Bill's Guide to Gambling (alternate title: How to Lose Money By Being Stupid), Part 2

[SIMILAR DISCLAIMER TO THE ONE I INCLUDED BEFORE PART 1 OF THIS SERIES, BUT SLIMMED DOWN A LITTLE: I'm about to write about NFL gambling, and criticize Bill heavily for his gambling analysis and picks. However, I understand that like Bill, I am terrible at NFL gambling, and I would never tell anyone that I had some kind of a system that was going to help me win this season or ever. Now that I have that out of the way again, let's begin.]

These ahhh dahhhk, dahhhk times for one Mistah Simmons.  DAHHHK.  The Red Sox have now gone one seasons without winning a World Series (FIRE FARRELL!), the Celtics are going to be shitty again this year (silver lining: their division will be super shitty right along with them), and now the GREATRIOTS are finally in the process of falling apart after more than a decade as a good-to-great team.  Turns out you can't just trade a pro bowl offensive lineman for peanuts and still give your aging QB enough time to go through his reads.  Anyways, to top it all off, now he's suspended  by his employer which means he can't shine light upon the world by giving it his weekly picks.  But since Grantland's readers want a picks column anyways, starting last week (and hopefully continuing indefinitely, even after Simmons gets back), that responsibility fell to Bill Barnwell.  You know, the guy who writes about football at Grantland who actually can analyze his way out of a wet paper bag if he has to.

I've heard complaints that he's a little Simmonsy in his own right, specifically in that he oversimplifies things.  That may be fair.  But here's an important counterpoint: at least he's not a goddamn moron.  How'd he do with the picks?  Oh, ho hum, just 8-4.  Small sample size of course, but let's see how the next two weeks unfold.  I'm going to guess that taking Barnwell's advice over the course of a full season would end up saving you a lot of cash versus taking Simmons's.  But hey, even though Simmons is a dipshit of galactic proportions, he's a hardworking dipshit.  Let's run through the rest of his gambling rules, and see how they played out during weeks 1 through 3.

Rule: As always, be superduperduperduper careful of the Obvious Pick.

What the Christ does this even mean?  This means nothing.  This is a post hoc face-saving device you bring up when the dust has settled and you just lost $500 in a weekend.  "Should have TOTALLY been aware of the possibility that the Bucs wouldn't just cover in Pittsburgh, but could actually win outright.  So dumb to put the Steelers in all my parlays.  That was a total Obvious Pick.  Can't believe I missed it."  (Barnwell got that game right, by the by.)

Whether it’s some allegedly hot team coming off a big win, the team that just looked awesome on Sunday or Monday night, the team that every “expert” is picking on Thursday and Friday, the most obvious candidate for your Eliminator Pool (like Chicago at home against Buffalo this week), 

Lulz.  Indeed, Buffalo did go into Chicago and beat the Bears.  Simmons, of course, picked this game incorrectly because of course he did.  BILL!  YOU DIDN'T WATCH OUT FOR THE OBVIOUS PICK!  

or the team that’s getting picked 85 percent of the time on ESPN’s Pigskin Pick’em. Every week — repeat: EVERY WEEK — there’s always one Obvious Pick. Just be careful.

"Here's a rule that you don't necessarily have to follow, but you should be aware of it, perhaps even to the point of being careful about it.  But it's not a RULE rule.  Just a suggestion.  You're welcome."

Games so far this year that implicated this rule, which, of course, requires subjective decisions related to what an "obvious pick" is; I'm basing it on discussions I had with a couple of friends who love sports gambling (we'll call them J-Bug and House) during the days leading up to these weekends.  Feel free to disagree with the our consensus picks (at the time) for "obvious" games, and then go fuck yourself if it's a big deal to you.  Unless otherwise noted, home team was the "obvious" pick:

Week 1

BUF at CHI (Bill went against the rule and lost)

CLE at PIT (Bill went with the rule and won)

