by Gerald Udowiczenko
Well the NFL season is upon us and unless you have SSE you won't be
able to see it live. However I do know that the game from Sunday nights, will
be repeated (in full I assume?) sometime on Monday. I thinks its sometime
in the afternoon? But I didn't check today, as it was only the Eagles
and some other team.
So as long as you avoid the news, people in general, or surfing the web.
You should be able to watch it when you get home and be none the wiser. I'll
have to check out C5 program and see if it's any good. But if pervious
years are anything to go by, it will be dreadful.
As always thanks to the following for making this issue what it is. This
weeks issue was brought to you by Graham, Brucey, Jon, Richard & Steve.
BB (5-0, W5)
@ CB (3-2, L2)
Last time : N/A.
Gerald : The Bills have been lucky in a couple
of games so far, the Bears have been unlucky. I can't see that changing. Bills
Graham : Bears D has had a couple of rough weeks,
so the free-scoring Bills probably wouldn't be their first choice of opponents.
SPLATT : Buffalo by 2.
Richard : No Comment.
MV (5-0, W7)
@ NE (2-3, L1)
Last time : wk 12, 2001 (27 - 14)
Gerald : No comment.
Graham : Vikings offence is probably the league's
best balanced. Pats have a shot but I fear this may be another tough loss.
SPLATT : New England by 2.
Richard : Vikings by 14.
MD (2-3, L1)
@ DL (0-5, L6)
Last time : wk 12, 2001 (16 - 23)
Gerald : Both teams need the win. The Fish are
a lot better than their record suggests, so are the Lions. But unless their
luck changes, I can't see the Lions breaking their duck. Fish by 3.
Graham : Given Lions' form right now the Fish probably
only need to notch up 10 points to win - they ought to manage that. MD 7.
SPLATT : Detroit by 4.
Richard : Fish by 7.
TB (2-3, W2)
@ NY (5-0, W5)
Last time : wk 6, 2000 (20 - 14)
Gerald : Both teams are on winning streaks, but
the Jets look just too strong at the moment. Jets by 10.
Graham : Buccs are certainly improved this year,
but not by as much as the soaring Jets. NJ 10.
SPLATT : New York by 6.
Richard : Jets by 14.
CL (5-0, W15)
@ SR (4-1, L1)
Last time : wk 6, 2000 (12 - 31)
Gerald : After last week's loss, the last team
the Rams will have wanted to play was the Browns. But saying that, what better
a remedy for those post loss blues then beating an unbeaten team? It's going
to be hard, but I think the Rams will just have the edge on special teams.
Rams by 3.
Graham : The Browns have the biggest squad I've
ever seen in Gameplan and Julian knows how to use it. A very good bet for
a perfect season, and probably a safe one to beat us.
SPLATT : St Louis by 3.
Richard : Browns by 17.
SF (3-2, W1)
@ TT (1-4, L3)
Last time : wk 12, 1999 (14 - 20)
Gerald : A great win for the 49ers last week means
they'll be really up for this game. Especially if the Rams lose, as they could
go on top of the division. The Titans got a lesson in ball control from the
Browns last week and I doubt they'll have recovered yet. 49ers by 10.
: Titans are a shadow of their former selves - Niners aren't spectacular
but they're damned tough and really ought to win this. SF 7.
SPLATT : Tennessee by 1.
Richard : 49ers by 3.
PS (1-4, L2)
@ NS (1-4, L2)
Last time : wk 6, 2002 (13 - 17)
Gerald : Both teams need to re-light their seasons
and I can't really go against the AFC. So Steelers by 3.
Graham : Saints have been a little unlucky so far
- they've got a lot of talent and I back them to double their win total here.
SPLATT : New Orleans by 2.
Richard : Steelers by 7.
AF (3-2, W1)
@ CI (1-4, W1)
Last time : wk 6, 1995 (34 - 14)
Gerald : A good win for the Bengals last week got
their season started. However I think the Falcons will be just that little
bit too strong for them to carry on their winning ways. Falcons by 2.
Graham : The Bengals are playing, so this should
be a high-scorer. Both had good wins last week so it could also be close.
I just fancy Cincy. Maybe. CI by 1.
SPLATT : Atlanta by 2.
: Bengals by 3.
DB (4-1, W1)
@ WR (3-2, L1)
Last time : wk 6, 2003 (7 - 31)
Gerald : If Paul can find his 'D' then the Broncos
could be in danger of repeating their last scoreline. I think it's a distinct
possibility. Skins by 10.
Graham : Should be a tight game. Skins haven't
been at their best so far this season. I think they're due. WR 3.
SPLATT : Denver by 3.
Richard : Skins by 7.
PE (4-1, W2)
@ SS (1-4, L1)
Last time : wk 6, 2003 (21 - 14)
Gerald : Derek came close last week and seemed
very unlucky not to win (perhaps that's why the Broncos got the Diddley?).
If he can do the same again then the Hawks are in with a shout. But they just
don't seem to be firing on all cylinders yet, were as the Eagles are. Eagles
Graham : Jon's interconference schedule looks very
juicy. Should really win here against a Hawks team that is not in peak form.
SPLATT : Philadelphia by 1.
Richard : Eagles by 10.
KC (1-4, W1)
@ DC (2-3, W2)
Last time : wk 6, 2003 (28 - 11)
Gerald : After that great offensive display last
week Ian will be hoping that he can continue that for a couple more weeks
yet. But he must be worried about the ease at which his opponents can score?
Fortunately, for Ian the Boyz don't have a great offence, but they do have
a good 'D' so this should be a very low scoring game. Chiefs by 2.
Graham : Now Chiefs have got off the board maybe
they'll play as we know they can. They have a good chance this week to keep
it going. KC 3.
SPLATT : Kansas City by 1.
: Chiefs by 7.
AC (0-5, L18)
@ OR (2-3, L3)
Last time : wk 6, 2003 (3 - 24)
Gerald : The Cards came real close last week to
breaking their duck. But they came up against a tasty 'D' which stalled them,
I think the same could happen again this week. Raiders by 3.
Graham : Raider D has come unstuck the past couple
of weeks. This is a game they have to win if they're going to mount a challenge
for the postseason. OA by 3.
SPLATT : Oakland by 2.
Richard : Raiders by 7.
by Graham Canwell (Week 5)
||Lots of this again. Worthy mentions are due to the
Bengals, Bills and Patriots but it was the Chiefs, who finally lived up
to their potential, who got the nod this time. Against a fairly tough
Raider D too.
||As usual, rather less competition for this. Even though
it was against a mostly harmless Titan offence the Browns were clearly
way way ahead of the pack.
||A tough choice. Considered Paul (Bengals), Richard
(Bills) and Terry (Jets) but after KCs horrendous start this was a great
||I've said it before and I'll say it again
- you don't get too much offence in the NFC. Vikes were the
best - they're a great outfit - but I should mention the
Falcons too for their good performance.
||No doubts here - did to the Skins what Washington
had done to them in week 16 last year. These two certainly don't
produce shoot-outs!! This weeks honourable mentions go to the Cowboys
||I wasn't too upset to lose this game because
I didn't feel we played that badly - it was just that the Niners
played really well. They played excellent special teams and won the battle
for field position, which is usually crucial in tight games like this.
Jon obviously deserves a mention.
||Tricky - Denver and Buffalo were the two most
likely candidates but they both played pretty well really. Wasn't
going to make an award but since I didn't last week the urge to dish
one out this time was just too strong - so Denver it is. Sorry Dave,
I know it's harsh but life's not fair sometimes . . .
Gerald to Steve : I couldn't agree more, we do
need more rivalries. So when are you going to move to the NFC East then, as
I can't see Jon moving.
Gerald to Steve : Thanks for the encouragement.
Glad you enjoy the newsletter. So I can expect something from you, for next
week? Perhaps a Coaching Profile?
Gerald to Richard : Humm weren't you lucky.
Gerald to Graham : Not sure which is worse, losing
to the Bills, or losing to them and them not getting the Rammy?
Gerald to Paul G : Well done on your first win
of many wins? At present you (and quite a lot of other coaches, me included)
are still in with a shout of that last remaining wildcard.
Gerald to Ian : Looks like the team has remembered
what they're meant to do. Could this be the start of a 11 game unbeaten run?
Gerald to Paul S : You just don't like playing
Jon do you? But this has set up a very interesting and important rematch.
Gerald to Steve : Well done. It's just a shame
you won't play (you don't do you?) the Browns during the regular season? But
that win over the Rams does give you a very good chance of the 'Most Loved
Coach' come the End of Season Awards.
Gerald to Paul M : Well done. You're (and Steve)
only one game behind Mr Canwell. Who knows me might possibly fail this season
to reach the play-offs? :o)
Gerald to SPLATT : Had a bad, sorry BAD day last
week. Only 33% Very poor.
Gerald to AFC : It's Clobbering Time
Graham to Steve : Well played. No complaints
from me - you deserved it. See you in week 16.
PUB MEET III
Just a small reminder about the possible Pub Meet somewhere in the London
area, before Christmas. Let me know if you interested, or have any suggestions.
Don't forget to visit the following sites :
by Jon Heath
I have to say that I'm somewhat happy with my Eagles at present. I've
been away since late July so all the plans from week 3 were written
at the same time.
The loss to the Bears was disappointing, but then again deserved as
they faced virtually the same gameplan (certainly on offence) as the
one that beat them in the NFC championship last season. They made the
right adjustments, but I wasn't happy with my turnover rate. Incidentally,
that's also roughly the same offence that beat the Rams and narrowly
lost to the Browns, but also (and this is the happy bit) beat the Redskins
- though a lot of credit has to go to the D on that one too.
It seems to be a style of offence that works OK when not expected,
but falls down when it is played for. So don't expect repeat performances
next time you play me! I suppose I now need to assume that I'll lose
3-16 on my return to Washington in Wk 16, so I'd better make sure that
I've won the division by then.
Well that's about all for this week. I only remembered that the newsletter
had to be done late on Sunday evening, so this issue has been a little rush.