NFL Week 12 Picks

After a two week hiatus of picks, I'm back. I finished a huge column on the first week and had a lot to do, so I couldn't write picks that week. Last week, Tebow's drive destroyed me (I'm still not quite over it) and I didn't feel like writing them either. However, it's time to get back to the picks. Quick disclaimer before I start the column: I don't pick the Thursday games. If I pick one game, I feel like I have to pick them all, and I don't have the time/ lack of homework needed to do that. Now that we've established that, on to the picks.

FALCONS OVER VIKINGS

I like the Vikings as a sleeper pick for next year. The defense is coming on strong, Ponder is developing in to a good quarterback, and Adrian Peterson is still a veritable monster. They absolutely could have won that Raiders game last week, but a multitude of turnovers and dumb penalties killed their chances. Now those are the Vikings that I know. Meanwhile, Atlanta played a good three quarters against the Titans before almost blowing it at the end. Since they're my Super Bowl Pick (I'll explain why in my NFL Postmortem column at the end of the season), I've gotta have faith in their ability to take care of businuess in home games like this.Falcons win 24-13.

JETS OVER BILLS

The Jets have only lost twice when I've went (2007 against Buffalo and 2010 against the eventual champ Green Bay). Let's just say that I'm not worried about this being the third time. The Jets are beginning to fall apart, but Buffalo just exploded. They rope us in to thinking they're a decent team every few years (2008 for instance), and then they implode down the stretch. Blowouts at the hands of the Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins in the past three weeks have exposed the Bills as a facade. They may be 5-5, but they're already dead from a playoff perspective in my mind. Then again, so would the Jets if they didn't have three pushovers (Buffalo,Washington, and Kansas City) in the next few weeks. Add to the fact that Fred Jackson looks to be done for the year, and this is a 31-13 Jets win.

BENGALS OVER BROWNS

Due to the Jets' unfortunate playoff situation, I will be vehemently rooting against the Bengals for the rest of the year. It's a shame, because the Bengals are a likeable young team that has a QB with a cool nickname (Andy Dalton as the Red Rifle) and one of the most exciting wide receivers in the league (AJ Green). That said, they're no way that the Bengals blow an easy home game against a team that barely outlasted Jacksonville last week. The Browns rank 29th in total offense, and show no signs of an upward trend without Peyton Hillis (the Madden Curse strikes again!! I wonder whether the Madden Curse or the SI Cover Jinx has been more successful over the years. I'm wondering whether to be glad that Jets don't usually appear on the covers or bummed out because there isn't a single player on the team remotely exciting enough to make one.) Long story short, the Bengals should win this game handily.

TITANS OVER BUCS

A lot of things just haven't gone right for the Bucs this year. LaGarette Blount never really got rolloing until it was too late, Josh Freeman threw too many picks, and the defense couldn't even perform average, much less keep up with all of the offenses' turnovers. The Bucs took the Packers down to the wire last week, so we know how good they can be. The Titans are the exact opposite. You know you're getting a team that's pretty much as close to the word "average" as you'd ever hope to get in the NFL. They come close to beating some good teams, win handily some weeks, look like just another team in other weeks, you never know what you're getting from the Titans. I'll always pick the average team over the box of chocolates team (You never know what you're gonna get. I probably shouldn't be quoting Forrest Gump since I've never actually seen it), especially when the average team is playing at home. Titans win 20-17.

PANTHERS OVER COLTS

Can we at least say that the Panthers are the most entertaining 2-8 team that we've ever seen? What other 2-8 team do you know of has a soon to be top 10 QB and a top 5 wide receiver? I'm gonna go ahead and answer that for you; none. If the defense were just bad instead of  complete trash (allowing over 28 points per game after the team spent close to 70 million dollars resigning "vital" members of the defense. I think that the other 31 teams can agree that it was worth every penny), the Panthers could have easily been 5-5 right now. Meanwhile, the Colts are in full Luck mode. Not only do they not have the talent to consider beating another NFL team right now, they have no incentive to do so with a sure thing looming in the draft. The Panthers win 28-17.

RAMS OVER CARDINALS

Do I really have to talk about this game? No? Fantastic.

TEXANS OVER JAGUARS

I would be genuinely shocked if the Texans lose this game. I honestly don't think that the injury of Schaub will change much of anything. They have the number one defense in the league in terms of yards per game, Arian Foster is a monster, and they haven't had Andre Johnson for all this time. Can you imagine what would have happened if the whole defense, Foster, Schaub, and Johnson stayed healthy throughout the season? I'm firmly convinced that they would be undefeated if that happened. Meanwhile, the Jags are just building towards next year at this point. Remember when the Jags used to be the most exciting team in football with two great running backs and an entertaining defense (2007)? Me too. I miss those days. Fortunately, the Texans have all of that and more. This is the lock of the week, 35-10 Texans.

RAIDERS OVER BEARS

And this is what I meant in my preseason power poll about the 2010 Bears. Those Bears  possibly had the luckiest season in the past decade. No significant injuries, terrible schedule, good turnover differential, won too many close games that they could have easily lost, went 11-5 and got the 2 seed in the NFC (fairly sure we're not seeing that again), got Seattle at home in the divisional round, and nearly beating the Packers in the conference championshpis after getting every conceivable break. You knew that the Bears' luck had to swing in the other direction sometime, right? Well, this is that sometime. I kinda feel bad for them because they were having a great season without the kind of luck that they got last year, and then Caleb Hanie has to ride in and save the day. You're not gonna believe this, but I don't believe in Hanie. Meanwhile, the Raiders get to play in the worst division in football and catch the Bears at the perfect time. Sounds like a 10 point win to me.

Raiders win 20-10.

SEAHAWKS OVER REDSKINS

Can I interest you in a game between sub .500 teams with absolutely no interesting subplots whatsoever? I can't? Fantastic.

BRONCOS OVER CHARGERS

I believe in Tebow now. Not by choice. When you look at this game closely, isn't this exactly the kind of game that Tim Tebow always pulls out? A talented team that hasn't met expectations, can't finish games, and is prone to dumb turnovers and penalties faces off against the Broncos. The score is something like "13-10 Chargers" in the final three minutes. The Chargers have dominated all game, except for a special teams fumble and two picks by Rivers. To be honest, that's exactly how I expect this game to play out. And then Tebow drives the Broncos down the field for a game ending touchdown as Rich Eisen points out once again that "the standings don't have pictures on them". Has any team won in more perplexing ways than the Broncos have over the past few weeks? Has any team found more ways to lose a football game than San Diego? No and no. Broncos win 17-13.

PATS OVER EAGLES

One of the more interesting games of Week 12 is between two preseason Super Bowl Favorites. Personally, I can't think of any conceivable way that the Eagles win with Vince as the quarterback. All week long, all I heard from analysts and talk show hosts was "Here come the Eagles!" and "Should we start Vince over Vick for the rest of the year?" chatter. First of all, the Eagles would pretty much need to win out to approach the playoffs, and the Pats are hitting their stride late in the season. Second of all, here is Vince's statline from the Giants game.

Vince Young: 23-38, 258 Yards, 2 TDs, 3 INTs,  69.0 QB rating

Not quite sure that warrants "starting QB" talk yet. Also, the three picks against a woeful Giants' secondary is somewhat alarming. The Eagles defense will need to play the game of its life against Brady and the Pats offense. I think it can hold Brady to a reasonable amount of yardage, but BenJarvus Green-Ellis has a field day with over 100 yard and at least two touchdowns against a physically inferior Eagles' front seven. 30-24 Pats.

STEELERS OVER CHIEFS

Palko, meet Polamalu, Harrison, and Timmons. Timmons, Harrison, and Polamalu, meet Tyler Palko.

