Leo's over unders reveal

Now that the season is over, I can see how well I did in my picks. Last year, I went 18-14. The year before I went 20-12. This year... uh, I don't feel great....

ARIZONA - 7 wins - OVER - CORRECT

Just barely got it. They quietly put together a mediocre year, much without Kolb.

ATLANTA - 10 wins - PUSH - CORRECT

Ten seemed just about right and it was.

BALTIMORE - 10.5 wins - OVER - CORRECT

I thought they'd win the division and they did. But what's with those weird losses?

BUFFALO - 5.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Aww so close. Congrats, you guys went from begin really awful to semi-awful with good fantasy numbers. Wooo fucking hoo.

CAROLINA - 4.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Like everyone else, I didn't think Cam was ready... and was wrong.

CINNCINATTI - 5.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Oh sure, finally put together a good season with a rookie QB and a new offense. Unbelievable.

CHICAGO - 8 wins - UNDER - WRONG

They hit 8 exact and would've had more if Cutler didn't get hurt.

CLEVELAND - 7 wins - OVER - WRONG

We all got on the wrong Ohio bandwagon. This team sucks.

DALLAS - 9 wins - OVER - WRONG

I'm happy with being wrong here. Their pain makes mine less palapable.

DENVER - 6 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Someday, I'm going to be a crazy old man wandering the streets, shaking my fist and yelling to no one in particular, "TEBOW! TEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!"

DETROIT - 8 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Seemed too trendy for me, but they were indeed good. I'm happy for them. They rebuilt well.

GREEN BAY - 11.5 wins - OVER - CORRECT

Did anyone even lose money on this one?

HOUSTON - 9 wins - OVER - CORRECT

They're finally making some progress. If Schaub hadn't gotten hurt they could've done more, too.

INDIANAPOLIS - 9.5 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

I was already leaning towards it before the Manning news was official. Easiest grab for anyone.

JACKSONVILLE - 6.5 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

They couldn't have made this low enough after Garrard was cut, but they didn't.

KANSAS CITY - 7.5 wins - OVER - WRONG

Gah! So close! There's a fix here. Or Tyler Palko.

MIAMI - 7.5 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

I thought Miami's late season surge had cost me this one, but it turns out they were still under. Who the hell thought they were a .500 team before the season? Through the first 6 weeks it looked like they might not win once.

MINNESOTA - 7 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

I did not like seeing McNabb go out like that. But I wasn't suprised.

NEW ORLEANS - 10 wins - OVER - CORRECT

They made it to 11 wins the year before with no running game, no D, and a tougher schedule.

NEW ENGLAND - 11.5 wins - OVER - CORRECT

At least for the regular season, they always take care of things.

NY GIANTS - 9 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Goddammit. I was ready to say yes and then backed off. They really shouldn't be here, but they are.

NY JETS - 10 wins - OVER - WRONG

Aaaaaaaaaaaand everyone is off the Rex bandwagon. And the Sanchize, if they were ever on it.

OAKLAND - 6.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

They're not terrible, and should have won the division.

PHILADELPHIA - 10.5 wins - OVER - WRONG

Should I repost my intricate theory to how they would easily win 11 games, or should I do something that won't make me murder my neighbor with a pickaxe? Let's just say I bought the hype and bought it hard.... though, I will still contend, they are the best team in the division.

PITTSBURGH - 10.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

They had a weird year: avoided the post Super Bowl hangover they had before, did mostly everything right, but still couldn't get the division and are kinda shaky at times. I have no idea where they'll be this month.

SAN DIEGO - 10 wins - OVER - WRONG

.... why aren't you firing Norv now? WHY? WHY? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

SAN FRANCISCO - 7.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

They teased everyone for so long, so naturally the year we stop picking them is the year they finally break out. Dicks.

SEATTLE - 6 wins - UNDER - WRONG

Like Arizona, they quietly went on a run to become not terrible. I don't know how Tavaris won 7 games but he did.

ST. LOUIS - 7.5 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

Here's a trendy up-and-comer that I did get right. I didn't think they were this bad, but I knew they needed more.

TAMPA BAY - 8 wins - PUSH - WRONG

Aww fuck. I should've trusted my instincts and just gone under. I knew they were not ready, although I never saw this.

TENNESSEE - 6.5 wins - UNDER - WRONG

I can't believe they almost made the playoffs, but I guess having a real QB, even if he is 50 years old, means something. And Chris Johnson kinda sucked. Weird.

WASHINGTON - 6 wins - UNDER - CORRECT

Not even Shanahan can save this crappy franchise. If only they could play the Giants nine times, they'd be ok.

------------

So, adding that up, that comes to.... 13 out of 32. JESUS I NEED TO RETIRE. NOW. FUCK. NExt year, fuckers.

Leo's final predictions

After looking thoroughly at each time through the over-under predictions, here's what I think will be the final standings this year:



NFC




1. Packers 12-4


2. Eagles 11-5


3. Saints 11-5


4. Cardinals 8-8


5. Falcons 10-6


6. Cowboys 10-6





AFC



1. Pats 13-3


2. Chargers 11-5


3. Ravens 11-5


4. Texans 10-6


5. Jets 11-5


6. Steelers 9-7 (tiebreaker over Chiefs)


CONFERNCE: Packers over Eagles

Patriots over Jets

SB: Packers over Patriots

Yeah, I hate it too. But by saying this, it probably won't happen.

Just for fun: the last 10 Super Bowls have featured 10 different NFC teams (Packers, Saints, Cardinals, Giants, Bears, Seahawks, Eagles, Panthers, Bucs, Rams). That is ridiculous parity. (if you take it back another 7 years or so, 13 out of 16 NFC teams have made it in a span of about 17 years). The AFC, however, has been dominated by the Pats, Steelers, and Colts.

I think there is a slight change this year. The Packers, Eagles, and Saints are my favorites and in most experts' top four. One of them is probably going to make it. Even though repeats are tough, I think the Packers can buck this trend. They made it last year with a lot of young guys and missing people, and they have most of them back.

The AFC is in a period of transition. It looks like the Colts will suffer, and there are some young teams but I'm not sure if they're ready. I like the Pats, who were better than anyone expected last year and have added people. I think the Steelers have a down year, just because of injuries. This leaves the main threats to the Pats as the Jets and Ravens. Even though the Jets beat the Pats last year in the playoffs, and the Ravens did the year before, I don't know if I can trust them in another battles with the Pats. Flacco and Sanchez have made strides, but can they get there this year? I don't love their receivers, even though they have great D and running games. I'll go with Brady on experience.

(Note: I just realized the Pats haven't won a single playoff game since they lost that chance at perfection Super Bowl. Ummm... yeah... I think I'll still take them.)

Leo's 2011 over under picks

It's finally time! Football begins tomorrow and I've been putting off my picks until the end. It's been a crazy couple of weeks and everyone needed to see what happened. After hearing the annual Simmons podcast on over unders, I am following suit.

Last year, I went 18-14. Not so great. The year before I went 20-12. I'm still hoping to get to 24 one year.

Let's get started.....

ARIZONA - 7 wins - OVER

Hard to say what is going on here. Last year, they had terrible QB play and still won a few games. With decent work by Kolb, they should be better. But how much? I think 8-8 is possible, even 9-7.

ATLANTA - 10 wins - PUSH

I think they take a step back, but are still good. 10 wins seems just about right. Their schedule is hard but not impossible.

BALTIMORE - 10.5 wins - OVER

I think Baltimore wins the division, although they're not better than the Steelers. They have a slightly easier sked and remember that they won 12 games a year ago with a tougher one. I wouldn't take them in a playoff game, but their record should be good.

BUFFALO - 5.5 wins - UNDER

It's easy to see them being terrible again, but they have just enough guys like Stevie Johnson and Fitzpatrick to make it interesting. They're going to be bad, but are they 3 wins bad or 6 wins bad? When in doubt, Buffalo usually disappoints.

CAROLINA - 4.5 wins - UNDER

It's not getting any easier, and they're throwing a rookie in there right away. No dice.

CINNCINATTI - 5.5 wins - UNDER

Some are talking about them as a surprise. Uh, have they seen the QB situation? They still don't even know if Carson Palmer will show up. That's bad. They're playing a rookie they don't want to because they have no other option.

CHICAGO - 8 wins - UNDER

Everyone is expecting a major step back for them. I have to agree. I trust NO ONE on this team and they got a lot of breaks last year.

CLEVELAND - 7 wins - OVER

I'm somewhat on the bandwagon. 8 or 9 wins seems very possible, but I don't see playoffs. Sure, they have no receivers, but they made progress last year and the sked is not bad at all.

DALLAS - 9 wins - OVER

Do they just automatically pencil in the Cowboys for 89 every year? It happens alot, and they had a streak of winning just that. I'm going slightly over, because 10 sounds right. Their offense will be good and they probably have enough D to survive, but not be a major contender.

DENVER - 6 wins - UNDER

Tough because 6 or 7 seems about right, but I think they have too much turmoil going on to get there. I like John Fox as a coach, but if he wants to make this a defense and running team, as he usually doies, he'll find that they don't have the guys for that.

DETROIT - 8 wins - UNDER

They're a trendy pick, and they are improving, but I want to give them another year. I'm cautious because of injury concerns and them not ever doing anything. They'll be close and a push is likely, but I'll say under.

GREEN BAY - 11.5 wins - OVER

Their division is not so hard, they bring guys back... I don't know if they can repeat, but they will be much better in the regular season at least.

HOUSTON - 9 wins - OVER

INDIANAPOLIS - 9.5 wins - UNDER

I was already leaning towards the Texans over the Colts before the Manning situation got serious. Now, it seems like a no-brainer. I know I picked the Texans last year, like a lot of people, and failed. I know I thought the Colts were slipping, and they still made it. But they looked like they were slowing down even with Peyton. And the Texans are now the best team in this division pretty easily, I'd say. I still have doubts about them, but the fact that they solved their running game says something, even if they didn't win with it last year. They only need to fix a few holes on defense, and that's easier to do than implement new QBs like the rest of the division.

JACKSONVILLE - 6.5 wins - UNDER

They weren't that bad last year, and they might have made a run at this division, but they gave up their QB and their only decent receivers. It's better in the long run, but they will have a rough year now.

KANSAS CITY - 7.5 wins - OVER

Everyone thinks they will fall back to earth this year. I think they could but under 8 wins seems kinda low. They should be able to get to 8 or 9 wins.

MIAMI - 7.5 wins - UNDER

I thought seven or eight wins earlier, but they seem to have a lot of questions on offense now. Looks like they will suck it again.

MINNESOTA - 7 wins - UNDER

They still have AP, but they lost Sidney Rice and others and McNabb is only here as a transition guy. Not a great sign.

NEW ORLEANS - 10 wins - OVER

They made it to 11 wins last year with no running game, no D, and a tougher schedule. I think they're good for that this year.

NEW ENGLAND - 11.5 wins - OVER

At least for the regular season, they take care of things. I didn't expect 14 wins last year and they did it.

NY GIANTS - 9 wins - UNDER

Nine seems ok, but they have issues. I was going to say that the NFC east would have both wild card teams, but after seeing all their injuries, I'm backing off that. They also have a bad sked matchup - they get Saints and Packers as their flex games. Ouch. I could still see them getting to 10 wins and sneaking in the playoffs, but since they lost some of the passing game, I'll go with popular demand and say under.

NY JETS - 10 wins - OVER

They got to 11 last year and it seems like they could do it again. They didn't lose much, and their offense will be a little better.

OAKLAND - 6.5 wins - UNDER

They made some progress last year, and Jason Campbell looked decent, but he has no one to throw to and their top defender left. A small step back this year is way more likely.

PHILADELPHIA - 10.5 wins - OVER

Ok, let's break this down numerically:

I'm going with a conservative estimate. First, I can see the Eagles splitting with the Giants and Cowboys in the division. They should do better, but those games are always unpredictable. They better sweep the fucking Skins or I will break something. So that's 4-2 for the division.

They play the NFC West. This is awesome. They should go 4-0 but I'll say 3-1 just to be safe.

They play the AFC East. This is tougher. I will say 2-2, because I'm going with a tough guess. They could do better.

Their two flex games are intriguing, Bears and Falcons. It seems like, no matter what the records are, they have had the same results with these teams over the past few years: they struggle against the Bears, they do good against the Falcons. I think they're better than both, but I'll call it a split. 1-1.

SO, where does that leave us? That's a pretty conservative estimate and it still leaves them at 10-6. 11-5 is more likely. 12 or 13 wins are possible, depending on how things go. If they do not win 10 games, Andy Reid should be fired immediately.

After the initial hype, a lot of people have been doubting them recently. They've been criticized for bringing in new guys at a time when there are few practices and continuity is said to be great. I keep hearing that, plus a lot of pressure and Vick's injury history against them.

Their basic offensive skill guys are all the same, though, so that's the most important consistency issue. I'm not so worried about working new defenders in; cornerbacks know how to cover and I don't think they'll mess around with them. The offensive line is a problem, but it was last year, too, and that's part of the reason they went with Vick. If he gets hurt, Vince Young is a pretty capable backup, who could be starting for a few teams. He's not great but as a backup, he's pretty high grade. Same with Ronnie Brown and Steve Smith - they aren't so great anymore, and probably won't do much, but just having that depth is a big plus. I think the defense has to be better, and let's remember that they could have won 11 or 12 games last year with a tougher schedule. I don't think they're going to slip under 10.

PITTSBURGH - 10.5 wins - UNDER

They have a history of post-Super Bowl struggles, and they have some injury concerns. Still, they probably have enough to get to 9 or 10 wins.... but 11 seems like a bit much. I'm worried about Rothy and Mendenhall being healthy enough over the whole season. I think they're better than Baltimore but they just won't get the breaks this year.

SAN DIEGO - 10 wins - OVER

They were the most reliable team other than the Colts to always hit the over for the past few years. Then, it all ended last year. But they still finished 9-7 and one game behind, for all their troubles. They just have too much talent to not win this division. They won't go anywhere in the playoffs, but they should have improved enough to get to 11 wins.

SAN FRANCISCO - 7.5 wins - UNDER

They teased us for so long, and it's just not going to happen yet. They can't get a passing game going, and Ted Ginn and Braylon Edwards are drop city. Frank Gore is an injury risk. Last year was their chance to steal a weak division and they didn't get it, and this year will be tougher.

SEATTLE - 6 wins - UNDER

They won the division, but with 7 games. Then the division got better. Then they dumped a solid QB for a much worse one. This will not end well.

ST. LOUIS - 7.5 wins - UNDER

They seem like the logical pick to win this division, with an improved cast around Bradford, who got them further than expected last year.... but not so fast. Their schedule is a killer, and I'm still not sold on them. Steven Jackson is still an injury away from disappearing. I put them behind the Lions and Bucs, and I don't have those teams in the playoffs either.

Here's the deal: Arizona won 5 games last year despite awful QB play, which they have improved. St. Louis won 7 games last year with inspired play, which is tough sometimes to keep up. Their schedules are basically the same .... except the Cardinals get Carolina and Minnesota while the Rams get Green Bay and the Giants. I like what the Rams are doing, but sometimes you fall back in the second year. It'll be tough. I have them just at 7 wins, so I will take under.

TAMPA BAY - 8 wins - PUSH

They surprised everyone last year, but now people see them falling back a little. 8 wins sounds just about right.

TENNESSEE - 6.5 wins - UNDER

It's tough because 7 to 9 wins is possible. I like Hasselbeck as a stopgap, but I don't trust any of their receivers and I don't know if the coaching change will help. I like Jeff Fisher and I think he just had too many problems on offense. I don't know if they're solved. It's tempting with the Colts suffering to go over, but I will say just under.

WASHINGTON - 6 wins - UNDER

I'm enjoying how people are talking themselves into the Skins as a sleeper team. They have NO TALENT ON OFFENSE. None. I know Sexy Rexy once made a Super Bowl with a running/ defense oriented system, but who is he going to throw to? And why didn't he take a commanding lead over the incredibly boring John Beck? How can they win a game in that division with those QBs??? I think this is a ploy and they're really trying for Andrew Luck. They might get him.

A QB is not a savior but a saver

Football!

Catch it!

So football is back and I am on a craze after one fantasy draft and a few weeks of player movement. There was a debate today about quarterbacks and what they offer. The ones in question were Brady, Brees, Vick, Eli, and Roethlisberger, since they represented our favorite teams in the league. (Someone conveniently forgot Alex Smith...)

The question was something along the lines of what to expect from each QB and who was the most valuable. For fantasy purposes, the last person I want from that group is Eli, although I have Rothy and I am very worried about it. For real life purposes, I think Vick is the most unproven, and I guess I would take Eli over him, but that depends on what happens this year. This came about on some Giants-Eagles smack talk and it reminded me of an old debate I've been having with Giants fans: Eli vs. McNabb (now it will be Eli vs. Vick).

Giants fans love reminding the Eagles that they never won a Super Bowl. Correct. But does that mean Eli was a better QB than McNabb? Is Eli still someone you'd take over Vick? I don't know. McNabb put up better numbers for a longer time (Eli still has quite a few years left) and practically carried the offense by himself in the early part of his career. His '00 season made him a runner-up to the MVP vote in his second year in the league (and first full one as starter). I won't go into Pro Bowls, because people drop out of them all the time and the guys who actually participate are usually not the first or second choice. But, suffice to say, McNabb has a better record when it comes to MVP voting and postseason awards. I don't think anyone has ever considered Eli one of the best 5 passers in the league.

Oh, but he won the big game, you say? He came through when McNabb choked (or puked) and thus that's the end of it? It's not so easy. Eli led a Giants team that got hot at the right time and got some good breaks in the playoffs. Remember that the Giants had tight games with the Cowboys and Packers and had to go to OT to beat the Pack. Eli was solid, but it was also helping that he was facing even bigger chokers in Romo and old-almost-out-of-Green-Bay Favre, not the prime Favre. Those teams had good offenses, and the Giants D slowed them down. Eli was just good enough to keep them in it, and then those other teams made costly turnovers late.

Then, in the Super Bowl, the same thing continued. The Giants' defensive line ate up the Patriots, like no other team had done. They didn't give Brady time to throw, like he usually had that year. They pushed and prodded Randy Moss, and we all know how bad he can get when he's not happy. Eli made two amazing throws that worked, the Giants won, and everyone was shocked. But does that make him a superstar?

I think what he did in the 2007 playoffs was more akin to Trent Dilfer with the Ravens in '00 or Brad Johnson with the Bucs in '02. He rode a hot defense and played smart, mistake-free ball, and made sure to keep the running game going. This does not make him a star. Neither of those other guys are going to the Hall of Fame. I do think Eli is much better than them, and probably worthy of being in the top 10 in the league now. But a superstar? Meh.

I'll make another comparison this decade: Jake Delhomme in '03. He was a little more risky than these guys, but he also rode a great defense and running game to a Super Bowl. There, his team came back against a decent Pats team by chucking it late and hoping that Steve Smith would go get it. Watching Delhomme in that Super Bowl fling it up to Smith and Mushin Muhammed was like watching Eli toss it up to David Tyree and Plaxico Burress. The difference was that Eli made his passes (the Tyree catch continues to defy all logic) and the Panthers made a stupid kicking penalty late that let the Pats finish them off. If not for a few fluky plays, we could be looking at a world where Delhomme had more rings than McNabb, Hasselbeck, and Eli. Is he better than any of them? No. Absolutely not.

Let me defend McNabb in this situation some more. Yes, the Eagles blew a bunch of NFC championship games. But the fact that they made so many has to say something about consistently being pretty decent. Check this out - how many playoff games has Eli won with the Giants, other than that great run in '07? ZERO. He hasn't won since then, and he hadn't won before then. Included in those playoff losses are two at the hands of Eagles teams led by McNabb. I know he won it all, but doesn't it say something that he never made it back to even the NFC championship round? McNabb did that 5 times.

Finally, let us not forget who they were up against. I know everyone remembers the 2007 Pats because they went undefeated in the regular season and set a lot of passing records. They think that was probably the best team that Bellichick and Brady have had, even though they lost. I disagree. I will argue with my life that the best edition of the Patriots this decade was the '04 squad that beat the Eagles. You laugh, but think about it. The '04 team had just won the Super Bowl with a makeshift running game, then added Corey Dillon. Suddenly they had a balanced attack and a great defense to go with a super-efficient passing offense led by Brady. They won the same amount of games as the year before (14, which is still pretty damn good) but they were much, much better. The rest of the AFC had gotten better, too. In the playoffs, they showed their dominance, smothering the Colts 20-3 (they held Manning without a TD, which is pretty insane) and then destroying the Steelers, who had just won 15 games, IN PITTSBURGH. Yikes. They were tough. The Eagles played them hard but they just couldn't catch up.

The 2007 Pats, while more flashy, were not as balanced. That 2004 team had a running game. The 2007 edition did not. I remember this because I had Laurence Maroney and he was a gigantic bust. They had an amazing passing game with Moss over the top and Welker catching short passes, but part of the reason why they set records is because they HAD to throw all the time. They gave up on the running game often and had Kevin Faulk, a very good third-down catching back, in for more plays than they were planning. Don't get me wrong, this was a very good team with an outstanding passing game, but their numbers were just a little inflated because their run game sucked so much. And yes, early on, the Pats were running up the score on people and looked unstoppable. But as the season went on, they started to wear down a little. They went undefeated, but they had a bunch of close games that could have gone either way. It was dramatic to watch them survive each week, and it looked like someone could knock them off if they just got the breaks. (It happened.) Once the playoffs started, they had some good but unspectacular wins at home over two decent squads, Jacksonville and San Diego. Compare that to the 04' team, who got better in the AFC playoffs and killed great competition. The '07 Pats had an easier road in the AFC, as the Steelers were a year away and the Colts had some injuries and couldn't figure out the Chargers. The '04 team killed the Steelers in Pittsburgh; the '07 team handled a Norv Turner team at home. I don't think it was the same.

But that's just me.

Look, don't take this as an insult to Eli. The QB is the most important position and you can't win without someone good there. But it's not the end all. This is part of a bigger trend that has been going on a long time. Remember that John Elway, at the peak of his career, was able to get the Broncos through a weak AFC mostly by himself, with little talent.... only to be killed unmercifully in the Super Bowl by NFC teams with weaker QBs but much better supporting casts. When he finally won it, he was on the downside of his career, but his team had found a running game and defense. Remember that Aaron Rodgers was great last year, but he was also pretty good a few years ago when the Packers went 6-10 and had a terrible defense. You just didn't hear much about him then. Remember that the difference in the '06 Colts was nothing Peyton Manning did or anything the Colts had on offense - it was good as usual - but that Bob Sanders finally stayed healthy for a few weeks and the defense stepped up.

The QB is not the savior. He can be a big saver, but he is not the final answer.

Another reason to hate Boston (like you needed it)

In my last post a few months ago, I tracked the teams over the past decade that had won their first title in franchise history, or the first in a really long time. I was hoping to add two more teams to that list this week with the titles of the Mavericks and Canucks, who had never won. Alas, Vancouver lost game 7, they rioted, [although I think we all know the real reason Vancouver is on fire - someone in the crowd said that Canadian beer sucks], and now Boston has yet another title to add to their recent mantle.

In the wake of preparing to hear insufferable New Englanders trying to think of something to complain about, now that they've won everything, I started thinking about a different facet to research: has anyone ever won titles across all 4 major pro leagues in such a short amount of time?

No.

Not even close.

I had to look this up. On February 6, 2005, the Patriots defeated the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX, a game a lot of us remember all too well. On June 15, 2011, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup (and in between, the Red Sox and Celtics won titles). That's a span of 6 years, 4 months, and 9 days. I wanted to see if any other city could match that.

