A week after the Day After

Every day, of course, is a week after the day after something, but I refer specifically to SRAM's mocking of the Daily Bandwagon's Day-After fever a week ago today. Recall that Shanoff last week (1) proclaimed himself back on the Jacksonville bandwagon; (2) called the NY Giants' 4-1 record the first six weeks a "facade" after they lost to the Lions; (3) announced that the Lions had just "proved they're for real," particularly on the road; and (4) pronounced Vick-as-West-Coast-QB officially deceased. And those were just the ones that SRAM bothered to highlight.

The next day, SRAM also mocked Patrick Hruby for his inability to name a single quarterback other than Saint Brady whom he would rather have in the last two minutes than Byron Leftwich.

Okay, let's look at some results from NFL action yesterday:

1. Jacksonville lost to the mighty Texans 20-6, with "For Real" Leftwich throwing an interception that was returned for a touchdown in, yes, the final two minutes. And by the way, Patrick, your man Tom Brady didn't do too much better in Pittsburgh.
2. The "Bill" NY Giants slaughtered the previously 5-1 Vikings in Minnesota, 34-13.
3. The Lions, on the other hand, lost 31-21 at Dallas.
4. And finally, Michael Vick put up 367 yards of offense in the Falcons' 41-28 win over Denver. His stats: 18/24 252 YDS 2 TD passing; 12 rushes for 115 yards on the ground.

Dan Shanoff has an uncanny ability to not just be wrong, but to be spectacularly, unbelievably wrong, and proven wrong within a ridiculously short period of time. If he were to pick all 16 NFL games against the spread, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get zero of them correct--a feat that is, of course, just as hard to accomplish as getting all 16 right. I think you can make a lot of money playing Keno down in Vegas for being that wrong, can't you?


The Patriots -- Dynasty?

Fast-forwarding to today's Daily Quickie, reading the first few paragraphs of that column made even this jaded DQ reader rub his eyes in disbelief:

New England has been playing with leftover karma for weeks. While their streak in this age of increasing parity and randomness is more impressive than Miami's undefeated season, don't confuse the Patriots with being a historically great team. Witness:

*Entering Sunday, they ranked 20th in the NFL in yards and 12th in yards allowed.

*In 2003, they ranked 18th in yards in 7th in yards allowed.

*Their Super Bowl win in 2004 came against one of the weakest Super Bowl teams ever in Carolina.

*Of their 21 wins, 10 came by six points or less.

*Even going back to 2001 (when they did beat a good Rams team in the Super Bowl), they ranked just 19th in yards and 24th in yards allowed.

All this from the same column that last January declared that the Patriots' two Super Bowls in three years was more impressive in the "age of parity" than the Cowboys' three championships in four years, or even the Steelers' dynasty of the 70s. "With a flip-flop this blatant," I was mentally writing, "is there any doubt about who Shanoff will be voting for tomorrow?"

But there was one problem: it wasn't Shanoff.

Today's DQ was written by Shanoff's occasional substitute, David Schoenfield, who has yet to establish his idiot credentials the way his boss has. Should a column be held responsible for a pronouncement that was made in the same space but by a different writer? You be the judge. But Schoenfield can still be held accountable for idiocy in the above analysis by looking back to Friday's Quickie, also written by Schoenfield, in which we find the following prediction:

NE (6-0) at PIT (5-1)
Always top plot until Pats lose.
Prediction: not this week.

David, David, David! How in the world did you pick a team "ranked 20th in the NFL in yards and 12th in yards allowed" on the road?! With the same initials and the same penchant for prognostication, looks like somebody is angling for his boss's job.