SAINTS OVER GIANTS

 The Giants have holes all over their offense right now. The offensive line is a mess with Will Beaty out, leading to the porous run blocking given to Brandon Jacobs. Jacobs will likely be in again on Monday Night after new broke that Ahmad Bradshaw did not practice yet again, raising severe doubt about his status for Monday Night's game. Another game in which a team was caught at the perfect time. The Saints are well rested, having just come off of their bye week. Expect the Saints to come out with their best effort of the year and the Giants to come out with their worst. Saints win 38-21.

I'll be back with Week 13 next week. Hasta le Vista everybody.

The Manifesto of College Football Reform

The most addictive thing on the planet is power. Look through an average history textbook and you'll find plenty of examples. Power only causes a want for even more authority, more control. Such is the case in the college football system. There are so many problems with the current system that I probably can't list them all, but they have one unmistakable trait in common. One thing that anybody who has heard any reports about reallignment and/or read the first three sentences of this article knows. They all trace their roots back to a want for power. Re-allignment, the BCS structure, and rampant cheating in college sports can all be traced back to the power struggle between conferences, TV Networks, and various individual schools. Fortunately, there are common sense solutions to all of these problems that I've spent way too much time thinking about. Why? Because I love college football. I can't emphasize this enough. Nowhere else can a quarterback throw for nine touchdowns like Case Keenum did last week. Nowhere else can you show up at any given stadium, no matter how crappy the team, and be assured that at least 90 percent of the stadium are die hard fans (not fairweather fans, not "I'll only go if I can sit in a luxury box" wimp fans. If you watch a college game and an NFL game in succession, you'll see what I mean). Nowhere else can more than fourty teams enter the season as contenders for a National Championship. Unfortunately, the system is flawed because it is manipulated by agents, boosters, athletic directors, and others that are far more cunning than the nineteen year old athletes that they stand to make money from. Since all of these problems are directly related (except for cheating, which is a problem apart from the others), let's start with the BCS System.
                                            BCS BUSTED
Ah, the BCS. The topic of so much debate over the years seemingly has no solution. A quick review of the arguments before we break down the inadequacies of the current system, the BCS is supported by a system of coach's polls and computer formulas that determine bowl games and, most importantly, which two teams should play in the National Championship Game.. BCS supporters argue that the current system is absolutely fine. They say that the National Championship should be between the best teams that play the toughest schedules and that it gives the regular season more weight because every season is like a playoff. BCS detractors argue that teams that aren't part of the Royal and Ancient (named after Augusta's members) of college football (TCU and Boise State in recent years) are unfairly treated. They say that a playoff is the only answer to the question of Who is the Best Team? After a while, so many columnists and bloggers have an opinion on the subject that we forget what we're even arguing about and end up simply insulting each other without coming up with solutions. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing I love more than a good trash talking session, but it gets to a point where it fails to be funny any more and ends up as annoying and counter-productive.
       My take on the BCS is that it had a little bit of the right idea. After all, it doesn't make sense that Boise State should be able to whipsaw through an easy schedule and emerge undefeated and play in the title game while Florida might lose twice to LSU and Alabama and end up playing in the ShakeWeight Bowl against Akron. However, it has been morphed from a noble effort to determine the most fair way to choose a national champion to a cash grab for the nation's top historical teams. This is how you end up with a team that went 0-12 in 2009 (Washington) earning more BCS money than a team that went undefeated in that same year (the Sugar Bowl Champion, Utah). According to an article written by Brian Murphy, each automatic qualifying conference takes home roughly 22 million dollars. A total of approximately 25 million dollars is split among the five non-qualifying conferences. See what I mean about a cash grab now? If greedy athletic directors or BCS officials recognized Boise State or TCU as legitimate teams that should play in AQ conferences, their pockets would suddenly start to feel a little bit lighter. There is absolutely a caste system in college football, and teams that are unfortunate enough to have just become good recently are still at the bottom. Not only should the cash grab be ended (remember, wealth and power are the two most addictive things on the planet), but it is an unfair way of choosing a National Champion. The result is that fewer and fewer teams are scheduling the "tough games" that supposedly give the BCS schools a huge advantage over non-BCS schools because they know that they can't sniff the National Championship with one loss. Inversely, teams like Boise State are constantly saddled with crappy schedules (so the computers and polls can again point to lack of schedule strength) with one marquee opponent thrown in (in hopes that they'll lose and the representation problem will be put to rest for another year). The BCS was an honest attempt at proving who was the best that was corrupted when unequal money distribution and the very notion of computers and coaches' polls were added.
  Every single "BCS sucks!" person wants a playoff. Everything should be centered around a playoff. Playoff, playoff, playoff. First, let's ask ourselves two quick questions. The first one is; how would playoffs for the top teams work? It's a heck of a lot easier to schedule one game than potentially three (for an eight team playoff), plus there's the issue of logistics. Bowls are scheduled at a bit of a dicey time, with Winter Break and final exams looming within a few weeks of each other. It's very easy to schedule one game, but two or three with a week's break in between each? That's a logistical nightmare before you even get to travel planning and the like. Second of all, a college football playoff will be just like the BCS. How, you ask? With the BCS, there is usually an undefeated team that does not get to play for the National Championship. With a playoff, the undefeated teams can duke it out. OK, that's great. Now how do you propose chosing the one loss teams that get in to the playoff? We still have the same problem as before, just in a different form. So what's the solution? Keep the BCS.
   What? But Andrew, you said you'd come up with a new solution! Well, I did. Take a deep breath. I'm going to put the next part in italics because it's super important. Ready? Here we go. We can have the BCS and a playoff at the same time. How? Through strength of schedule reform. First of all, take any and all power that athletic directors have or ever considered having in terms of making the schedule out of their hands. Let them whine about it. They'll live. Then, the conferences will be fixed so that there are no good teams in crappy conferences that can't play any significant in-conference games (more on that plan in the realignment section). Then, establish a hierarchy where performance over the past few years dictates what kind of schedule you have to play out of conference. This way, teams like Ohio State can't schedule patsies in out of conference play to get easy wins. After I break up the SEC a little bit (it pains me to have to do it, but the SEC is so far above everyone else it's ridiculous. Something needs to be done), the talent level in between the conferences won't be that uneven. That way, good teams always play the toughest opponents from their own conference. As for out of conference, have different levels of schedule toughness. For instance, if you're Alabama, you would get the toughest schedule, we'll call it a Class 5 Schedule, because you've had a great deal of success in recent years. A class 5 schedule might dictate playing at four pre-season top thirty five teams (top twenty five seems a bit too extreme), including at least one top five team. Class 4 would be somebody like an LSU who is great now, but has only been very good in recent years, etc. College football advertises that every week is a playoff when it isn't, now every week would be a playoff. Also, take all votes away from coaches and computers. They will not be settling this debate. All votes should go to studio analysts who actually have time to watch every game and can judge for themselves who is the best. Not only would they not have a bias, they would absolutely have more general knowledge about every team in the country than most coaches. The answer to the BCS money problem will be explained later in the realignment section. Under this plan, the BCS people would still be happy because they get to keep their bowl system. Playoff advocates would be happy because strength of schedule wouldn't matter nearly as much any more and good non-AQ teams would get to prove that they belong. Look, this system is not perfect, but it's as close as you can get to a perfect way of determining a national champion fairly and equitibly. If anybody has a reason why this should not happen, I urge them to tell me why. Until then, I can see no good reason not to carry out this plan.
                                                     REALIGN THIS
          Realignment is not a new college football phenomenon. Contrary to popular belief, NCAA officials do not all gather in one room with a giant roulette wheel, pull out random colleges, and spin the wheel to see what conference they end up in (although that definitely seems plausible given the events of the past year). No, realignment has been happening since the beginning of college football. Usually, it's a moderate change designed to strengthen conferences and make sure that everything is geographically in the right place. In that context, realignment is one of the best things to happen in your sport. However, this is an unprecedented type of realignment spurred by negative things. First of all, we have never seen this many teams jump ship to different conferences. It all starts with some college becoming ticked off that another college just signed its own network deal or that conference's commissioner says the Big 12 is doomed, it could be whatever. Some people, who I assume have no respect for the traditions of the game, say that realignment is good. It leads to a playoff,  more conference championships, and more revenue. All that you need to do is block out everything else and keep focusing on those dollar signs.
     Then, there are the people that hate it, AKA Me. I know that this is technichally a complex issue with many different opinions and angles, but it's about as black and white to me as anything. The whole reason why we have conferences is to group teams by geography. If you're not going to do that any more, why have conferences? Better yet, why not just put Alabama, Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, USC, and all the other most prestigious teams in to one conference? Sounds crazy, right? Well, it's not that much of a stretch. We've already gotten over the biggest obstacle to this happening, which is people caring about what makes geographical sense. The initial exodus from the Big 12 never needed to happen. The exiting schools had legitimate complaints that Texas was getting preferential treatment, and they were right. However, Big 12 comissioner Dan Baby (real name: Dan Beebe) continued to do everything but give important speeches while making the Hook 'Em Horns sign. The NCAA refused to do anything about this, and now they seem genuinely shocked that everybody wants to jump ship. OK, the first realignment could have been easily stopped, but it at least made sense. Suddenly, Pitt and Syracuse are leaving for the ACC, which would be a great idea if they both weren't at least 300 miles from the ocean. This seems significant because, you know, it is called the Atlantic Coastal Conference. Why did that need to happen? Why exactly did the Big East need to break up? Why didn't anybody have the foresight to nip the Big 12 Problems in the bud before it grew unmanagable. Why? Why!?!?!?!?!?!?
         Here's the solution, and it's gonna be a doozy. First, seperate football and non-football conference alignment, since it's clear that top universities care 10X more about football than any other college sport, except for basketball in some schools. Next, restore everything to geographical order. If this were to happen, and I hope it will some day, the conferences would shake out like this (some conferences would have ten teams, some would have twelve, based on concentration of quality teams in a particular part of the country. Every conference would have a championship.)
