crossing the plane of the goal line, and while Miami probably recovered the ball, it was impossible, with the replays provided, to definitively establish the team that recovered. Given that, the rule is that the fumbling team gets the ball on the one. I think the head ref of that game actually gave a very good explanation of the call (an underrated quality in a football referee). Surprisingly or not, most of the talk of the call has centered around the review and inability to establish that the Dolphins recovered the ball despite the fact that it very much seemed like the Dolphins recovered the ball. Instead, the focus should have been on the fact that the ref blew the initial call, ruling the play a touchdown, thus requiring indisputable visual evidence that the Dolphins recovered- which obviously wasn't there- to give the ball to it's rightful owner, Miami. Quite simply, that blown call cost the Dolphins the game.

Still, through 7 weeks, Pittsburgh probably looks like the best team in football.

Despite the latest controversy, I do think refs tend to do be remarkably accurate at spotting the ball at or near the goal line.

So there's a new movie in which The Rock hunts people down out of revenge? I just can't picture him in that role.

Following a loss to the Redskins in which he threw four picks to DeAngelo Hall, Jay Cutler said if he were playing Hall the next day he'd throw at hall every play. And that's why everybody hates Jay Cutler.

Anyone else still find it strange when a black guy is named Israel?

Josh McDaniels.. What happened? Since starting 6-0 in his first season as Broncos head coach last year, McDaniels has gone 4-13. Hardly an impressive record, especially someone who replaced (Denver) coaching legend Mike Shanahan and was billed as a wunderkind (I have no idea how to make the two German dots over the U show up). Searching for a joke, searching for a joke, searching for a joke and celebrated a victory over his mentor Bill Belechick last season by acting like Tom Cruise on Oprah's couch (that's still an acceptable pop culture reference, right?). Bottom line, he's been severely underachieving since that bewildering start, and while I feel confident he'll survive this season, the Broncos are going to have to make great strides in the remaining 9 weeks in order to go into next season on the not-really-but-may-as-well-be called cold seat.

The future Pac-12 (nee Pac-10) has officially announced its divisions, which will be enacted for next year. The Pac-10 North will feature Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St,. Stanford and Cal, while the Pac-10 South will include UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona St., and newcomers Colorado and Utah. In other words, it makes complete sense. Leave it to the NCAA to shock and impress me by doing something logical.      I think the currently-non-existent Colorado-Utah in-conference rivalry has a lot of potential.

Sorry for the late posting. I'm out, see you next Wednesday (I promise).

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

                              We're back in the saddle folks, with your week 6 edition of WMP. This week, we'll further discuss the "new" NFL hit rules, the Cowboys' ineptitude, your  Joe Theismann Memorial What the Hell is Wrong With This Announcer? Call of the Week, and much more. Your WMP begins now.

It's hard to keep writing openings for WMP, given that every week, all we learn is that we have a lot more to learn, and it's still pretty unclear who the best teams are. The Patriots came back to beat Baltimore, the Jets got lucky won a close one once again, the Saints had their first impressive outing of the year (albeit against the Bucs, but a 3-1 Bucs team mind you), the Packers blew another game they should've won and the Colts held on against the Redskins. I mentioned the above teams because each team can either arguably be labeled the best team in the NFL (Jets, Ravens, Pats) or had that label going into the season (Colts, Packers). Still, a discussion of who the best team in football is right now is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Time will tell. For now, let us simply enjoy the most unpredictable season in memory.

Speaking of teams that might be the best in the NFL, Big (if you ask him) Ben Roethlisberger made his triumphant return to the Steelers, posting an impressive 257 yards and 3 tds with just one interception. Roethlisberger couldn't have asked for a better (worse) team to make his season debut against, but he made the most of it. After the game Ben said he would give himself a B-/C+ grade for his performance. Umm, maybe it's just me, but even at his peak, it's not like Roethlisberger was racking up 3 td, 350 yard games every other week. Something tells me Ben was a lot happier with his performance than he's leading on. Hell, I'd give him an A- just for making it out of the tunnel without sexually assaulting a fan. We can build on this.

