January 20, 2007

The Hoser's NFL Picks, Postseason Week Three: NFL picks that like the Saints, but pray for Tom Benson to stay the hell off the field.

posted by justgary to football at 08:41 PM - 42 comments

Itís like being the hot chick in a slasher flick Ė you know itís going to turn out badly, but you donít know which stupid decision will seal your fate. I like. Except I never saw the same chick gutted over and over. It'd be like the Friday the 13th Series turned on its head: instead of a dozen doses of Jason, one perky-breasted co-ed gets offed twelve times.

posted by yerfatma at 09:06 PM on January 20, 2007

I've tried to find Schottenheimer's post game press conference and can't. Any suggestions? I just want to find out what he was thinking when he threw the red flag on the McCree fumble. Personally, I thought he did it to give his defense more time to settle down after the play, because challenges take longer than timeouts. I can't find any statements by him to either prove or disprove my theory. In retrospect, I think the extra time gave Brady a chance to setltle down and go on his late game roll.

posted by hellamarine at 02:39 AM on January 21, 2007

Sorry hoser, your sorry record is going to get worse. Bears defense has given up points, but not the big play. New Oorleans actually scored fewer points than the Bears all year. And it is in Chicago where the Bears only lost a meaningless game. Can't agree with you on this one. And the over will have to be with defensive or special teams help on this newly resodded field.

posted by Tokens0605 at 03:14 AM on January 21, 2007

instead of a dozen doses of Jason, one perky-breasted co-ed gets offed twelve times. Friday the 13th meets Groundhog Day? I saw a graphic that had Schottenheimer listed as the active coach with the most post-season losses. Too bad they can't bring in a reliever to close out the season! I like The Hoser's picks this week. It would be nice to see the Cinderella story of the Saint's continue, and I would like to see Peyton and Dungy finally get their rings.

posted by FonGu at 06:05 AM on January 21, 2007

I love the over on the Saints / Bears and I love the under on Pats / Colts. I also would love to see the Saints win (feel good story and actually a fun team to watch) but neither NFC teams seem like they really have all of the pieces, just call it a bad feeling. I am sure everyone is already aware of my home team bias on the Pats so I will just let that go (thanks for not making the Colts lock of the week although it may have helped the Pat's chances).

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 07:15 AM on January 21, 2007

I really didn't expect you to pick the Bears....... You buckled under the pressure of picking the "Feel Good Story" Saints just like 80% of the rest of the watching Football only in the playoffs, not really Fans of the game but buy into the media feeding frenzy. Never mind that the Bears finished 1st in the League in points off Turn-overs and the Saints dead last. Never mind the Bears +8 TO ratio to the -4 the Saints managed to produce. You seem to have forgotten the Outstanding Special Teams play and the marvelous Kicker Bobby Gould who has made the New Soldier Field his personal Paradise. I won't mention the Saints league leading tendency to give up the Big Play with one of the lowest ranked secondaries in all the land. Oh. never mind this stat: Domed teams in the postseason: 16-45 on the road, 0-6 on the road over the last two decades in conference title games, only two ever advancing to Super Bowls. I'm not surprised you picked the Saints, it's always easier to appease the popular pick and ride the Band Wagon like 80% of the rest of the sheeple then to really analyze a betting forecast correctly. You may be right and the Saints could win but I've learned over the years to never bet with the frenzied crowd no matter what and if the Saints lose I won't be surprised and I'll have my placed my hard earned bankroll on the right side of the bet not the easy "join the crowd" loser pick.

posted by skydivedad at 07:43 AM on January 21, 2007

Uhh, err, ......what skydivedad said, spot on in my opinion.

posted by danjel at 08:24 AM on January 21, 2007

hellamarine, the story is some combination of Philip Rivers and the coaches upstairs convinced Marty to challenge the play. Why Rivers' opinion mattered, why Marty chose then to have a headset on his head, those are other questions.

posted by yerfatma at 08:51 AM on January 21, 2007

I really didn't expect you to pick the Bears....... You buckled under the pressure of picking the "Feel Good Story" Saints .... Actually, no. I buckled under the pressure of looking at the most recent games for the Bears, which show an extremely inconsistent offensive team helmed by a young quarterback and a defense which has absolutely fallen apart in the past month and a half mainly due to injuries. I find it a pretty easy pick, and if you say 80% of the people out there are picking the Saints, I can't imagine it's all because they want to snuggle up with Drew Brees.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:31 AM on January 21, 2007

