E.K. NATION

Actually, it's Men of the Year, plural. It's the New England Patriots. Simply because I've never seen anything like it. Even if they lose tonight in their quest to go 16-0 for the season. They've just been so workmanlike in their destruction of their opponents, and really, they've been rather quiet about it. It's everybody else that's up in arms over their season, whether they love 'em or hate 'em. The Patriots are going out there, doing their job, and then moving on. Congrats, Pats, on your achievement, and good luck against the other guys in the Super Bowl (like you need it).

Now then. Here are the picks for the final week of the NFL season. It's a weird week, the way most final weeks of an NFL season are. Carolina is favored in Tampa? The Titans are favored in Indy? Now that's weird. I've been thinking about it for days: Who's going to play and who's going to rest up for the playoffs? Here's what I came up with (lines courtesy Bodoglife.com. Home team in CAPS, predicted winner listed first):

SATURDAY NIGHT:

NEW ENGLAND (-14) over N.Y. Giants. Just can't go against the Patriots. But my take is this: The Giants should play everyone and play hard. This is their Super Bowl. If they beat New England, it's a feather in their cap almost as good as a playoff win, which I don't believe they are going to get. Rest their starters? They've got some kinks to work out. Play 'em!

SUNDAY MORNING:

Buffalo (+8) over PHILADELPHIA. Last team with the ball wins this one.
TAMPA BAY (+3) over Carolina. Even if the Bucs do some resting, I don't see them losing this game.
MIAMI (+3) over Cincinnati. The Dolphins get multiple wins this year.
GREEN BAY (-5) over Detroit. I expect the Packers to go up 21-0 before pulling their starters.
Jacksonville (+6.5) over HOUSTON. The Jags should be running a lot, no matter whether it's Jones-Drew and Taylor or the reserves. Only four teams have allowed more rushing TDs than the Texans. Run that clock, Jags!
CHICAGO (+1.5) over New Orleans. Yes, the Saints have something to play for and the Bears don't. But I liked the way the Bears played last week with nothing on the line.
Seattle (+1.5) over ATLANTA. The Seahawks are locked into the #3 spot, but I still think they'll try for a comfortable lead before pulling the starters.
CLEVELAND (-10) over San Francisco. The Browns could put eleven cadavers on the field and it still wouldn't matter. They need Tennessee to lose in order to make the playoffs and that's all they can hope for. However, I see this as something of a statement game for Cleveland. If they make the playoffs, they'll want to go in with a win directly behind them. And by the way: If Cleveland loses and the Titans do as well, I'd like to call for an immediate moratorium on the phrase "backing into the playoffs." I hate that, and I can see it coming.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON:

WASHINGTON (-9) over Dallas. Skins win, and they're in the playoffs. Lucky for them, Dallas will be resting some people. Expect to see the Redskins in Seattle next weekend.
Pittsburgh (-3.5) over BALTIMORE. The Ravens have more injury problems than do the Steelers, and besides, the Ravens suck.
DENVER (+3) over Minnesota. The Broncos know the pain of being knocked out of the playoffs in the last week (see last year against the Niners) and I think they'll deliver a similar blow to the Vikes this time around.
San Diego (-9) over OAKLAND. Congrats, Raiders, on finally letting JaMarcus Russell start (what were you waiting for?). But it's too late to help anything this year.
St. Louis (+6) over Arizona. I heard about what Chris Redman did to the Cardinals secondary last week. Marc Bulger must be licking his chops.
N.Y. JETS (-6) over Kansas City. I can see this one being a blowout. How about 41-3?

SUNDAY NIGHT:

Tennessee (-4.5) over INDIANAPOLIS. It comes down to this: The Titans need a win to get to the playoffs, and the Colts will play their starters for maybe one series. If Tennessee can nearly beat a full-staffed Colts team (Indy nipped them 22-20 in Week 2), a determined Titans team should be able to beat a Colts team led by quarterback Jim Sorgi.

Last Week: 9-7, for a record of 96-64-4 this year. 96-64 gets you a division title in baseball. I'd say I've done quite well so far.

Before I get to this week's picks, I would like to congratulate Michael Spurlock, who this past Sunday broke the all-time Tampa Bay Buccaneers franchise record for kickoffs returned for touchdowns. That franchise record is now...wait for it...one.

Thirty-two years, 498 regular season games, and 1,865 returns before the team finally got its first TD. That, my friends, is truly amazing. In contrast, both the Miami Dolphins and the New Orleans Saints, in their back-to-back expansion seasons in 1966 and 1967 respectively, got touchdowns on kickoff returns on the very first play in their franchise histories.

Here's Spurlock's run:

Here's another silly stat, picked up courtesy of Tuesday Morning Quarterback: The Patriots have had 21 different players score TDs this year, while the 49ers, Falcons and Chiefs have yet to score 21 TDs total.

One of my favorite things to do is read TMQ and see what kind of chiding Gregg Easterbrook does of ridiculous play-calling by NFL coaches. Here's yet another example, and I'll just quote it word-for-word here:

Trailing the awesome Miami Dolphins 16-13, Baltimore had fourth-and-goal on the Miami 1 with a few seconds remaining in regulation. Brian Billick sent in the place-kicking unit, as rookie quarterback Troy Smith showed moxie by pleading with his coach to go for the touchdown and the victory. NFL coaches almost always kick in this situation, sending the game into overtime, even though a fourth-and-goal from the 1 provides a 75 percent chance of victory and overtime is essentially a 50-50 proposition. But if the coach goes for the win and the try fails, he is blamed; whereas if he sends in the field goal unit, then loses in overtime -- as Baltimore did -- players get the blame. As noted by reader Nick Alexandrow of Arlington, Va., CBS announcers lauded Billick for sending in the field goal team and criticized Smith for pleading with his coach to try: That is, they lauded the losing strategy. "He's playing the percentages," announcer Kevin Harlan declared. He was doing the reverse of that!

I heard another announcer from some other game say the same thing, that he was kicking because it's playing the percentages. If I recall correctly, it was fourth-and-1 inside the opposition's territory. Again, that's not playing the percentages; it's going against them. It's so disheartening to see not only NFL coaches make stupid decisions but for network announcers to appluad them for it. Aaaaarrrgggghh!!!

THURSDAY NIGHT (team listed first is the pick, home team in caps)

ST. LOUIS (+7.5) over Pittsburgh. I actually had a dream last night that the Rams won this game by 10. And so far I am 6-0 on Thursday games. Translation: Rams win by 10, eh?

SATURDAY NIGHT:

Dallas (-10.5) over CAROLINA. After last week, the Cowboys need to win again to lock down home field.

SUNDAY MORNING:

Cleveland (-3) over CINCINNATI. The Browns are excellent against the spread lately, and they are fighting for a playoff spot.
CHICAGO (+9) over Green Bay. This time of year, it seems the underdogs pull off upsets. Not saying Chicago will win, but the last couple weeks are always difficult to pick. Gotta look more at the dogs this week.
Houston (+7) over INDIANAPOLIS. The Colts have absolutely no reason to play either of their last two games. They have the AFC's #2 seed no matter what happens. The starters will likely rest a bit. The Texans could win this game.
DETROIT (-4.5) over Kansas City. What a great time to play the struggling Chiefs.
BUFFALO (+3) over N.Y. Giants. What's that? The Giants are letting a playoff spot slip away? Well, not exactly, but they are finding it hard to win.
JACKSONVILLE (-13) over Oakland. No Pro-Bowlers on the Jags? Really? This is the week they'll prove at least somebody belonged.
Philadelphia (+3) over NEW ORLEANS. Dear Brian Westbrook: It didn't matter last week, because I wouldn't have won any money anyway, but please, next time you're in the clear, go ahead and score. It might cause me a heart attack if you take a knee at the 1-yard-line again.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON:

Miami (+21.5) over NEW ENGLAND. We just missed a 14-0 vs. 0-14 matchup. The Dolphins hung tough last time these two played. And if the Pats go up by 21, they might rest their starters. (And put them back in when the lead gets back down to 14, natch.) Tough call, but I'll stick with the surging Dolphins (one win in a row!).
ARIZONA (-10) over Atlanta. I started to think the Falcons might play better this week after their coaching debacle last week. Then I realized, as I often do when considering a daunting 10-point spread, that a score of 27-16, while not a blowout, is enough for a cover. Give it to the Cardinals.
SEATTLE (-10) over Baltimore. I don't see the Seahawks stumbling like they did against Carolina, and the Ravens are in a rut.
N.Y. Jets (+8.5) over TENNESSEE. I think this spread is too big for the Titans.
SAN FRANCISCO (+7) over Tampa Bay. It's been a while since I picked against the Niners while saying "It's the 49ers!!!" I think they have the potential to win again.

SUNDAY NIGHT:

MINNESOTA (-6.5) over Washington. Really, how long can Todd Collins carry the Skins?

MONDAY NIGHT:

SAN DIEGO (-8.5) over Denver. The Chargers have found their groove, and they should take this one, easy.

Last Week: A disappointing 8-8, for a record of 87-57-4 this year. Wow, if you'd taken my advice and bet a grand on each game this year, you'd be up almost a public school teacher's salary for the season. Somebody wanna bankroll me? That's a nice stipend.

More on this Monday Night Football's broadcast: I was watching when Falcons owner Arthur Blank joined the broadcast team in the booth for some comments about Michael Vick and what he faces once he gets out of his much-deserved-but-way-too-short prison term. Blank speculated that Vick might miss three seasons -- the rest of 2007, plus 2008 and 2009 -- and then added:

If he doesn't watch himself, he could eat a lot of fried chicken and fries in prison, come out at 250 pounds, he's not going to be the same athlete he was.

When he said this, I cringed.

But I didn't cringe because it's a racist statement.

I cringed because I knew there would be at least a few moronic blowhards who would call it a racist statement.

First of all, let me say this: If you heard Blank's comments and immediately thought, "Oh, my god, he said Vick's gonna eat fried chicken! What a racist statement!", then that says more about you than it does about Blank. Why did you immediately think of black people as a specific race that eats fried chicken?

But let's get beyond that: Blank was clearly referring to fried chicken as a food that someone might not want to eat a lot of if he hopes to stay in shape to play in the NFL, particularly a speedy quarterback who does a lot of running and darting and zig-zagging on the field. Note that he also said "fries", another such food one would want to avoid. Two foods, both had the word "fried" or a variation on that word. Newsflash for those who still don't get it: Fried foods are not healthful. And that was his point.

Remember Fuzzy Zoeller's comment after Tiger Woods won his first Masters in 1997? It's tradition for the winner to choose what goes on the menu at the following year's Masters banquet. Keeping that in mind, Zoeller said, about what to say to Woods after his victory: "Pat him on the back, say congratulations, and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year, or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve."

Let's outline where that one got racist. Starting again:

Pat him on the back, say congratulations,

Okay so far.

and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year,

Easy now. Not yet.

or collard greens,

Wait for it...

or whatever the hell they serve.

Yahtzee!

"Whatever they hell they serve." Now, I've heard the clip of him saying that. And it sounds like he's trying to joke around. Admittedly, it isn't a humorous statement. But here's the deal: Whether he's trying to be funny or not, he is dismissing what he thinks is a meal that some other race would eat and that he wants no part of it. That is what makes what Zoeller said racist.

Arthur Blank was not being racist when he said that if Michael Vick eats unhealthfully while in prison, he could be grossly unfit to play quarterback again. And that's basically what he said. We're supposed to assume that he said that, the way we're supposed to assume that when the Russian sub occupants in The Hunt For Red October suddenly go from speaking Russian to English, they're not really speaking English; it's just a film-making device to make it easier for those who don't like subtitles. Blank could have said pizza. He could have said cookies. He could have said cigarettes, even. He made reference to two fried foods that are not good for you if eaten every day.

I got what he meant. And if you thought he was being racist, you are probably the racist one. I love fried chicken, and I'm white. I don't really know personally any white meat-eaters among my friend group that don't like fried chicken. Fried chicken is not a black-people food. And shame on you, complainer, for thinking that it is. Or for thinking that black people should be ashamed to eat fried chicken in the first place!

Now, on to bigger and better things: the picks for Week 15!

THURSDAY NIGHT (team listed first is the pick, home team in caps)

HOUSTON (pick) over Denver.

SATURDAY NIGHT:

Cincinnati (-8.5) over San Francisco.

SUNDAY MORNING:

NEW ORLEANS (-3.5) over Arizona.
TAMPA BAY (-11.5) over Atlanta.
MIAMI (+3.5) over Baltimore.
CLEVELAND (-5.5) over Buffalo.
ST. LOUIS (+10.5) over Green Bay.
PITTSBURGH (-3.5) over JACKSONVILLE.
N.Y. Jets (+24.5) over New England.
SEATTLE (-7.5) over Carolina.
Tennessee (-4) over KANSAS CITY.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON:

Indianapolis (-10) over OAKLAND.
SAN DIEGO (-10) over Detroit.
DALLAS (-10.5) over Philadelphia.

SUNDAY NIGHT:

N.Y. GIANTS (-4.5) over Washington.

MONDAY NIGHT:

MINNESOTA (-10) over CHICAGO.

Last Week: 11-5 once again, for a record of 79-49-4 this year.

Anyone else get sick and tired of hearing the Monday Night Football broadcasting team's sympathetic look at the problems Michael Vick will face once he gets out of prison?

Awww, so he might be out of shape.

Awww, so NFL teams might not want him.

Screw that.

Michael Vick is in prison because he deserves it. Frankly, he got off easy, having just a 23-month sentence handed to him. And you can ask any of the dogs he had killed whether they care about his problems once he gets out of prison. Oh, wait, no, on second thought, you can't, 'cause they're dead dogs.

A very special I-Seriously-Can-Not-Believe-What-I-Am-Seeing-So-Much-So-That-I-Am-Giving-Up-On-NFL-Coaches edition of NFL Coaches Should Be Fired: Eric Mangini, I am talking to you.

A minute-forty-eight left in the game. The Jets are down 17-12 at the Browns 20. And Mangini trots out his field goal unit.

I really don't think I need to explain this any further.

Also, to any coach that punts in the fourth quarter when his team is trailing by three scores: You should be fired.

First, a word about the Ravens-Patriots game on Monday night:

A lot of people seem to be saying the Ravens got jobbed late in the fourth quarter with all those crazy penalties, that the refs (and thus the league) had it in for them because they wanted New England to remain undefeated or what have you. There are others who will say that the Ravens did themselves in with those stupid, seemingly endless violations and that worthless time-out that nullified their fourth-down stop of Tom Brady and, in effect, a victory. I'm in the latter camp: Baltimore had it, and they gave it away.

But I say there's another factor involved. With 3:41 remaining and the ball on their own 37-yard line, facing a fourth-and-1, the Ravens punted.

Think about this for a second: They only had to go one more yard. Instead, they decided to give the Patriots the ball.

One more time: They decided to give the Patriots the ball. Call me crazy, but if you're trying to win a game, and you have a chance to keep the ball, wouldn't you want to do that instead?

Count me in with those who agree with ESPN.com columnist Gregg Easterbrook, who is mystified at the number of illogical punts football teams do. In his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column from November 12, he outlined in detail his frustration with ridiculous punts. Here's one passage:

As TMQ endlessly notes, NFL teams convert about 75 percent of fourth-and-1 tries. Yet highly paid professional coaches endlessly send in the punt unit on fourth-and-1, handing a scoring opportunity to the opposition. In the 2006 edition of my annual don't-punt column, I summarized the odds this way: "Nearly three-quarters of fourth-and-1 attempts succeed, while around one-third of possessions result in scores. Think about those fractions. Go for it four times on fourth-and-1: Odds are you will keep the ball three times, and three kept possessions each with a one-third chance of a score results in your team scoring once more than it otherwise would have. Punt the ball on all four fourth-and-1s, and you've given the opponents three additional possessions. (It would have gotten one possession anyway when you missed one of your fourth-and-1s.) Those three extra possessions, divided by the one-third chance to score, give the opponent an extra score."

Easterbrook, in his NFL game notes, likes to say that he writes "Game Over" in his notebook as soon as one team punts when there is absolutely no reason for them to do so, particularly on fourth-and-short inside the opposition territory. He also likes to speculate as to how many plays it will take the punt-receiving team to march back to where the original punting line of scrimmage was. When the Ravens punted on fourth-and-1, I guessed it would take the Pats three plays to get back to within the Ravens' 40. While everyone else at the bar who heard me decry the punt wondered aloud why anyone would suggest that Baltimore try to retain possession by going for it, it took the Pats five plays to get back to within the Ravens' 41. Sure enough, New England scored a touchdown a few plays later, and suddenly they were 12-0, and the Ravens, who were poised to become the first team to beat New England this year, were left with about 45 seconds to do something, which they did not.

Follow me here for a minute: Why shouldn't Baltimore have gone for it on fourth down? If the Ravens go for the first down and miss, then they wind up giving the Patriots the ball back anyway. Yes, they would give the Patriots great field position with which to hammer out a game-winning TD, but these are the Patriots. You think they have trouble scoring from anywhere on the field? If the Ravens have the ball, the Patriots can't score. And as the stats indicate, three times out of four, an NFL team that goes for it on fourth-and-1 will succeed, and thus keep the ball.

I'm going to quote another long passage from Easterbrook's column because I don't want to make anyone go through a very long essay to find it. He details 14 "high-profile fourth-down tries" in football from that previous weekend. I think he makes a great case for not punting. What do you think?:

The decisive snap of Illinois' upset of No. 1 Ohio State on Saturday came when the Illini, leading 28-21 with six minutes remaining, went for it on fourth-and-1 in their own territory. Sports radio generally called this a huge gamble. Actually, it was playing the percentages; Illinois converted and held the ball for the remainder of the game. Had Illinois boomed a punt, the Buckeyes would have been in business. On Sunday, while trailing at Washington, Philadelphia went for it on fourth-and-1 in its own territory in the second half -- Fox television announcer Daryl Johnston called this "a huge gamble!" It was playing the percentages; the Eagles converted, and they scored a touchdown on the possession, igniting a comeback. Trailing 10-2, Buffalo went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Dolphins' 24 in the fourth quarter: a conversion, followed by a touchdown on the possession, keyed the Bills' comeback. Leading defending champion Indianapolis 16-0, San Diego went for it on fourth-and-2 at the Indianapolis 37, converted and scored a touchdown on the possession, going on to win by two points. Three times Jacksonville went for it on fourth-and-short in Tennessee territory, all three times converting and going on to score touchdowns; the Titans went for it on fourth-and-short twice in return, once failing and once scoring a touchdown...Green Bay went for it twice on fourth-and-short in Minnesota territory, both times scoring on the possession -- but Minnesota punted from the Green Bay 42. Carolina went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Atlanta 20, and the play reached the Falcons' 2 before the Panthers' runner fumbled. Yes, New Orleans failed on a fourth-and-1 attempt in its own territory and went on to lose, and San Francisco failed on a fourth-and-1 on the Seattle 2-yard line when trailing big. But of the high-profile fourth-down tries in the NFL and in the Illinois-Ohio State game this past weekend, 10 were a total success, one a qualified success and three a failure. Not too shabby, compared with passively punting the ball.

No, not shabby at all. Again: If they don't have the ball, they can't score on you (unless it's a safety, but you know what I mean). Stop punting!!!

Ed.: Aha! Check this out, from Easterbrook's TMQ column from Monday, which I had not seen until just now (a few hours after this post was entered):

Yes, it would have taken moxie to go for it on fourth-and-1 from your own 37 with 3:41 remaining, but one single yard here would have won the game -- and the blame-shifting strategy Baltimore coaches chose instead lost the game.

Easterbook suggests often that coaches order punts in situations such as fourth-and-1 from midfield or maybe a few yards inside their own territory in order to shift the blame from the coaches to the players. If the team goes for it and misses, the coaches get blamed. If the team punts, the players get the blame. I agree with Easterbrook here too. NFL teams need to realize that an excess of punts will lead to fewer scores and fewer wins over the long run. On fourth-and-1 from midfield, no punt should be attempted unless the team with the ball is holding onto a lead with little time left and wants to pin the other team back farther. Certainly in the first half, no punt should ever be attempted in that situation, and certainly no punt should be attempted in that situation later in the game if the team with the ball is behind. But that's just me. Prove me wrong.

THURSDAY (team listed first is the pick, home team in caps)

WASHINGTON (-3) over Chicago.

SUNDAY MORNING:

JACKSONVILLE (-10.5) over Carolina.
Dallas (-11) over DETROIT.
BUFFALO (-7) over Miami.
N.Y. Giants (+3) over Philadelphia.
GREEN BAY (-10) over Oakland.
San Diego (-1) over TENNESSEE.
St. Louis (+7) over CINCINNATI.
Tampa Bay (-1) over HOUSTON.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON:

Pittsburgh (+10.5) over NEW ENGLAND.
SEATTLE (-7) over Arizona.
Minnesota (-8) over SAN FRANCISCO.
N.Y. JETS (+3.5) over Cleveland.
DENVER (+6.5) over Kansas City.

SUNDAY NIGHT:

Indianapolis (-9.5) over BALTIMORE.

MONDAY NIGHT:

New Orleans (-4.5) over ATLANTA.

Last Week: 11-5 again, for a record of 68-44-4 this year.