And by the way, the other quarterback in Pittsburgh on Sunday looked pretty solid. There's no more intimidating a defense for a rookie qb to face in his first career start than the Steelers, and Colt McCoy, despite getting sacked 5 times, never really looked rattled.

I wrote about this last year, but it never ceases to amaze me how Mike Vrabel is allowed to catch touchdowns. In his career, Vrabel has caught 10 passes, each for a touchdown and each from either one or two yards out. If you're an opposing defensive coordinator and you see Vrabel line up on offense at the goal line, PUT SOMEONE ON HIM!! I'm a big fan of Vrabel, so keep it coming Charlie Weis, but how in the hell does this keep happening?

I loved Tom Brady and Terrell Suggs getting into it after Brady completed a pass for a first down. For all the growling and shit-talking defensive linemen must do throughout the course of the game, it's almost refreshing to see a quarterback talk back. Still, it would've been a lot more badass if the spat hadn't started from Brady looking at the ref, Kobe-style, trying to get a cheap roughing the passer flag.

Thanks a lot, Packers and Bears (especially Packers). With some decent play, you already could have made the division a 2-team race. Now, regardless of what happens in Minnesota, we're going to hear about the Vikings being an NFC North contender for at least another few weeks. The 3-3 Packers have to be one of the league's most disappointing teams so far. They've lost two games in a row by three points each (Green Bay should never lose an overtime game at Lambeau) to Washington and Miami, and while all three of their losses have been by a field goal, two of their wins have been by 7 and 2 points, their only blowout coming against Buffalo. Luckily for them, they play in a division where the flawed Bears have been playing over their heads and just lost to Seattle at home, the Vikings have been pretty bad so far and the Lions are, well a slightly better version of the Lions we've grown accustomed to. It's still Green Bay's division to lose as far as I'm concerned, but they're going to need to play a lot better than they have over the last 6 weeks.

Well, you knew you weren't going to get very far in this column without reading about the state of hits in the NFL. Believe it or not I have some opinions on this topic, but the one word that keeps running through my mind is hypocrisy. From everyone. Before I delve into what I mean by that, I'd like to discuss two things. First: Didn't we settle this all before? Didn't the NFL, two years ago say the same things they're saying now? That players would be fined and suspended for cheap shots/helmet-to-helmet hits? So why is this becoming a big deal, again? Maybe the NFL wants to chop its players' balls off, because the NFL doesn't have any balls to begin with. The NFL had a bad week from a PR perspective, with several major hits/concussions/stretchers being brought to the forefront of Sunday discussion. Sadly the (hopefully temporary) paralysis of Rutgers tackle Eric LeGrand, didn't help matters. So the NFL came out and did exactly what everyone forgot they did two years ago: said they would fine and suspend players for vicious/dirty hits. Guess what, since their initial threat two or three years ago, not a single player has been suspended or thrown out of a game for a dirty/helmet-to-helmet hit. And it certainly wasn't for lack of dirty/helmet-to-helmet hits.       Second: The only egregious hit of the weekend, IMO was Brandon Meriweather's blatant spear of Todd Heap's head, well after the ball had sailed over everyone's head. The one instance, I believe where the hit was indisputably malicious. Of course, after making a big stink about suspensions, the NFL, with a perfect opportunity to make a point, gives Meriweather a 50K fine, not even the largest they handed out this weekend (that went to James Harrison, who received a 75K fine since he's a "repeat offender") and no suspension. I always held the NFL league office in a higher regard than that of the Stern National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball (how come the bronze statue of Selig in Milwaukee is still standing? We need to have a Saddam-style takedown of it, or at least somebody to make a fake video about it), and the National Hockey League (insert joke here), but I'm starting to believe that regard may be unfounded.

Now onto my hypocrisy point, because this whole situation reeks of it.

The league (aside from the aforementioned "crackdown" on dirty hits two years ago that, if actually enforced, probably would've prevented some of the hits they are now fining players for): So, NFL, you're finally admitting football is a dangerous game. What's that? Player safety is your number one priority? Glad to hear it. Now as soon as we figure out how to make the game safer, let's discuss the implementation of two more games every season, shall we?