Thanks fatma, I guess I was just hoping there was some logic to it. If Marty had tossed the flag just on his QB's say so, then he should've been canned. But if the guys upstairs told him to do it also, then they should be ones handing out resumes. Hell, Rivers was on the sidelines and not even involved in the play, so why is he telling Marty to challenge the fumble? Rivers' opinion shouldn't even have been a consideration, he's young and obviously thinking with his heart and not his head. Besides, deciding when and where to challenge plays isn't part of his job description. The guys upstairs, however, are there because Marty trusts them with exactly this kind of decision. The fumble by McCree wasn't even in the vicinity of being ruled down. Considering that this braintrust still told him (Marty) to red flag it, they, in my opinion, should be gone. Part of their job is analyzing this kind of thing, and they either don't know what constitutes being down, or they too went with their hearts (instead of their heads) as well. Either way, assistant coaches should know better. I can't say how it is for everyone else, but in my particular line of work, if you f*** something up that bad, you get to go looking for other employment opportunities. That said, I guess I'll hop down from my soapbox now.

posted by hellamarine at 10:00 AM on January 21, 2007

Here we go again. Outside of a few Patriot fans I know, I can't hardly find anyone who picks the Patriots to win today (including myself). It sounds like a perfect setup for them to go into Indianapolis and come out with a win. Manning and the Colts have absolutely everything seemingly in their favor today, and a loss in this particular situation could be devastating. Their biggest advantage, though, will probably wind up being a kicker who can actually handle pressure situations. Isn't it amazing how Vanderjagt's career went straight down the toilet so fast?

posted by dyams at 10:18 AM on January 21, 2007

I have to agree with fraze on the Bears game. Maybe it's because two of the Chicago games I watched this year were v. Arizona and the loss to the Pats, but I don't see their defense stopping the Saints. And Chicago's offense can't be scaring Nawlins.

posted by yerfatma at 10:41 AM on January 21, 2007

As for Da Bears vs. the Saints, everyone I ask thinks the Saints are going to win this one. In fact, almost all of the so-called pros I've listened to have been picking the Saints by 7 to 14 points. How many Saints had post-season experience before last week? Correct me if my memory fails me, but weren't the Bears in the playoffs last year? I realize the Saints have a great offense and a propensity for the big play, but the Bears have more playoff experience. It amazes me that suddenly, that doesn't matter. Also, I guarantee that the Bears have been listening as everyone picks against them, even though the game is in their house. Yes everyone, this game is in Chicago, and I think that counts heavily in the Bears favor. I'm not counting the Saints out, in fact, it would be kinda cool to see them make the big one; I just don't think they're going to be dancing this time around. I realize that having never been, combined with all things Katrina, the Saints are everone's favorite pick. But you know what, the Bears have only been once, and that was what, a hundred years ago?

posted by hellamarine at 11:04 AM on January 21, 2007

I have great compassion for the people of New Orleans. But "The Big Easy" feel good story of the Saints is about to go marching out of Chicago. The Bears are getting no respect in the media and all of the so-called "experts" will be prooved wrong when "Da Bears" send 'em packing!!

posted by icemanmurph at 11:12 AM on January 21, 2007

and if you say 80% of the people out there are picking the Saints I'm not saying it but the Sports Book Operators are, 80% of the wagers are being placed on the Saints but the Larger Single Wagers are going on the Bears. If you have 80 guys putting a C note on the Saints and 20 guys throwing down a G chances are the 20 guys are more likely on the right side of the wager. I like to follow the Big money and not the fact that a vast majority of the Bettors disagree. I'll follow the 20 Grand and not join the chase with the fellows laying down the smaller wager. Like I said you could be right, although your arguement for seems more like a trap to me then anything else but hey it's your money.

posted by skydivedad at 11:18 AM on January 21, 2007

Hoser's bad post-season will continue on its downhill roll. Brady's playoff dominence vs Manning's post-season failure. Take the gift 3 pts. from the Colts. New England will win this game by 10 points. A Pats-Bears Super Bowl! Enough of this feel dood crap! GO BEARS

posted by icemanmurph at 11:20 AM on January 21, 2007

bad field, bad weather, bad, Fla. based Grossman (no pass threat, esp. with a little wind and 20 degree temp), mediocre Bear running game, and the Aints bus makes it to the stadium = N.O. 10 / Bears 6. Bet the farm. Grossman is a more experienced version of Andrew Walter. Watches the pass rush and closes his eyes when he throws about 20% of the time.

