2002 Season

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="002285a1erlcgo.gif"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>www.chapmansfriend.com</B></FONT><B>     |     </B><A HREF="default.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="www.chapmansfriend.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div>                                                   </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="001d2c00dkelyh.gif"> <div> <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Marky The Greek. "><U>Marky The Greek. </U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> 2002 Season</div> <bR> <div> The Super Bowl:</div> <div> RESULTS from the Conference Championships: I should have taken the Chunky Soup commercial curse into account.</div> <bR> <div> You see, for several years the folks at Campbell's have selected NFL stars to be featured in their Chunky Soup TV commercials. The first one in the series was Terrell Davis, just after the Broncos won the Super Bowl for the second straight year... and Davis promptly ripped up his knee and the Broncos faded. The next year, it was Kurt Warner, coming off his championship season... and Warner missed much of the year with injuries, and the Rams failed to repeat. (Warner didn't make any Chunky Soup commercials the next year, and he was back in the Super Bowl.)</div> <bR> <div> In the years since then, the curse hasn't been as catastrophic, but it remains true that no player featured in a Chunky Soup TV commercial has <I>ever </I>played in the Super Bowl that season. This year, the ads were split up among:</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Jerome Bettis (hurt for much of the year, and the Steelers aren't going to the Super Bowl)</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Brian Urlacher (escaped injury, but... he's a Bear. 'Nuff said)</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Michael Strahan (the Giants aren't in the Super Bowl)</div> <div> And then there's:</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Donovan McNabb (missed much of the season with a broken ankle)</div> <bR> <div> Now, knowing the curse, I should have known that the Eagles would not advance to the Super Bowl this year-- or at least I should have shifted my big, trying-to-get-ahead-for-the-season bet onto the Raiders, not the Eagles.</div> <bR> <div> But, I foolishly taunted the curse. (<B>W</B>, <B>L[15]</B>)</div> <div> Total: <B>1-15</B>, <B>44-64-1 </B>overall. (Really, 44-50-1.)</div> <bR> <div> January 26:</div> <div> It's the night before the Super Bowl and I'm preparing to enjoy my traditional pre-Super Bowl viewing of the greatest football movie ever made, <I>North Dallas Forty</I>.</div> <bR> <div> (What are the best movies ever made about other sports? Hockey would have to be <I>Slap Shot</I>, baseball would have to be <I>Bull Durham</I>. Golf? <I>Tin Cup</I>, maybe. Tennis? Nothing comes to mind right now, unless you want to consider <I>Strangers on a Train </I>as a tennis movie because of those scenes at Forest Hills. Basketball? <I>Hoosiers</I>, I suppose, unless you want to come completely out of left field and pick the late-70's artifact <I>The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh</I>, starring Dr. J. Or <I>Fast Break</I>, starring Gabe Kaplan (?) as an aspiring college coach.)</div> <bR> <div> Anyway. Before I start the movie, I suppose it's time to analyze tomorrow's game. (Which, in order to attempt to get back even for the season, I must now bet <I>27 times</I>. I can see why those casinos are so big in Vegas. It's like the old joke... A guy comes into Vegas in a $50,000 BMW, and he leaves it in a $100,000 Greyhound.) Since, to the best of my knowledge, no player on either squad has ever been featured in a Chunky Soup TV commercial, and since salon.com's Allen Barra and King Kaufman have both posted equally convincing articles arguing for different teams to win, I have to rely on actual statistical analysis. It's tempting to assume that the Raiders' passing game will overpower the Buccaneer secondary, but the Bucs' pass defense was <I>by far </I>the best in the league. In baseball the adage is "good pitching will stop good hitting"... and I can't think of why it ought not to be the same in football. </div> <bR> <div> So, I think the Raiders will have difficulty lighting up the scoreboard through the air, and on the ground the Tampa Bay defense isn't bad either. In fact, of the four components of the two teams' combined defenses (TB pass defense, TB run defense, Oakland pass defense, Oakland run defense), the only one which isn't among the top 5 in the league in that aspect is the Raider secondary (15th in opponent yards per attempt). Granted, the Buccaneer passing game doesn't rank highly either (21st)... but the actual yards per attempt figures are almost the same (6.46 for Tampa Bay, 6.64 for the Raiders' opponents). Based on those figures, and on the fact that the Bucs' offense has been more efficient than usual lately, I predict that Tampa Bay might be able to score some points through the air... and that with their defense, they might be able to hold on and win a low-scoring game, maybe 20-17. </div> <bR> <div> If either team is going to make anything through their ground game, it would probably be the Raiders, except their rushing stats (yards per carry, which doesn't correlate quite as well with success as yards per pass attempt does) are only a little above league average, and the Bucs' run defense is very good. The problems that the Raiders might have through the air could affect their ground game as well, since as I understand it the West Coast Offense uses the pass to set up the run as much as the other way around.