The players: "We know the risks when we step onto the field" seems to be the common reaction from current players, who don't want to see their sport changed. Yes, these are the same players who are asking for bigger pensions because of the crippling medical problems they and their predecessors will have/have due to the brutality of the sport.

Rodney Harrison: I think there was actually a lot to be taken from his point that fines never really got his attention or changed the way he played, but suspensions would be a different story. Still, while I like Rodney, his calling out players for cheap shots is a little like LeBron calling out Amare Stoudemire for leaving Phoenix.

In case you cared, I feel like by and large, this is much ado about nothing. If the NFL even does anything about this situation (I know I've mentioned this once or twice, but the NFL's word isn't exactly good as gold when it comes to enforcing rules), the overall product on a week-to-week basis will not look noticeably different. There will still be monster hits (I think it will work in the players' favor that, inexplicably, the NFL refuses to define the types of hits they're talking about), just, hopefully, fewer helmet-to-helmet hits, and call me crazy, but I don't think that's such a bad thing.  The bottom line is this: The NFL had a rough week and had to save face so they announced they were going to do the same thing they said they were going to do two years ago but never did. If the game of football looks any different in five years as a result of whatever changes are coming out of this weekend, I'll be shocked. For now, don't lose any sleep over it, especially you, drama king James Harrison, who has threatened to retire due to how the rules will effect his style of play. ESPN's Adam Schefter is also reporting that Harrison is going home, and he's taking his ball with him.

One last note. I hate, hate, hate the asinine argument that gets brought up in football and hockey that when a player gets injured on a big hit, the aggressor should be suspended for as long as the victim is out of commission. I think this idea is absolutely idiotic for several reasons. Firstly, 90% of hits that result in the injury of another player are either unintentional or impossible to make a ruling on. So if a player unintentionally injures someone (and we're talking about two sports where very large, powerful men are running/skating very fast at other large powerful men and landing on grass/turf/ice, trying to make contact) they should be suspended for a year because the player they hit tore his ACL? That makes sense. And even if you say, "ok well what about the 10% (and obviously that's an estimation, it could even be lower than that) of the time where it is intentional," than the league is on a very controversial and slippery slope where the job is do get inside a player's head and make a ruling. I don't see how that ends well. Also, should an intentional dirty hit that results in no injury or missed playing time for the victim result in no penalty/missed time for the aggressor? The bottom line is that there are plenty of dirty hits in football and hockey that don't get penalized, and should. But there is no correlation between the degree of malice/dirtiness of a play and the extent of the resulting injury, which takes into account the freak accident factor, how weak/injury-prone the player's body is, the opinion of a variety of doctors and the decision of the player and his coach.   Not to mention the strategy that would then become part of the game. If the Capitals and Rangers are in a best-of-seven playoff series-ok fine, more realistically  the Capitals and Devils- and Alexander Ovechkin takes a cheap shot at Dainius Zubrus in game 1, if you're Devils coach John MacLean, wouldn't you say yippeekayay motherfucker and have Zubrus milk his injury for the duration of the series, knowing Ovechkin is infinitely more valuable to the Caps than Zubrus is to New Jersey (Dainius, if you're reading this, I mean no offense)? Is that really a strategy you want coming into play, as a fan? I understand (though don't usually agree) with the eye-for-an-eye mentality, but with sports injuries it isn't nearly that simple.

Between the two of them, I think I'm just going to avoid guys named John McClane/MacLean when I'm looking to get into a barfight.

Sorry for the rant, more after the jump

"I think about it a lot. My brother and my father do too. They say, 'You'd be ready to put a gold [Hall of Fame] jacket on if you stayed.'"- Deion Branch.   Umm, really?? Apparently Branch's father and brother don't have NFL Sunday Ticket.

This week’s Joe Theismann Memorial What the Hell is Wrong With This Announcer? Call of the Week goes to Thom Brennaman (yes, that Thom Brennaman) who is filling in for Joe Buck as Troy Aikman's broadcast partner, as Buck once again tries to make the MLB playoffs about as exciting to listen to as a debate between Ben Stein and Stephen Hawking over who partied harder in college. The following was said with about four minutes left in the Cowboys-Vikings game. The Cowboys, down three, had just gotten the ball back after Tony Romo threw an interception:  "More often than not, Tony Romo puts his team in a position to win the game. Tony Romo really thrives in these situations." It doesn't take long to figure out why Brennaman is a substiute. Is he joking? Is there a quarterback in the league who blows more close games than Romo (ok, maybe Brett Favre)? What an absurd comment, especially about the quarterback of a (at the time) 1-3 team loaded with talent. I'm not the only one that thinks this, right? No one else stopped watching Romo after the 2006 regular season and decided they knew what kind of player he was, right?  As if it needs to be said, Romo and the Cowboys went three-and-out after that pearl of wisdom from Brennaman, and once again lost a game they should have won.

And speaking of the Cowboys... Are you serious Miles Austin? A week after essentially losing a game because of an excessive celebration penalty, Austin thinks it's a good idea to leapfrog Roy Williams in the endzone after he scores a touchdown? Ironically, the excessive celebration penalty that was then called on the Cowboys was actually called on Sam Hurd, he of Northern Illinois who appeared to be flashing the University of Texas "Hook em' Horns" hand signal that Roy Williams (he of the University of Texas) was signaling to the crowd. Hurd was actually doing the very similar "rock star" salute, which he later claimed was intentional. Quite a coincidence that they were both rocking the hand signals that look virtually identical at the same time. As everyone on the Cowboys should now know verbatim, the excessive celebration penalty states that you can't do joint or choreographed celebrations with teammates. Whether Hurd is telling the truth or not is really insignificant here. The fact that he threw up a hand sign even remotely close to the one Roy Williams was, is. Still upon initial viewing, Austin's leapfrog moment seemed more egregious at the time, but I guess that's the NFL for you.

Jerry Jones either knows he won't be able to control any other coach like he can Wade Phillips, or he's as senile as Al Davis (I'm going with the former). How Phillips can annually underachieve and keep his job is a true NFL anomaly.

Congrats are in order to the Wisconsin Badgers for a thorough, start-to-finish handling of the No. 1 team in the land, Ohio State. You simply can not come in to Camp Randall and expect to win. If you don't know, now you know. The No. 1 team in the country has now lost in two consecutive weeks, further proof to support my theory that there's no use in making a big deal over the rankings until there there are three weeks left in the season.

I'm outta here.

[husid]

Wednesday Morning Punter

Enough chit-chat. I've got a lot on my mind this week, let's get right to it.

Parity parity parity. It's an overused term but this season it has been on display more than ever. For the first time since 1970, no team is 4-0. It's been harder than ever to predict games and who even will show up on a week-to-week basis. Nowhere is this more evident than in the quagmire that is the AFC South. Each team is 3-2, although the Texans and Jaguars are in first and second place, respectively, due to their records within the division. As if my point needed to be proven further, the 3rd and 4th place Colts and Titans have a +35 and +37 overall point differential, while division-leading Houston boasts a -18 and Jacksonville has a sparkling -30. It seems like we say this every year, but what a weird year in football.

PARITY! PARITY! PARITY!

It seems to me that there have been more in-season trades/trade talk than I can ever remember. Lynch, Moss, Harrison, Bell and Branch are some of the names that have already been traded, and countless others have been in circulated rumors. I don't know if the fact that it's an uncapped season has anything to do with it, or if this year is just an anomaly, but it's not like it's gotten any easier for players to be plugged right into new teams with different, equally complex playbooks as the team they just left.

Anyone else find it somewhat ironic that Randy Moss, often accused of taking plays-and games- off, will not have a bye week this year, since the Vikings had already had theirs before Moss arrived in Minnesota and the Patriots had not?

Speaking of Patriots wide receivers, the expectation level for Deion Branch's second tour of duty in New England is already too high. Most people in New England are smart enough to realize that he's certainly not going to replace Randy Moss, but we all need to remember that Branch was an above average possession receiver in his first Patriots stint with a knack for clutch situations (see: Super Bowl XXIX, MVP), but he was never an elite receiver. That season (2005) Branch set career highs in receptions (78), yards (998) and touchdowns (5). Solid numbers but consider that in the four and a quarter seasons since then, Branch has never played a full season, never eclipsed 725 yards and never caught more than 4 tds. This season and last, he's averaged under 10 yards a catch. I'm not trying to say that he's terrible, nor am I saying it was a bad move for the Patriots, but the conventional wisdom in New England is that Branch is going to revert back to his 2005 self. Personally, I don't think reconnecting with Tom Brady is a big enough boost to offset 5 years (a long time in the life of a wide receiver) mired in mediocrity, but that's just me.

It appears Clay Matthews hamstring injury may not be as bad as initially reported, but he's still likely to miss a couple of games. I don't know if, right now, there's a more important defensive player in the league to lose. A.J. Hawk, time to become relevant again.

Speaking of relevance, Roy Williams seems to be back from his two year hiatus. Welcome to the party, pal.

"There was never any incident or discipline problem with Randy. There never has been one."- Bill Belichick.      Umm, really?

Did you catch the opening for Sunday night's new Simpsons episode? Well done, but awfully political, even by The Simpsons standards.

I didn't realize Andy Reid had shaved his mustache and was coaching the Jets during the fourth quarter on Monday night. That's clearly the only possible explanation for the atrocious excuse for clock management they put on display in the fourth quarter. Luckily for them, they were playing Brett Favre.

Speaking of Favre, I haven't been keeping track, but since his initial retirement, Favre has to have had twice as many game-ending picks as game-winning drives, right? Vince Lombardi I'm not, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you look for in a starting quarterback.

One last note about Favre: I don't really care to get into his latest text messaging controversy (anyone notice Favre wearing a Twins hat at his press conference last week? Call it a hunch, but I don't think he grew up cheering for Rod Carew), but starting late last week, numerous sources, including the NFL were reporting that the NFL was "aggressively investigating" the allegations against Favre, yet, as of Sunday night, Jenn Sterger, the former Jets sideline reporter to whom the brunt of Favre's text messages were allegedly sent, had not been contacted. Real aggressive investigating fellas. You don't have to be Matlock to figure out that a good place to start an investigation is by talking to the witness. 

More Matlock Jenn Sterger after the jump

Norv Turner- Just awful.

Oakland Raiders- Maybe not so awful.

Will the highlight music for NFL Primtime/ The Blitz ever change? I certainly hope not.

Watching the Giants defense over the last couple weeks really makes you appreciate how bad a defensive coordinator Bill Sheridan was last year. Everyone knows about sackmasters Osi Umenyiora and Justin Tuck, but the run defense has been equally impressive this year. So far the Giants have shut down Deangelo Williams, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte and Arian Foster. Not too bad. A probably meaningless stat this early in the season: The Giants are the only team in the NFC with a top 5 offense and defense.

Speaking of the Giants, a lot has been made of Tiki Barber getting boo'd (is that how you spell boo'd? bood, maybe? Anyway,) when he was inducted into the Giants' Ring of Honor at halftime of the Giants-Bears game in New Jersey a couple weeks ago. I have two thoughts: 1. While he does come off as a bit of an ass, Tiki's job was to be an objective analyst, and while some of the comments he's made about Eli/Tom Coughlin have been unnecessary, I can't say I've strongly disagreed with any of them. Giants fans need to get over it and realize that he's probably the best running back in franchise history (people not in that argument: Tyrone Wheatley, Ron Dayne, Brandon Jacobs). That being said, I didn't have too big a problem with the booing. Though, I attended the game and was in the minority of cheerers, few people know the way the fans in New York operate like Tiki does. Giants fans were making a point that they don't like people talking shit about them, which is fair. Knowing what he knows, I'd like to think that Tiki took it all in stride, realizing that in a few years, all will be forgotten, and Tiki will be revered as a Giants all-time great, somwhere below Phil Simms, LT (for you young fans out there, the original LT was not a whining, selfish running back who never won, but rather the greatest linebacker of all time, who happens to have two rings) and Michael Strahan, and above Jessie Armstead, Joe Morrison and well-dressed Amani Toomer.