Week 2

ARI at NYG (ARI was the obvious pick after the Giants looked like a college team in week 1; Bill went with the rule and lost as the Giants looked like a college team again in this game)

NE at MIN (NE was the obvious pick; Bill went against the rule and won)

Week 3

TB at ATL (Bill went against the rule and won)

DEN at SEA (Bill went against the rule and won)

Verdict on this rule: the obvious games are obvious because they tend to be pretty easy to pick.  Then 5 or 6 times a season you get an upset in one of them, and tardburgers like Bill turn it into a gambling rule OMG DON'T TRUST THAT OBVIOUS GAME IT'S JUST A LITTLE TOO OBVIOUS DON'T YOU THINK???????

Rule: Always take a beat when you’re just blindly checking off games to ask yourself, “Wait, are we sure … ?”

Almost as helpful as the last rule. "When you are going to put real money that you have worked hard to earn or steal down on a game, don't just blindly 'check off' games, whatever that means, because that would be fucking stupid.  However, in the event that you find yourself blindly checking off games, go back through when you're done and then actually think about the games and re-make your picks as necessary."  Seriously, fuck this guy.

Like the Jets laying five to Oakland in Jersey this week. 

I know this was written before week 1, when we knew a lot less about all the teams in the league, but the Raiders have been terrible for a decade, lost 6 straight to finish out 2013, and were starting a rookie QB who played in a non-power conference in college.  I don't care how bad Geno Smith is, the Jets were the smart pick here, even though they did not cover.  The fact that Bill was able to talk himself into taking the Raiders, who needed all 6 of the points they were getting in order to cover, is a blind squirrel finding a nut.

When your brain is turned off, you lay the points, right? 

No, when your brain is turned off, you go to sleep, or at least stop gambling.

Who the hell would take Derek Carr and the Raiders on the road? 

Most people would agree (although Carr would then go on to cover against New England in Foxboro... maybe I'm the idiot).

But turn your brain on for a second … should that crappy Jets team be favored by five against ANYONE? 

Well, they were a fuckload better than the Raiders in 2013, and didn't have any really significant offseason losses.  They were beaten by a TEXTBOOK FAWKIN' BACKDO-AH COVAH in this game, leading by 12 inside the 2 minute warning when Carr hit James Jones for a 30 yard TD with the Raiders out of timeouts.  So yeah, I think the Jets should have been favored by 5.  (In Bill's defense, the Jets have looked horrible since and are now 1-3 overall and 1-3 against the spread.  But the Raiders are probably significantly worse.  NFL ACTION ACTION ACTION.)

Does home-field advantage matter when you’re getting booed because you’re down 17-0 in the second quarter and it looks like Tom Cruise could start at cornerback for you? Why are the Jets such an easy pick there?

I don't think they were THAT easy; me and J-Hench and Jimmy Kimmel didn't think this was an "obvious" game.  Anyways, I can't even analyze this rule because it's not a rule at all.  "Always wear your seatbelt" is a rule.  "When you're driving down the freeway at 90 mph and then you realize you're hallucinating and can't see straight, stop immediately" is just common sense.  This is more like the latter of those.

Rule: Make a plan for double-digit spreads and stick with it.

This might be the best one on the whole list.

Picking double-digit spreads is like having a 12 against a two in blackjack — there’s no right answer, but you’re better off doing the same thing every time. 

HAHAHAHA NO IT'S NOT, YOU FUCKING DOLT!  Here's how Bill came up with this: he likes gambling on football.  He thinks he's good at it.  He likes blackjack.  He thinks he's good at it.  THEY MUST HAVE SIMILARITIES!  HOW COULD THEY NOT???  WHO SAYS NO??????  I don't have time to aggregate all the data over a long period of time, but I'd be willing to bet a shiny nickel that over the long run, double digit favorites cover at very close to 50%.  That means that if "there's no right answer" and you decide to always bet for or against them, SURPRISE, you will lose money due to the house vig.  This is like saying "Picking home teams is like 12 against 2 in blackjack--just do the same thing every time" because home teams in the long run cover about 50% of the time.  If you are the kind of person who does things like this, you will lose money, because you are stupid.  Don't be stupid.

In 2014, I plan on grabbing the points unless it’s a breathtaking scenario along the lines of “The Seahawks just lost last week, they’re pissed off, and now Carson Palmer is coming to Seattle and he’s starting even though he might have a torn rotator cuff.”

I like how much he shits all over Arizona and Palmer in this article.  Watch them go 11-5 and make the conference championship game.  OTHER THAN THE SEAHAWKS NAME ONE NFC TEAM BETTER THAN THE CARDINALS.  YOU CAN'T.  

Verdict on this rule: So far this season there have only been 5 double digit spreads; favorites are 2-3 against them (PHI and SD covered against JAX; DEN, NO and NE failed to cover against KC, MIN and OAK).  Bill didn't get to pick the SD/JAX game because it happened last weekend.  In the other 4, he went 2-2 even though the underdogs went 3-1 against the spread.  Why?  Because he took all the underdogs except the Pats against the Raiders, of course.  I mean, Christ, what do you expect out of the guy?  You want him to control his impulses?  He's got the analytical skills of a 14 year old.  Of course he went against his rule once the FOOTBALL RED SOX were involved.  BUT I MEAN LOOK AT THIS PATRIOTS TEAM; SHOULD THEY BE LAYING 14 POINTS TO ANYONE????????  Jesus, I'm not sure they should be laying 4 points to anyone.

Rule: Beware of obvious choices and not-totally-reliable candidates for two-team and three-team teasers.

You should approach every tease with this mind-set: I would feel totally comfortable betting my life on this if it wouldn’t be so bizarre to bet your life on a two-team football tease. I already broke this rule in Week 1 when I teased Seattle -6 (already covered) with Chicago -7.5 at home against Buffalo (looks sooooooooo easy on paper and I did it anyway). When Jay Cutler limps out of the game in the second quarter, blame me. It’s my fault.

Holy Jumping Jesus on a Trampoline, we don't even need to go over this one.  It's just a restatement of that one "rule" we discussed 2 minutes ago that basically amounts to "try to make smart bets," but applied to parlays.  And then, naturally, he was right about the fact that he made a dumb bet in the CHI/BUF game, because even when he's right, he's wrong.  It must be excruciating to be Bill Simmons.  Actually, scratch that--it WOULD be excruciating to be Bill Simmons IF you had even a shred of self awareness.

Rule: When in doubt, always grab an underdog at home.

I love the wishy-washing of "when in doubt."  You know, if you've been blindly throwing money at your bookie or at the sports book dealer without any idea of who you are or where you are, that's a good time to start doubting yourself and asking "Wait... are you sure?"  At that point, if you are not sure, take home underdogs, BUT ONLY IF IT'S NOT A SUPER OBVIOUS PICK.

During a typical gambling season, home dogs will cover somewhere around 58-60 percent of the time. But during the Great Gambling Train Wreck of 2013? Home dogs started out hot as always (17-11 over the first five weeks), then free-fell into a fiery hell (25-34-2 over the next 12 weeks). Again, we have a solid amount of evidence that 2014 might be the Year of the Dog. 

Good use of "evidence."  To quote Simpsons superlawyer Lionel Hutz, "Well, Your Honor, we have hearsay and conjecture.  Those are KINDS of evidence."  To Bill, seeing that sometimes gambling trends repeat themselves, but sometimes they don't, is a kind of evidence.  WHO SAYS NO.

I don’t need to spell this out for you.

Yeah you IDIOTS.  Just follow Bill's rules already.  You losers.

Games so far this year that implicated this rule:

Week 1

NO at ATL (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

NE at MIA (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

SF at DAL (Bill went against the home dog and won)

Week 2

SEA at SD (Bill went with the home dog and won)

HOU at OAK (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

NE at MIN (Bill went against the home dog and won)

ARI at NYG (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

NO at CLE (Bill went with the home dog and won)

Week 3

IND at JAX (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

HOU at NYG (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

DAL at STL (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

SF at ARI (Bill went with the home dog and won)

Week 4

GB at CHI (home dog did not cover)

DET at NYJ (home dog did not cover)

ATL at MIN (home dog covered and won outright)

NO at DAL (home dog covered and won outright)

NE at KC (home dog covered and won outright)

Let's total it up.  Overall, home dogs are 9-8 against the spread.  Better than nothin'.  (In fact all 9 won outright, so you could have picked up some decent coin by playing all home dog money lines so far this year.)  Bill didn't pick the week 4 games, of course.  In the games he did pick, the home dogs went 6-6.  However, he only picked the home dog 7 out of those 12 games, and went 3-4.  And because he's a dillweed, he also went 2-3 when he went with the road favorite, making him 5-7 overall in home dog games.  I propose a new rule: if the road team is favored, just don't bet at all (if your name is Bill Simmons).

Verdict on this rule: Might be worthwhile if you stick with it.  And I guess play the home dog money lines rather than taking the points?  I don't know.  Don't listen to me.  I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.

Rule: Make a list of teams you irrationally like and dislike before the season starts, then stick to your guns those first five weeks.

HAHAHAHA.  Also a good rule, because it gives him a chance to talk about how smart he has been for years now.  (Also, "irrationally like" is a SECRETLY UNDERRATED Simmonsism.)

I broke that strategy down in 2004’s award-winning “Simbotics” seminar— 

A link to one of his columns from back then was here, but I removed it, because it was self-indulgent and dreadful (as his columns tend to be).  

for instance, I love San Diego as 2014’s surprise 12-win contender, 

The Chargers look pretty good.  They're 3-1 overall and 4-0 against the spread.  Naturally, since Bill is dumb, he did not pick them to cover in Buffalo during week 3, so he only went 2-1 in their games.

Tampa Bay as 2014’s “Nobody Believes In Us” sleeper, 

Tampa Bay looks pretty awful, although they did beat the mediocre Steelers in Pittsburgh, so that's fun.  They are now 1-3 overall and 1-3 against the spread.  Here's what Bill had to say about their week 1 matchup with Carolina:

BUCS (-3) over Panthers
My dream Week 1 matchup: my favorite still-undervalued team playing at home against 2014’s no. 1 regression candidate. Actually, this game is like a hot blackjack table. Just shut up. Don’t celebrate, don’t brag, don’t count your chips, don’t taunt the pit boss, don’t say anything.

MORE BLACKJACK ANALOGIES PLEASE!  Panthers 20, Bucs 14.  And the Panthers now look absolutely atrocious.  To Bill's credit, he did stick to his guns and pick the Bucs to beat the Rams in week 2 (oops).  Also to his credit, he then wised up and took the Falcons to beat them in week 3.  What happened to sticking to your guns?  Hey, like Jack Handy says, I'd rather be lucky than stupid.

Baltimore as 2014’s comeback team, 

The Ravens are 3-1, although 3 of those games have been at home and the only good team they played (Cincy) beat them at home.  Still, they are also 3-1 against the spread.  Bill went 3-0 in their games, picking against them in the Cincy game.

Cincy as 2014’s Slightly Undervalued Contender, 

Cincy looks really, really good.  They are 3-0, and 3-0 against the spread.  Of course, Bill took the Falcons to cover against them in Cincy in week 2, saying he was grabbing the 5 points "only because of the overwhelming Garbage Time Touchdown Potential."  Atlanta did score a garbage time touchdown; unfortunately they were down 21 at the time.  STICK TO YOUR GUNS FOR FIVE WEEKS BILL YOU SILLY MAN.

and Minnesota as 2014’s super-frisky non-playoff team. 

The Vikings are a tough team to judge, since they've lost Peterson but gained a QB who is way way better than Matt Cassel in the last couple of weeks.  They are now 2-2 overall and against the spread.  They're not winning that division, but I suppose they do qualify as "frisky," so good for Bill.  