Well, out of the 13 cities that have had all 4 major leagues at one time, even if they don't anymore (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Denver, and Miami), only a few of them hold titles in all sports, regardless of time span. New York, Philly, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit are the only ones, unless you count the Anaheim Ducks as part of Los Angeles (debatable). Even if you wanted to combine the Bay Area teams, or Tampa with Orlando, they don't have titles across all 4 sports.

So, just having franchises that have won titles in every sport is pretty rare, let alone in a short time frame. New York, with all its teams, would seem to be the most likely candidate to pull it off, but they haven't come close to what Boston just did. The shortest span to have New York teams capture all four titles is 11 years, from 1969 to 1980 -- but, even then, you'd have to count the Islanders, and I know Long Island isn't quite the same as New York city. It's a questionable run. If you didn't count the Islanders, then New York's shortest span is from 1973 to 1994 - a whole 21 years. The Knicks and Rangers, for all their history, don't win the title very often.

Some cities have come kind of close, but fell one title short. L.A. was pretty hot in the early 80's with the Lakers and Dodgers, and then the Raiders moved in and won a Super Bowl, but the Kings never won a Stanley Cup, not even after they got Gretsky. Detroit had a nice run in the 80's and 90's, but the Lions couldn't do anything. Chicago finally broke through recently with the White Sox and Blackhawks ending droughts, but the Bears haven't won since the Super Bowl Shuffle crew, so their shortest span was almost 25 years.

Ironically, it is my beloved home base Philly that almost came the closest to equalling what Boston has done. In between the Flyers' second Cup win in 1975 and the Sixers winning the finals in 1983, the Phils and Eagles made runs, but the Eagles lost the 1981 Super Bowl. If they had won, Philly would still be second to Boston, with a span of 8 years and 4 days... but that would have been an amazing run. As it is, Philly's shortest span is almost 20 years, from the Eagles winning the NFL Championship (pre-Super Bowl) in December 1960 to the Phillies winning the World Series in October 1980.

So, cheers to you, Boston. You just did something unheard of in major pro sports. You've tasted victory with every team, in a much shorter time than anyone, ever, including that hated New Yahk. So now that it's over, there's just one thing left...

Can you shut the fuck up already?

-------

For research purposes, shortest spans I could find:

1. Boston (2005 Pats - 2007 Red Sox - 2008 Celtics - 2011 Bruins): 6 years, 4 months, 9 days

2. New York* (1969 Jets - 1969 Mets - 1970,73 Knicks - 1977,78 Yankees - 1980 Islanders): 11 years, 4 months, 12 days *counting Long Island as part of NY

3. Philadelphia (1960 Eagles - 1967 Sixers - 1974,75 Flyers - 1980 Phillies): 19 years, 10 months, 25 days

4. New York (1973 Knicks - 1977,78 Yankees - 1986 Mets - 1987,91 Giants - 1994 Rangers): 21 years, 1 month, 4 days

5. Los Angeles* (1983 Raiders - 1985,87,88,2000,01,02 Lakers - 1988 Dodgers - 2002 Angels - 2007 Ducks): 23 years, 5 months, 17 days *counting Anaheim as part of LA

6. Chicago (1986 Bears - 1991,92,93,96,97,98 Bulls - 2005 White Sox - 2010 Blackhawks): 24 years, 4 months, 14 days

Also, Detroit's shortest span, from the '57 Lions to the '89 Pistons (with multiple titles by the Red Wings and Tigers in between) is 31 years, 6 months, and 15 days.

The 2000's: The End of Curses and Droughts?

After the Giants won the series, their first in 50 years, I thought back to some of the long droughts that ended this decade, like the Red Sox, Saints, Blackhawks and White Sox. It seemed like a lot of franchises in all 4 major pro sports were finally breaking through over the past 10 or so years. The Red Sox certainly got the most attention, but I had a feeling that many other teams had won a title or made a final game for the first time ever, or in a long time. I decided to look up and see how many there actually were.

And yes, there were quite a few.



Teams that won a championship this decade for the first time ever, or the first time in a long time (more than 35 years):


St. Louis Rams '00 (see also: Arizona Cardinals '09) - The Rams won their first Super Bowl (they had lost one while in Los Angeles). This was their first overall title since 1951 (pre-Super Bowl era), and first since moving in 1995. This was also the first NFL title for the city of St. Louis, as the football Cardinals never won anything while they were there.

Baltimore Ravens '01 (see also: Indianapolis Colts '07) - The Ravens won their first Super Bowl since moving in 1996. Baltimore the city already had titles with the Colts, but this was the first for the "new" franchise. If you count their previous history as the Browns, it was still their first Super Bowl appearance and win.

Arizona Diamondbacks '01 - Won first title in first World Series appearance after only 4 seasons of existence. Yeah, I know, not much of a drought..... but, they were the first team from that state to win a title. Arizona has had pro teams since 1969, although up until the 80's it was just the Suns.

New England Patriots '02 - Won first Super Bowl. Franchise started in 1960.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers '03 - Won first Super Bowl in first appearance. Franchise started in 1976. They sure seemed cursed for a long time; maybe it was just those orange jerseys.

Anaheim / Los Angeles Angels '02 - Won first title ever in first trip to World Series. Franchise started in 1961.

Tampa Bay Lightning '04 - Won first Stanley Cup. Franchise started in 1992, despite questions about why they'd put a hockey team in Florida.

Boston Red Sox '04 - Won title for first time since 1918. You may have heard about this.

Chicago White Sox '05 - Won title for first time since 1917, in first trip to World Series since 1959. Yes, they were out longer than the Red Sox but got less attention, probably because everyone knows where their bad karma came from.

Carolina Hurricanes '06 - Won first Stanley Cup, including time as Hartford Whalers, who joined NHL in 1979.

Miami Heat '06 - Won first NBA title in first finals trip ever. Franchise started in 1988.

Indianapolis Colts '07 - As stated, the Colts had won Super Bowls in Baltimore, but this was the first pro title of any kind for the state of Indiana. The Colts moved to Indy in 1984.

Anaheim Ducks '07 - Won first Stanley Cup. Franchise started in 1993. Unfortunately, the junior world titles accumulated under the reign of Emilio Estevez did not count.

New Orleans Saints '10 - Won first title in first trip to Super Bowl. Franchise started in 1967.

Chicago Blackhawks '10 - Won Stanley Cup for first time since 1961.

San Francisco Giants '10 - Won title for first time since 1954, and first ever since they moved west.

And the Phillies..... Philadelphia had the infamous curse of William Penn, so named for the old rule that no building could be made higher than the statue of Billy Penn that sits atop city hall. This rule was broken in the mid 80's, and since it happened, no team had won a title, until the Phils. Now, 1983-2008 may not seem like a super long time. 25 years, compared to some of these franchises, isn't much. But when you consider the fact that Philly has 4 teams, to not have any of them win any titles in 25 years is a big stretch. Consider all the cities that have 4 or more teams. None of them had longer streaks. Even the cities with 3 pro teams didn't have as long of a winless streak at the time the Phillies won.... well, except for one.... you can guess who that is....

Cities with 3 or more teams (4 or more get an *), with last title won, as of September 2008 [last title in brackets]:

Atlanta* [Braves '95], Boston* [Red Sox '07], Cleveland [err...Browns '64], Chicago* [White Sox '05], Dallas* [Stars '99], Detroit* [Pistons '04], Denver* [Avalanche '01], Houston [Rockets '94], Los Angeles* [Lakers '03], Miami* [Heat '06], Minneapolis* [Twins '91], New York* [Giants '08], Oakland [A's '89], Phoenix* [D-Backs '01], Philly* [Sixers '83], Pittsburgh [Steelers '05], St. Louis [Cardinals '06], Tampa Bay [Lightning '04], Toronto [Blue Jays '93], Washington* [Redskins '92]

(....and if you want to include North Carolina with Charlotte/Raleigh [Hurricanes '06] and Wisconsin with Milwaukee/Green Bay [Packers '97], they were more recent too.)

So maybe it was a big deal that Philly overcame that. Sorry, Cleveland.






Teams that made a championship game/finals appearance for the first time:


Already covered - winners in their first appearance - Diamondbacks, Angels, Ravens, Lightning, Heat, Saints

Tennessee Titans '00 - First Super Bowl appearance, not only for their brief time in Nashville, but also counting their previous years as the Houston Oilers. The Oilers won the AFL title in 1961, but never made the Super Bowl once it started.

Indiana Pacers '00 - First finals appearance. Franchise joined NBA in 1976.

New Jersey Nets '02 - First finals appearance. Franchise joined NBA in 1976.

Carolina Panthers '04 - First Super Bowl appearance. Franchise started in 1995. Not that long, but they had some terrible luck and tragedy.

Houston Astros '05 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1962.

Seattle Seahawks '06 - First Super Bowl appearance. Franchise started in 1976.

Dallas Mavericks '06 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1980.

Ottawa Senators '07 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1992.

Cleveland Cavaliers '07 - First finals appearance. Franchise started in 1970. Despite Dan Gilbert's promise, this is probably not going to happen again anytime soon.

Colorado Rockies '07 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1993.

Tampa Bay Rays '08 - First World Series appearance. Franchise started in 1998. Not long, but after (all their) 10 seasons only finishing dead last, it was a surprise run.

Arizona Cardinals '09 - First Super Bowl appearance. First NFL title game appearance in Phoenix. They last won the NFL title in 1947, long before the Super Bowl era, when they were in Chicago. They never won a title nor made it to the final game during years in St. Louis.

Texas Rangers '10 - First World Series appearance. Includes previous years as "new" Washington Senators. Lots of rough years. Franchise started in 1961.






Notable droughts (40 years or more of no titles, 50 or more with no finals appearances) still abound:


Arizona / St. Louis / Chicago Cardinals - last won NFL title in 1947, haven't won Super Bowl

Atlanta Falcons - never won NFL title or Super Bowl; franchise started in 1966

Atlanta Hawks - last won NBA title in 1958 while they were in St. Louis; have never made NBA finals since moving to Atlanta in 1968

Buffalo Bills - never won Super Bowl, despite four straight trips; franchise won AFL title in 1966; just ask Vincent Gallo

Buffalo Sabres - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1970

Chicago Cubs - haven't made World Series since 1945; haven't won since 1908

Cincinnati Bengals - never won NFL title or Super Bowl; franchise started in 1968

Cleveland Browns - last won NFL title in 1964; have never made a Super Bowl (unless you count the Ravens, but they don't)

Cleveland Cavaliers - never won NBA title; franchise started in 1970

Cleveland Indians - haven't won World Series since 1948

(Cleveland, city of - lake on fire, LeBron's decision, the fumble, Jose Mesa, last title of any kind in 1964)

Denver Nuggets - never won ABA title or made NBA finals; franchise began in 1967

Detroit Lions - last won NFL title in 1957; have never made a Super Bowl

Houston Astros - never won World Series; franchise started in 1962

Houston NFL teams - haven't ever made Super Bowl; Oilers won AFL title in 1961 but never made SB; Texans haven't even made playoffs yet


Los Angeles Clippers / Buffalo Braves - have never made NBA finals; franchise started in 1970


Los Angeles Kings - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1967


Milwaukee Brewers - never won World Series; franchise started in 1969


Minnesota Vikings - never won Super Bowl; franchise started in 1961


Minnesota NHL teams - North Stars never won Stanley Cup from 1967-1993; Wild has not made finals in 10 years of existence (I'm giving them this because this one of the few places in America that really REALLY cares about hockey)


Philadelphia Eagles - last won NFL title in 1960. Have not won Super Bowl. I guess this isn't the WORST place to be......


Phoenix Suns - never won NBA title; franchise started in 1969. A lot of close misses.


Sacramento / Kansas City Kings - have not won NBA title since 1951, when they were the Rochester Royals. Have not made finals since 1951 either. (Were close a few years ago before Laker shenanigans.)


San Diego Padres - never won World Series; franchise started in 1969


St. Louis Blues - never made Stanley Cup finals; franchise started in 1967


Texas Rangers - never won World Series; franchise started in 1961


Toronto Maple Leafs - haven't won Stanley Cup since 1967


Vancouver Canucks - never won Stanley Cup; franchise started in 1970


Washington Nationals / Montreal Expos - never made a World Series; franchise started in 1969



.... and maybe we can count the Jets and Chiefs, who won some of the early Super Bowls ('69, '70) but haven't made it since......

Expanding the NFL playoffs: Good(dell) idea?

After Seattle won the NFC West this year with a lame 7-9 record, and the Giants and Buccaneers missed the NFC playoffs both with a 10-6 record, a lot of football fans were upset. They complained about the division set-up and the current playoff system.

Well, the NFL does have an answer for this, but it's not realignment. They want to expand the playoffs to 7 or 8 teams per conference. They also want to expand the season to 18 games, but you probably heard about that already (it will be a key debate in the upcoming negotiations). The NFL has actually been talking about playoff expansion for a few years, and in the wake of this year's debacle, they will certainly push for this to happen. It makes sense for them, because more playoff games equal more money they can make. Every other major sports league has made their playoffs longer and/or involved more teams. No one has ever shortened it.

But will it help? Would having an extra 2 or 4 teams in the playoffs really guarantee that all the good teams get in? Ever since 2002, when they went to an eight-division format, they have dealt with some weak division winners. Some good teams have been left out. But would it really solve everything? I found a lot of talk about this in various forums, but I didn't find anyone who actually went through and computed what would have happened if we had expanded playoffs for the past 9 years. So I did it (not that it was that hard, with ESPN having the standings for these years still up).

I'm going to show the teams that made the playoffs the past 9 years, since the NFL expanded to 32 teams and 8 divisions, and the teams that would've made it under the proposed system. Let's see if an extra team or two would really provide a lot of help.....

2010

NFC

1. Falcons 13-3
2. Bears 11-5
3. Eagles 10-6
4. Seahawks 7-9
5. Saints 11-5
6. Packers 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Giants 10-6
8. Buccaneers 10-6

AFC

1. Patriots 14-2
2. Steelers 12-4
3. Colts 10-6
4. Chiefs 10-6
5. Ravens 12-4
6. Jets 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Chargers 9-7
8. Jaguars 8-8

Like I said, this may be the tipping point that convinces people to expand the playoffs. In the NFC, a 7-9 team got in while two separate 10-6 teams were left out. But in the AFC, the six best teams made it. Did we really need to see an underachieving Chargers team, and an 8-8 Jags team that blew their chances by losing to the Redskins late? I don't know.

2009

NFC

1. Saints 13-3
2. Vikings 12-4
3. Cowboys 11-5
4. Cardinals 10-6
5. Packers 11-5
6. Eagles 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Falcons 9-7
8. Panthers 8-8
(Note: 49ers, Giants also finished 8-8 but would lose on tiebreaker)

AFC

1. Colts 14-2
2. Chargers 13-3
3. Patriots 10-6
4. Bengals 10-6
5. Jets 9-7
6. Ravens 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Texans 9-7
8. Steelers 9-7

Here, the top 6 teams in both conferences made it. There were some okay teams left out, but no one really special.

2008

NFC

1. Giants 12-4
2. Panthers 12-4
3. Vikings 10-6
4. Cardinals 9-7
5. Falcons 11-5
6. Eagles 9-6-1
NEXT IN:
7. Buccaneers 9-7
8. Bears 9-7
(Note: Cowboys also finished 9-7 but would lose to Bears on tiebreakers)

AFC

1. Titans 13-3
2. Steelers 12-4
3. Dolphins 11-5
4. Chargers 8-8
5. Colts 12-4
6. Ravens 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Patriots 11-5
8. Jets 9-7

This was another year with controversy that had people talking about expanding the playoffs. The Patriots won 11 games but missed a very narrow tiebreaker with the Dolphins for the division and lost out on the playoffs entirely, while the Chargers made it with an 8-8 record. Boston fans were wicked pissed. The Jets also finished better than the Chargers (this was the one year they had Favre). You could make a case for both teams. In the NFC, though, there were no big upsets, although some complained that the Cardinals had an easy ride in.... but then, they made the Super Bowl, so it didn't matter.

2007

NFC

1. Cowboys 13-3
2. Packers 13-3
3. Seahawks 10-6
4. Buccaneers 9-7
5. Giants 10-6
6. Redskins 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 8-8
8. Eagles 8-8
(Note: Cardinals also finished 8-8 but would lose to Eagles on tiebreakers)

AFC

1. Patriots 16-0* (AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... sorry... I had to...)
2. Colts 13-3
3. Chargers 11-5
4. Steelers 10-6
5. Jaguars 11-5
6. Titans 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Browns 10-6
8. Texans 8-8

I do remember feeling really bad for the Browns this year. They had a great year (for them) and just barely missed out on the playoffs. They don't get many chances like that. But that's about it. The other teams in would be 8-8 and not that good. I am a hardcore Eagles fan, and I'll admit that this team was NOT playoff-worthy.

2006

NFC

1. Bears 13-3
2. Saints 10-6
3. Eagles 10-6
4. Seahawks 9-7
5. Cowboys 9-7
6. Giants 8-8
NEXT IN:
7. Packers 8-8
8. Rams 8-8
(Note: Panthers also finished 8-8 but would lose to Rams on tiebreaker)

AFC

1. Chargers 14-2
2. Ravens 13-3
3. Colts 12-4
4. Patriots 12-4
5. Jets 10-6
6. Chiefs 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Broncos 9-7
8. Bengals 8-8
(Note: Steelers, Titans, Jags were also 8-8 but would lose on tiebreaker)

If you ever wondered how Rex Grossman made it to the SB, just remember how much the NFC sucked this year. No team besides the Bears won more than 10 games. The NFC already had an 8-8 team make it. I don't think they needed more. The AFC was stronger, and their best teams did make it in.

