It’s too late to make a prediction for the Seahawks-Packers game, which has understandably turned into a rout of Seattle, but I will go out on a limb and say that the Jaguars are going to surprise some people (though probably not those who have been following Jacksonville closely) and defeat the Patriots with their running game 35-24. Tomorrow, the Colts and Cowboys win by at least a touchdown.
Update: Jaguars lead 7-0 after first drive. Never mind. My prediction also cursed the Colts and the Cowboys in their games.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 12th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Michael Brendan Dougherty
Daniel, my friend, once again I think your predictions are slightly influenced by your hatreds. Bill Simmons on ESPN provides these numbers :
• Belichick’s playoff record in New England: 14-2
• Brady’s playoff record at home: 6-0
• Belichick’s record against Jack Del Rio: 3-0
• New England’s lifetime record against Jacksonville: 7-1
• New England’s 2007 regular-season record: 16-0
• Number of ‘07 Patriots wins by 14-plus points: 11
• Record of ‘07 Jags after falling behind by more than seven points: 0-4
I just don’t see how Jacksonville gets this done. Currently I’m watching a tied game that is very exciting.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
xenos
I’m a New Englander, but I’m not going to gloat.
That’s all I’ll say.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Anthony King
The only tenable paleo position is to hate New England, if nothing else for their abandonment of the Pat the Patriot logo while updating their uniforms in the early 90’s. The venerable minuteman was too complex for efficient reproduction on team merch and got the ax when they switched to the bland, futuro-formulaic arena league look.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Daniel Larison
I thought I would take a chance on the unexpected upset. Besides, I did think Jacksonville’s run game was going to succeed. Obviously, it didn’t and that was a key reason why they lost. Garrard’s mistakes were also critical. Naturally, I don’t like the Patriots (does anyone outside of New England?), but this seemed remotely possible. Turns out the oddsmakers had it about right this time.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Daniel Larison
Actually, when I pick winners I usually bring disaster to them. So let me say that I pick New England to win next week.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Bob Weber
The Jaguars and Garrard played a terrific game. It just wasn’t enough against the Patriots, who are dominating football the way the Yankees dominated baseball from the 1920’s to the 1950’s.
January 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Charles Curtis
Yeah, the “the only tenable paleo position is to hate New England,” unless you are actually from there, in which case you just have to suck it all up, and smile. Because man, does it ever suck! Being a member of Red Sox Nation, and a Pats fan is sooo brutal these days! I mean, all this winning is getting sooo monotonous. Being the scrappy underdog was so much more romantic. But for the sake of tribe and tradition, I persevere.
Ah, Daniel, pick away. When they win you’ll finally be vindicated. At long last. Just surrender to the impulse and back a winner for once. I’m pretty sure even your jinx will prove no match for the inexorable tide of historic inevitability.
But then again, the Pats could lose. And Orthodoxy may triumph without reconciling with Rome, Ron Paul may be our president, and the Georgians & Armenians .. well, there’s probably nothing that could ever be done to save them from themselves & Moscow, but whatever..
Still, root for the Pats next week, just be sure to say a novena for the Holy Father and have a Sam Adams stout while doing it.
Cheers!
January 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
vanya
I would think paleocons would root for the Patriots - I thought being a conservative was all about respecting hard work and talent. Hatred and jealousy of superior peformance is supposed to be a “liberal” trait. The Patriots, while not perfect, are still classier than most NFL teams - compare the arrest records of the Jaguars (15 players in the last 2 years) with the Patriots (0). And who is more paleocon than Wes Welker? I agree with Anthony King about the logo though, that was a bad move.
January 13th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Daniel Larison
I don’t begrudge them their record. They have earned their wins, and I acknowledge the talent and work that went into that. That doesn’t mean that I have to like them. No one can deny the Yankees all their titles, nor can you deny that they earned them, but there are more elemental reasons to oppose the Yankees (chief among which is the fact that they are the Yankees). The most appropriate paleo response is probably to reject professional sports as a whole as the vain modern circuses of the mob.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:11 am
vanya
The most appropriate paleo response is probably to reject professional sports as a whole as the vain modern circuses of the mob.
That strikes me as the elitist liberal response (it’s certainly the attitude of my traditional Adlai Stevens type liberal New England relatives, for whom only baseball and soccer are acceptable, and only in small doses). I can also understand despising spectator sports in a neocon Straussian way - fine for keeping the masses in control but the superior man should not waste his time. I would guess the paleo response would be to celebrate the more traditional and “authentic” celebrations of a people and place, such as college football, while decrying the homogenization, hype and feverish search for the next new thing one sees in professional sports. Certainly ESPN is the enemy of all things paleo.