I’m also waaaaaaaaay down on Carolina 

Carolina looks awful.

and Kansas City; 

The Chiefs are now 2-2 overall but 3-1 against the spread; they just finished shoving the Patriots' heads up their own asses on national TV.  Man, why did Bill have to get suspended last week?  I really wish I could go read his pick for that game right now, just to make me smile.  YOU THINK BILLY B IS GOING TO LET ANDY REID WIN THIS GAME?  STAWP.  JUST STAWP.

I think the Falcons, Cardinals and Jets are worse than people think; 

And yet you took the Falcons against the Bengals in Cincy.  Also, we went over this, but the Cardinals are good.

I’m petrified of the QB situations in Buffalo, Houston and Washington; 

If you have a pulse and a passing interest in the NFL, you knew those QB situations were unstable back in June.

and I’m worried that San Francisco might have a Year From Hell Season. 

I'll give him a speck of credit here, they have looked ready to melt down a couple of times.

Throughout September, I am sticking to my guns — that’s how I feel, so that’s how I am picking games with those teams.

No, you're not.  You dummy.

Next: DEFINITIVE PROOF that CANNOT BE DENIED that this REALLY REALLY ACTUALLY is the YEAR OF THE DOG. (Note: dogs went 4-7-1 last week, bringing them to 31-27 on the year.  It is not the year of the dog.)

Peter King: Pudgy, Clueless

See what I did with the title there? Expanding Jack M's joke? I know, it's really funny. That's why we make the big bucks, without even putting ads on the blog. Love to. Yes. Beautiful. Alright, enough of that.

This had to be one of the most dramatic Sundays in the 24 years I've covered the league. Around 9:30 Sunday night, I got Mike Shanahan on the phone (now there's a guy who was in the vortex of this compelling day)

It's useless "asides" like this that make Peter a bonafide zilcheroo. Great editorial, jackass. Thanks for filling your readers with that valuable extra tidbit of analysis. The Cowboys- now THERE'S a team with a batshit crazy owner! Buffalo- now THERE'S a town with shitty winter weather! Stuart Scott- now THERE'S a guy with only one working eye! Saying really obvious stuff with a "Now there's..." setup is fucking annoying.

and started telling him about the weirdness in Seattle, about Kurt Warner looking like a '58 Johnny Unitas, about Green Bay leading by 21 and trailing by one and winning by 23 (all in the same game), about Matt Cassel on the road against Brett Favre, winning his first start since high school ... and, well, I guess at one point I paused.

"What happened to the Colts?'' Shanahan said. "How'd they win?''

I don't need to hear Shanahan's tone of voice to know that he was humoring Peter. Yes, tell me another story! Ooh, that's exciting! It sounds like you had a really fun day watching football.

"Peyton Manning,'' I said. "Four offensive linemen out, Dallas Clark out, down 15-0 in the Metrodome, they can't run, Vinatieri misses a chip-shot and it looks like they'll lose, and Manning just, I don't know, wouldn't let them.''

"Wow,'' he said.

That is so neat!

Re: Denver's win over San Diego

The great thing about the (game winning two point) conversion was Cutler's coolness.

Oh yeah? Did it remind you of something one of your favorite QBs like Favre or Brady would have done?

I always say what makes Manny Ramirez such a great hitter is he treats an at-bat in the World Series the same as he treats one on March 17 in Bradenton.

1. I'm not sure this is true.
2. You had hundreds of available football comparisons. Why did you choose this?
3. Cutler has never played a playoff game, and as exciting as Sunday's game was, it took place more than three months before the playoffs start.

Same deal with Cutler.

Yeah, I saw Jay taking some hacks down in Florida this spring. He looked pretty calm. Needs to work on his baserunning, though.

But can you argue with Shanahan's call, now that you've heard his logic, even if Cutler hadn't converted?

Christ. Check your verb tenses, Joe Morgan. Someone get this guy an editor. At least Joe spins his webs of grammatical nonsense on live TV. Doing the exact same thing in a print column is inexcusable.

Re: Green Bay's win over Detroit

Maybe rocky times will be coming for Aaron Rodgers, but when?

"It's only two games,'' he cautioned via the cell phone Sunday evening.

Too bad. Looks like Peter already has Aaron's phone number. You know, they say that after a breakup you need time to heal before getting into another relationship. Otherwise, you get into that nasty rebound cycle and people can get hurt. Has Peter just replaced you-know-who with Rodgers? I guess time will tell.

Rodgers is in a weird spot with Favre.

Thanks mostly to the media. And specifically, you.

At the end of last season, the formerly chilly relationship got warm, with Rodgers going to Favre's home for dinner. But a frost settled over the friendship in the offseason, when Favre retired and then came back, hopeful of getting his old job back, a job the Packers had given to Rodgers. When they both went to the ESPYs in Los Angeles, they didn't connect, even though they were in the same audience.

ESPY-related gossip. Fascinating, relevant stuff.

I asked if the relationship was harmed forever.

"I sure hope not,'' Rodgers said. "I have so much admiration for Brett. I would love for the relationship to go back to what it was.''

Did the Packers even play a game on Sunday? Who gives a shit! Rodgers and Favre may or may not be friends anymore (that is, if they even were in the first place)! I would rather read about the fucking Patriots than this.

New England 19, New York Jets 10

What a segue!

Matty Ice.

Bill Belichick wants Cassel to steer the ship. In the Meadowlands, he led the Patriots to five scoring drives in eight possessions, and on the ninth and final possession of the day, he did what the Patriots dreamed he'd do but probably didn't think actually would happen. He knelt on the ball for the final play of the game, before a two-thirds-empty stadium.

Overdramatize things much? As if the Patriots had absolutely no prayer of winning the game... then heroically perservered, and came out on top thanks to following their dreams and believing in themselves.

On fourth-and-three from the New York 29 with 1:56 left, out of the shotgun, he had dumped a safe five-yarder to Wes Welker to get a new set of downs and seal the game. He didn't try to do too much, just end the game.

Oh yeah, most QBs are going for the end zone in that situation. Gotta pad those stats. Making the safe, game sealing play? Fuck that. That shit is for pussies. My name is Rex Grossman, and I'm here to throw touchdowns.

If he keeps doing that, he might invite comparisons to the last unknown quarterback the Patriots thrust in the lineup after an injury to a famous quarterback.

Fuck you, Peter. Fuck you with an Estes rocket.

But let's not go there yet. Way, way, way too early.

Too late.

Next to the phrase "game-manager'' in Webster's, there is a photo of Matt Cassel.

Trent Dilfer and his Super Bowl ring? A thing of the past. Tell me about a guy who's virtually guaranteed to be better than Tom Brady by week 6: Matt Cassel.

Quote of the Week II:

"I spoke with Mr. Fisher. I asked him what was going on and he proceeded to tell me about getting a call from Vince Young's therapist and she was worried about him. I asked him, 'What made her worry about him?' He stated, 'His mood, his emotions, he is injured, he wants to quit, and he mentioned suicide several times.' He went on to state that [Young] left his house with a gun.''
-- Andrea N. Swisher, Nashville Metropolitan Police officer, in her report of the Vince Young drama Monday night.

Interesting. You know, it's a strange saga going on for the Titans there. I wonder how they're going to deal with it in the long term. Head coach Jeff Fisher sure has his hands fu-

"Mr. Fisher'' is Tennessee coach Jeff Fisher.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH. That's who. I thought you were referring to recently deceased chess star Bobby Fischer, but had forgotten that he was dead, forgotten that he doesn't/didn't have any association with the Tennessee Titans, and had misspelled his name.

Quote of the Week IV:

"I'm sick about Tom Brady.''
-- Peyton Manning.

Did he really keep a straight face (or normal voice, if delivered on the phone) when he said that?

