Mr. SKIA gets caught up, the NFL

Now that we are down to the final four in each conference -- and the wild card round, wherein my picks would have been horrendous had I committed them to the eternity of this here blog, is mercifully over -- I can talk a little football.

I was feeling pretty good last week, as my NFC preseason top-3 were all in the playoffs, with 11+ wins each. Then the Eagles and, more importantly, the Packers (my preseason Super Bowl champs) got knocked out, and I'm back to looking like a chump; of the four teams I projected to be in the conference finals -- Packers-Saints and Steelers-Patriots -- exactly one of them is still alive.

So maybe I don't know much, but I'm still going with:

New Orleans over Arizona
Despite the way they played over the last month or so, I still like the Saints. In fact, the way they ended the season reminds me a lot of Arizona last year, and they did alright once the postseason began. As for the Cardinals, I just don't see another flawless Kurt Warner performance; instead, expect one of Arizona's patented turnover fests.

Minnesota over Dallas
Can I pick neither? I can't stand either team, and think both coaches are subpar, with Brad Childress significantly subparrer. But now that the Cowboys are no longer playing with the patented Bill Simmons no-one-believes-in-us edge -- suddenly, they're everybody's darling -- I expect them to vomit all over themselves. While I don't like the Vikings either, somebody's got to win.

Indianapolis over Baltimore
I want to pick the Ravens, I really do. I hate the way the Colts ended the season, giving up a chance at history just to rest guys for the playoffs, and I think that gives them awful karma. But given Joe Flacco's performance last week, I just can't see how he leads them to a win at Indy.

San Diego over Jets
This is the perfect barometer for what it takes to win in today's NFL playoffs: a high-flying passing attack and home field advantage; or a punishing ground attack, stout defense, and superior coaching? While I hate to go against Darrelle Revis (who might be the best player in football right now) and with Norv Turner, this one, for me, comes down to the quarterbacks. I feel much more confident backing Philip Rivers than I do Mark Sanchez.

Jesus, did I really just pick all home teams? Well, that ain't gonna happen -- if I had to pick upsets, I'd rank them Jets, Cowboys, Ravens, Cardinals in order of confidence -- but I'll stick with what I've got. What a hack I am.

In other football news, I just want to highlight this passage from a recent (for me, anyway) post of mine, which had been pulled from an ESPN.com chat with my comments added in red:

lawrence (stowe vt)
Why wouldnt the bears bring in someone that Jay cutler knows and trusts like Mike shanahan? Because the Bears are cheaper than a Wal-Mart sweater.

Jeff Dickerson (11:45 AM)
Fair point. My best guess is that Shanahan would cost roughly $10 million per season, and command about a 4-5 year contract. Then you would have to pay Lovie over $10 million sit out the next two years. Also remember that Shanahan would want a lot of control over personnel. How would he work with Jerry and his people? That's why it's not just a simple fix. In a perfect world, yes, the Bears would eat all that money and bring in one of these high profile coaches. But this isn't a perfect world. Alright, this is where I really started getting annoyed. According to Forbes.com, Lovie and Jeff Fisher are the two highest-paid coaches in the league. Both make $5.5 million per season. As stellar as Shanahan's reputation is, there is NO WAY IN FREAKING HELL that he commands a salary that's 82% higher than the most lucrative current deal. Especially not with fellow Super Bowl winners Bill Cowher, Tony Dungy, Jon Gruden, and Mike Holmgren also available to varying degrees. Shanahan will get in the $7 million range. Which is still way too rich for the Bears' blood.

In becoming the new coach of the Washington Redskins, Mike Shanahan agreed to a five-year, $35 million contract. Toot-toot goes my horn.