Documentary
I have not seen any of the nominees and this category does offer a kooky conundrum: I suspect Honeyland is everyone's favorite title but American Company is the reason Barry and Shelly Obama were thought to be in attendance (no dice, the Obamas will be eating microwave popcorn in their jammies like the rest of us). Honeyland is an uplifting movie about nature at its loveliest and most optimistic but American Factory gives all those good Cali liberals a chance to vote for Obama for a third time (ha!). As for the other three titles, I just can't imagine they're gonna have any shot. And if the Obamas aren't in attendance, I'd be surprise if a nuts-and-bolts blue collar worker movie actually won. (I had two docs in my top ten this year: Apollo 11 (a reminder that people used to set out to do things and then do them) and Hail Satan? (an eye-opening look at the practices and crusades of the Satanic Temple, which it turns out cares way more about the American people than any political candidate I've ever seen)). My pick: Honeyland
Visual Effects
Actually I only saw two of the nominees in this category: 1917 (amazingly good) and The Irishman (amazingly divisive). Avengers and Star Wars and Disney, yeah yeah yeah, but I thought Ad Astra was good enough to be here and that Midsommar was quite sly in its use of visual effects. But I suspect 1917 will nab a lot of down ballot votes like this one and it is a worthy recipient. (My personal fave: 1917) My pick: 1917
Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
Yeah, I don't do the Oscar-picking thing the way it is supposed to be done as I think of this as one category that I would call Sound Design. And the Academy clearly thinks pretty much the same way since (as per usual) four of the five nominees are the same across the two categories: 1917, Joker, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Ford v Ferrari, all of which are perfectly reasonable candidates. I suspect 1917 sweeps both of these because the film was a technical marvel, so giving it the tech awards makes sense, and often these two categories are where you see the big winner swallow up a bunch of momentum. (Personal faves: 1917, Ad Astra) My pick: 1917 to take both
Original Song
I dunno, this category means absolutely nothing to me year after year. My gut is that Sir Elton has already won an Oscar (and that Bohemian Rhapsody last year took care of everyone's classic rock jones), that Frozen II was a fine little hit but not the cultural juggernaut the original was, that Toy Story 4 made some money but didn't turn any heads and....wait, what is Breakthrough? I'm going with Harriet largely because I don't think Cynthas Erivo has much shot at Best Actress. (My personal fave: uh, so I guess Guava Island isn't eligible? Nor is "Anima"?) My pick: Harriet
Original Score
Yeah, I only notice scores when they're terrible, so I've got no ear for this one (Them That Follow was the only film this year that featured a score that was so--uh, not bad, let's say inappropriate--that it caught my attention). So far I've been leaning toward 1917 for anything I'm not sure of, but I'll go with Little Women here (the other title I expect to win more than you think), though I wouldn't be shocked to see John Williams win for one more Star Wars movie or Joker to earn some recognition for being such a volatile hit or for Marriage Story to be remembered for its one lovely and enjoyable quality. (My personal fave: The Dead Don't Die (Jarmusch's worst movie but when it comes to music, even terrible Jarmusch is still better than everything else)) My pick: Little Women
Makeup/Hair
Not sure why 1917 is in here, they mostly wear clunky helmets and sweat their asses off--not once while watching this movie was I thinking hair and makeup--but this is what happens when a title rolls heavy into Oscar night. Joker and Judy are more reasonable choices here, I suppose, and Maleficent is as well. But I thought Bombshell's hair and makeup was among the best I've seen in years, Charlize Theron was utterly transformed and that's impressive. (My personal fave: The Lighthouse (not a particularly good movie, but visually it was a great piece of work and the hair and makeup really made a difference)). My pick: Bombshell
Costume
Jojo Rabbit, Little Women and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood display a wide range of looks and a variability that was admirable. The Irishman had a ton of characters across a lot of time periods but I didn't notice anything particularly notable about the costuming and Joker had a unique look but a dearth of characters or situations that call for innovative costuming. This category is gonna be, I think, more important than you realize: I got a feeling the winner of this also wins Best Picture. (My fave: Rocketman (dang, no love for the Elton biopic over here?)) My pick: Little Women (but keep an eye on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)
Production Design
Often this is a category that leaves me scratching my head but this season I get all these choices: they're complicated films that have intricate and specific visual looks to them and that begins on the set. 1917 is a magnificent piece of work because the sheer amount of set that would need to be dressed at any given moment must've been a fuckin' football field! Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had numerous movie-within-movie scenes, which doubles the level of difficulty. Jojo Rabbit is a kid movie's that has to avoid looking like Nazi propaganda--not as easy it sounds! The Irishman had a wide variety of sets across time periods and ethnicities, etc., and just a mammoth number of scenes. Parasite is all about the differences between two worlds--which means it has to create two entirely different worlds, one of which gets (*spoiler alert*) pretty well destroyed. This is a 'cascade' category: often this goes to the Best Picture winner but I think this stays within the sidebar technical achievement cascade. (Personal fave: Midsommar, The Lighthouse, The Last Black Man in San Francisco all stood out to me) My pick: 1917 (could be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)
Editing
The fact that 1917 isn't here is the eye-opener (yeah, I get it it looks like it's got no editing...that's how fuckin' staggeringly great the editing was!), and this would've been an easy win for 1917, too. Oh well. Ford v Ferarri features excellent editing (not merely a variety of action scenes but a wide complexity of dialogue scenes, as well), but Jojo Rabbit and Joker and Parasite are kinda puzzling choices: they're fine films but nothing about the editing seemed to be the real cornerstone of any of these films. I think this statue has the name Thelma Schoonmaker already etched on it--removing 1917 from the running pretty much tells you the Academy already knows where this is going. (Personal fave: Uncut Gems (lot of handheld camera, lot of action, lot of characters, lot of stuff going on at all times, this was really well put together)) My pick: The Irishman
Cinematography
I had three of the nominees in my top five (I had Midsommar and Uncut Gems over Joker and The Irishman), so I feel like I get where the Academy is going here. Okay, here's the point where I think I should lay out my main Oscars thesis: I don't think any of the obvious front runners (1917, The Irishman, Joker, Parasite) win Best Picture. I think it goes to either Little Women or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. That said, I think 1917 wins a ton of awards but not the big prize, so does Cinematography hang with 1917's run on the tech awards or is it a precursor to the Best Picture surprise (in which case, keep an eye on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)? There are going to be a lot of awards to keep an eye on this year and this could be one of them. (Personal fave: 1917) My pick: 1917
International Feature
Feels like Parasite is a slam dunk over here, but don't sleep on Pain & Glory or Honeyland. That said, Almodovar has had his Oscar glory in the past and I think Honeyland wins Best Documentary, so...yeah, I've already talked myself out of this not being a slam dunk. (Personal fave: Parasite) My pick: Parasite
Animated Feature
I dunno...I'll go with I Lost My Body, simply because it's foreign and weird and not one of these typical juggernauts. Toy Story 4 was a fine film, Missing Link surprised all by picking up the Golden Globe, the How to Train Your Dragon franchise just keeps rolling along, (I don't know what Klaus is), any of those could win. I'm going with the critical darling that's already on Netflix, I just feel like more voters had probably had a chance to catch up with it. (Personal fave: Toy Story 4 and I Lost My Body are the only animated films I saw this year, tough to choose) My pick: I Lost My Body
Original Screenplay
This is an interesting category. Everyone's favorite edgy foreign film (Parasite), everyone's favorite (faux) edgy popcorn flick (Knives Out), the technical achievement of the year (1917), everyone's favorite previously decorated screenwriter (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) and everyone'd favorite previously un-decorated screenwriter (Marriage Story). This would be a great place to throw a chip at Parasite or Tarantino (I think a nomination is all Knives Out will get or that 1917 really deserves), but I think the storyline of husband and wife each taking home Screenplay awards is too delicious to pass up, I got to take Noah Baumbach to win. (Personal fave: Parasite) My pick: Marriage Story
Adapted Screenplay
Wow, these nominees are all over the place! Joker made a bunch of money and had its moment as a cultural thing but personally it did nothing for me and I see no reason why it even got this nomination. The Two Popes is a fine little off-Broadway play (though those Vatican interiors popped much better than anything at your local playhouse), but did anything really happen in their discussions? Was anything illuminated or explained or investigated? No. It was just two old dudes shooting the shit for two hours--again, fine for a play but not the most captivating film of the year. Jojo Rabbit is a tricky piece of work and I think the creators did an excellent job walking all the various tightropes, it is a fine film (just outside of my top ten) and one of the finer adapted screenplays of the year, but just short of a win, I'd say. The Irishman, too, comes with a lot of off-screen baggage about the veracity of any of this story, but I was bowled over by the film itself and a great screenplay really helps out and this would be a worthy winner. But, again, I can't help being sucked in by the husband/wife duo taking home Oscars and they're both totally worthy. What Greta Gerwig does with the original material shows an amazing amount of depth and understanding and it all went into the finished product. (Personal fave: Little Women) My pick: Little Women
Director
This is another one of those categories where the inclusion of Joker is mystifying to me. Yeah, I get it: everyone liked it more than me. But the Academy took Todd Phillips over the Safdie Brothers? Over Great Gerwig and Noah Baumbach? Over James Mangold? I get that it made a bunch of money but its cultural moment has already passed, hasn't it? This nomination just seems like a waste to me. Likewise with the Tarantino nomination: I don't see him having much of a chance of winning, so throwing him in there instead of reaching for a first-timer feels like a missed opportunity (unless...). Bong, Mendes and Scorsese were my top three of the season and I have to assume the Academy agrees with me and since I don't think any of these three win Best Picture, it becomes a choice between 1917's sweep of the tech awards or a chance to fete a long-underappreciated director, Bong Joon-Ho. (Personal fave: Parasite) My pick: I'm going with Parasite
Actor
Jonathon Pryce is clearly just a throw-in (nice to reward actors for making films with zero box office potential) and I think Dicaprio is too (does anyone really think he's gonna win for this?). As is Banderas, who is fine in the film but I didn't think him superlative. Nor did I think that of Joaquin Phoenix, who has been gobbling up all the run-up awards and seems likely win this one. I think Phoenix is fine in Joker but he's not doing anything I haven't seen him do before (the Academy has missed chances in the past to honor him, feels like they're not going to miss the chance this year). My choice would be Adam Driver because he really gets to the heart of something seriously complicated in Marriage Story (and because pound for pound he's arguably the MVP actor of the last decade) but I don't think that happens. (Personal fave: Adam Driver (Marriage Story)) My pick: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
Actress
Cynthia Erivo is a fine young talent and I think she'll pick up an Oscar for Best Song, but here she's clearly in 5th place. Saoirse Ronan has become one of the top actresses in the game at the moment and she's really great in this movie. Charlize Theron transforms in Bombshell (though I would've put her in Supporting Actress). Scarlett Johanson is also really good in a way we haven't seen before in Marriage Story. And Rene Zellweger is piling up the run-up awards for her amazing turn in Judy. I liked all of these choices (though I would've squeezed Lupita N'Yongo (Us) in here somewhere), so this category feels as wide open as any because I don't see any impact on Best Picture from this category. (Personal fave: Zellweger (Judy)) My pick: Rene Zellweger (Judy)
Supporting Actor
I don't get this category this year. Of these only Pacino and Pitt were in my top five, so including Tom Hanks for a Mister Rogers movie nobody saw and Anthony Hopkins for a Pope Benedict movie nobody saw makes no sense to me, though I guess I'm more lenient of just wanting to have Joe Pesci in the house again. But, dude, how do you leave out Timothe Chalemet (Little Women) or even John Lithgow (Bombshell)? Tom Hanks...why? What are you doing, Academy? If you really wanna reach for something, then why not nominate Bob Oedenkirk (Long Shot), which is a tougher performance than it looks like? Everyone thinks Pitt is going to win and that's fine, but the Academy really could've made these selections more interesting. (Personal fave: Timothe Chalamet (Little Women)) My pick: Brad Pitt (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)
Supporting Actress
The odds-on favorite seems to be Laura Dern (Marriage Story), but couldn't she have won for Little Women? And I liked Scarlett Johansson in Jojo Rabbit but that doesn't overshadow her performance in Marriage Story. And while I liked Margot Robbie in Bombshell, my favorite supporting actress performance this season was actually Margot Robbie in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. (I liked Florence Pugh but suddenly I'm bummed I didn't catch Fighting With My Family this year) I didn't see Richard Jewell but Kathy Bates is always reliable and as she's won before, I suspect she's just here to round out the nominees. I gotta go with Dern here because I think Jojo Rabbit was built for nominations, not wins, and because I think Bombshell was actually not a particularly good movie, hard to see Robbie stealing an award for that here. (Personal favorite: Margot Robbie (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) (part of the original complaint of this movie is that Robbie doesn't do much but I disagree: her job is to be angelic! Not easy to pull off and she pulls it off so well that audiences didn't even seem to notice--that's a great performance!)) My pick: Laura Dern (Marriage Story)
Best Picture
Okay, here we go. The clear favorites all come with strong resumes: Parasite won the Palm D'or at Cannes, Joker won the Golden Lion at Venice, 1917 won the BAFTA, and The Irishman topped the Nat'l Board of Review, NY Film Critics and Hollywood Film Critics. But I don't think any of these titles will win. I think it's a race between Little Women (a really really good women's film that has quietly made a shit ton of money) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Tarantino's most innocuous film and one that seemed like an also-ran from the moment it dropped, but one that even the most skeptical secretly loved). Ford v Ferarri is a fine film but a forgotten once, Jojo Rabbit needed nominations to cement its legitimacy but actually winning the big awards doesn't seem likely to me and Marriage Story is a respectable piece of work but not an enjoyable one, not one the Academy will feel the need to hold up to posterity. And back to the frontrunners: 1917 is a fine technical achievement that will win a ton of awards but not the big prize, Parasite is everyone's favorite talking point but the Foreign Language Oscar was invented for this very occurrence, Joker was a big hit but I think it gets completely shut out (with the possible exception of Phoenix) and The Irishman is Netflix's big get and nothing more. When voters are looking over these choices there are too many obvious choices to pick the right one, I think people will go back to the films they really loved this year and I suspect that's a choice between mild mannered Tarantino and up-and-comer Greta Gerwig steadily accruing respect while doing it the right way. Tough to choose, actually, but I'm gonna go with Little Women. (Personal favorite: Apollo 11 was my favorite film of the year--a movie about a time when people used to set out to do things and then they did them! That said, I adored Parasite and thought The Irishman was a fucking masterpiece)) My pick: Little Women
Recap
I think the Academy Awards will look a bit like the recent Super Bowl: the first 3/4 are gonna be all 1917 and in the final quarter will be no 1917. 1917, like The Revenant, is a technical marvel, a compulsively watchable movie simply because of its stunning visual style; but, also like The Revenant, it isn't a groundbreaking story or a Best Picture. I think 1917 will dominate the tech awards and I don't see something like Ad Astra sneaking in and getting wins, 1917 is the dominant tech film of this season. But once we get down to the fun awards, 1917 will disappear and won't reappear as a variety of other titles move in to shine. A coupla locks: Parasite will win Best Foreign and The Irishman will win Best Editing and I really like Harriet's chance of taking Best Song. Otherwise, it'll mostly be 1917 (with an eye on Little Women and/or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood stealing awards along the way), until we get to the acting categories and then the variability of this season will begin to stand out.
Outside of the overwhelming love I don't understand for Joker, I think this awards ceremony is relatively free of obvious snubs outside of missing an Editing nod for 1917 (that was an easy one, guys), acting nods for Lupita N'Yongo (Us) and Timothe Chalamet (Little Women) and, wait--no Costume nomination for Rocketman? I'm a little surprised that were no nods for The Last Black Man in San Francisco though I'm not surprised the Academy is not quite ready to anoint the Uncut Gems or Midsommar crews just yet (they'll be back, those crews are chocked full of badasses) and while Elisabeth Moss (Her Smell) is ready for some love I think she's got many more chances on the way. I liked Ford v Ferarri more than most and I'm a little surprised Ad Astra was such an afterthought but all in all I thought 2019 was a good, not great, year for movies and I think the Oscars are gonna spread the love around--that is, after 1917 grabs itself a handful, I think there will be some surprises later on in the show. All right, let's find out.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Thursday, February 6, 2020
2020 Super Bowl
Niners 20-31 Chiefs
A coupla personal observations: before the game I picked Chiefs 38-23 (so I expected each team to have one more score), tied at 10 at halftime I surmised the Chiefs would win 31-17 (close), at 5 minutes to go Niners up 20-17 I said to my friend, 'there's still enough time for the Chiefs to score two touchdowns' (nailed it). Strange game but the result still seems about right. Indeed, it isn't the final score that seems weird, it was the first 75% of the game that seemed weird!
Mahomes was not good for most of this game, the Chiefs offense was unusually sluggish and while the Niners were good, they weren't dominant. This was a close game that felt like the Niners had figured out the Chiefs for the most part. But while the first three quarters of the game were a Niners-inspired sludgefest, it was only a matter of time before Patrick Mahomes got loose, made plays and won the game. And down the stretch it was exactly what I thought it'd be: either Jimmy G or the Niners defense would have to make plays. Jimmy G missed a long ball to Sanders that would've put them back on top and the Niners D just ran out of gas in the 4th quarter. This isn't an indictment on Jimmy G (I still think he can be really really good) or the Niners D (that pass rush is gonna trouble for years to come), just an acknowledgement that Pat Mahomes is a magician and arguably the best in the game right now.
One thing, though: there was much complaint about Coach Shanahan's clock management at the end of the 1st half and I gotta say not only the haters wrong about Shanahan--Shanahan's moves were brilliant! It gets completely undone by the bad pass interference call on George Kittle (bad call!), but if you take that out the Niners have the ball in FG range with two timeouts and 15 seconds left. They've still got two shots at the end zone and an extra three points in the pocket--Shanahan made all the right moves, it was the refs that shot him in the foot. Shanahan didn't call timeouts earlier because he didn't need to, he knows that it's only the last 20 seconds that matter, so why stop the clock with 90 seconds to go? Unfortunate the way it played out for him but he was right and the haters all missed the point.
This really was a good match between two good teams and it stayed competitive throughout, though only got exciting late. Good W for the Chiefs! Congrats! Not a lot of fireworks in this game and it was over so quick, but an even match between two good teams and that's nothing to complain about.
Pre-pre-pre-season prediction: I like the Niners to come out of the NFC again next year, they've got the offense and the defense to get it done, I do believe in Jimmy G and in that defense and I think they'll be tough to stop going forward. Also, I just don't see anyone else in the NFC gets notably better next year: Packers, Saints and Seahawks are just getting older, Rams, Eagles and Vikings need to take a step forward (maybe but maybe not) and no one else even seems capable of going toe-to-toe with the Niners. As for the Chiefs, well, they'll have the Ravens to look forward to and a lot of teams that could make big leaps (Browns, Bills, Raiders, Steelers, Titans all come to mind) and we're not even sure that the Patriots are done (feels like it, but I'll need to see a corpse before I declare them dead).The AFC is a bit more of a minefield but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Chiefs-Niners show up again next year.
As for the halftime show, I had it on mute but it sure was a visual spectacle! And, honestly, that's all the halftime show is good for anyway. We don't really need a musical act, just give us 15 minutes of visual craziness and going the Busby Berkeley/relentless visuals route is the kind of idea the NFL should probably stick with.
PS -- I know nobody asked but if we're really thinking Tom Brady might end up somewhere other than New England, doesn't Cleveland seem perfect for him? Don't you think Brady looks at Jarvis Landry, Odell Beckham, Nick Chubb and that offensive line and thinks, 'Dang, I can win a Super Bowl with that?' The Browns are still looking for a Coach, why not bring in Josh McDaniels and give Tom Brady big money for 2 years? Yeah, I know what you're thinking: but what about Baker Mayfield? Yeah....what about him?
A coupla personal observations: before the game I picked Chiefs 38-23 (so I expected each team to have one more score), tied at 10 at halftime I surmised the Chiefs would win 31-17 (close), at 5 minutes to go Niners up 20-17 I said to my friend, 'there's still enough time for the Chiefs to score two touchdowns' (nailed it). Strange game but the result still seems about right. Indeed, it isn't the final score that seems weird, it was the first 75% of the game that seemed weird!
Mahomes was not good for most of this game, the Chiefs offense was unusually sluggish and while the Niners were good, they weren't dominant. This was a close game that felt like the Niners had figured out the Chiefs for the most part. But while the first three quarters of the game were a Niners-inspired sludgefest, it was only a matter of time before Patrick Mahomes got loose, made plays and won the game. And down the stretch it was exactly what I thought it'd be: either Jimmy G or the Niners defense would have to make plays. Jimmy G missed a long ball to Sanders that would've put them back on top and the Niners D just ran out of gas in the 4th quarter. This isn't an indictment on Jimmy G (I still think he can be really really good) or the Niners D (that pass rush is gonna trouble for years to come), just an acknowledgement that Pat Mahomes is a magician and arguably the best in the game right now.
One thing, though: there was much complaint about Coach Shanahan's clock management at the end of the 1st half and I gotta say not only the haters wrong about Shanahan--Shanahan's moves were brilliant! It gets completely undone by the bad pass interference call on George Kittle (bad call!), but if you take that out the Niners have the ball in FG range with two timeouts and 15 seconds left. They've still got two shots at the end zone and an extra three points in the pocket--Shanahan made all the right moves, it was the refs that shot him in the foot. Shanahan didn't call timeouts earlier because he didn't need to, he knows that it's only the last 20 seconds that matter, so why stop the clock with 90 seconds to go? Unfortunate the way it played out for him but he was right and the haters all missed the point.
This really was a good match between two good teams and it stayed competitive throughout, though only got exciting late. Good W for the Chiefs! Congrats! Not a lot of fireworks in this game and it was over so quick, but an even match between two good teams and that's nothing to complain about.
Pre-pre-pre-season prediction: I like the Niners to come out of the NFC again next year, they've got the offense and the defense to get it done, I do believe in Jimmy G and in that defense and I think they'll be tough to stop going forward. Also, I just don't see anyone else in the NFC gets notably better next year: Packers, Saints and Seahawks are just getting older, Rams, Eagles and Vikings need to take a step forward (maybe but maybe not) and no one else even seems capable of going toe-to-toe with the Niners. As for the Chiefs, well, they'll have the Ravens to look forward to and a lot of teams that could make big leaps (Browns, Bills, Raiders, Steelers, Titans all come to mind) and we're not even sure that the Patriots are done (feels like it, but I'll need to see a corpse before I declare them dead).The AFC is a bit more of a minefield but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Chiefs-Niners show up again next year.
As for the halftime show, I had it on mute but it sure was a visual spectacle! And, honestly, that's all the halftime show is good for anyway. We don't really need a musical act, just give us 15 minutes of visual craziness and going the Busby Berkeley/relentless visuals route is the kind of idea the NFL should probably stick with.
PS -- I know nobody asked but if we're really thinking Tom Brady might end up somewhere other than New England, doesn't Cleveland seem perfect for him? Don't you think Brady looks at Jarvis Landry, Odell Beckham, Nick Chubb and that offensive line and thinks, 'Dang, I can win a Super Bowl with that?' The Browns are still looking for a Coach, why not bring in Josh McDaniels and give Tom Brady big money for 2 years? Yeah, I know what you're thinking: but what about Baker Mayfield? Yeah....what about him?
Sunday, February 2, 2020
2019-20 NFL Super Bowl
Conference championships
Titans 24-35 Chiefs
I thought the key to this game would be the Chiefs getting out to a quick lead to neutralize the Titan rushing attack. Uh, not so much. Titans got up 10-0 right off the bat and it seemed like the Chiefs were on their heels. But then Mahomes made plays, Chiefs scored points and soon enough the Titans were an afterthought in their own game. A note on Derrick Henry: back in the Laker threepeat days, I remember every time the Lakers came down the court and didn't give the ball to Shaq, I wondered, 'Why aren't you giving the ball to Shaq?' That's what Derrick Henry was in this playoffs: every time the Titans did something other than give the ball to Henry, I wondered, 'Why didn't you give the ball to Henry?' Seriously, this is one of those games where the coach must've pulled Henry aside and said, 'Okay, kid, you're getting the ball 40 times this week. Be ready!' But for some reason the Titans mixed up their game plan and it just didn't work, they spun their wheels and once the Chiefs got going, this was all over. Mahomes is the man.
Packers 20-37 Niners
I thought this match would be closer, thought the Packers would dial up something different then their regular season thrashing by the Niners. Uh, not so much. Niners came to play, dominated the game early. I thought Aaron Rodgers was primed to have a big game but frankly I thought Rodgers kinda killed the Packers: a bad fumble when driving in the 1st half and then a bad interception right before halftime for the Niners to pile on their lead and it was over. The Packers accumulated some points in the 2nd half but it never really mattered. The Niners controlled this game completely on both sides of the ball.
Super Bowl
Niners @ Chiefs (-1.5) (o/u 54)
I think the Niners are the better team top to bottom but I am more convinced that the Chiefs (re: Patrick Mahomes) will make the plays necessary to win the game. In order for the Niners to hang they will need either a defensive TD and/or Jimmy Garropolo to make plays. Both of those things are quite possible but we haven't seen Jimmy G make plays so far and while I think he's capable, I just haven't seen it yet so I'm more convinced in Mahomes. Likewise, that Niner D is good--that pass rush is GREAT--but Mahomes has beaten good defenses before and I just have more faith in Mahomes than in anything the Niners are bringing. I think the Niners get out to a quick 10-0 lead, I think the Chiefs are up at halftime 17-16. Then I like the Chiefs to wear the Niners out in the 2nd half. Yeah, I know the Niners really are the better, more complete team, but the Chiefs have a playmaker that can squash all that pronto. I like Chiefs to win 38-23 (Chiefs and the over).
Titans 24-35 Chiefs
I thought the key to this game would be the Chiefs getting out to a quick lead to neutralize the Titan rushing attack. Uh, not so much. Titans got up 10-0 right off the bat and it seemed like the Chiefs were on their heels. But then Mahomes made plays, Chiefs scored points and soon enough the Titans were an afterthought in their own game. A note on Derrick Henry: back in the Laker threepeat days, I remember every time the Lakers came down the court and didn't give the ball to Shaq, I wondered, 'Why aren't you giving the ball to Shaq?' That's what Derrick Henry was in this playoffs: every time the Titans did something other than give the ball to Henry, I wondered, 'Why didn't you give the ball to Henry?' Seriously, this is one of those games where the coach must've pulled Henry aside and said, 'Okay, kid, you're getting the ball 40 times this week. Be ready!' But for some reason the Titans mixed up their game plan and it just didn't work, they spun their wheels and once the Chiefs got going, this was all over. Mahomes is the man.
Packers 20-37 Niners
I thought this match would be closer, thought the Packers would dial up something different then their regular season thrashing by the Niners. Uh, not so much. Niners came to play, dominated the game early. I thought Aaron Rodgers was primed to have a big game but frankly I thought Rodgers kinda killed the Packers: a bad fumble when driving in the 1st half and then a bad interception right before halftime for the Niners to pile on their lead and it was over. The Packers accumulated some points in the 2nd half but it never really mattered. The Niners controlled this game completely on both sides of the ball.
Super Bowl
Niners @ Chiefs (-1.5) (o/u 54)
I think the Niners are the better team top to bottom but I am more convinced that the Chiefs (re: Patrick Mahomes) will make the plays necessary to win the game. In order for the Niners to hang they will need either a defensive TD and/or Jimmy Garropolo to make plays. Both of those things are quite possible but we haven't seen Jimmy G make plays so far and while I think he's capable, I just haven't seen it yet so I'm more convinced in Mahomes. Likewise, that Niner D is good--that pass rush is GREAT--but Mahomes has beaten good defenses before and I just have more faith in Mahomes than in anything the Niners are bringing. I think the Niners get out to a quick 10-0 lead, I think the Chiefs are up at halftime 17-16. Then I like the Chiefs to wear the Niners out in the 2nd half. Yeah, I know the Niners really are the better, more complete team, but the Chiefs have a playmaker that can squash all that pronto. I like Chiefs to win 38-23 (Chiefs and the over).
Saturday, January 25, 2020
2020 MLB Hall of Fame
Newly enshrined:
Derek Jeter, Larry Walker
There was some speculation that Jeter would join his teammate Mariano Rivera as a unanimous selection and while he was close (99.7%), I was dubious. They were both badasses and both had great careers but Jeter inspired jealousy while Rivera was universally beloved. Hell I was surprised Rivera was unanimous but it didn't seem possible to me that Jeter would be. Jeter was a great player, a fan favorite, hit all the milestones you're looking for in a Hall of Famer and played on a ton of good teams (played only 1 game when the Yankees had been eliminated from the playoffs--holy fuck, that is mind boggling!). Great player, great Yankee (the reason he wasn't unanimous), perhaps the last great celebrity baseball player (is that Mike Trout over there? ...No, I don't...wait...no, that's not him), easily a Hall of Famer and I would've had him in even on the first ballot.
Walker is a borderline case for me, I'm okay with him going in but with so many badasses still languishing (Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Sosa, etc), I would not have voted for him. But he was the kind of no-nonsense old-school tough guy ball player that baseball writers always imagined themselves to be. Good player for a long time but never really struck me as one of the all-time greats. Congrats to Walker, but I can't help thinking the steroids era is pumping up his actual career (hmmm, so steroids did help his career...?).
Maybe next year:
Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Omar Vizquel, Scott Rolen, Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield, Todd Helton, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Kent, Andruw Jones, Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettite, Bobby Abreu
(ought to be in) Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, Ramirez, Sosa, Pettite
*sigh* Hey, baseball writers: what the hell is wrong with you? Why have you not put these guys in yet? What are you waiting for? Are you working under the assumption that ball players from your youth were all better human beings and now it is your job to decide who is good enough to get their proper reward in this life? You guys suck. Just do your damn jobs and quit being a bunch of fools.
(I don't think so) Vizquel, Rolen, Wagner, Kent, Jones
Vizquel was one of the best defensive shortstops I ever saw but not enough of a hitter or playmaker to put him in the Hall. I've said before that I think the Vet Committee will get Vizquel eventually and I still think that.
I like Scott Rolen, he was a hell of a player, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer and I still don't.
Wagner just doesn't seem high enough on the list of the great closers of his era to merit going into the Hall. If he hangs around and the writers continue to spite the noses on their faces (Bonds, Clemens, et al), than perhaps Wagner could sneak in, he's still got five more years.
I don't get the cult of Jeff Kent. He was a fine player but I don't think of him as vastly better than Eric Chavez or Alfonso Soriano, both of whom failed to get past the first ballot. Jeff Kent will be on his 8th ballot next year...why?
Jones was exciting as a youngster but got steadily less exciting throughout his career. I can understand him getting enough votes to survive past the first ballot but I don't see why he keeps hanging around.
(I'm undecided) Helton, Abreu
Helton was a great hitter but he had that Coors Field cloud hanging over him. That said, man, his numbers are really impressive: 2500 hits, .316 life time batting average, over .400 on-base, over 1400 runs and RBI's. Yipes! I didn't even realize how nasty his totals got. I can see Helton hanging around and getting in--especially if the Writers are properly convinced he wasn't on the juice.
Dude, Abreu had some monster years--monster!--where he was one of the most feared hitters in the game. My gut is that his career didn't quite last long enough but I'm glad he'll be back next year, I think he deserves a longer hearing.
10th and final ballot
Only Larry Walker was in his final ballot and he got in. Hurrah! And there was no one on the 9th ballot this year, so they'll be no last chance guys next year either.
One and done
Paul Konerko, Jason Giambi, Alfonso Soriano, Eric Chavez, Cliff Lee, Raul Ibanez, JJ Putz, Brad Penny, Adam Dunn, Carlos Pena, Heath Bell, Rafael Furcal, Brian Roberts, Jose Valverde, Chone Figgins, Josh Beckett
I think Soriano is really one of the most under appreciated players of his era. He came into the league with a lot of (Yankee-size) hype and ruffled feathers but not wanting to change position, which he did anyway, and basically was just a target for Yankee haters and star haters. Not to say that he was great, I would not have voted for him, but I thought he'd get the 20 votes needed to come back next year. Oh well.
Konerko and Dunn both hit a lot of home runs. And Konerko did win a World Series, thought he might last a little longer.
Cliff Lee had a few years where he was dominant, I mean untouchable. That really only lasted a coupla years, but he did win a Cy Young and a World Series, thought that might give him a little more consideration.
Dang, Josh Beckett didn't get a single vote? Was he not instrumental for two different World Series winning teams? That's not worth a vote? Brad Penny from the same squad got a vote, but not Josh Beckett? Tough crowd.
Veterans Committee
Ted Simmons
Uh, okay, I'm cool with this. Back in the day Simmons was kinda the poor man's Johnny Bench, which isn't a bad thing to be. He was a sturdy defensive catcher, good hitter, played on many good teams and just seemed like an all around good guy. This is a good Vet Committee selection, I'd say.
My eight votes
Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettite (hmmm....pretty much all the same dudes I would've voted last year--all the same dudes that should've got in years ago! Do your jobs, baseball writers!)
Derek Jeter, Larry Walker
There was some speculation that Jeter would join his teammate Mariano Rivera as a unanimous selection and while he was close (99.7%), I was dubious. They were both badasses and both had great careers but Jeter inspired jealousy while Rivera was universally beloved. Hell I was surprised Rivera was unanimous but it didn't seem possible to me that Jeter would be. Jeter was a great player, a fan favorite, hit all the milestones you're looking for in a Hall of Famer and played on a ton of good teams (played only 1 game when the Yankees had been eliminated from the playoffs--holy fuck, that is mind boggling!). Great player, great Yankee (the reason he wasn't unanimous), perhaps the last great celebrity baseball player (is that Mike Trout over there? ...No, I don't...wait...no, that's not him), easily a Hall of Famer and I would've had him in even on the first ballot.
Walker is a borderline case for me, I'm okay with him going in but with so many badasses still languishing (Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Sosa, etc), I would not have voted for him. But he was the kind of no-nonsense old-school tough guy ball player that baseball writers always imagined themselves to be. Good player for a long time but never really struck me as one of the all-time greats. Congrats to Walker, but I can't help thinking the steroids era is pumping up his actual career (hmmm, so steroids did help his career...?).
Maybe next year:
Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Omar Vizquel, Scott Rolen, Billy Wagner, Gary Sheffield, Todd Helton, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Kent, Andruw Jones, Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettite, Bobby Abreu
(ought to be in) Schilling, Clemens, Bonds, Sheffield, Ramirez, Sosa, Pettite
*sigh* Hey, baseball writers: what the hell is wrong with you? Why have you not put these guys in yet? What are you waiting for? Are you working under the assumption that ball players from your youth were all better human beings and now it is your job to decide who is good enough to get their proper reward in this life? You guys suck. Just do your damn jobs and quit being a bunch of fools.
(I don't think so) Vizquel, Rolen, Wagner, Kent, Jones
Vizquel was one of the best defensive shortstops I ever saw but not enough of a hitter or playmaker to put him in the Hall. I've said before that I think the Vet Committee will get Vizquel eventually and I still think that.
I like Scott Rolen, he was a hell of a player, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer and I still don't.
Wagner just doesn't seem high enough on the list of the great closers of his era to merit going into the Hall. If he hangs around and the writers continue to spite the noses on their faces (Bonds, Clemens, et al), than perhaps Wagner could sneak in, he's still got five more years.
I don't get the cult of Jeff Kent. He was a fine player but I don't think of him as vastly better than Eric Chavez or Alfonso Soriano, both of whom failed to get past the first ballot. Jeff Kent will be on his 8th ballot next year...why?
Jones was exciting as a youngster but got steadily less exciting throughout his career. I can understand him getting enough votes to survive past the first ballot but I don't see why he keeps hanging around.
(I'm undecided) Helton, Abreu
Helton was a great hitter but he had that Coors Field cloud hanging over him. That said, man, his numbers are really impressive: 2500 hits, .316 life time batting average, over .400 on-base, over 1400 runs and RBI's. Yipes! I didn't even realize how nasty his totals got. I can see Helton hanging around and getting in--especially if the Writers are properly convinced he wasn't on the juice.
Dude, Abreu had some monster years--monster!--where he was one of the most feared hitters in the game. My gut is that his career didn't quite last long enough but I'm glad he'll be back next year, I think he deserves a longer hearing.
10th and final ballot
Only Larry Walker was in his final ballot and he got in. Hurrah! And there was no one on the 9th ballot this year, so they'll be no last chance guys next year either.
One and done
Paul Konerko, Jason Giambi, Alfonso Soriano, Eric Chavez, Cliff Lee, Raul Ibanez, JJ Putz, Brad Penny, Adam Dunn, Carlos Pena, Heath Bell, Rafael Furcal, Brian Roberts, Jose Valverde, Chone Figgins, Josh Beckett
I think Soriano is really one of the most under appreciated players of his era. He came into the league with a lot of (Yankee-size) hype and ruffled feathers but not wanting to change position, which he did anyway, and basically was just a target for Yankee haters and star haters. Not to say that he was great, I would not have voted for him, but I thought he'd get the 20 votes needed to come back next year. Oh well.
Konerko and Dunn both hit a lot of home runs. And Konerko did win a World Series, thought he might last a little longer.
Cliff Lee had a few years where he was dominant, I mean untouchable. That really only lasted a coupla years, but he did win a Cy Young and a World Series, thought that might give him a little more consideration.
Dang, Josh Beckett didn't get a single vote? Was he not instrumental for two different World Series winning teams? That's not worth a vote? Brad Penny from the same squad got a vote, but not Josh Beckett? Tough crowd.
Veterans Committee
Ted Simmons
Uh, okay, I'm cool with this. Back in the day Simmons was kinda the poor man's Johnny Bench, which isn't a bad thing to be. He was a sturdy defensive catcher, good hitter, played on many good teams and just seemed like an all around good guy. This is a good Vet Committee selection, I'd say.
My eight votes
Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Andy Pettite (hmmm....pretty much all the same dudes I would've voted last year--all the same dudes that should've got in years ago! Do your jobs, baseball writers!)
Sunday, January 19, 2020
2019-20 NFL Conference Champinships
Last week's games:
Vikings 10-27 Niners
Really good performance by the Niners, really solid all over the field, played their game and played it well. They looked really good. I thought the Vikings' strengths coming into this game were their O-line and D-line, but the Niners ripped right through both of them. The Niners ran the ball well and their pass rush wreaked havoc on the Vikings backfield. The Vikings completely ran out of gas in the 3rd quarter and the Niners just put it on them late. The Niners were really impressive and the Vikings just could not hang.
Titans 28-12 Ravens
The Ravens picked a horrible time to play their worst game of the year. Listen: a trait of Lamar Jackson that I noticed during the season was his tendency to get really down on himself for any mistake--I mean REALLY down on himself. You wanna see a youngster learn from his mistakes and a little bit of self-flagellation is gonna happen, but Lamar struck me as so hard on himself that a coach should probably take him aside and tell him to chill the fuck out. The danger of too much self-hatred is this game: the Titans got off to a good start, Lamar threw a flukey interception and it was all downhill from there. The Titans had two quick bursts of offense: two quick TDs in the 1st quarter and then two more quick ones in the 3rd quarter, but otherwise the Titans hardly an imposing offense--even with Derrick Henry dominating the game. Defensively, though, I thought the Titans were just about perfect, that spread secondary gave Lamar nowhere to go while that pass rush put the pressure on. An impressive performance by the Titans defense and they came to play hard, but really this was still available to the Ravens, but they just couldn't get going. Sad to see another tough L for Lamar Jackson this early in his career after such a great season, but the Titans did what they had to do.
Texans 31-51 Chiefs
Man, the Texans really let this one get away. They were up 14-0 instantly, fans in the stadium hadn't even gotten the seats warm and were already afraid that Titans-Ravens game was a preview for them. The Texans got another gift of a muffed punt to go up 21-0 ten minutes into the game! The turning point for me was on their next drive: the Texans got inside the 10-yard line and instead of going for it on 4th down, they took the FG; I would've gone for it, that was the jugular moment and even it failed it would've shown faith in the offense and the defense without really giving the Chiefs a momentum change moment. Instead, the momentum change came the next time the Texans had the ball when they faked a punt in their own territory and it failed. From that moment on, the Chiefs rolled and just...well, straight fuckin' destroyed the Texans. Imagine spotting the other team a 24-0 lead, giving up the entire 1st quarter and then still scoring 51 and easily covering the spread...whooch! (So, Titans fans....how ya feeling about your chances?)
Seahawks 23-28 Packers
The Packers played a good solid game: no crazy highs or lows, just stuck to the script and grinded forward to victory. The Seahawks are nice and Russell Wilson kept things spicy right to the end but they just didn't have enough to stop the Packer attack or keep up with the scoring on the other side. The Packers played smart, didn't go above and beyond just did what they had to do, a good workmanlike performance. The Seahawks are a tough team to figure because they live so much on whatever Russell Wilson invents each week, you can never tell when he's gonna make magic or when it's all going to catch up to them; in previous years I underrated the Seahawks but this year I think I overrated them.
This week:
Titans @ Chiefs (-7.5) (o/u 52)
My pre-season pick here was Chiefs over Ravens, with the Patriots being the most likely other opponent. So looking up and seeing the Titans instead makes it seem like a slam dunk, right? Well, I'd say 'yes'! Yeah, the Titans are playing really good right now, the D is keeping everything in front of it and Derrick Henry is re-inventing what an RB can do, they're the hot team and they look like a great cover as an underdog, right? Well, I'd say 'no'. Look I expected the Pats to beat the Titans because I just thought they'd make the plays to win the game but they didn't; I thought the Ravens would beat the Titans but instead they gave into their stage fright and fumbled the game away. Notice that in neither of those game did I really give the edge to the Titans playing great football. The Titans are playing good right now but so far they've come up against superior teams that failed to take what was right in front of them. I don't think the Chiefs are gonna be that way. I think the Chiefs are gonna score every time they touch the ball--because that Titans D is playing so well, it'll give the Chiefs the perfect opportunity to game plan. And if they can establish a good offense, build a lead, then the Titans will have to throw the ball and gamble on defense and those are not the strengths of this Titans team. They've had a good run but I think it ends. I'll say Chiefs 38-16 (Chiefs and the over).
Packers @ Niners (-7) (o/u 45)
These teams played a few weeks ago and the Niners housed 'em, wasn't even a game, it was over and then the Niners just kept going. I think people are expecting that to happen again but I don't. I think the Packers are going to play their best game, which will still come up short, but it'll give the Niners pause. The Niners should be able to move the ball but Jimmy G hasn't been here before, I expect not merely an interception or two but probably really badly timed ones that'll give the Packers some life. I expect Rodgers to play smart and Adams to make enough plays to keep this close. Make no mistake: I still think the Niners are the better team and will pull this out, but a close game here will probably be a blessing for them. I'll say Niners 27-21 (Packers and the over).
Vikings 10-27 Niners
Really good performance by the Niners, really solid all over the field, played their game and played it well. They looked really good. I thought the Vikings' strengths coming into this game were their O-line and D-line, but the Niners ripped right through both of them. The Niners ran the ball well and their pass rush wreaked havoc on the Vikings backfield. The Vikings completely ran out of gas in the 3rd quarter and the Niners just put it on them late. The Niners were really impressive and the Vikings just could not hang.
Titans 28-12 Ravens
The Ravens picked a horrible time to play their worst game of the year. Listen: a trait of Lamar Jackson that I noticed during the season was his tendency to get really down on himself for any mistake--I mean REALLY down on himself. You wanna see a youngster learn from his mistakes and a little bit of self-flagellation is gonna happen, but Lamar struck me as so hard on himself that a coach should probably take him aside and tell him to chill the fuck out. The danger of too much self-hatred is this game: the Titans got off to a good start, Lamar threw a flukey interception and it was all downhill from there. The Titans had two quick bursts of offense: two quick TDs in the 1st quarter and then two more quick ones in the 3rd quarter, but otherwise the Titans hardly an imposing offense--even with Derrick Henry dominating the game. Defensively, though, I thought the Titans were just about perfect, that spread secondary gave Lamar nowhere to go while that pass rush put the pressure on. An impressive performance by the Titans defense and they came to play hard, but really this was still available to the Ravens, but they just couldn't get going. Sad to see another tough L for Lamar Jackson this early in his career after such a great season, but the Titans did what they had to do.
Texans 31-51 Chiefs
Man, the Texans really let this one get away. They were up 14-0 instantly, fans in the stadium hadn't even gotten the seats warm and were already afraid that Titans-Ravens game was a preview for them. The Texans got another gift of a muffed punt to go up 21-0 ten minutes into the game! The turning point for me was on their next drive: the Texans got inside the 10-yard line and instead of going for it on 4th down, they took the FG; I would've gone for it, that was the jugular moment and even it failed it would've shown faith in the offense and the defense without really giving the Chiefs a momentum change moment. Instead, the momentum change came the next time the Texans had the ball when they faked a punt in their own territory and it failed. From that moment on, the Chiefs rolled and just...well, straight fuckin' destroyed the Texans. Imagine spotting the other team a 24-0 lead, giving up the entire 1st quarter and then still scoring 51 and easily covering the spread...whooch! (So, Titans fans....how ya feeling about your chances?)
Seahawks 23-28 Packers
The Packers played a good solid game: no crazy highs or lows, just stuck to the script and grinded forward to victory. The Seahawks are nice and Russell Wilson kept things spicy right to the end but they just didn't have enough to stop the Packer attack or keep up with the scoring on the other side. The Packers played smart, didn't go above and beyond just did what they had to do, a good workmanlike performance. The Seahawks are a tough team to figure because they live so much on whatever Russell Wilson invents each week, you can never tell when he's gonna make magic or when it's all going to catch up to them; in previous years I underrated the Seahawks but this year I think I overrated them.
This week:
Titans @ Chiefs (-7.5) (o/u 52)
My pre-season pick here was Chiefs over Ravens, with the Patriots being the most likely other opponent. So looking up and seeing the Titans instead makes it seem like a slam dunk, right? Well, I'd say 'yes'! Yeah, the Titans are playing really good right now, the D is keeping everything in front of it and Derrick Henry is re-inventing what an RB can do, they're the hot team and they look like a great cover as an underdog, right? Well, I'd say 'no'. Look I expected the Pats to beat the Titans because I just thought they'd make the plays to win the game but they didn't; I thought the Ravens would beat the Titans but instead they gave into their stage fright and fumbled the game away. Notice that in neither of those game did I really give the edge to the Titans playing great football. The Titans are playing good right now but so far they've come up against superior teams that failed to take what was right in front of them. I don't think the Chiefs are gonna be that way. I think the Chiefs are gonna score every time they touch the ball--because that Titans D is playing so well, it'll give the Chiefs the perfect opportunity to game plan. And if they can establish a good offense, build a lead, then the Titans will have to throw the ball and gamble on defense and those are not the strengths of this Titans team. They've had a good run but I think it ends. I'll say Chiefs 38-16 (Chiefs and the over).
Packers @ Niners (-7) (o/u 45)
These teams played a few weeks ago and the Niners housed 'em, wasn't even a game, it was over and then the Niners just kept going. I think people are expecting that to happen again but I don't. I think the Packers are going to play their best game, which will still come up short, but it'll give the Niners pause. The Niners should be able to move the ball but Jimmy G hasn't been here before, I expect not merely an interception or two but probably really badly timed ones that'll give the Packers some life. I expect Rodgers to play smart and Adams to make enough plays to keep this close. Make no mistake: I still think the Niners are the better team and will pull this out, but a close game here will probably be a blessing for them. I'll say Niners 27-21 (Packers and the over).
Saturday, January 18, 2020
2019-20 NCAA Bowl Results
(3) Clemson 25-42 (1) LSU
Yeah, that's about right. The game started a little slow as each team calibrated their offenses against new defensive looks, but you just knew this game was not gonna be a defensive slugfest and once they got going, both teams moved the ball pretty well. I thought the refs kinda sucked: in those first few drives they really let the teams batter each other when it seemed like both sides were looking to the refs to establish the parameters of the game. The refs failed to do that and then randomly called pass interference through the game. I thought the refs were fairly even, but Clemson had a TD called back in the 3rd quarter for what I thought was a bogus pass interference that might have sparked something. That said, this game turned out about right, the score was a little lower than I thought it would be, largely because the offenses started slow and then Clemson got frustrated by the 4th quarter and mostly just spun their wheels. LSU was really good, man, Joe Burrow was a mathematician out there all season long and he was again in the Final. (I guess I expect Clemson to start #1 next season with Alabama and Ohio State right behind them; wouldn't be surprised if that's your Final Four, along with Oklahoma, next year)
Right (24)
(3) Clemson 25-42 (1) LSU
(4) Oklahoma 28-63 (1) LSU
(3) Clemson 29-23 (2) Ohio State
(5) Georgia 26-14 (7) Baylor
(6) Oregon 28-27 (8) Wisconsin
(9) Florida 36-28 (24) Virginia
(17) Memphis 39-53 (10) Penn State
(14) Michigan 16-35 (13) Alabama
Buffalo 31-9 Charlotte
Wrong (17)
(11) Utah 10-38 Texas
(18) Minnesota 31-24 (12) Auburn
Utah State 41-51 Kent State
Central Michigan 11-48 San Diego State
Liberty 23-16 Georgia Southern
SMU 28-52 Florida Atlantic
California 35-20 Illinois
Air Force 31-21 Washington State
Mississippi State 28-38 Louisville
Wyoming 38-17 Georgia State
Indiana 22-23 Tennessee
Ohio 30-21 Nevada
Southern Mississippi 13-30 Tulane
Alcorn State 44-64 North Carolina A&T
Central Florida 48-25 Marshall
No spreads, just winners. I did pretty good picking the ranked teams--the only two I missed were another shocking upset by Texas and Minnesota sticking it to Auburn (which I would have loved to have picked!). Of the unranked teams...I dunno...total crapshoot and I didn't fare all that well. Oh well, already looking forward to next year.
Yeah, that's about right. The game started a little slow as each team calibrated their offenses against new defensive looks, but you just knew this game was not gonna be a defensive slugfest and once they got going, both teams moved the ball pretty well. I thought the refs kinda sucked: in those first few drives they really let the teams batter each other when it seemed like both sides were looking to the refs to establish the parameters of the game. The refs failed to do that and then randomly called pass interference through the game. I thought the refs were fairly even, but Clemson had a TD called back in the 3rd quarter for what I thought was a bogus pass interference that might have sparked something. That said, this game turned out about right, the score was a little lower than I thought it would be, largely because the offenses started slow and then Clemson got frustrated by the 4th quarter and mostly just spun their wheels. LSU was really good, man, Joe Burrow was a mathematician out there all season long and he was again in the Final. (I guess I expect Clemson to start #1 next season with Alabama and Ohio State right behind them; wouldn't be surprised if that's your Final Four, along with Oklahoma, next year)
Right (24)
(3) Clemson 25-42 (1) LSU
(4) Oklahoma 28-63 (1) LSU
(3) Clemson 29-23 (2) Ohio State
(5) Georgia 26-14 (7) Baylor
(6) Oregon 28-27 (8) Wisconsin
(9) Florida 36-28 (24) Virginia
(17) Memphis 39-53 (10) Penn State
(14) Michigan 16-35 (13) Alabama
(15) Notre Dame 33-9 Iowa State
Boston College 6-20 (21) Cincinnati
(22) Southern Cal 24-49 (16) Iowa
(20) Appalachian State 31-17 UAB
(23) Navy 20-17 Kansas State
(25) Oklahoma State 21-24 Texas A&M
Boston College 6-20 (21) Cincinnati
(22) Southern Cal 24-49 (16) Iowa
(20) Appalachian State 31-17 UAB
(23) Navy 20-17 Kansas State
(25) Oklahoma State 21-24 Texas A&M
Buffalo 31-9 Charlotte
BYU 34-38 Hawaii
Louisiana Tech 14-0 Miami
Pittsburgh 34-30 Eastern Michigan
Pittsburgh 34-30 Eastern Michigan
North Carolina 55-13 Temple
Western Kentucky 23-20 Western Michigan
Virginia Tech 30-37 Kentucky
Florida State 14-20 Arizona State
Florida State 14-20 Arizona State
Louisiana 27-17 Miami (OH)
California 35-20 Illinois
Wrong (17)
(11) Utah 10-38 Texas
(18) Minnesota 31-24 (12) Auburn
Utah State 41-51 Kent State
Central Michigan 11-48 San Diego State
Liberty 23-16 Georgia Southern
SMU 28-52 Florida Atlantic
California 35-20 Illinois
Florida Int'l 26-34 Arkansas State
Michigan State 27-21 Wake ForestAir Force 31-21 Washington State
Mississippi State 28-38 Louisville
Wyoming 38-17 Georgia State
Indiana 22-23 Tennessee
Ohio 30-21 Nevada
Southern Mississippi 13-30 Tulane
Alcorn State 44-64 North Carolina A&T
Central Florida 48-25 Marshall
No spreads, just winners. I did pretty good picking the ranked teams--the only two I missed were another shocking upset by Texas and Minnesota sticking it to Auburn (which I would have loved to have picked!). Of the unranked teams...I dunno...total crapshoot and I didn't fare all that well. Oh well, already looking forward to next year.
Monday, January 13, 2020
2019-20 NCAA Championship
(3) Clemson - (1) LSU (-6) (o/u 70)
LSU was the best team I saw all year long. Ohio State was second but Clemson beat them and I wasn't shocked by that because Clemson is always hard to figure (though it just dawned on me today that their QB, Trevor Lawrence, is so far still undefeated as a college QB, with one more full season to play). The way Clemson dusted off Alabama last year was eye-opening, which is why I refuse to overlook them this time around. But I saw LSU a lot this season and they looked confidently dominant against everyone they played and their QB, Joe Burrow, is a machine back there, a guy who seemingly knows every play before it happens. The only Clemson game I paid much attention to was their hamfisted lucky W against North Carolina (who was okay this year but nothing special), though to their credit they played like a team that glimpsed their own mortality for the rest of the season. Should be a good game.
I think LSU is going to score a lot. Clemson's D certainly doesn't suck but LSU moved the ball on Alabama and Auburn and Georgia with ease and I expect they'll do the same to Clemson. I'd be surprised if they scored less than 30 points. Clemson's offense is very good, too, and I expect them to move the ball, but I don't think they played a defense as good as LSU's until they ran into Ohio State in the semifinal; they struggled against the Buckeyes until the 4th quarter when they finally got a sense of urgency and pulled out all the stops and rode it to a victory. LSU's defense is not as great as usual, but then again they traditionally haven't had big leads by halftime before either, so I'm willing to chalk up a lot of garbage time/prevent play that gives up yards and even points. Clemson cannot afford to wait til the 4th quarter to wake up tonight, though I wouldn't be surprised if that offense cranks up late regardless of the circumstances.
The next two #1 picks (Joe Burrow, 2020; Trevor Lawrence, 2021) will be in display and that is a good thing. This is the game we've been waiting for all year long (with apologies to the Buckeyes) and I'm looking forward to it--the kinda game that makes me wish I had cable!
I think the halftime score will be something like LSU 30-17. From there I would expect Clemson to charge furiously in the 2nd half, but come up short. I'll say LSU 54-45 (LSU and the over--waaaaay over).
LSU was the best team I saw all year long. Ohio State was second but Clemson beat them and I wasn't shocked by that because Clemson is always hard to figure (though it just dawned on me today that their QB, Trevor Lawrence, is so far still undefeated as a college QB, with one more full season to play). The way Clemson dusted off Alabama last year was eye-opening, which is why I refuse to overlook them this time around. But I saw LSU a lot this season and they looked confidently dominant against everyone they played and their QB, Joe Burrow, is a machine back there, a guy who seemingly knows every play before it happens. The only Clemson game I paid much attention to was their hamfisted lucky W against North Carolina (who was okay this year but nothing special), though to their credit they played like a team that glimpsed their own mortality for the rest of the season. Should be a good game.
I think LSU is going to score a lot. Clemson's D certainly doesn't suck but LSU moved the ball on Alabama and Auburn and Georgia with ease and I expect they'll do the same to Clemson. I'd be surprised if they scored less than 30 points. Clemson's offense is very good, too, and I expect them to move the ball, but I don't think they played a defense as good as LSU's until they ran into Ohio State in the semifinal; they struggled against the Buckeyes until the 4th quarter when they finally got a sense of urgency and pulled out all the stops and rode it to a victory. LSU's defense is not as great as usual, but then again they traditionally haven't had big leads by halftime before either, so I'm willing to chalk up a lot of garbage time/prevent play that gives up yards and even points. Clemson cannot afford to wait til the 4th quarter to wake up tonight, though I wouldn't be surprised if that offense cranks up late regardless of the circumstances.
The next two #1 picks (Joe Burrow, 2020; Trevor Lawrence, 2021) will be in display and that is a good thing. This is the game we've been waiting for all year long (with apologies to the Buckeyes) and I'm looking forward to it--the kinda game that makes me wish I had cable!
I think the halftime score will be something like LSU 30-17. From there I would expect Clemson to charge furiously in the 2nd half, but come up short. I'll say LSU 54-45 (LSU and the over--waaaaay over).
Friday, January 10, 2020
2019-20 NFL Divisional Round
Last week's games:
Bills 19-22 (OT) Texans
Kudos to the Bills for an exciting season (and fingers crossed, Bills fans: Brady and Pats seem to be at an impasse) but that 4th quarter meltdown was ominous. For three quarters you'd say the Bills were workmanlike, not flashy, but getting it done and that the Texans are playing their worst game of the season. Then that flipped quickly late in the 3rd quarter and the Bills closed out the game utterly shellshocked. (Dude, in the 4th quarter and beyond Josh Allen looked like he was already back in the hotel room thinking back on this game; kinda shocked he was able to drive down for the tying FG because he seemed a million miles away) Good win for the Texans, DeShaun Watson looked like the badass his rookie season hinted at.
Titans 20-13 Pats
The Titans ran ran ran all over the Pats but still couldn't score points and always managed to stall when they desperately needed a knockout blow. But, the Pats offense never got going and the Titans were able to squelch out any move forward for Tom Brady. Good W for the Titans, hard fought, they won in the trenches and by manipulating the rules--a most Belichickian way to seize the victory. The Pats had one of their worst seasons in ages and it feels like some turmoil may be on the way.
Vikings 26-20 (OT) Saints
I really thought the Saints offense was gonna find its footing but it never did, credit the Vikings tenacious D and their big play ability to stretch drives. The Saints have been bounced prematurely more often than not in the last decade even though that homefield advantage feels as strong as anyone in the league. Weird. The Vikings are a smart team, they do the little things and showed more big play ability than I ever would've thought. Good win for the Vikings and they could be dangerous going forward.
Seahawks 17-9 Eagles
Once Carson Wentz went out (*), the Eagles offense struggled and that pretty much doomed them in this game. The Seahawks were okay but not spectacular and managed to do just enough to hold on to the W. Meh, really thought the Seahawks should've dominated this game or at least controlled it--this finished as a one score game.
Coming up:
Vikings @ Niners (-7) (o/u 46)
This is gonna be close. The Vikings are a solid team on both sides, nothing will come easy against them. The Niners are good and getting better and can hang with anyone, but they haven't been here before. I'll take the Niners to pull it out late at home but I've got the Vikings to cover. I'll say Niners 24-21 (Vikings and the under)
Titans @ Ravens (-10) (o/u 48.5)
I don't see the Titans winning this but there is an argument that they can slow the game down by running non-stop and not turning it over to keep the score close. But I just think the Ravens are too good on both sides of the ball and even if the Titans play their best game, I still think the Ravens bust it open by the 4th quarter. I'll say Ravens 37-20 (Ravens and the over)
Texans @ Chiefs (-9) o/u 49)
Like the Titans, I see no path for the Texans to do anything more than keep it close....and I don't even see that happening. The Chiefs were a bit lackluster this season but managed to go 12-4, so hard to say they're disappointing. I think the Chiefs jump out early and keep piling it on. I'll say Chiefs 41-16 (Chiefs and the over).
Seahawks @ Packers (-3.5) (o/u 46)
Could be a slopfest but that might be kinda fun, Rodgers and Russell slinging it around promises an invigorating 4th quarter. The Packers are good but inconsistent, the Seahawks are tenacious if a bit lesser on talent. This is the most likely to go to OT, wouldn't you say? I like the Packers to win it late. Packers 24-21 (Seahawks and the under).
(*) Correct me if I'm wrong, but on both of Wentz's notable injuries he was diving forward trying to make a play. If you think he should be less aggressive, okay, that's a reasonable suggestion for his longevity; but if you're trying to say that he's a wuss or injury-prone, I don't think that's fair at all and I'm kinda blown away than anyone would bother to have such a small-minded opinion.
Bills 19-22 (OT) Texans
Kudos to the Bills for an exciting season (and fingers crossed, Bills fans: Brady and Pats seem to be at an impasse) but that 4th quarter meltdown was ominous. For three quarters you'd say the Bills were workmanlike, not flashy, but getting it done and that the Texans are playing their worst game of the season. Then that flipped quickly late in the 3rd quarter and the Bills closed out the game utterly shellshocked. (Dude, in the 4th quarter and beyond Josh Allen looked like he was already back in the hotel room thinking back on this game; kinda shocked he was able to drive down for the tying FG because he seemed a million miles away) Good win for the Texans, DeShaun Watson looked like the badass his rookie season hinted at.
Titans 20-13 Pats
The Titans ran ran ran all over the Pats but still couldn't score points and always managed to stall when they desperately needed a knockout blow. But, the Pats offense never got going and the Titans were able to squelch out any move forward for Tom Brady. Good W for the Titans, hard fought, they won in the trenches and by manipulating the rules--a most Belichickian way to seize the victory. The Pats had one of their worst seasons in ages and it feels like some turmoil may be on the way.
Vikings 26-20 (OT) Saints
I really thought the Saints offense was gonna find its footing but it never did, credit the Vikings tenacious D and their big play ability to stretch drives. The Saints have been bounced prematurely more often than not in the last decade even though that homefield advantage feels as strong as anyone in the league. Weird. The Vikings are a smart team, they do the little things and showed more big play ability than I ever would've thought. Good win for the Vikings and they could be dangerous going forward.
Seahawks 17-9 Eagles
Once Carson Wentz went out (*), the Eagles offense struggled and that pretty much doomed them in this game. The Seahawks were okay but not spectacular and managed to do just enough to hold on to the W. Meh, really thought the Seahawks should've dominated this game or at least controlled it--this finished as a one score game.
Coming up:
Vikings @ Niners (-7) (o/u 46)
This is gonna be close. The Vikings are a solid team on both sides, nothing will come easy against them. The Niners are good and getting better and can hang with anyone, but they haven't been here before. I'll take the Niners to pull it out late at home but I've got the Vikings to cover. I'll say Niners 24-21 (Vikings and the under)
Titans @ Ravens (-10) (o/u 48.5)
I don't see the Titans winning this but there is an argument that they can slow the game down by running non-stop and not turning it over to keep the score close. But I just think the Ravens are too good on both sides of the ball and even if the Titans play their best game, I still think the Ravens bust it open by the 4th quarter. I'll say Ravens 37-20 (Ravens and the over)
Texans @ Chiefs (-9) o/u 49)
Like the Titans, I see no path for the Texans to do anything more than keep it close....and I don't even see that happening. The Chiefs were a bit lackluster this season but managed to go 12-4, so hard to say they're disappointing. I think the Chiefs jump out early and keep piling it on. I'll say Chiefs 41-16 (Chiefs and the over).
Seahawks @ Packers (-3.5) (o/u 46)
Could be a slopfest but that might be kinda fun, Rodgers and Russell slinging it around promises an invigorating 4th quarter. The Packers are good but inconsistent, the Seahawks are tenacious if a bit lesser on talent. This is the most likely to go to OT, wouldn't you say? I like the Packers to win it late. Packers 24-21 (Seahawks and the under).
(*) Correct me if I'm wrong, but on both of Wentz's notable injuries he was diving forward trying to make a play. If you think he should be less aggressive, okay, that's a reasonable suggestion for his longevity; but if you're trying to say that he's a wuss or injury-prone, I don't think that's fair at all and I'm kinda blown away than anyone would bother to have such a small-minded opinion.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Pointless NBA Trade Idea
Heat get: Derrick Rose (2yr/$15m), Christian Wood (1yr/$1.6m), Markieff Morris (2yr/$6.5m, player option next season); Pistons get: Meyers Leonard (1yr/$11.2), KZ Okpala (3yr/$4.1m)
I kinda think D-Rose can be great with this fast-moving, no-position Heat team that are well-positioned for the playoffs and Morris should fit, too (though the Heat would probably rather have Marcus Morris, but, hey, they look alike...that's worth something, right?). As for Wood, I've always kinda liked him but it doesn't seem like he's really ever gonna play in this league, so I'm assuming he'd get cut (unless the Heat can make room for him by finally getting rid of Dion Waiters...?). Leonard gives the Heat minutes but...nothing else. I don't know what's up with Okpala, I haven't noticed him getting any playing time or any time in the G-League, so not sure what the Heat think of him.
As for the Pistons...ehhh....man, it doesn't matter what they do. Leonard would give them minutes for the rest of the year and then cap space in the summer. If Okpala is a keeper, then great, they'd keep him. Getting off Rose (Reggie Jax should be on his way back) and Morris would at least give them a little more flexibility in the summer. But...ehhh...it doesn't matter. If Blake Griffin can't play then this squad has absolutely nowhere to go and no money to spend, so....it doesn't matter, nothing matters. That Chicago and Cleveland are both somehow even worse is the only thing that even makes it look like Detroit is competing. Are they better off with Rose and Morris? It doesn't matter.
This isn't exactly the master stroke that puts the Heat over the top (that would have to involve getting rid of James Johnson and/or Waiters), but Rose off the bench and Morris in the rotation just makes them thicker and an even tougher out in the post-season. I don't see this team coming out of the East but I could see them beating somebody they're not supposed to beat. As for the Pistons, it doesn't matter, nothing matters.
I kinda think D-Rose can be great with this fast-moving, no-position Heat team that are well-positioned for the playoffs and Morris should fit, too (though the Heat would probably rather have Marcus Morris, but, hey, they look alike...that's worth something, right?). As for Wood, I've always kinda liked him but it doesn't seem like he's really ever gonna play in this league, so I'm assuming he'd get cut (unless the Heat can make room for him by finally getting rid of Dion Waiters...?). Leonard gives the Heat minutes but...nothing else. I don't know what's up with Okpala, I haven't noticed him getting any playing time or any time in the G-League, so not sure what the Heat think of him.
As for the Pistons...ehhh....man, it doesn't matter what they do. Leonard would give them minutes for the rest of the year and then cap space in the summer. If Okpala is a keeper, then great, they'd keep him. Getting off Rose (Reggie Jax should be on his way back) and Morris would at least give them a little more flexibility in the summer. But...ehhh...it doesn't matter. If Blake Griffin can't play then this squad has absolutely nowhere to go and no money to spend, so....it doesn't matter, nothing matters. That Chicago and Cleveland are both somehow even worse is the only thing that even makes it look like Detroit is competing. Are they better off with Rose and Morris? It doesn't matter.
This isn't exactly the master stroke that puts the Heat over the top (that would have to involve getting rid of James Johnson and/or Waiters), but Rose off the bench and Morris in the rotation just makes them thicker and an even tougher out in the post-season. I don't see this team coming out of the East but I could see them beating somebody they're not supposed to beat. As for the Pistons, it doesn't matter, nothing matters.
Pointless NBA Trade Idea
Okay, right off the bat: last summer's whirlwind of trades and signings may have felt like the way of things to come, but I'd say quite the opposite. The players that moved were generally so high profile, so expensive that it more or less calcified the labor market probably through next summer. I'd be pretty surprised if we see many moves at this year's trade deadline because the buyers and sellers just aren't in sync at the moment. The teams that want to dump salary don't want to take salary back and the teams that want to thicken their rotations don't have the cap space or trade assets to make moves. In short, no one's got much room to move this season.
But it seems to me there is a potential method that could emerge: teams with lots of cap space could take on long-term salary instead of waiting for the summer to dig into the free agent class, which doesn't look so strong this year. So with that in mind:
Hawks get
Andrew Wiggins (4yr/$121m), Gorgui Dieng (2yr/$33.5m), Wolves 2020 and 2021 2nd rd picks; Wolves get Chandler Parsons (1yr/$25.1m), Allen Crabbe (1yr/$18.5m)
This is a long-term vs. short-term deal. This gets the Wolves off two big contracts and allows them to start rebuilding around a core of Towns, Culver, Okogie and Covington (who I would hold on to even though he'll likely be one of the hottest rumors out there). Obviously getting off Wiggins would be divisive but it'd save them a ton of money and giving up on a playoff run (eh, is there really any value in being 8th in the West?) would push them up toward a top five pick (is Daniel Oturu (Minnesota) a good fit?). So how do they re-build this summer? Well, the free agency market looks pretty skimpy, but Mike Conley has an ETO in Utah (where he hasn't been a good fit), which feels like a great vet to pair with Town for a year or two and if they could lure Evan Fournier to decline his option in Orlando, then right away they'd have something seemingly more reliable than what they've had with Wiggins and Teague (whom I'd trade for anything resembling a 2020 1st rd pick). Make no mistake: for Minnesota this is purely a salary dump but it would dump an awful lot of salary!
The thing about the Hawks is that their cap for next year is so small that they kinda have to spend money. So even if you think Wiggins is a bust and 4 years at that price is a boondoggle, that don't matter to the Hawks, they just need to lay some money out there. And personally I think Wiggins is actually a pretty good fit for them: he's been through the media ringer already and though his production leaves a lot to be desired, he's gonna play a ton of minutes in the next four years and the Hawks needs minutes. Going forward he slides right into the Vince Carter slot. As for Dieng, he's another player that I find criminally underrated (I think Coach Thibodeau pretty much knee-capped his career) and that deal is not as bad as it looks--and, again, the Hawks got money to burn so who cares? Bring back Alex Len and that becomes the Hawks platoon at PF/C to back Collins and Fernando. As for the two 2nd rd picks, the Hawks need everything they can get and the Wolves get so much cap relief that it's worth it.
Obviously the Wolves don't do this is they truly love Wiggins (and I suspect they do) and even still it leaves them a lot of holes to plug in the off-season. But at least it gives them some money to make moves and clears out room for vets that like the look of Towns. As for the Hawks, they need everything and Wiggins, expensive as he is, will at least check SF off their list for the foreseeable future and adds reliable athleticism to an exciting but young team and I think Dieng (more of a baseline shooter type) meshes well with Collins and platoons nicely with Fernando. And it gets the Hawks up off the salary floor (oh yeah, they'd still have a shit ton of money to spend).
The idea here is for the Hawks to use their expiring contracts to get long-term depth and for the Wolves to get off their long-term commitments to get a new crew around Towns. I dunno, seems like it could work.
But it seems to me there is a potential method that could emerge: teams with lots of cap space could take on long-term salary instead of waiting for the summer to dig into the free agent class, which doesn't look so strong this year. So with that in mind:
Hawks get
Andrew Wiggins (4yr/$121m), Gorgui Dieng (2yr/$33.5m), Wolves 2020 and 2021 2nd rd picks; Wolves get Chandler Parsons (1yr/$25.1m), Allen Crabbe (1yr/$18.5m)
This is a long-term vs. short-term deal. This gets the Wolves off two big contracts and allows them to start rebuilding around a core of Towns, Culver, Okogie and Covington (who I would hold on to even though he'll likely be one of the hottest rumors out there). Obviously getting off Wiggins would be divisive but it'd save them a ton of money and giving up on a playoff run (eh, is there really any value in being 8th in the West?) would push them up toward a top five pick (is Daniel Oturu (Minnesota) a good fit?). So how do they re-build this summer? Well, the free agency market looks pretty skimpy, but Mike Conley has an ETO in Utah (where he hasn't been a good fit), which feels like a great vet to pair with Town for a year or two and if they could lure Evan Fournier to decline his option in Orlando, then right away they'd have something seemingly more reliable than what they've had with Wiggins and Teague (whom I'd trade for anything resembling a 2020 1st rd pick). Make no mistake: for Minnesota this is purely a salary dump but it would dump an awful lot of salary!
The thing about the Hawks is that their cap for next year is so small that they kinda have to spend money. So even if you think Wiggins is a bust and 4 years at that price is a boondoggle, that don't matter to the Hawks, they just need to lay some money out there. And personally I think Wiggins is actually a pretty good fit for them: he's been through the media ringer already and though his production leaves a lot to be desired, he's gonna play a ton of minutes in the next four years and the Hawks needs minutes. Going forward he slides right into the Vince Carter slot. As for Dieng, he's another player that I find criminally underrated (I think Coach Thibodeau pretty much knee-capped his career) and that deal is not as bad as it looks--and, again, the Hawks got money to burn so who cares? Bring back Alex Len and that becomes the Hawks platoon at PF/C to back Collins and Fernando. As for the two 2nd rd picks, the Hawks need everything they can get and the Wolves get so much cap relief that it's worth it.
Obviously the Wolves don't do this is they truly love Wiggins (and I suspect they do) and even still it leaves them a lot of holes to plug in the off-season. But at least it gives them some money to make moves and clears out room for vets that like the look of Towns. As for the Hawks, they need everything and Wiggins, expensive as he is, will at least check SF off their list for the foreseeable future and adds reliable athleticism to an exciting but young team and I think Dieng (more of a baseline shooter type) meshes well with Collins and platoons nicely with Fernando. And it gets the Hawks up off the salary floor (oh yeah, they'd still have a shit ton of money to spend).
The idea here is for the Hawks to use their expiring contracts to get long-term depth and for the Wolves to get off their long-term commitments to get a new crew around Towns. I dunno, seems like it could work.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
2019-20 NFL (Wild Card Round)
Bills @ Texans (-2.5)(o/u 43.5)
Two similar teams: good defensive squads with unpredictable QBs. Seems to me like the Texans QB (Deshaun Watson) is the better of the two QBs, while the Bills D is the better of the two defenses. So how does this strength on strength match work? I'm gonna take the home team to make a coupla more plays than the road team, that is I'm expecting Watson to make more big plays than Josh Allen. The Texans have frankly never been as good as it seems like they should be, the Bills are getting to a good place (but another year of deteriorating Pats is the Bills' best bet). This game could come down to turnovers, I could see this being a sloppy contest. I'll take the Texans 20-10 (Texans and the under).
Titans @ Pats (-4.5)(o/u 44.5)
The Titans run the ball well, don't make dumb mistakes (well, since they bench Marcus Mariota) and they have a strong Belichick pedigree, which pretty much makes them the perfect team to shock the Pats on their home field in the playoffs. The Pats D is good but that offense is not classic Pats, if the Titans pass rush can get to Brady then they could be stopped. I don't see this as high scoring game, could be a real slog of a contest. I think this'll be a tough game for Pats fans but I think they pull it out late. I'll take the Pats 20-17 (Titans and the under).
Vikings @ Saints (-8)(o/u 49.5)
(Hmm...I don't think I saw the Vikings all year long...is that possible?) The Vikings are a good--not great--team and in the playoffs those are the teams I would typically bet on: solid O-line, solid D-line, QB that doesn't make mistakes, defensive backs that make the right play (if not the big play). But the Saints are the Saints, man: big offense, gonna be slinging it around and gonna be trying to make plays on defense (at which I think they'll be successful enough). I like the steady Vikings but I just don't think they've got enough to hang with the Saints at home. The Vikings' best bet is if the Saints are sloppy, muffing plays or turning the ball over (in which case I could totally see the Vikings stealing this). I think it's close but I gotta go with the Saints at home, Saints 27-21 (Vikings and the under).
Seahawks (-1.5) @ Eagles (o/u 45)
I always get the Seahawks wrong, I always underestimate what the combo of a good QB/good coach can achieve. But the Seahawks have actually looked more shaky than sturdy this season and I'm a little surprised they're going on the road as a favorite--even against the frustratingly disappointing Eagles. I like the Eagles to play their best game and punch the Seahawks in the mouth. Tough to take struggling Carson Wentz over the always-reliable Russell Wilson, but I just think the Eagles will have a few tricks up their sleeve that the Seahawks don't have. I'll say Eagles 17-16 (Eagles and the under).
Two similar teams: good defensive squads with unpredictable QBs. Seems to me like the Texans QB (Deshaun Watson) is the better of the two QBs, while the Bills D is the better of the two defenses. So how does this strength on strength match work? I'm gonna take the home team to make a coupla more plays than the road team, that is I'm expecting Watson to make more big plays than Josh Allen. The Texans have frankly never been as good as it seems like they should be, the Bills are getting to a good place (but another year of deteriorating Pats is the Bills' best bet). This game could come down to turnovers, I could see this being a sloppy contest. I'll take the Texans 20-10 (Texans and the under).
Titans @ Pats (-4.5)(o/u 44.5)
The Titans run the ball well, don't make dumb mistakes (well, since they bench Marcus Mariota) and they have a strong Belichick pedigree, which pretty much makes them the perfect team to shock the Pats on their home field in the playoffs. The Pats D is good but that offense is not classic Pats, if the Titans pass rush can get to Brady then they could be stopped. I don't see this as high scoring game, could be a real slog of a contest. I think this'll be a tough game for Pats fans but I think they pull it out late. I'll take the Pats 20-17 (Titans and the under).
Vikings @ Saints (-8)(o/u 49.5)
(Hmm...I don't think I saw the Vikings all year long...is that possible?) The Vikings are a good--not great--team and in the playoffs those are the teams I would typically bet on: solid O-line, solid D-line, QB that doesn't make mistakes, defensive backs that make the right play (if not the big play). But the Saints are the Saints, man: big offense, gonna be slinging it around and gonna be trying to make plays on defense (at which I think they'll be successful enough). I like the steady Vikings but I just don't think they've got enough to hang with the Saints at home. The Vikings' best bet is if the Saints are sloppy, muffing plays or turning the ball over (in which case I could totally see the Vikings stealing this). I think it's close but I gotta go with the Saints at home, Saints 27-21 (Vikings and the under).
Seahawks (-1.5) @ Eagles (o/u 45)
I always get the Seahawks wrong, I always underestimate what the combo of a good QB/good coach can achieve. But the Seahawks have actually looked more shaky than sturdy this season and I'm a little surprised they're going on the road as a favorite--even against the frustratingly disappointing Eagles. I like the Eagles to play their best game and punch the Seahawks in the mouth. Tough to take struggling Carson Wentz over the always-reliable Russell Wilson, but I just think the Eagles will have a few tricks up their sleeve that the Seahawks don't have. I'll say Eagles 17-16 (Eagles and the under).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