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

Re those quarterbacks you saw in East Rutherford Sunday afternoon:

Favre, through two weeks, has earned $1.41 million in base salary.

The three New England quarterbacks on the active roster -- Cassel, Matt Gutierrez and Kevin O'Connell -- are scheduled to earn a combined $1.16 million in base salary this year. For the full season.

Up is down! Down is up! Cats are making friends with dogs! Future HOFers nearing the end of their long term contracts which they signed at the end of their prime make a lot more money than completely untested career backups! Nothing is as it seems!

Adrian Peterson vs. Walter Payton.

I thought of this Sept. 8, when Peterson, of the Vikings, ran over Green Bay's Al Harris on the left sideline on one romp and cut across the grain for a 34-yard scamper, leaving Packers defenders grasping. I know, I know. Payton did it for Chicago for 12 years. Peterson's done it for one. This new element of my column is not intended to say I think the modern guy is as good as the former guy. It's designed to compare a star from today to a star from yesterday in terms of style of play, greatness and personality.

Talking to Peterson last year, I liked the fact that rushing 20 times for 224 yards at Soldier Field meant something to him because he was doing it on Walter Payton's turf. Most young players don't appreciate history, but Peterson not only knew who Payton was, he knew he ran something like him.

So we're giving an NFL player who grew up playing running back points for knowing who Walter Payton was. Huh. Tell you what- I didn't think O.J. Mayo was very mature until I heard him mention during an interview that he was a big fan of Michael Jordan. Can you imagine? What a guy!

The Awards Section

Offensive Player of the Week

Jay Cutler, QB, Denver. An amazing performance by an emerging star, who came back from throwing a costly interception in the fourth quarter, deep in San Diego territory -- allowing the Chargers to take a late lead -- and drove Denver the length of the field (aided by Ed Hochuli) for a touchdown pass to Eddie Royal with 29 seconds left. That made it 38-37, Denver. Shanahan (as noted earlier) chose to go for two. Then, cool as a cuke, Cutler bounced on the balls of his feet three times, a la Joe Willie, and fired a completed conversion pass to Royal between three Chargers.

Everyone break out "cool as a cuke" in conversation this week and see how it goes over. If your friends and colleagues react the same way I did, they'll think you just dropped an obscure racial slur.

Matt Cassel, QB, New England. A workmanlike day (16 of 23, 165 yards, no touchdowns or picks), but let's realize what this man did. In his first start in the NFL, and his first start at quarterback since a high school playoff game in 1999, he jogged onto Favre's new home field Sunday in New Jersey, and beat one of the top 10 quarterbacks of all time. Pats 19, Jets 10. Read Sports Illustrated this week (the big tease) for my take on how he got to the Patriots and who got him there.

I would sooner ride a hot air balloon into a hurricane, but thanks for the offer. Also: I fucking hate Matt Cassel already. What's it been, like 8 days? Awesome. Thanks Peter!

Ten Things I Think I Think

I'm not going to give the thoroughly misguided human (if he or she is indeed human) who began selling the Bernard Pollard Fan Club T-shirts online after the Tom Brady injury any more attention than this one sentence and this one question: What would your mother think of you if she knew what you were doing?

Take that, you possible non-human. You mom might be upset that you are celebrating someone else's pain. Maybe. Or, she might think it was enterprising of you to make money off something as ultimately meaningless as this. Could go either way.

Vince Young reminds me of who Bruce Springsteen wrote and sang about in "Glory Days.'' And Young's glory days were in Austin, not Nashville.

You've never heard that song, have you?

I think it's going to be a tough few nights sleeping for Ed Hochuli.

I bet- nay, I guarantee- that he's over it. San Diego still had 2 chances to win the game (on 4th down and on the 2 point conversion).

And I can't even bring myself to comment on any of his baseball related thoughts. Here, I'll summarize for you- Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay- good?, Red Sox, Red Sox, Yankee Stadium sad face, the Red Sox are the most interesting team ever, Peter King is a moron. That's all I got.