SEC: LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi State, Alabama, Auburn,  Florida, Florida State, Miami, Tennessee, Georgia
ACC: Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, NC State, Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Navy
Big East: Rutgers, Connecticut,Cincinatti, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Kentucky, Army, Boston College
Midwestern Conference (formerly known as Big Ten): Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue, Notre Dame, Penn State
Big 12: Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU, Colorado
PAC-12: Boise State, Arizona, Arizona State, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, Washington, Washington State, Utah
Independents: South Florida, Baylor, Iowa State, BYU
With a few exceptions (such as making South Florida go independent to reduce the SEC to ten teams), each move I made makes geographical sense. The independent teams are that way because there is simply not enough space in each conference for everything to make sense, so they are independent for the time being. However, I am including a clause that says if an independent team (or a team from a non-AQ conference, which includes every conference not listed above plus the independents) performs exceptionally well over a select period of time, then they can move up from a non-AQ conference to an AQ conference. The team that has consistently performed the worst over that same time period will fall down to a non-AQ conference. This way, good teams from the Mountain West, Independents, or even Conference USA can have a chance to play the top teams if they deserve it, while teams that do terribly in AQ conferences are relegated to the "minor leagues" for a while. This also solves the inequity in money distribution between BCS conferences and non BCS conferences. If you become good enough to be a part of a power conference, then you earn the BCS money that befits your status as one of the elite in college football. If you're terrible for too long in a power conference, then you don't deserve to get that BCS money.  Not only were the conferences just un-realigned, but the money distribution was just solved too. Also, another way was just found for good non-BCS teams to compete with the top brass of college football. It's somewhat scary that university presidents haven't thought of this stuff yet.
                                                 BCS BOOSTED?
     And now we've come to the skeleton in college football's closet. When the Miami scandal broke over the Summer, everybodyn seemed shocked. Every news entity and website started printing column and news features with ominous titles like "How Far Has it Gone?" or "The Untold Story of College Football's Underworld". OK, I might have made the last one up. But they were all creepy titles that could easily have been transplanted in to a political action thriller along the lines of "State of Play". I, on the other hand, was shocked that it took so long for everyone to notice. Cheating isn't anytyhing new. The most sever case was the use of the death penalty against SMU and the Pony Express backfield, but that's hardly the only case. Within the past decade, every team in the SEC except Vanderbilt has committed some kind of major rules violation. Many of them have committed several. Why? Well, let's start with school revenue. College football's total profit topped a billion dollars last year for the first time in its history. The largest cut of that revenue went to Texas, whose profit topped 65 million dollars (on a side note, TCU, the rose bowl winner, only made 20 million dollars in total profit. That's barely enough to break even). Inequity? You tell me. Meanwhile, college football players don't get paid. Only the players who are good enough to make it to the NFL have an incentive to play well, and that incentive is related to the NFL and not to their college. On the one hand, I think it's ridiculous that college kids should be paid to play a game. On the other hand, the school is making money off of them, They should get some kind of benefit.
     The NCAA has recently passed historic measures to combat the spread of cheating and boosterism. These measures call for giving each player a $2,000 stipend every year. I can already tell that's not going to be enough. The solution to this problem is very simple, players do not get paid unless the wealth is spread between all universities and a seperate pool is established for player funding. 2,000 dollars is chump change compared to the illegal benefits that sleazy agents and boosters supply players with. Unless we can find some type of revenue sharing method or other way that players can take home a significant amount, then the illegal benefits paid to the top players will far outstrip the stipend. I don't have the answers for how to attack the base of the problem, but I can solve the product of that problem; cheating. My plan would be very simple. The death penalty is not to be used unless the words "program wide conspiracy" or "felonies" are being thrown around. Instead, why not give players and teams half-death penalties? Making a constantly cheating team regret their decision by not allowing them to field a competitive team would cripple them, but not hurt the whole conference. For example, my punishment for Miami would be a 5 year bowl ban and a proviso that restricts them from contacting recruits rated by private agencies above three out of five stars (or whatever rating system they use). This ban can be lifted after three years if Miami has no violations of any kind in their sports programs. For the individual players accepting these deals, suspensions and fines are satisfactory for minor offenses. For major violations, their actions will affect their team and their future. For example, some offenses might warrant a bowl ban for the team or a two year long ban for a player. In extreme cases, an offense could warrant a player not being able to play football in the NCAA or NFL ever. Now no booster with half a brain would dare try to tamper with the athletes, lest he risk losing a valuable player for his own university or NFL team. This is a simple yet effective response to cheating in the NCAA.
These are all simple solutions to huge problems, and they might not be the best. But at least it's something, which is very much needed in a college football climate where we have nothing in the way of long term solutions.

NFL WEEK 9 SUPER QUICK PICKS

I have too much homework to do this weekend, so I've gotta go through these really quick. For those of you who feel betrayed, don't worry. There will be a huge college football column coming in a week or so. For now, here are the quick picks.

FALCONS OVER COLTS The Falcons are beginning to find their stride after a poor showing early in the season. There is nothing to be said for a team as sucky as the Colts right now, but it does show how much of an impact Peyton Manning had. 11-5 and division champs with him to candidate for 0-16 without him? Geez.

JETS OVER BILLS I am definitely being a homer here, but I actually believe that the Jets can pull this one off. The Jets are coming off the bye playing a team that has thrived on turnovers and big plays. The problem with thriving on turnovers and big plays is that there are games where you don't get them. So far this season, the Bills haven't done so well when they don't get turnovers. As long as Mark Sanchez does not do anything stupid, this is absolutely a winnable game for the Jets.

TEXANS OVER BROWNS Both the Texans and the Browns rank among the top seven in both scoring defenses and total defenses. Did we ever think that would happen? Ever? In a million years?  Just nod your head no. The only difference is, the Texans offense is competent. The Browns offense, well, um, Colt McCoy speaks for himself.

CHIEFS OVER DOLPHINS  Ugh, the Chiefs have lucked in to some garbage victories this year. Carson Palmer's first game in Oakland, Phillip Rivers dropping the ball on the final kneel down (no joke), and the comeback win over the Colts. This is going to be another one of those years where everything breaks just right for the Chiefs (I would say the Raiders instead, but nothing good ever happens to the Raiders) and just wrong for the Chargers. Get ready for win number five in a row for the Chiefs over a tanking Dolphins team.

BUCS OVER SAINTS This is one of the reasons that I'm only in the 75 percentile on ESPN.com. I overreact waaaay too much to the past week's performance. I know it shouldn't be this way, but I'm a fervent believer that a team is only as good as their last week's performance, and the Saints crapped their pants last week (especially the defense, who might have given up by the end of the game). Also, never underestimate a team coming off the bye. Bucs win.

NINERS OVER REDSKINS The Niners are exactly the type of team that I would want if I were a head coach. These guys  always do just enough to win, get their yards 4 or 5 at a time, never let up a big play, and control time of possession. And the Redskins are exactly the team that would give me a heart attack if I were a coach. Then again, Dan Snyder would give me a stroke before I even saw the team. Niners win big.

BENGALS OVER TITANS I'm finally sold on the Bengals. It took some time, but the Bengals are finally being recognized as a legitimate team. I never thought I'd say this, but the defense (who would have thought?) is coming on strong, also in the top five in total defense. As for the Titans, they are  a slightly better than average team that can't beat contenders. I'm not quite sure that the Bengals are contenders yet, but I'm willing to consider them semi-contenders if they can beat the Titans (it's a tougher game than you might think). And I never thought I'd say that about the Bengals.
RAIDERS OVER BRONCOS Get ready for the worst game of the week! Also, get ready for the two "really terrible quarterbacks that get way more media coverage than they should because they were big names at one time" guys. This seems like one of those games where Tebow suddenly catches fire in the fourth quarter and starts spewing out lucky throws that somehow hit the target every time. However, I don't think that will be this game. I bought in to Tebow Mania a little bit (OK, that's a lie, it was a lot. It led me to ideas like "Hey, I think Denver could upset Detroit this week". Undoubtedly one of my most embarassing moments in my history of NFL Picks), but now I'm buying out. The Raiders win big.
PACKERS OVER CHARGERS Does anything ever go right for the Chargers? Ever? I thought it was bad enough that Tebow and the Broncos almost beat them, but a fumbled snap on a kneel down? That just stuck a fork in the Chargers for the next few weeks. Let's just say that I don't like their chances going up against Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.
RAMS OVER CARDINALS Rams win. Let's just move on from this game before I collapse on my keyboard.
GIANTS OVER PATRIOTS Yes, I'm a homer. Don't judge me. However, I do actually have a reasonable explanation for this one. It boils down to the simple fact that the Patriots' pass defense is awful. I can't even express how terrible it is. It seemed like every single play, a different wide receiver was open for the Steelers. It was honestly the most terrible performance from a single unit on offense or defense since the Jets' travesty of a line in Baltimore. Also, Eli Manning's been having a pretty good year. No, really. He has. I'm not kidding anybody. Since Ahmad Bradshaw went down, the Giants are going to be forced to throw a lot. I say the Giants win a shootout 45-42.
STEELERS OVER RAVENS Two teams going in opposite directions meet in a divisional clash. The Ravens lost to the Jags and nearly lost to the Cardinals. That's more than a little alarming. Again, I'm not jumping off the Ravens bandwagon quite yet. I do, however, have renewed confidence in the Steelers. This goes back to my Week 1 column about not bailing on your picks too early. Well, I was half right (I can be occasionally). The Steelers' defense stymies Joe Flacco as Pittsburgh gets a crucial division win.
EAGLES OVER BEARS Don't look now, but the Eagles are starting to turn things around. I didn't really count their win over the Redskins, but a thrashing of Dallas last week was somewhat impressive. It will be a crucial test for the Eagles, a team with some fragile momentum, to take on the Bears. How the Eagles handle Matt Forte will be the key to the game. I don't think the Eagles can handle Forte, but they'll do everything else (running, and pass defense namely) just good enough to eke out a win and get back to .500. Eagles 24-23.