2005

NFC

1. Seahawks 13-3
2. Bears 11-5
3. Buccaneers 11-5
4. Giants 11-5
5. Carolina 11-5
6. Redskins 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 9-7
8. Cowboys 9-7

AFC

1. Colts 14-2
2. Broncos 13-3
3. Bengals 11-5
4. Patriots 10-6
5. Jaguars 12-4
6. Steelers 11-5
NEXT IN:
7. Chiefs 10-6
8. Chargers 9-7

Now this year was the first year I remember people talking about playoff expansion. The Steelers won it all as a 6 seed, and the Chiefs and Chargers were shut out despite being pretty good teams. But, still, the Chiefs weren't any better than any of the playoff teams. And in the NFC, the best teams made it. So, it's not like anyone undeserving got in. WORTH NOTING: This is the only year that would feature 16 playoff teams that all won 9 games or more.

2004

NFC

1. Eagles 13-3
2. Falcons 11-5
3. Packers 10-6
4. Seahawks 9-7
5. Rams 8-8
6. Vikings 8-8
NEXT IN:
7. Saints 8-8
8. Panthers 7-9

AFC

1. Steelers 15-1
2. Patriots 14-2
3. Colts 12-4
4. Chargers 12-4
5. Jets 10-6
6. Broncos 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Ravens 9-7
8. Jaguars 9-7
(Note: Bills also finished 9-7 but would lose out on tiebreakers)

In retrospect, I'm kinda pissed the Eagles made the gamble for T.O. They probably would've won this crappy conference anyway. Two 8-8 teams made it! And they both won a game! What a down year, and having a 7-9 team in the mix wouldn't help. In the AFC, the top 6 teams made it.

2003

NFC

1. Eagles 12-4
2. Rams 12-4
3. Panthers 11-5
4. Packers 10-6
5. Seahawks 10-6
6. Cowboys 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Vikings 9-7
8. Saints 8-8

AFC

1. Patriots 14-2
2. Chiefs 13-3
3. Colts 12-4
4. Ravens 10-6
5. Titans 12-4
6. Broncos 10-6
NEXT IN:
7. Dolphins 10-6
8. Bengals 8-8

I forgot that the Dolphins won 10 games and lost out. But they didn't finish above anyone that did make it. In the NFC, 8 teams would've ruined one of the best stories this decade: the Packers needed to win the division to get in, and had trailed Minnesota most of the season, but on the last game, an awful Cardinals team upset the Vikings on a last-second play and helped the Packers get in. Later that week, Packers fans invited the Cards' third-string wide receiver who made the big play to Wisconsin to party it up and thanked him for helping send the Vikings home. They had a giant bash in his honor. See, that fun stuff never would've happened if the Vikings had made it in anyway.

2002

NFC

1. Eagles 12-4
2. Buccaneers 12-4
3. Packers 12-4
4. 49ers 10-6
5. Giants 10-6
6. Falcons 9-6-1
NEXT IN:
7. Saints 9-7
8. Rams 7-9

AFC

1. Raiders 11-5
2. Titans 11-5
3. Steelers 10-5-1
4. Jets 9-7
5. Colts 10-6
6. Browns 9-7
NEXT IN:
7. Dolphins 9-7
8. Patriots 9-7
(Broncos also finished 9-7 but would lose on tiebreakers)

The first year in the current format produced a lot of craziness in the AFC. The Jets started out horribly but somehow won the division on multiple tiebreakers over the Dolphins and Pats. The Browns clinched the last playoff spot by several other tiebreakers. During the season, it looked like the Pats, Fins, and Broncos were maybe the best teams in the conference, and they all missed out. The NFC, however, made sense.

FINAL ANALYSIS

Expanding the playoffs would get some good teams in, but it would more likely include a lot of mediocre teams. There have been only 2 instances (2010 NFC and 2008 AFC) where a team that has not made the playoffs has finished better than a team that made it in. There was only one year (2005) where all 16 teams would be 9-7 or better. In 9 years of the current system, with a possible 36 extra teams to make it in, there have been only 6 teams that won 10 games or more and didn't make it. If we had those extra teams (a total of 8 per conference) in the playoffs for the past 9 years, we would've had a breakdown like this by record:

11-5: 1 team
10-6: 5 teams
9-7: 17 teams
8-8: 11 teams
7-9: 2 teams

We would have had more 8-8 teams than 10 + teams, and a lot of 9-7 teams. 9-7 isn't so bad, but it shouldn't necessarily guarantee you a playoff spot.

Let's see how those numbers compare if we only had an extra playoff team, for 7 per conference:

11-5: 1 team
10-6: 4 teams
9-7: 10 teams
8-8: 3 teams

That's a little better. Having 7 playoff teams would keep most of the good (10 wins) teams and eliminate most of the mediocre (8 wins) ones.

I think we can say that having 7 teams in the playoffs instead of 6 might help things out. It would get mostly 9-wins-and-over teams in there. But we should remember that a situation like this year is very rare.

One final aside: Look, I don't love the divisions as they are set up, but it would be hard mathematically to change them. The NFL is not going to add any teams soon, just move some around. 32 is a hard number to divide into anything but multiples of 4. I liked the old format with 6 teams making it from 3 divisions in each conference because it left less possibilities for crappy divisions. It also gave one wild card team a home game in the playoffs, which was nice when the two best teams were in one division. The way it is now, no wild card team can finish better than 5th, no matter how good they are. As the Seahawks just showed, you can't deny the importance of getting a home crowd for a playoff game. One solution to that would be to have the team with the better record host the game, even if they are the lower seed. But I digress. The 3 division format just won't work unless the NFL drops 2 teams or adds 4 more, and neither of those are going to happen. They'll just add extra playoff games and hope for the best.

Like I said, playoff expansion is very likely. No league has ever said no to expanding playoffs, and I don't see why the NFL would. I guess we can just hope that they stop at 7 spots and not 8, because the numbers show that 8 spots allow for too many sub par teams.