Super Bowl pick

Last week: 1-1 (Playoffs: 8-2/Overall: 14-7-1)

Arizona (+7) over Pittsburgh
Double digits and the perfect playoffs went out the door but with a win here I get to finish with more than twice as many wins than losses on the year. That's something. To be honest I don't think either of these teams are all that good. Arizona is riding an all-time hot streak of an individual player and at the same time being aided by some inept coaching from the opposition (HOW DO YOU NOT DOUBLE TEAM FITZGERALD!?). Pittsburgh on the other hand, while arguably the better team, doesn't exactly leap off the page at you. Yes, the defence is fantastic. But that offense is a real worry. They can't run the ball and living and dieing with Big Ben isn't exactly ideal.

In spite of that I like Pittsburgh in this match. I think Pittsburgh's greatest strength (defence) is better than Arizona's (the passing game). The thing about Pittsburgh is that when they play quality teams (which I think we have to label Arizona now) they may win, but they don't do it in style. In the regular season the Steelers went just 5-4 against teams with winning records and their 5 wins were by 3, 1, 23, 7, 4. The 23 obviously stands out but it's very deceiving. That was the New England game where Randy Moss dropped about 28 passes in the end zone. The touchdown victory was over Dallas where Tony Romo just imploded. I think the Steelers win here but I think Arizona does enough to cover the spread.

Pittsburgh 23 Arizona 17

At a stand still

The Day the Earth Stood Still was one of the most panned films of 2008, and the criticism has leaked into 09 too. First of all it’s not that bad. You’d be hard pressed to label the film a success but it’s not exactly a glaring failure either. It’s a fairly easy film to sum up – The Day the Earth Stood Still has a pedestrian and uninvolving narrative supported by an okay cast and packed with a pleasant moral story. It’s as simple as that.

The greatest problem with the film is that too often it feels like a television movie. For an alleged movie blockbuster, The Day the Earth Stood Still feels like something you’d flick on at 2pm on a Tuesday afternoon. This is due to the lack of a visual and auditory presence. When you watch War of the Worlds or The Day After Tomorrow you genuinely feel like the world is ending. The Day the Earth Stood Still doesn’t exert that feel. The budget of US 80 million is very tame for an end-of-the-world action film and it shows. Visually the film is nothing really, the effects are ordinary and there’s nothing at all groundbreaking.

Despite its narrative shortcomings the film remains credible because of its star-studded cast. Jennifer Connelly is solid in the role of the heroine, a role she could probably play in her sleep. The two stories of the film though are most certainly Jaden Smith (son of Will) and Keanu Reeves. First of all Jaden Smith is okay in his role. The problem is his painfully annoying character, someone so poorly written that we can never fully sympathise with him in the end. Keanu though is probably the brightest spot in the film. Is there any actor in the world better suited to play Klaatu? I don’t think so. Emotionless alien trapped in a human body? Come on! It’s too perfect. Some would say Keanu plays that role in all his films. Keanu has Klaatu down pat, his deliberate movements, his cold stare and his chilled voice are all done perfectly. Jon Hamm is good in a minor role, and Jon Cleese is terrific in his one scene.

Aside from the capable cast, the other thing Earth has going for it is it’s effective message about global warming. Some have labelled the film An Inconvenient Truth 2.0, and with good reason. Only thing is Keanu Reeves probably doesn’t have as much political credibility as Al Gore. Still, the message that we are destroying the Earth, and that perhaps it is more valuable than we are is, makes its mark. More impressive though is the uplifting message the film ultimately conveys, that ‘at the precipice of disaster we change’.

Despite my inclination too, I simply can’t recommend this film. It’s simply not very good. The script is very weak, the acting merely okay despite the very promising cast, and most importantly the film has absolutely no presence. It fails to create suspense, and never truly involves the viewer. Is it worth the $14 it now costs to watch a film in the cinema? Probably not. But it’s at least worth a 2pm TV viewing on a Tuesday afternoon.

NFL Conference Championship picks

Last week: 3-1 (Playoffs: 7-1/Overall: 13-6-1)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Well Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin cost me a chance at a perfect record against the spread. Funny thing is, that and the Arizona game (ha!) were the two I was most confident about. Oh well. 7-1 is nothing to complain about I guess. The aim now is to reach double digits, would I think would be quite an achievement. Obviously I have to run the table from here. So let's see how we go.

Philadelphia (-3) over ARIZONA
I just can't pick the Cards here. I think that the Atlanta win was due to the fact they were playing a rookie quarterback, with the benefit of that hostile home environment and a couple of amazing momentum changing plays. The Carolina win was just a case of everything going right. The Panthers really weren't all that good all season, overrated for sure. They fluked more plays than any other team in the regular season, and got hot at the end because of DeAngelo Williams' incredible run. Poor coaching and Jake Delhomme's genuinely phenomenally inept performance (by the end of it he really looked like he was expecting to throw picks) as well as Larry freakin Fitzgerald accounted for the win. This week, the Eagles are smart enough to double Fitzgerald and they should be able to control the clock much better than Carolina. Oh yeah and they beat Arizona by four touchdowns last time. Philadelphia 28 Arizona 17

PITTSBURGH (-5) over Baltimore
You can tell the Steelers mean business. They looked fantastic against the Chargers - they know they belong. Big Ben made plays all day, and they converted on all the big plays. Can't help but feel the Ravens are a little overrated. Tennessee murdered them in virtually every facet of the game, except luck and turnovers. Pittsburgh should be more careful with the ball, they won't give Baltimore the game ala Tennessee. Also when is the last time two teams played three painfully tight matches in the one season. No way Flacco leads the Ravens to a comfortable victory, so I'm liking the Steelers based on that law of averages. Liking them based on everything too. Pittsburgh 27 Baltimore 9

Still perfect...