</div> <bR> <div> TB and OAK (-3.5). I can hardly believe that the words "Super Bowl Champion Buccaneers" are ever going to be uttered, but that seems to be the way I'm leaning. And boy, are there ever going to be a lot of disgruntled Hell's Angels/ Raiders fans in San Diego! <B>TB + 3.5, 27X.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS:</div> <div> RESULTS from Divisional Round: My weekend was like an Oreo cookie-- all the good stuff in the middle (second game on Saturday, first game on Sunday). The Titans won, but didn't cover (<B>L</B>). Then the Eagles won big over the Falcons, followed by Sunday's ritual humiliation of the Niners at the hands of the Buccaneers (<B>W, W</B>). A 3-1 week seemed possible... then the Jets didn't even come close against the Raiders (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-2</B>, <B>43-49-1 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> January 19:</div> <div> TB at PHI (-4). Maybe it's just the time zone difference talking, but the time has come for a bold gamble. Obviously there's no way I can get back to break-even with only three games left, so if I want to claim a winning season, I must risk all on one game. I've done this in other seasons where I've come up short by the end of the playoffs-- pick one game and risk multiple bets on it to produce a winner. For example, I remember a year when, like this one, I was running a little below .500 come the Super Bowl. I calculated exactly how much extra imaginary money I'd have to bet on the 49ers to ensure the magic 52.4%, and let it ride. I'd rather have been able to pick .524 in actual games, but lacking that, I pursued a strategy which, <I>if it were real money</I>, would make me money for the course of the season.</div> <bR> <div> In order to do that, and to insulate myself against picking incorrectly in the other two games remaining, I've figured I have to wager 15 imaginary financial units on one game, instead of the one imaginary financial unit I've been going with all season. If I choose correctly, I make imaginary money for the season. If I don't, then... I have to do the same thing over again in the Super Bowl, except with even more imaginary financial units. And if I lose that, then it's a call to Imaginary Financial Unit Gambler's Anonymous :)</div> <bR> <div> I'm choosing the Eagles' game to make my stand. I don't think the Bucs can show the kind of offense against the Eagles that they were able to display against the 49ers. In fact, if you asked any 20 randomly selected Dubliners, I'm confident that <I>not one </I>would say, "I think the Bucs can score big points on that Eagles defence." :)</div> <bR> <div> I'm putting my trust in Donovan McNabb, and on the fact that the Bucs' only franchise victory with the temperature colder than 40 degrees was against a Henry Burris-led Bears playing out the string. <B>PHI -4, 15X</B></div> <div> TEN at OAK (-7.5). It looks like a rematch of Super Bowl XX. Thankfully, the Super Bowl is in San Diego this year... otherwise, it would be a hassle for Raiders fans to ride their Harleys across the country to New Orleans or Miami. <B>OAK -7.5</B></div> <bR> <div> DIVISIONAL ROUND:</div> <div> RESULTS from Wild-Card Round: Yes, the Jets crushed the Colts (<B>W</B>), but the Packers remained in their cozy zombie-like existence from the previous week (<B>L</B>). And the Sunday games... it's all very nice about the huge comebacks and all, but next time, 49ers and Steelers? Think about covering. I'm just saying (<B>L, L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>1-3</B>, <B>41-47-1 </B>overall. It's not yet time to start doubling up on my picks... but soon.</div> <bR> <div> January 11:</div> <div> PIT at TEN (-4). I haven't been on the Titans' bandwagon all season, but they should be fresher than the Steelers coming off the big comeback win. <B>TEN -4</B>.</div> <div> ATL at PHI (-7.5). I'm going to be bold and say this out loud: As of now Michael Vick isn't a great quarterback. He's great fun to watch, no question, but his passing numbers are, to be kind, mediocre. He connected for only 4.68 yards per pass attempt against the Packers, and over time, that's the stat that best correlates with winning. Vick does have mobility and the ability to keep defenses off balance, and within a few years he might add a serious passing attack. But for now, hearing the raves over Vick reminds me of Bill James' criticism of rating shortstops too highly because <I>SportsCenter </I>happens to show a few clips of them making a spectacular play. That, he said, would be like judging hitters solely on how pretty their swing was.</div> <div> In the last game he played, Donovan McNabb threw for 10.2 yards per attempt and four touchdown passes on a broken ankle. <B>PHI - 7.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> January 12:</div> <div> SF at TB (-6). Like the Steelers, I think the Niners expended too much energy on their comeback, and the Buccaneer defense is fearsome. <B>TB - 6</B>.</div> <div> NYJ at OAK (-5.5). If last week's Jets game was a matchup of Super Bowl III, then this week it's a <I>Heidi </I>Game matchup. I like the Raiders to win, but I think the Jets will stay within the spread. <B>NYJ + 5.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> WILD-CARD ROUND:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Seventeen: A timeline:</div> <div> Early Sunday afternoon-- Jacksonville is beating the Colts (yay!), but the Dolphins are leading the Patriots. <I>Well, there goes the perfect week right there</I>.