I've always been partial to Chad Ochocinco's (nee Johnson) epic Riverdance celebration, but on Sunday we may have witnessed the best touchdown celebration of all time. Lions defensive back Alphonso Smith intercepted a Sam Bradford pass and brought it not just into the endzone, but into the annals of celebration lore. That's right folks, the Carlton Dance. Four days later, I'm still speechless.

On the other end of the celebration spectrum, Chris Johnson did his best TO impression (something I never want said about myself) by scoring a touchdown, running to the star on the Cowboys helmet painted in the endzone and raising his arms up to the sky. I was under the impression that that celebration had been officially retired. I think it's best if it stays that way. You're better than that CJ.

You'll see few NFL plays more selfish than Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie's interception return for a touchdown late in the Cardinals-Saints game. The football Gods have taken notice, be sure of that.

Julius Peppers is an unbelievable player when he wants to be.

Still trying to figure out how the Bears are 4-1 with that offensive line. Sooner or later it has to catch up with them.

Additionally, Todd Collins' performance against the Panthers on Sunday was nothing short of embarrassing. I've said it before but it is still so baffling to me that a quarterback (or a punter, as I wrote about last week) can reach the highest level of football in the world, and be so awful. I'm definitely not bitter about him putting up -7 points for my fantasy team (it's a deep league and Cutler was hurt, get off my back).

A few notes about the Titans-Cowboys game:

"Romo and the Cowboys are outyardaging the Titans"- Jim Nance. Can't say I've ever heard that before, but since it's Nance, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

To his point, however, the Titans beat the Cowboys in much the same way they took care of the Giants in week 3, when they were also outyardaged. They keep pounding the football, limit their own mistakes, coax the opposing team into making mistakes, and capitalize on them. Now a lot of both the Giants' and Cowboys' mistakes against Tennessee were self-inflicted, so at some point Tennessee may have to figure out how to win against a disciplined team, but that point is not now.

I'm always amazed when I know rules that football players don't. After scoring a game-tying touchdown in the fourth quarter, Jason Witten handed the ball to fellow braintrust member Marc Columbo, who proceded to spike the ball. I know that you're not allowed to utilize teammates in a touchdown celebration that appears to be pre-meditated (i.e. not just teammates jumping up and down or tackling each other), so why the hell didn't Witten or Columbo? The resulting personal foul forced the Cowboys to kickoff from their own 15, allowing the Titans' Marc Mariani to return the ball to the Cowboys red zone, setting up the game-winning score. A typical boneheaded play that has come to epitomize the Cowboys for a long, long time. As much as I'd love to throw this one on Wade Phillips shoulders (as if I needed more ammo), it's hard to blame this mistake on him. Presumably, when the NFL instated that rule (I believe 2 or 3 years ago), every single NFL player was notified of the change (there were a couple other changes, such as the disallowing of including props in celebrations), likely by both their coach and NFL officials, in training camp. Beyond that, I don't see why that rule would become a point of emphasis for a coach, provided an incident involving said rule never came into play. I'm assuming Phillips was unaware of Witten's plan, or if it was even planned at all. Regardless, the onus is upon Witten and Columbo, and their collective brainfart could very well have cost Dallas the game.

Week 6: Dallas @ Minnesota: Loser will be 1-4. Who'd of thunk?

The Saints mediocre play this season has been well documented in this space, and Sunday it finally caught up with them in a loss to the not-so-stellar Cardinals. Consider this: The Saints' 3 wins this season have been against the 49ers, Vikings and Panthers, who are a combined 1-13. Just sayin'...

After being placed on injured reserve today, Shawne Merriman's Charger career is officially over. A bizarre career to this point. An incredible but short-lived start, followed by several years of controversy and ineffectiveness. He's like Heroes. Maybe it's time to turn the lights back on, Shawne.

And finally, a college football note or two.

I'm a bigger proponent for BCS Bowl representation by non-BCS conference schools than most, but whomever was the one asshole who gave TCU a #1 vote should have his voting rights revoked. I don't think I'm going out a limb by assuming it was a reporter in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and if so, dude, you're not helping your team, you're hurting your own credibility.

Hey, college football analysts, get off Les Miles' back. All the guy does is win.

Since I promised: