Saturday, January 08, 2005

Playoffs

Rams at Seahawks ('Hawks +4)
This is the perfect game to start the NFC side of the playoffs. Both of these teams are schizophrenic. They both have lost games they had no business losing. It sounds cliche, but this game will hinge on what version of each team shows up. Cliche or not, it's true. Anyone that tells you that they have a real feel for this contest is making things up. I'd take the Rams and the points because it's too easy to see this coming down to a field goal or the Rams winning outright.

Jets at Chargers (Chargers +6)
The Chargers are a very good football team. The Jets are an ok football team. San Diego was thought to be one of the worst teams coming into this season. They've never forgiven that. I'd take the Chargers and look for a blowout early. Best of luck to Pennington when he gets back to New York.

Broncos at Colts (Colts +10)
The horsey bowl. Should be sponsered by Arbys. The Colts are rested and at home. They're a great team, but not a perfect team. The Broncos are being led by Jake Plummer. I like the Colts by at least two touchdowns.

Vikings at Packers (Packers +6)
I can't seperate emotion from either of these teams, so take this for what you will. These guys are each others biggest rivals. They know each other very well. The Vikes have consistently broken our hearts this year. In the second half of the season the Packers have won five games by a fieldgoal, blown out the Rams at home on a Monday night game, rolled over and died against the Eagles and beat the Bears in a game that was meaningless for both teams. In other words, they've been just good enough to win, but not great.
The Vikes play in a dome, but they live in a cold weather climate. The weather tomorrow shouldn't be that big a shock to their systems. Having said that, they've lost every road game on grass for the last 15 years or so.
If the Packers play well, they win this game. If they make mistakes they'll lose. They're not that much better a team. I expect them to win but not to cover.

No comments: