Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Under Review: Week 14

Five of the most important NFL questions are answered after the jump. You can't f-ing wait can you?

Two part Viking question. 1) Are the Vikings going to make the playoffs? Three weeks left but I would like a call. 2) Can you say the Vikings are the third best team in the NFC right now? Argue either way.

Q- Of course. I've been saying all year that...yeah right, I'm not going to be that guy. But the Vikes are playing very well right now and have a very favorable schedule. There's absolutely no reason to bet against them making the playoffs at this point. 2) Technically, you can say it, but you'd be wrong. I know we've won 4 in a row, but only one was against a team with a winning record. We still have a D that gives up a ton of yards and it's completely plausible that T Jack could shit the bed and lose us a game. There's definitely an argument to be made, if only because Seattle, Tampa Bay, and New York are by no means dominant. Even still, I just don't see us as the third best team. Too many potential (and real) question marks.

Fuzz: Yeah, I think the Vikings are going to make the playoffs after a three-year layoff but I’m scared as hell of the Saints. The Saints, Skins, Cardinals and Lions are all one game back of us now. I was going to come at you with some great knowledge so I started writing down all the tie-breaker situations but realized after 12 minutes I needed to be Raymond Babbitt to figure this shit out. Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.

So, I bailed on it but the bottom line is we need to keep this winning streak going. The Saints made the NFC championship game last year and I’m afraid they might run the table. We need to do the same. Secondly, they aren’t the third best team they are the 4th. I’d put Dallas, Green Bay & Seattle above them and I think we’re knocking on the door with Seattle. Our team has an identity now—stop the run, run down their throats and score a bunch of first half points. I love us right now.

Dogg- The Vikings are going to make the playoffs. I know I’ve been saying “no, no, no” for weeks but the NFC teams that we are battling with aren’t good football teams. The Cardinals are all banged up and Detroit is playing like Detroit. We win the next two games at home because we always win at home and that will be that. Game set lunch into the postseason…..It would be tough for me to say they are the 3rd best team in the NFC right now. Dallas, Green Bay and Seattle are all very hard to argue with. I would say that you can make an argument for them being better than the Giants and Bucs though. Both teams are solid but beatable as we showed in New York. I would put us in a 3-way tie for 4th best right now. TB, NY and MN are all solid teams who can show signs of greatness and also show signs of being a garbage team. We are in though as of today and will not lose this spot.

Can Dallas win the Superbowl? Why? Why not?

Q- Of course they can. On any given Sunday, any team in the league can win and any team can lose. They're obviously talented, as evidenced by their 12-1 record. They have weapons on offense and defense so, long story longer, yes, they can win.

Dogg- Dallas can win the SB. Any team who makes the playoffs can win the SB. I know it’s become redundant in my answers every week but the NFL is a one game series so fluke upsets are doable no matter the situation. Dallas is going to have home field advantage and personally think they should be very upset if they don’t make the SB this year. They shouldn’t lose to any NFC team especially at home so I think they have a very good shot at winning it all. T.O and Marion Barber are two of the best offensive players in this game. Romo has matured into one of the best QB’s in this league think they will represent the NFC well.

Fuzz: WTF? What’s with this any team any day can win bullshit? You guys sound like Tony Boselli. Maybe some years that logic applies but not this year. It’s a four-team race (NE, Indy, Dallas and G.B.) I’d be shocked if it’s outside those four teams that wins it all. Cleveland is not beating Indy or N.E. and Tampa Bay is not beating Dallas or Green Bay, etc... Back to the original question, yes Dallas can win the Superbowl. I think they are the only NFC team that can beat New England if they are matched up again. The Patriots spanked them once but they are playing better now. Green Bay is going to need to have the Patriots lose before the SB to win it if they reach the SB. I’m shocked how top heavy the NFL is this year.

Michael Vick was sentenced to almost two years in prison. I heard the NFL is going to wait to suspend him after he serves his time. Will he ever play in the NFL again?

Readers note: To our loyal readers, we discussed this back in late August already but felt it needed to be addressed again for two reasons: 1) Vick’s official sentence came down this week. 2) We had six readers back in August. Now we have millions. We needed to tackle this again.

Dogg: Mike Vick will be pumping iron like Craig in Friday does in his front yard so if he returns to the league he’ll be playing FB.

Q- Does he even want to play again? That's the question that no one is asking. Everyone wants to know if he'll come back and when and at what position. But what if he doesn't want to play anymore? I wouldn't if I was him. To have to deal with all of the scrutiny in the media and the hoards of fans that will be all over you (even to potentially dangerous level)? No thanks.

Fuzz: Michael Dwayne Vick welcome to the life of an NFL Journeyman. Move over Vinny Testy, Jeff George, Trent Green and Brad Johnson, we have a new sheriff in town. Mike Vick is going to be that guy that signs on to a different team every year or so. When a quarterback goes down mid-season his name is going to come up. Hey, maybe we should take a chance on Vick? It might cause a riot with our fans but the dude is really fucking fast. That’s how I see him coming back.

A three-part question. Yippee. 1) Whose current winning streak gets broken first of these teams and why: New England (13 in a row), Dallas (7), Seattle (5), Minnesota (4) and Indy (4)? 2) Whose current losing streak gets broken first of these teams and why: Miami (13 in row), Baltimore (7), Kansas City (6) and Detroit (5)? 3) Are we really going to have a defeated & undefeated team in the same season?

Dogg: Probably Dallas or Seattle because they probably won’t be playing for much after this week. The seeds for them might be determined already after this week so there is a good chance both teams will be sitting some starters very soon. Baltimore plays at Miami next week and I don’t even want to pick a winner of that game right now. After watching Baltimore on Sunday night and seeing Miami get destroyed by Buffalo you might as well flip a coin. Fine, I’ll take Miami over Baltimore. New England will go undefeated in the regular season but Miami will win this week and probably week 17 as well.

Q- 1) None of them will lose in the regular season. I really wanted to pick one, but their collective schedules prominently involve teams like Carolina, Washington, Oakland, etc. Yuck. Not it. 2) Week 15: Baltimore @ Miami. There is a 78% chance that one of these teams wins and thus breaks their losing streak. 3) Yes. The Patriots are going 16-0 (and then losing before the SuperBowl) and the Dolphins are going 0-16. If you have even a vague concept of irony, then this is the greatest example of it in the history of life.

Fuzz: I think those fellas covered this question pretty well. To get my answers in print I’ll say: 1) Seattle. 2) Baltimore because they’ll beat Miami this week because Eden Prairie could beat Miami this week. 3) I want to see this happen so badly. I hate the Patriots right now but I hate those old geysers from Miami. How cool would it be if the Patriots went undefeated in the same season as the Miami Dolphins, the team they’re chasing history with, go defeated in the same season? Please make this happen.

Give me at least two coaches that will get canned at the end of the year? Also, who is the best coach available right now?

Q- Scott Linehan seems to be the frontrunner to lose his job. The Rams have had a bunch of injuries, but they also have too much talent to be this bad. Unfortunately, that means Scotty's gotta go. For the second, I'm going out on a limb with Andy Reid. It might end up that he "steps down", but I think he's gone.

Between the Eagles underachieving again and the family problems he's had, I just think it's time for him to be away from the game for at least a year. The best coach available? Me. I'm defensive minded, but have a very sophisticated offensive system ready to be put in place. My ultra-competitive, ironman, 14 person team this past fall is already a thing of legends. At the very least, I'd be intense and a great sound bite. Come to think of it, I'm a lot like Herm Edwards in that way...

Fuzz: Q, you’re junior high team you coached was susceptible to the big play. Chunks of yardage and TD’s were scored on your “lock-down” defense. Not a good thing to be susceptible with in the NFL. Big plays turn around momentum and you’d be ran out of town faster then you can say “I just got another Hail Mary thrown on my ass.”

Dogg: I don’t know who’s getting canned? The teams that aren’t playing well shouldn’t be playing well in my mind with the talent they have. I will say that no coach gets fired. Maybe step down but none will get fired. Best coach available is Bill Cowher but who knows if he’ll ever return to the ring.

Fuzz: Brian “I blow kisses at other men” Billick is for sure gone. He’s simply worn out his welcome at Baltimore. Great, you won a Superbowl but you’re an arrogant prick that hasn’t done much since. See ya Fruit-Pie. Next would be the guy from Detroit, Hot Rod Marinelli. I know he only got hired two years ago but he has Matt Millen as his GM. Like Kevin Mchale, they’ll keep shuffling through coaches and not blaming their own inadequacies. Like D O Double G said, Bill spitting Cowher is by far the best available. Who knows if he comes back though? I’d like to drop Jason Garrett’s name in this list as well. The O-coordinator for Dallas. I feel he’s going to be a hot commodity come this off-season. Just as hot as his fire truck red hair.


Finn-to-Win said...

Mick Vick,
I know cruelty to animals is bad, but come on. Lenard Little was drunk killed a women and did 90 days in jail 4 years of probation and 1000 hours of community service. Mick Vick gets 23 months for fighting dogs and killing dogs. When did dogs become more important then human lifes?

Dogg said...

Great point Finn and I actually was thinking about Vick's situation the other day and the more I think about it the more I think he got royally screwed in this deal. Our court system doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of cases and I know this because I've sat in a courtroom on a few different occassions. Selling alcohol to a minor got me a $500 fine and would've had to serve time if I got another alcohol violation in the next 3 years but a guy selling cocaine on his third offense got 90 days probation and a $250 fine. Things need to be changed.

Finn-to-Win said...

I am right there with you. The sad thing is ESPN is the best thing to happen to sports and the worst thing to happen to sports along with all other media. They make this out to be a bigger issue then it is. Its dogs were talking about here it not like he was training people to fight to the death. It just really gets me mad. I would like to see what other people get sentenced in similar cases.

Hill said...


I agree with your comments about how Little's sentece and Vick's sentence are not a good comparison.

In no way do I agree with what either one of these guys have done. I think that they both deserve to be punished and both have or currenly are.

The situation here is tough because you have two totally different situations.

In the case of Vick, he is most definately being made an example of for all others to come. Dog fighting, although I know is not a new "sport", is relatively new in the eyes of the general public. Therefore it is the "in" thing to talk about, or procecute. There has never been a case of a professional athlete with as many ties into this type of activity as Vick was. The media, attonerys, and animal rights groups were calling for his head, and they got it. I actually think that he got off relatively lightly in accordance to what he did for a very long time before anyone found out. The activities that he financed and participated in hit home with a lot of people only because dogs have become more like humans in many peoples eyes. Just look at all the business' that are open for dogs specifically; groomers, washers, fashion retailers, boarding houses, work out facilities, etc.... Not to mention all the celebrities who tote their dogs around with them like they are their children. It is sad but our society has put the dog on a pedestal and we are begin to treat them like human children. This is why so many people found Vick's actions were thrust into the spotlight and made into National/International news.

On the other hand, Little's situation (which I will admit, I do not know as much about) is a case of what I will call "population de-sensation".

If you ask the majority of people in our society today the question; "Which would suprise you more and cause more outrage"; "A cocaine dealer having a situation go bad and someone die", or "A dog fighting organization, where hundreds of dogs over a period of time have been locked up, made to fight, and ultimately killed" I would have to believe that they would save the dog fighting.

Again, in no way do I condone either of these two actions, but what I find sad is that because we (society) hears about cocaine deals and such, every day, we over look them and say things like, "isn't that weird, another drug story, change the channel" The Little case is just easier to look past and get over quickly, because it is happening daily in this country.

In either case it is not up to us to decide what is "fair" or "just" for either of these two men, that is up to our court system, which we as a people have put into power to make the correct decisions for us, whether we like them or not.

PS. Vick will never play in the NFL again.

Fuzz said...

Great analysis Hill. You're an extremely high candidate to write a "Voices from a Stranger" piece. If you're interested get something going. We have one this week, but maybe next week? or the next?

Dogg said...

Hill, great insight my boy. Fuzz's dog has become like a good buddy of mine but why can't Vick take HIS dogs and fight them if he wants to? It's better than Vick training his dogs to kill and leaving them out by his house to attack a human being which we've seen in the past. Let these guys fight their dogs if they want to. The only harm being done is to other owners' dogs who want to fight them as well so let them play in their warehouses away from everybody else if they want to. No harm was being done to anybody else. The biggest issue in my mind comes with the illegal gambling. Guys who lose might not have the money to front and we know what happens when you don't pay your debts. The mob comes running.

Hill said...

Fuzz- Send me an email about what you might need for a piece or two on the site. I will try my best.

I understand you when you say its ok because "its your dog", you should be able to do what you want.

However, the issue here is not ownership or who loses a dog, it is the fact that the dogs are being treated in unhumane ways. The dogs are defenseless and look to their owners to take their best interests to heart. This is what being a dog/pet owner is all about. You are saying that I will take a life and care for it in such a manor that it is able to survive, grow and flurish in the way it was born to. Dog fighters, in the other hand, are taking a life and conditioning it to do things against its nature in a harmful and dangerous way not only to other dogs, but to anything or anyone that comes into contact with it.

Fuzz said...

I agree with Hill. I think Dogg's word are a little harsh. These dogs don't have the ability to control if they get trained to fight or not. Maybe they do want to fight but how they hell are you going to find that out. It's not Mike's Vick right to treat anything that cruel.

If the dog didn't do what Vick wanted it to do he would fill up a pool and electrocute it. Or hang the dog. He's going back to the 1800's with the way he killed these animals. I am against dog fighting but I had more of a problem on how he treated them in training and afterwards. He would torture these animals to be mean & nasty so they could have the ability to fight and the Dog had no control over that.

Dogg said...

Exactly, these dogs might want to fight. There is no way of finding out because THEY ARE NOT HUMAN and I'm sick of people acting like dogs are humans. They're not!!! Why the F is it ok to kill any animal then? What does a deer do to make them so susceptible of killing? Nothing, and there are certain weekends throughout the year where millions of human beings go out and intend to kill these innocent animals.

I know deer are wild animals and dogs are usually household pets but why can't somebody train their own dogs to fight? We are not talking about Golden Retrievers or pugs, we're talking about Pitbulls.

Maybe there can be a rule where dogfighting is legal with certain breeds.

Fuzz said...

The main argument for hunting is for food. It used to be more prevelant back in the early days but a lot of people still use the meat. In some cases they need the meat for their food supply. I know plenty of these types of lower income families in Central MN. I'm sure it's like that other places as well. But, to be honest I'm still all right with game farms that raise birds for people to come and shoot. The birds have no chance. They are raised on a farm to fly ten feet and get smoked. I can't give you an good explanation on why I'm fine with hunting and not dog fighting/torturing. Maybe because it's been going on so long or maybe because it's more acceptable in society. I don't know. I do know in a lot of cases is that they kill the deer for the food. That's probably the main reason the more I think about it. Mostly everyone's fine with killing a cow for a fantastic cheeseburger but unless you're eating a Chinese restaurant you ain't eating Dog.

I don't think it matters one bit on the breed. A dog is a dog. There are sterotypes between breeds but you can train a Dog pretty much anyway you want. It might take harder training but it's been done. I've seen tame pitbulls.

Finn-to-Win said...

I think dogs were wild at one point before us humans made them a house hold pet. Then we the humans breeded different types to make all the dogs that we have today. When the dogs were in the wild they were fighting other dogs for power. Its a very touchy subject but a good at that.

Dogg said...

That might've been the worst argument I've heard in 25 years. FYI, I'm 25 years old...I think. Anyways, these hunters are not going out because they need the food. I hope you're not serious with that argument. It's the thrill of shooting a gun and killing something with the act being legal. If the majority of hunters were hunting because they were in NEED of food, the law would allow them to shoot the damn things more than 16 days out of the year.

Lets get real!

Fuzz said...

I'm pretty sure you've never hunted before in your life so I don't know how much room you have to talk on this subject. I've deer hunted for about five years with a crew of 20 guys or so. It was a mixture of guys from my Uncle's church (he's a pastor). Everyone in the group was hunting to get the deer meat. Ask some other hunters why they hunt deer. Yeah it's fun to shoot a gun, but they want the meat. You can't just buy that meat. Deer meat is at a premium.

Shoot a gun before you come on here and tell people we have the worst arguments ever and that we need to get real. Just asked my manager why he deer hunts, he says: "I love making deer jerky." Food is a big part of deer hunting.

Hill said...

As much as I love reading Dogg and Fuzz argue back and forth, it will never come to an end. Let me see if I can settle this between the two of you.

Dogg I understand where you are coming from in the sense that if it is not ok to kill dogs, then why should any other animals be killed?

For your arguement about deer, it is different in the sense that the deer are able to fend for themselves, fighting dogs are not. Deer live in the woods, their natural habitat, and have all their own hard wired instincts to protect themselves. Fighting dogs on the other hand are held in cages, with chains/leashes and have not chance to defend themsleves.

I know where you are going to go with this, you will say.."what about game farms" good point. However, it is my understanding that game farms and other controled hunting areas are put into place to help with over-population and the safety of humans. We can not have thousands of deer running wild every year, as they will cause more human harm than anything; eating crops, running onto highways, populating/spreading disease in cities. These controled killings are beneficial to humans all together.

Most animals are killed/put down for the saftey of humans, or for humane reasons. If an animal, take a horse (look for TK on Toast blog spots from Canterbury park in the Spring) is injured, it will be put down immediately on the track, and although sad, no one has a problem with it, because it is the humane thing to do. However, if that same horse lost a race, was taken out behind the barn and hung by a noose, the trainer would be going to jail immediately.

This brings me to the comments by Fuzz. While MOST hunters do it for the meat/survival aspect their are those who only do it to kill. Some people find killing living creatures fun and exciting although it is inhumane. These people are convicted of their crimes because that is what it is a crime. Again, you are going back to hunting/killing defenseless animals. Pochers use helicopters, tracking devices, machine guns etc... all of which create an unequal playing field for the animals. At least when Fuzz and his boys go out the are required to use certain guns/equipment, in certain areas, at certain times of the year, which help create the chance for the animals to get away if they can.

Fuzz and Dogg you are arguing right into each other, just from different angles. Dogg you are saying that if you can't kill one why should you be able to kill others. Fuzz you are saying that certain animals are killed for survival/human advancement and that is fine. What you are both saying in a long winded way is that no matter how it is being done, the killing of animals, if necessary, should only be done to protect the safety and well being of that creature or those effected by it.

Dogg said...

Thanks Hill!

Why do I need to deer hunt or shoot a gun? I probably know a lot more people who deer hunt seriously than you do and of course they like the deer meat but they also like the thrill of shooting a gun and hitting the damn animal they are shooting at. When you get hunters saying "I missed that f'n thing by a foot", it doesn't sound like they really wanted the food thar bad but rather the thrill of shooting it. I'm sure you don't have guys like that in your group since you're hunting with priests but the majority of hunters I know and talk to speak on those terms.

Have you fought dogs before? Maybe you shouldn't come on here and talk about that act unless you take part in it first!

Fuzz said...

To the reader and post commenter Hill, I love you. That put things into great perspective.

I'm not getting to an third grade argument about who knows more serious deer hunters. We're both from small towns (the same area) where deer hunting is a big deal, so I'm sure we both know a lot. I'm sure we know hundreds. I've gone on hunting trips with my uncle where I was within a big group of hunters both times. I was trying to give the point that I have done it before and it wasn't all about the kill like you mentioned. If you know all these hunters you know most of them keep the meat. But a lot of it is about the sport also, I agree with you. But like Hill said killing an animal in a humane way like deer hunting and keeping the meat is why it's more accepted.

Anyways, this convo has gotten way of course from will "Mike Vick ever play in the NFL again" question that was raised in the under review so I'm moving on. Thanks Hill & Dogg for the argument that was interesting and informative.

Fuzz said...

P.S. Hill's right, this could go on forever. If you don't know Dogg or I this literally could go on forever. We agree on plenty of things but when we are split like we are here it's non-stop arguing between the two of us. We're like two grumpy old men already.

Dogg said...

I want to fight dogs and gamble my dogs meat. The winner gets to take the the dead dog to the meat market and make some solid beef jerky with it. Now what!

Fine, we can be finished. Vick is the man!

Finn-to-Win said...

I do not think Vick will be back in the NFL. Why would you as an owner want to have all that media talking about a player who really was not that great of QB. I know he was a freak runner but that was about it. I would have loved to see Vick in an offence like West Virgina in college that would have been fun to watch.