</div> <div> Later Sunday afternoon-- The Jaguars win (<B>W</B>), and... the Patriots stage a stunning comeback to beat the Dave Wannstedt-led Dolphins! (That was extremely satsfying, and I'm not even a Bears fan.) (<B>W</B>) <I>Okay, that's my break! 2-0 so far, and in the late afternoon game I have... the Packers, And points! And Green Bay has everything to play for, since a win gives them home field through the playoffs! I'm on Easy Street!</I></div> <div> Sometime in the middle of the third quarter, Jets-Packers game-- Apparently the bodies of the Packers have been occupied by zombies. Feh. (<B>L</B>) <I>A 5-0 week isn't possible anymore, but 4-1 still is...</I></div> <div> Sunday night-- Tampa Bay 15, Chicago 0. Doubly satisfying since I had Martin "5 field goals" Gramatica in my fantasy league. <I>3-1 heading into Monday night!</I></div> <div> Monday night, middle of 4th quarter-- The 49ers have a comfortable 20-3 lead. Even a late score or two by the Rams won't affect this spread. <I>4-1... a nice way to end the regular season. Might as well watch that Letterman rerun</I>.</div> <div> Monday night, first commercial break of <I>The Late Show</I>-- Somehow, the Rams are leading, 24-20. Within minutes, that has become 31-20. I contemplate throwing a heavy object at the screen as the camera shows a nonchalant Jeff Garcia on the sideline. Granted, he hadn't played since the 1st quarter, but still... look a little distressed at a 28 point turnaround within the space of 8 minutes, willya? (<B>L</B>)</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B>, <B>40-44-1 </B>overall. Not quite good enough.</div> <bR> <div> During the season I almost always pick underdogs I think have a shot at playing tough, but for the playoffs I'm going to take the teams that ought to win and give the points. At least for the first week. So...</div> <bR> <div> January 4:</div> <div> IND at NYJ (-6). Colts-Jets? In the playoffs? Memories of Super Bowl III. Has Chad Pennington guaranteed a win? <B>NYJ -6</B>.</div> <div> ATL at GB (-6.5). The Packers have not lost a home playoff game since the invention of ice. <B>GB - 6.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> January 5:</div> <div> CLE at PIT (-8). For the life of me, I can't figure out what the Browns are doing in the playoffs. Butch Davis must be a helluva coach, but... <B>PIT -8</B>.</div> <div> NYG at SF (-3.5). Terrell Owens, get your Sharpie ready. <B>SF - 3.5</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK SEVENTEEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Sixteen: Good. But not quite good enough. The Panthers covered easily (hello, it was the <I>Bears</I>), and the Giants and Bengals both won outright (<B>W, W, W</B>). However, the Titans took offense at my "overrated" crack and handily beat the Jaguars (<B>L</B>). In my heart of hearts, I don't count the Rams game as a "loss", since my choice was predicated on the assumption that Bulger would be quarterbacking. He was knocked out in the first series. As I say, I don't consider this a true loss, but your neighborhood bookie would, so... (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B>, <B>37-42-1 </B>overall.</div> <bR> <div> I need a 5-0 week to hit .500 for the regular season. Help!</div> <bR> <div> December 29:</div> <div> MIA at NE (PICK 'EM). Once again, this is as simple as it gets. Who do you think's going to win? <B>NE</B>.</div> <div> JAX at IND (-7.5). Tom Coughlin's Christmas Eve reading of <I>The Night Before Christmas </I>to his team will make all the difference. <B>JAX + 7.5</B>.</div> <div> GB at NYJ (-1.5). I don't care if they've nothing to play for... I can <I>get </I>points with the Packers against the Jets? <B>GB + 1.5</B>.</div> <div> TB (-7) at CHI. I don't care that the temperature might be under 40 and I don't care that the stats suggest the Bears are due for an up week... If there's one thing you have to respect in sports betting, it's being able to spot a team draggin' ass. <B>TB -7</B>.</div> <bR> <div> December 30:</div> <div> SF at STL (-2). The Niners have nothing to play for and may very well rest all of their front line starters. That's OK, I feel confident betting against Jamie Martin. <B>SF + 2</B>.</div> <bR> <div> WEEK SIXTEEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Fifteen: No need to elaborate. The Vilkings won, and the rest of the games were disasters (<B>W, L, L, L, L</B>). </div> <div> Total: <B>1-4</B>, <B>34-40-1 </B>overall. There appears to be little chance to get back to .500 in the regular season... so that means I'll have to double up on playoff games. That always works, right?</div> <bR> <div> December 22:</div> <div> CHI at CAR (-3). If "crack is wack", then "John Shoop is a dupe." <B>CAR - 3</B>.</div> <div> NO (-7) at CIN. Interestingly, this Friday's <I>USA Today </I>lists the Bengals as a 13-1 team:</div> <div> <IMG SRC="1cafe480.jpg" border=0 width="254" height="72" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> Is that Dick LeBeau a miracle worker or what? <B>CIN + 7</B>.</div> <div> NYG at IND (-5). The Colts have more violent mood swings than that nutjob Flo from <I>The Amazing Race</I>. <B>NYG + 5</B>.</div> <div> TEN (-3) at JAX. The Titans have gone from being underrated to overrated in less time than it took ABC to cancel <I>Push, Nevada</I>. <B>JAX + 3</B>.</div> <div> STL at SEA (-1). As Trent Lott might say, "If the Rams had started Marc Bulger for the whole season, the country wouldn't have had all the problems it's had." <B>STL + 1</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK FIFTEEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Fourteen: Ouch.</div> <div> Ouch ouch ouch ouch.</div> <div> Ouch.</div> <div> I didn't need to have a week like this, just having gotten back to .500 and coming down the stretch... The Cowboys lost, but at least they lost close (<B>W</B>). Then, the Bengals and Ravens got waxed (<B>L, L</B>). The Lions couldn't beat the <I>Cardinals </I>(<B>L</B>). Finally, last week I posed the question: "Do the Bears want to be embarrassed twice in one season on <I>MNF</I>?"</div> <div> The answer is yes (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4</B>, <B>33-36-1 </B>overall. Ouch.</div> <bR> <div> December 15:</div> <div> MIN at NO (-7). This year, the Vikings are harder to figure out than that episode of <I>Twin Peaks </I>where the dwarf talked backwards, but they have to be better than a 3-10 team, right? I mean, that's the <I>Bears</I>' record. <B>MIN + 7</B>.</div> <div> WAS at PHI (-7.5). Yes, Virginia, I believe in Santa Claus. No, Virginia, I don't believe in A.J. Feeley. <B>WAS + 7.5</B>.</div> <div> KC at DEN (-3.5). You can bet against a team that's outscored its opponents 98-10 the past two weeks if you want to. I won't. <B>KC + 3.5</B>.</div> <div> DAL at NYG (-5). I will reward the Cowboys for being my only pick last week to not totally suck. <B>DAL + 5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> December 16:</div> <div> NE at TEN (-2.5). After defeating the Titans, Tom Brady will fulfill a lifelong dream by performing at the Ryman Auditorium with Ricky Scaggs. <B>NE + 2.5</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK FouRTEEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Thirteen: The Thanksgiving game I already wrapped up (<B>L</B>). But I came back on Sunday, as the Seahawks and Jaguars both scored meaningless late touchdowns to give me wins (<B>W, W</B>). The Saints rewarded my temporary faith by winning on Sunday night (<B>W</B>).</div> <div> And then there was the Bears-Packers game...</div> <div> My instant reactions to the key events of the second half:</div> <div> <I>Packers score to go up 16-14</I>. "Let's be honest, I want the Packers to win anyway, and they're still winning by less than 9 1/2."</div> <div> <I>Packers score to go up 23-14</I>. "That's still good, but you're pushing it, Favre."</div> <div> <I>Packers score with 2 minutes left to go up 30-14</I>. "(Expletive deleted)!"</div> <div> <I>Bears throw in towel, put Henry Burris in at quarterback</I>. "That's it, don't even try."</div> <div> <I>Burris throws Hail Mary which is tipped into hands of Marcus Robinson for touchdown, making the score 30-20</I>. "Yay! I pulled it out!"</div> <div> <I>Five seconds later, as I realize the Bears will go for the two-point conversion and will almost inevitably fail</I>. "Nooooo...!"</div> <div> <I>Final score Packers 30, Bears 20</I>. "(Expletive deleted)!" (<B>L</B>)</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B>, <B>32-32-1 </B>overall. </div> <bR> <div> December 8:</div> <div> CIN at CAR (-3). Repeat after me: "The Bengals are not a bad enough team to be 1-11. With even breaks, they could very easily be 3-9." <B>CIN + 3</B>.</div> <div> SF (-4.5) at DAL. I'm working on a theory that teams playing on Thanksgiving might have something like the "bye effect" because of the extra time off before their next game. Either that, or Terrell Owens will get slipped some rancid barbeque by a Cowboy loyalist. <B>DAL + 4.5</B>.</div> <div> DET at AZ (-1). Of course, the implication of the "Thanksgiving effect" theory is that I have no choice but to pick the Lions, Coach Andy Andy notwithstanding... On the other hand, they are playing the Cardinals. <B>DET + 1</B>.</div> <div> NO (-2.5) at BAL. Just because the Saints rewarded me last week doesn't mean I'm a complete believer. <B>BAL + 2.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> December 9:</div> <div> CHI at MIA (-9). Although the Dolphins should win this one, I can't resist the possibility that Coach Wanny will lay an egg going against his old team. And, do the Bears want to be embarrassed twice in one season on <I>MNF</I>? <B>CHI + 9</B>.</div> <bR> <div> WEEK THIRTEEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Twelve: Finally. The 4-1 week I've been waiting for! The gamble on the Bills didn't pay off (<B>L</B>), but... the Cowboys, Browns, and Texans all won outright for me (<B>W, W, W</B>). That left it all up to the Bengals-- would they look good early and then fade, like they've done so many times before? As I recall, they lost by 8, good enough for me to take the game (<B>W</B>). </div> <div> Total: <B>4-1</B>, <B>29-30-1 </B>overall. Now I'm going in the right direction, one game under .500. But, as any good gambler knows, it's not .500 you have to stay ahead of, it's .524-- that's the percentage you need if you're betting with a book, considering vig and all. I still have my work cut out for me, but (knock wood) I have a very good history of finishing strong. 75% or 80% down the stretch one season, as I recall. Now, of course, I've jinxed myself!</div> <bR> <div> November 28:</div> <div> It's Thanksgiving, but I'll only select one of the two traditional games. The Cowboys and the Redskins are both too erratic so far this year to invest a pick, although if I had to choose I'd say Redskins -1 1/2. But it won't be an official pick.</div> <div> NE (-6) at DET. Over the years the Lions have a much better record on Thanksgiving than they ought to, considering they've sucked much of that time. Wayne Fontes was their coach for most of the last decade... 'Nuff said. They're used to the short week.. whereas the Patriots aren't. And the Patriots have been shaky in winning the past few weeks. <B>DET + 6</B>.</div> <div> I'll add the rest of my picks closer to Sunday...</div> <bR> <div> UPDATE: Things that occurred to me on Thanksgiving:</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">I think the last time I saw those throwback Patriots helmets on national TV, they were getting the snot kicked out of them by the Bears in the Super Bowl.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">I guess I never got a good look at him before, but doesn't Marty Mornhinweg look like Andy Andy from <I>Cheers</I>? I've been occasionally betting on a team coached by somebody who reminds me of Andy Andy? Not going to happen again...</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Jon Bon Jovi on another halftime show? Does he have access to incriminating photos of Paul Tagliabue, or what?</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Seen during the Dallas game... a middle-aged black man in a cowboy mascot outfit wrestling a middle-aged black man in an Indian mascot suit. Only in America.</div> <div> And yeah, the Lions lost by 8, not 6 (<B>L</B>). Feh.</div> <bR> <div> December 1:</div> <div> CHI at GB (-9.5). The Packers are a good team playing sluggishly. The Bears are a bad team looking a little better lately. It's a rivalry game, which might end up being tighter than you would imagine, plus the Bears were horribly emabarrassed by the Packers on national TV earlier this year. I smell, if not an upset, at least a game where taking the points is a good gamble. <B>CHI + 9.5</B>.</div> <div> SEA at SF (-9). The Seahawks are just one of those teams that always look loke a good bet. If I end up with a losing season, that will be my epitaph: "They <I>looked </I>like a good bet." <B>SEA + 9</B>.</div> <div> TB at NO (PICK 'EM). If you remove points from the equasion, if you don't just pick a winner you're a wuss. Even though I've bashed the Saints during the season, I still think they're better than the Bucs, and they are at home. <B>NO</B>.</div> <div> PIT (-3) at JAX. Kordell Stewart will be too busy laughing at Bill Cowher's scruffly beard to concentrate on game plan. <B>JAX + 3</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK TWELVE:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Eleven: It's a strange week when the only wins I have from betting on the Bears and against the Packers (<B>W, W</B>). Otherwise, three losses, although at least some of them looked good until late in the game (<B>L, L, L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3</B>, <B>25-29-1 </B>overall.</div> <bR> <div> November 24:</div> <div> It's the last week to latch onto the "bye effect"... The last three games picked this way are:</div> <div> JAX (-2.5) at DAL. I was joking earlier this season with all those "Cowboys suck" comments. Honest. <B>DAL + 2.5</B>.</div> <div> CLE at NO (-6). Everything comes together on this game... the Browns with the bye effect, and the Saints are still overachieving. <B>CLE + 6</B>.</div> <div> BUF at NYJ (-3). After all of the Chad Pennington, Rising Star articles recently, I'd say it's time for a step backward here. <B>BUF + 3</B>.</div> <div> Now, what do I do for the rest of my slate? </div> <div> CIN at PIT (-11). The Bengals are bad, but not 1-9 bad, and Tommy Maddox will be re-learning his alphabet instead of quarterbacking the Steelers. Plus... 11 points! <B>CIN + 11</B>.</div> <div> NYG (-5.5) at HOU. The Giants will be distracted, still wondering what in God's name Phil Collins was doing on the Victoria's Secret extravaganza in New York. <B>HOU + 5.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> WEEK ELEVEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Ten: A step backward last week. The Seahawks won big, as I thought they might (<B>W</B>). I won my Chiefs bet with a half-point to spare, then turned around and lost the Dolphins game by a half-point (<B>W, L</B>). The Bengals... looked respectable early but lost big (<B>L</B>). So, that put it all on the Panthers game. They led in the 4th quarter, then the Saints went back ahead... by 4 points. Still, that's a win, right? Wrong. On the <I>last play</I> of the game, Carolina <I>fumbled </I>and New Orleans <I>recovered </I>and <I>ran it in </I>for a <I>touchdown</I>. This is why Hunter Thompson once compared gambling on pro football to water torture (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>2-3</B>, <B>23-26-1 </B>overall.</div> <bR> <div> November 17:</div> <div> DAL at IND (-7). A bye effect game, and I predict Peyton Manning will be "all tuckered out" after the big game last week. <B>DAL + 7</B>.</div> <div> GB (-6.5) at MIN. I keep picking the Vikings though I have little to show for it, because they really shouldn't have a 2-7 record based on their stats. And as good as they are, the Packers really shouldn't be 8-1 either. <I>And </I>the Packers never seem to play well at the Metrodome. Well, that means they have something in common with the 2002 Vikings. <B>MIN + 6.5</B>.</div> <div> NO at ATL (-3). How did the Saints go from being overrated to being underrated in one week? No way they should be underdogs here. <B>NO + 3</B>.</div> <div> DEN (-5) at SEA. Broncos will be distracted by reports of "bitchin' new powder at Vail." <B>SEA + 5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> November 18:</div> <div> CHI at STL (-10). The worst pass defense in the NFL against the hottest quarterback in the league? As George Costanza once discovered, sometimes it's best to "do the opposite." <B>CHI + 10</B>.</div> <bR> <div> 7:27 left to go, Iowa 45, Minnesota 21. We're going to keep Floyd another year, and we're going to go undefeated in the Big Ten for the first time in 80 years. And Iowa still might not go to the Rose Bowl?</div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK TEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Nine: The Patriots, Titans, and Bengals all won outright. The... <I>Bengals</I>? <I>Won</I>? (<B>W,W,W</B>.) The Vikings lost pretty big (<B>L</B>), while the Eagles broke my heart by winning by only 6, not 6 1/2 (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B>, <B>21-23-1 </B>overall. 3-2 weeks aren't flashy, but if I keep doing that the rest of the season I end up at 53.5% overall. Still, a 4-1 week would make me feel good right now.</div> <bR> <div> November 3:</div> <div> NO (-4.5) at CAR. I still don't believe in the Saints. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that the great Andre Braugher is starring in something like <I>Hack</I>. <B>CAR + 4.5</B>.</div> <div> CIN at BAL (+5.5). Put me on that Bengals bandwagon! <B>CIN + 5.5</B>.</div> <div> SEA at AZ (+3.5). Jake Plummer is the most consistently disappointing quarterback in pro football, unless he has a doppelganger somewhere in the CFL. <B>SEA + 3.5</B>.</div> <div> KC at SF (+6.5). The Chiefs have the bye effect, and the 49ers really shouldn't be 6-2 with a point differential of 39. <B>KC + 6.5</B>.</div> <div> MIA at NYJ (+ 2.5). Every instinct I have tells me that the Dolphins will never win with Ray Lucas at quarterback. After my poor prognostications on last Tuesday's elections, maybe I should disregard my instincts for a change. <B>MIA + 2.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> 12:49 left in the game, and Iowa is beating Northwestern 62-10. Just like the old days...</div> <bR> <div> WEEK NINE:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Eight: It was probably coincidence, but... Games with a noon start time: The Falcons, Seahawks, and Chiefs all won outright (<B>W, W, W</B>). But in the late afternoon games... the Cardinals almost covered but not quite, and the Patriots were blown out (<B>L, L</B>). Should I only pick the noon games from now on?</div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B>, <B>18-21-1</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> November 3:</div> <div> NE at BUF (-2). Bye effect... Besides, even if Tom Brady isn't really as good as he looked in the first few games, he <I>can't </I>be as bad as he's looked lately, right? <B>NE + 2</B>.</div> <div> PHI (-6.5) at CHI. I have no reason to pick this game other than instinct to feed off of a team in disarray. I will follow the tradition of Norman "The Man" Chad, who each season selects one game and predicts <I>the exact score</I>. Eagles, 27-9. <B>PHI - 6.5</B>.</div> <div> TEN at IND (-3). Two underachieving teams, but besides the bye effect, it seems like the Titans might be coming out of their slumber. <B>TEN + 3</B>.</div> <div> MIN at TB (-7). The Vikings are starting to come around too... <B>MIN + 7</B>.</div> <div> CIN at HOU (-3). It pains me when any system compels me to pick the Bengals, but... <B>CIN + 3</B>.</div> <bR> <div> I swear I didn't plan it this way, but all five games this week are noon start times...</div> <bR> <div> WEEK EIGHT:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Seven: A very bad Sunday. The 49ers looked good early, but it couldn't last (<B>L</B>). The Seahawks and the Texans both were blown out <B>(L, L)</B>, and the Cardinals won by <I>3</I>, not <I>3 1/2</I> <B>(L)</B>. Thankfully, the Steelers picked me up on Monday night <B>(W)</B>.</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4</B>, <B>15-19-1</B> overall. But, I don't care right now. As I'm writing this, Iowa is up 31-9 on the hated Wolverines. I smell roses!!!</div> <bR> <div> October 27: </div> <div> Time for a new "system", or at least a supplementary one. If you look at the points scored and points allowed stats, you'll see that some teams have won more games than they should have, and some have underachieved. So, if a team... let's call them the <I>Saints</I>, just for fun... has a point differential that should give them a 5-2 record, but is actually 6-1, then maybe the odds are against them winning their next game. Just, you know, using the name <I>Saints</I> as a hypothetical.</div> <bR> <div> ATL at NO (-4). Hmm, I think maybe I'll take the Falcons... <B>ATL + 4</B>.</div> <div> SEA at DAL (-2.5). The Seahawks are due for a good game, plus... Chad Hutchinson? From what I can tell, <I>I've </I>started as many games over the last few years as he has.</div> <div> Here's a question: If Emmitt Smith breaks the rushing yardage record, and they have a big ceremony, and present him the ball, and then on the <I>next </I>play he gets caught for a 5-yard loss to put him back below Payton's yardage, do they take the first ball back? Just wondering. <B>SEA + 2.5</B>.</div> <div> OAK (-2.5) at KC. In a game in which there should be roughly 110 total points scored... <B>KC + 2.5</B>.</div> <div> AZ at SF (-8). Bye effect for the Cardinals, which by this time is the only possible reason I'd take them. <B>AZ + 8</B>.</div> <div> DEN at NE (-3). The Patriots are coming off their bye week, but they're favored, so I wouldn't normally pick them. I just have a feeling they're due for a big win. <B>NE - 3</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK SEVEN:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Six: Well, the Vikings came back and covered <B>(W)</B>, and the Texans-Bills game gave me the first push of the season <B>(T)</B>. Other than that... not so good. The Rams and Titans came back to life on me <B>(L, L)</B>, and I was so uncertain about talking the Redskins that I wasn't too shocked at the outcome <B>(L)</B>.</div> <div> Total: <B>1-3-1</B>, <B>14-15-1</B> overall. In my defense I <I>would </I>have taken the Falcons as underdogs <I>if </I>the game had been listed, but it wasn't due to the uncertainty over Vick's status... and I'd have won that game easily. But, for all I know, I'd only have substituted that game for the Vikings game, making it come out the same.</div> <div> Still, over the last 3 weeks, I'm 9-5-1. I'd take that every three weeks.</div> <bR> <div> October 20:</div> <div> SEA at STL (-5). Bye effect, plus... Marc Bulger??? <B>SEA +5</B></div> <div> SF at NO (-2.5). I'm still having trouble thinking of the Saints as "prohibitive favorites", even though they are 5-1. <B>SF + 2.5</B>, and I want to see what Owens is going to do <I>this </I>week. On-field tattoos?</div> <div> HOU at CLE (-8.5). Bye effect. Every year I seem to take one team nearly every week, and this year I think it's the Texans. <B>HOU + 8.5</B>.</div> <div> DAL at AZ (-3.5). Taking the Cardinals is always a risk, but it seems like Jake Plummer likes beating up on the 'Boys. <B>AZ - 3.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> October 21:</div> <div> IND at PIT (-4.5). I think the Steelers may have finally gotten it together, although Tommy Maddox is always a red flag. <B>PIT - 4.5</B>.</div> <bR> <div> Enough with the intutitive pickings... next week I may be ready to break out some statistical analytic gadgets...</div> <bR> <div> WEEK SIX:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Five: It's good to have a system.</div> <div> The Falcons lost, which I'm going to blame on Vick's injury <B>(L)</B>, but the rest of my picks came through. The Steelers didn't win, but they came close <B>(W)</B>, and my other three teams-- two of them road underdogs-- won outright <B>(W, W, W)</B>. And, I have to say, if I went outside my own ground rules and picked a sixth game, I'd have taken the Packers +1 against the Bears...</div> <div> Total: <B>4-1</B>, <B>13-12</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> I can't depend on the "bye effect" to pick all of my games this week... One game which I might have liked is the Falcons-Giants, but it's off the board as of the Friday <I>USA Today</I>, so I'll abide by my rules.</div> <bR> <div> October 13:</div> <div> NO (-1) at WAS. The Redskins have the bye effect, but I'd like more than one point. <B>WAS + 1</B></div> <div> BUF (-7) at HOU. Bye effect. <B>HOU + 7</B></div> <div> DET at MIN (-4.5). They are both bad teams, but the Vikings are a good bad team while the Lions are just a bad bad team. Slightly off topic, I think it's silly how hard the nation's sports media have come down on Randy Moss over the past few weeks. Yes, he has made some mistakes, but let's put it in perspective. Has he even approached Ryan-Leafdom yet? The next thing you know, somebody will try to link Moss to the Maryland sniper. Oh, yeah, my pick: <B>MIN - 4.5</B></div> <div> JAX (-2) at TEN. The Titans are just playing so badly now that I have to take this game. <B>JAX -2</B></div> <div> OAK (-8) at STL. Ditto for the Rams. <B>OAK - 8</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK FIVE:</div> <div> RESULTS from Week Four: Me and Bobby Layne have an understanding.</div> <div> If I trash his old team the Lions, he'll make sure they come up and surprise me <B>(L)</B>... But he'll use a little pull to make sure the rest of my games come out fine. The Texans managed to stay close <B>(W)</B>, and the rest of my picks won outright. Seattle crushed team-in-disarray the Vikings <B>(W)</B>, and home underdogs the Chargers and the Ravens came up big <B>(W, W)</B>.</div> <div> Total: <B>4-1</B>, <B>9-11</B> overall.</div> <bR> <div> I have an easy job picking games this week. Last week I mentioned that there's a "bye factor" with teams coming off a bye week being more likely to win (hello, Ravens). Actually, the "bye factor" is effective for two weeks... but before this year the bye factor wasn't useful for more than a game or so a week. It does me no good to know that a favored team is even more likely to win, and they used to arrange the bye schedule so that teams from the same division would often be off the same week. If two rested teams played each other in a division game, it doesn't do me any good to know that one of them will win.</div> <div> But this week... there are exactly 5 games where a team with a bye either last week or two weeks ago is an underdog, playing a team that hasn't had a week off yet. If I believe in the "bye effect", I have no choice but to pick them all.</div> <bR> <div> October 6:</div> <div> TB (-1.5) at ATL. <B>ATL + 1.5</B></div> <div> WAS at TEN (-5.5). <B>WAS + 5.5</B></div> <div> PIT at NO (-3). <B>PIT + 3</B></div> <div> PHI (-3) at JAX. <B>JAX + 3</B></div> <div> BAL at CLE (-7). <B>BAL + 7</B></div> <bR> <div> Relying on a "system" like this reminds me of that episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show where Ted came up with a system for picking games, and he went into a partnership with Lou over the season, and they made a lot of money but Lou wasn't happy because he was relying on Ted's "system", and at the end of the season he went and put their winnings on the Vikings in the Super Bowl, and they lost everything. Do I, like Lou, care about relying on an inanimate system? <B>NO</B>.</div> <bR> <div> WEEK FOUR:</div> <div> September 29:</div> <div> Trying to stay away from betting the Rams again...</div> <div> NO (-7.5) at DET</div> <div> I tempted the football gods a few weeks ago by saying that the Cowboys sucked, and the spirit of Tom Landry paid me back. However, the Lions really <I>do </I>suck, and I dare the ghost of Bobby Layne to do anything about it. <B>NO - 7.5</B></div> <div> HOU at PHI (-20)</div> <div> Yes, the Eagles are hugely better, but... think about it. <I>20 points!