posted by grinder at 11:22 AM on January 21, 2007

believe pats charmed run will end in indy

posted by jsm22 at 11:24 AM on January 21, 2007

hey dyams, I live in the midwest, and from what I've seen and heard here, it's about 50/50 on the Colts vs. Pats. This is one hard game to pick. Judging from the past, I think it's going to be very close, which (dangit) favors the Pats, but knowing how these two teams are, there's also a chance for a blowout. I hate (and love)games like this because they are so unpredictable. I think if the Colts don't go up by at least 2 td's early, though, they're in trouble. You know what, I can't remember the last time I was this juiced for both championship games. I can't wait, but I'm sure to be bitchin' tomorrow!

posted by hellamarine at 11:26 AM on January 21, 2007

Grossman grew up in Indiana. The Aint's yards per rush drops drastically on grass. Rex threw for over 3000 yds this season. He did have his horrible games this year, but he also led the NFL in 100+ QB rating games this year. He was the best QB last weekend out of the 8 that played.

posted by icemanmurph at 11:31 AM on January 21, 2007

Grossman is a more experienced version of Andrew Walter. How do you figure that!? The last I looked, this was Grossman's first season as the Bears full-time starter. Wow, that's a ton of experience, isn't it? In the 3 previous seasons, he had played in 8 games and started 7. That breaks down to less than 1/2 of a season of starts over a 3 year period. That's not experienced, my man, that's basically a step above rookie. Walter got 8 starts this year and played in 12 games. I don't think Grossman's 3 GS and played in '03 and '04 plus 1 GS and 2 played in '05 amount too much.

posted by hellamarine at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2007

If you have 80 guys putting a C note on the Saints and 20 guys throwing down a G chances are the 20 guys are more likely on the right side of the wager. That makes absolutely no sense. I get what you're trying to say, but the line reflects the amount of money on each side, not the number of bettors. If the size of a wager were in any way correlated to the expected success, why not bet a million? The Bears have allowed 300+ yards of offense in their last 7 games.

posted by yerfatma at 12:50 PM on January 21, 2007

Both Brees and Garcia were better than Grossman last week. He turned the ball over twice. If they were playing anyone but Seattle, (OK, maybe Baltimore) they would have lost.

posted by olelefthander at 12:51 PM on January 21, 2007

It has nothing to do with the line yerfatma...... I could care less about the line. It called smart money vs dumb money. The smart money always has the deeper pockets. As far a wagering a million, I've said it twice but I'll repeat it, The Saints can win. The smart money can be wrong but they usually aren't. You guys can throw your cash at the dumb money if you want, it doesn't change the fact that the smart money is betting Chicago in this one. There is in fact a correlation between the success of the wager when it follows the smart money. That's why its called Smart. Is it gaurenteed? No.

posted by skydivedad at 01:23 PM on January 21, 2007

Unfortunately, smart money tends to be easily identifiable only after the game is played.

posted by yerfatma at 01:39 PM on January 21, 2007

"In the 3 previous seasons, he had played in 8 games and started 7. That breaks down to less than 1/2 of a season of starts over a 3 year period. That's not experienced, my man, that's basically a step above rookie" Interesting point to debate. I guess the question is whether a fourth-year QB who has started 24 or so games is "more experienced" than a second-year player who has started 8 and played in 12 games? Hmmm, guess you must be a Grossman fan who believes all he needs is more time behind center. Good luck with that, my man.

posted by grinder at 02:49 PM on January 21, 2007

I'd just like to point out the fumble on the kickoff was a bullshit call. The ball may have been jarred a bit, but the Saints' returner had full control when he was completely to the ground. Horsecrap.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:54 PM on January 21, 2007

I totally agree with you fraze. I've really lost faith in officials abilities to consistantly make the right call on a review. While a mistake might be made during live action, mistaken reviews are intolerable. Also, last year's AFC Championship game proved that the worst mistakes can happen in the biggest games.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:14 PM on January 21, 2007

Not worth an FFP (although I bet someone will post it), but a woman induced labor so her birth wouldn't conflict with today's Bears/Saints game.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:07 PM on January 21, 2007

Fraze, did you have the over/under on the baby's weight?

posted by Howard_T at 04:44 PM on January 21, 2007

Obviously, the smart money is on me not making predictions. That was an ass-kicking.

