Regression to the Mean

Sorry about last week--I wasn't dodging Tommy's blind-luck, stab-in-the-dark, never-will-be-replicated-again-this-season, 11-5 record. I was overwhelmed with the two tiers of volunteer work that I've taken on...especially coaching three novice policy debate teams and a varsity team.

You haven't lived until you've stayed up until 5am writing responses to the ever-so-dangerous (at least more dangerous than a sports team from Detroit, declawed kittens, and tribbles) "politics disadvantage" or "states counterplan."

And I lived last week. And this week. Which is why this is going up at 5:20am. Guh.

Now, on to Tommy's picks: 5-9 in week 4, 31-31 on the season...regression to the mean at its finest.

Raiders (+8.5) over TEXANS.

Ooops--Tommy did more than the Raiders--rallied behind a coach that apparently assaulted and broke the jaw of an assistant during training camp. Lane Kiffin seems about as brilliant of a hire as this pick seems awful.

And that says a lot. 0-1

Titans (-3) over JAGUARS

I can understand this one--except that if you stopped to think about this statement: "the Titans were the best 0-3 team," and looked at the competition, you'd have realized it didn't say anything. They have an ancient QB, no receivers, and a RB that has gone from bulldozer to slow-moving blob.

Now they're the best 0-4 team. When will the 0-fer end? Not this week against the Colts, surely. As much as Tennessee fans have to hate this start, the AFC South and Vegas have to love it as much, if not more. 0-2

Ravens (+2) over PATRIOTS: I can understand this one too--but leave it to Tom Brady to drive suitors away, then flaunt Giselle in your face as punishment for one's lack of faith. The Ravens are still the real deal, and the Pats are now tempting once again.

The outcome for this game for gamblers reminds me of the joke Bob Saget told about John Stamos at the epically funny Bob Saget roast last summer: In the 80's, every actress wanted to ride two things in Hollywood: the Loveboat and John Stamos' cock. Neither one would do anything for your career, but at least the Loveboat wouldn't fuck you in the ass.

Gamblers who have their faith restored in the Patriots, might leave this season with a +/- sheet on Pats games that will leave them wishing they took a ride on the Loveboat instead. 0-3.

Bengals (-6) over BROWNS: You picked four straight road teams to cover, and you're 0-4. Funny how that works in a league where home field means a lot.

You thought I was going to say something about the game? I'm pretty sure that anyone who speaks of this game--other than to warn others not to speak of it--will have their tongue dissolved by being forced to wash down Cincy chili with a bottle of Burning River from what is otherwise an outstanding brewery in The Great Lakes Brewing Co. (Check out their Edmund Fitzgerald Porter--amazing.)

NY Giants (-9) over CHIEFS: Hey--a win. But since anyone outside the Chiefs' locker room couldn't answer why the Chiefs could cover (and even then there's already talk of dissension), winning this one should count as much as a win over the School for the Blind, Sisters of the Poor, Detroit Lions, and Pittsburgh Pirates.

I know--you still take em all the same. But you say that about your women too. And we don't say anything back--at least in front of it...

Lions (+10) over BEARS: For a half, it looked like this was prescient. And then the Bears did something that winning football teams do: make adjustments. The Lions are still an eternity away from beating a halfway decent team, and the Bears' offense is looking like a potent force.

Ten points was a lot for a half--but if I would ever bet on my own teams (and every time I break this rule, it bites me in the ass), I'd have taken the Bears in a heartbeat here. 1-5.

REDSKINS (-7.5) over Buccaneers: I almost feel bad for you taking a loss here...the only thing worse than having to pick this game on the spread is that it's being played. But Washington didn't cover, and you lose. 1-6.

If we get to 1-8, it should be ended with '00-Bets-Off'

COLTS (-10.5) over Seahawks: Potent offense + decent defense vs. banged-up defense + impotent offense. This one was rocket science...and is staving off the 'mercy rule' dogs for the time being. 2-6.

SAINTS (-7) over Jets: If you would've shown me Brees' and Colston's numbers, I would've told you that the J-E-T-S likely won this game. But they lost it...and by two scores. The new "greatest show on turf" has a running game and defense.

They're selling playoff tickets, and I'm buying. Also, passing offenses should be worried about what the J-E-T-S did to the Saints air attack. Darrel Revis--a product of the University of Pittsburgh--is quickly becoming a premier "shutdown corner" in the NFL. Wait, no. He's already there. If I were drafting late in the first few rounds of a Madden draft and saw my competition all take top-tier WR's, I'd think about drafting him. 3-6. Almost unrespectable.

Bills (-1) over DOLPHINS: The Chad Henne era is nothing to get excited about, but the Fins' defense is apparently decent, and Ricky Williams/Ronnie Brown are a decent enough tandem to make Chad Henne look competent enough managing a game that Best Buy might consider him for assistant manager after he retires. Because that's about all he has to look forward to as a backup QB.

3-7.

NINERS (-9.5) over Rams: You changed this pick 14 times? Really? I took this on Tuesday morning in my survival league, and I didn't even think about changing it once I got my reminder e-mail and remembered what pick I made.

Apparently I'm a big fan of exile over death. And hey, I survived to see Matt Holliday do his best Brant Brown impersonation...and watch my Dad quietly seethe after the game was over. And Exile on Main Street was a good album. So yeah--exile over death. It was pretty easy to feel good about, but then again I'm not the guy who's 4-7.

BRONCOS (+3) over Cowboys: Did you pick this one because you love Katelynn or Kyle? Orton threw the ball 11 more times than you guessed, but your breakdown of this game and Orton's numbers is eerily good. Who'd you outsource those three sentences to? 5-7.

Chargers (+6.5) over STEELERS: Gates got open a lot, and the Chargers didn't cover. Mendenhall finally got around to making your week 1 take on the Steelers seem almost plausible. The only thing that could've made this game better would be if Reed's late FG extended a 4 point lead to a 7 point lead, instead of a 7 point lead to a 10 point one. 5-8.

Packers (+3.5) over VIKINGS: If you thought that this was the week the Packers played a game on both sides of the ball, then it's probably time to rethink the Packers' ability to play defense. Maybe they should leave the 3-4 to teams that can pressure a QB from the LB position, like the Steelers...or maybe they should require the Bears to swap offensive lines each week with every team the Packers play this season.

This game didn't tell us anything new: Favre is dangerous if he gets time...selling out to stop the unoriginal Adrian Peterson doesn't work if you can't generate a pass rush on the passing downs you force...and Aaron Rodgers is dangerous when he's not being sacked, but he can't both be sacked a ton and make mistakes.

And for the record, Favre drama or not, the only karma the franchise in Green Bay ever deserves is the most awful and horrible kind...even when they're playing the Viqueens. 5-9.

I promise to be back at a more regular time next week, since I won't have the luxury of time on the weekend to publish such a late post.

Oh--and Tommy, you have two teams in warm climates and one in a dome under "Cant Give me Tickets" - seriously, you wouldn't go to a game in Carolina or Tampa or even St. Louis in the fall or winter? All of your Circus teams belong at the bottom of the list for that reason alone.

Or are you too insulted that I'm implying that weather is more accurate than your almost creative attempt at power rankings?