</I> I can't resist. <B>HOU + 20</B></div> <div> NE (-3) at SD</div> <div> I think this is the week the Patriots lose their focus enough to lose. But, that's been predicted since sometime last December. <B>SD + 3</B></div> <div> MIN at SEA (-3)</div> <div> What's Norwegian for "team in disarray"? <B>SEA - 3 </B>(For the record, it's <I>lag i uorden</I>.)</div> <bR> <div> September 30:</div> <div> DEN (-7) at BAL</div> <div> The Ravens are coming off a bye week. Traditionally, teams coming off the bye have a significantly better winning record. Plus, there's the bizarre Brian Griese tripping-over-a-puppy thing. What's up with that? <B>BAL + 7</B> </div> <bR> <div> WEEK ONE:</div> <div> September 5: SF (-3.5) at NYG</div> <div> My early season picks are usually shaky, since it takes a while to get the hang of how each team is playing for the season. For this game, I can only fall back on remembering that last season, the Niners were good. The Giants, not so good.</div> <div> <B>SF- 3.5</B>.</div> <div> RESULTS: San Francisco by 3. <B>L</B>. That's what makes this so exquisitely frustrating. <B>0-1</B></div> <div> Oh, that rumbling noise you may have heard coming from the direction of Wisconsin on Thursday night? That was Vince Lombardi spinning in his grave during the Bon Jovi halftime extravaganza.</div> <bR> <div> September 8:</div> <div> MIN at CHI (-4.5)</div> <div> The Bears were much better than expected last year, so until they prove themselves to me I'm going to assume they will be worse than expected this year. <B>MIN + 4.5</B></div> <div> DAL (-8) at HOU</div> <div> Sorry, Texans, first year expansion team will always get blown out their first game. <B>DAL - 8</B></div> <div> PHI at TEN (-1)</div> <div> In pick 'em or near pick 'em games, you just have to go with your gut feeling, and I always like the Titans. <B>TEN - 1</B></div> <bR> <div> September 9:</div> <div> PIT (-3) at NE</div> <div> I'm skeptical that Tom Brady can do it a second year in a row, but Defending Champion Home Dog Playing First Regular Season Game in New Stadium on Monday Night sounds too good to pass up. <B>NE + 3</B> </div> <bR> <div> RESULTS: Houston crushed Dallas... I really should have taken the fact that the Cowboys suck into account. <B>L</B>. Otherwise, a surprisingly good first week, when I usually don't do well. The Bears pulled out their game but only by 4 (<B>W</B>), Tennessee won by 3 (<B>W</B>), and the Patriots came through big on Monday night (<B>W</B>). </div> <div> Total: <B>3-2</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK TWO:</div> <div> September 15:</div> <div> TEN (-3) at DAL</div> <div> I'm going to count on the Cowboys continuing to suck. <B>TEN -3</B></div> <div> HOU at SD (-12.5)</div> <div> Undoubtedly the Texans really aren't as good as they showed Sunday night (did I happen to mention the Cowboys suck?), but 12 1/2 points are a lot of points, and it's not like the Chargers are the '66 Packers. <B>HOU + 12.5</B></div> <div> NYG at STL (-12.5)</div> <div> The Rams have to wake up sometime. <B>STL - 12.5</B></div> <div> CHI at ATL (-3)</div> <div> I still don't think the Bears will measure up to last year, but Vick may be too inexperienced to stand up to a good defense. <B>CHI +3</B></div> <bR> <div> September 16:</div> <div> PHI (-3) at WAS</div> <div> If any game with the Redskins is going to have a lot of offense (<I>Shane Matthews </I>threw for 300 yards?), then I think it increases the chance that they will beat the spread. Plus, home dogs on Monday night-- I love 'em. <B>WAS +3</B></div> <bR> <div> RESULTS: I have an explanation for this week's results.</div> <div> I made too many references to the Cowboys sucking, and the spirit of Tom Landry paid me back with a vengeance.</div> <div> Yes, the Cowboys won <B>(L)</B>, maybe the Chargers <I>are </I>as good as the '66 Packers <B>(L)</B>, the Rams are still sleepwalking and maybe Steve Spurrier isn't a certified Offensive Genius after all <B>(L)</B>, <B>(L)</B>. I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for the Bears <B>(W)</B>, keeping me from a Total Loss Weekend.</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4</B>. About normal for one of the early weeks. Overall, <B>4-6</B>.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> WEEK THREE:</div> <div> September 22:</div> <div> CLE at TEN (-4)</div> <div> If both Eddie George and Steve McNair are hurting, this could be an upset. <B>CLE +4</B></div> <div> NO at CHI (-1)</div> <div> Why jump off a hot streak now? Besides, these are, like, the <I>Saints</I>. <B>CHI -1</B></div> <div> IND (-12) at HOU</div> <div> I still think 12 points is a lot of points. Besides, the Texans are undefeated at home! <B>HOU +12</B></div> <div> SD (-1.5) at AZ</div> <div> I believe the Chargers are doing it with smoke and mirrors. Now, doing it with just smoke... that's the Mets! <B>AZ+ 1.5</B></div> <bR> <div> September 23:</div> <div> STL (-2) at TB</div> <div> Repeat after me... the Rams will wake up soon... <B>STL -2</B></div> <bR> <div> RESULTS: Blech. Well, I expect to have bad weeks early in the season. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I did steal the Browns game (<B>W</B>), but... the Bears, after I finally jumped on the bandwagon, blew a 20 point lead, 12 points <I>still </I>weren't enough for the Texans, and you really ought to think twice or three times before going with the Cardinals (<B>L x 3</B>). Then there are the Rams. The hell? (<B>L</B>).</div> <div> Total: <B>1-4</B>, <B>5-10</B> overall.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>