posted by yerfatma at 05:27 PM on January 21, 2007

"smart money tends to be easily identifiable only after the game is played." posted by yerfatma at 1:39 PM CST on January 21 I identified the smart money side of this game well before kickoff. It wasn't difficult at all. ( posted by skydivedad at 1:23 PM CST on January 21) is the time stamp on my comment, well before game-time and I won't even mention my earlier posts today concerning your picks backing the Saints based on a so called "faltering Defense" which was a wagering trap for the dumb money. I also clearly identified Turn-overs, Special Teams Plays as Saint Back Breakers (and a few others). I don't expect any kudo's from you guys, all I know is my Bankroll is significantly fatter from one of the "easiest picks ever". Smart Money Picks usually are..........

posted by skydivedad at 05:30 PM on January 21, 2007

Let's not complain about a good call on a kickoff. The Bears beat there ass with defense, ending the feel good charade that were the Saints.

posted by icemanmurph at 06:14 PM on January 21, 2007

Iceman, we were bitching about it right after it happened. And how is a team that makes it to the NFC Championship in any way a charade? Oh, score one for the Lock this week, btw.

posted by wfrazerjr at 08:56 PM on January 21, 2007

Oh, Part II -- SDD, when did you get so bitter? Christ, these picks are for fun, as it says every freaking week in the third or fourth graph.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:01 PM on January 21, 2007

Week Three Postseason: 1-1 ATS 1-1 O/U 1-1 SU 1-0 LOTW +$590 Postseason So Far: 4-6 ATS 5-5 SU 1-1 O/U 2-1 LOTW +$350

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:24 PM on January 21, 2007

You are correct......I give the Saints a big hurah for being there....they had a great season

posted by icemanmurph at 09:24 PM on January 21, 2007

I think it started with the NE/Chargers thread last week. I didn't realize I was sounding bitter. I offer no excuses, Please accept my apology fraze and you also yerfatma. I always enjoy your columns and both of your comments are always must reads. This series has been super. I offer no excuses.........

posted by skydivedad at 10:10 PM on January 21, 2007

Hmmm, guess you must be a Grossman fan who believes all he needs is more time behind center. Good luck with that, my man. Nope, not a Grossman fan, just a football fan who thinks that a 3 season span, with an average of less than 3 starts per, is not a lot of experience. With this season, he now has about 1 1/2 seasons of playing time. I ask you this, do most QBs have it all after 1 1/2 seasons of playing? Those who do are in the minority. Besides, Grossman had flashes of brilliance this year. Does that mean anything? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell. Hey, wait a minute, what am I doing? Grossman's going to be playing on Feb. 4, and that's all that matters, huh? Guess he was good enough after all.

posted by hellamarine at 10:15 PM on January 21, 2007

SDD, every once in a while, you really do let Mr. Hyde out of the bag. Most of the time you're a very rational person, but someitmes, you go flat out homer nuts, and nobody can say a thing to you. Witness your lead-in to the Bears' NFC Championship thread: "one of the most maligned 13-3 teams ever..." Dude, just because everybody isn't lining up for a glass of Ursa-flavored Koolaid isn't any reason to get hysterical. Most of us are pretty smart football fans, and we realized that the Bears weren't playing the kind of dominant ball at the end of the year that they were at the beginning of the year. That's hardly "one of the most maligned 13-3 teams in history." That's just football fans telling the truth, which you made it very clear you wanted no part of.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:01 AM on January 22, 2007

Actually, TBH, the Bears have been maligned by the local media in Chicago for the latter half of the season, and it certainly spread to the national media. Hell, a fair number of local sports talking heads picked the Saints. Grossman has been under a microscope all season, and only recently have the experts seem to have picked up that the defense has been playing like shit. It has been at times painful to watch the media skewer Grossman and he certainly didn't help his situation by some of the things he said, but I firmly believe that if he stays healthy and works out his mental and physical mechanics, he could be a great quarterback. For now, I am simply basking in the glow of a serious whoopin' on the media darlings and can't wait to see Manning in the big one.

posted by willthrill72 at 09:03 AM on January 22, 2007

willthrill72, I see exactly where you're coming from, and it happens to every team that has a local media following. Those idiots have to put butts in the seats for the nightly news, and if skewering a young quarterback is the way to do it, so be it. You're either going to get fawning coverage from the local media, or you're going to get coverage tearing the local boys down. It's rare that you get perfect, down the middle coverage, and most fans are used to that. You certainly don't need to bring your frustration with local/national media here, which does none of us any good (and I'm not referrring to you by any stretch of the imagination). Hell, I like the Bears; if I had to pick my five favorite teams, they'd be in there, and I hope they beat the snot out of the Colts. I'm just sayin', a thicker skin may be in order. There are guys who play for the Bears who weren't as upset at the coverage they were getting as a member of this site was.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:51 AM on January 22, 2007

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.