My run of perfection picking games against the NFL spread continues. With Baltimore not only covering, but winning, and the Cardinals up 10 on Carolina I'm in pretty good shape to be 6-0 heading into tomorrow's games. Knock wood.

Replay that Baltimore-Tennessee game 10 times and I think Tennessee wins 8 of them. Today they were the superior team, and by a long way. Three turnovers in the redzone is unforgivable, especially in a defensive struggle like this where points were impossible to come by. If Chris Johnson stays healthy I think the Titans win this game 24-10. The Baltimore defence is extremely overrated. We saw quality teams (Indy, New York, Dallas) put up lots of points against them, and Tennessee should have done the same today. They certainly put up the yards anyway. With quick elusive backs you can run on the Ravens (Johnson 11 carries 72 yards 1 touchdown), and they were vulnerable to screen passes today as well. The one area thought to be a weakness, the deep ball, was defended well though (only gain of 25+ yards was a screen pass to Johnson). The defense is a big play unit that will surrender yards, but will also create turnovers as it did today.

The Alge Crumpler fumble at the 1 yard line in the fourth quarter, the most damaging turnover no doubt, was the result of huge hits from the Ravens D. The other two turnovers were the result of poor ball protection from LenDale White and horrible judgement and a weak throw from Kerry Collins.

The Ravens offence was hopelessly stagnant all day. 50 yards on 30 carries via the ground won't get it done next week. The running game started to be mildly effective when McGahee had the ball in the final quarter, his 11 yard run on 2nd and 10 from the 45 was huge. Offensively for the Ravens, the game came down to four huge plays. The first was Flacco's incredible 48-yard touchdown strike to Derrick Mason. Following a pair of 3-and-outs that netted a total gain of 3 yards, and coming right after the Tennessee touchdown drive with Chris Johnson looking invincible, the Ravens had to make something happen. And Flacco did with that perfect pass down the sideline to Mason, splitting the zone coverage, on 3rd and 13 no less. Huge play.

The second big Ravens play was nothing more than a fluke. Flacco made one of his few poor decisions of the game to end the third quarter, heaving a ball up into double coverage that was completely midjudged by the Titans defensive backs and caught my Mark Clayton. 9 times out of 10 that's an interception or incompletion. Lucky break. The other two big plays came on the final drive, the 23-yarder to the tight end on 3rd and 2, and the 8-yarder to Clayton to set up Stover's field goal.

The Ravens benefited immensely from luck, timely plays and fantastic coaching. Tennessee may very well have been the better team, but it was Ravens who made plays when they had to. And that's all that matters really. Meanwhile, the Cardinals are leading 27-7 so I think I'm going to declare a perfect 6-0 heading into tomorrow.

Kid B

It was the year 2000 and the turn of the century and British rock band Radiohead held the world in their palm. Their previous two albums, The Bends and OK Computer, were phenomenal and already being regarded as two of the greatest guitar rock albums of all time. So what did the year 2000, and the band's fourth album bring? Kid A, the bizarre completely random collection of electronic computer music totally unlike anything Radiohead had done before. In other words it was Radiohead's Fuck You to the world. They were the biggest rock band on Earth, they could do whatever they wanted and we would buy their album even if it was rubbish computer music. Burn After Reading is the Coen brothers' Kid A. Following the dark, deep and brilliant Oscar-winner No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers have given us a bizarre, disjointed and meaningless film to chew on. And I couldn't be happier.

Sometimes bizarre, disjointed and meaningless is fine. Spending two dark involving hours with Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem's terrible haircut is fine on occasion, but do it too often and it gets to be too much. Sometimes you need a breath of fresh air. Sometimes you need Burn After Reading. I can't help but feel that everyone involved in this film was making it purely for the purpose of fun. There's no deeper meaning or moral discussion going on here. Burn After Reading is what it is.

Having 'quit' his job as a CIA analyst Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) decides to write a potentially controversial memoir chronicling his time with the agency. An electronic copy of the memoir finds its way to Hardbodies, a fitness club, where employee Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) comes across it. Chad realises the importance of what he has and teams up with Linda (Frances McDormand), who comes up with the plan to blackmail Osbourne Cox so she can pay for the plastic surgery she needs. Meanwhile Osbourne's unhappy wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a treasury agent. Complicating matters is the fact that Harry is also seeing Linda, and what follows is a disastrous chain of events resulting in murder, the Russian embassy and wielding axes in broad daylight.

Burn After Reading sticks with having a coherent and mildly believable storyline but as it approaches the finish line it throws caution to the wind and opts for the most incredible ending possible. If you understand the film you won't have any problem with this. The film is about producing laughs, and it does so on a regular basis. Osbourne's gradual slide into insanity, Harry's bizarre erotic hobby and just about every scene with Brad Pitt had me in a fit. The way the film ends is abrupt and completely irrational, but it's perfect considering.

The cast look like they're having a wonderful time. John Malkovich plays the pathetic loser role he's starting to grow into with gusto. George Clooney is terrific as the pitiable womanising treasury agent. Frances McDormand, our main protagonist, is great playing her part with wide-eyed enthusiasm. Tilda Swinton is solid as the cold bitchy straying wife. J.K. Simmons is hilarious in a cameo role. The thing with superstar ensemble casts is that one actor always seems to stand out from the rest. Tom Cruise in Magnolia, Matt Dillion in Crash. Here it's without a doubt Brad Pitt. Pitt's self-deprecating performance is right on the money, virtually everytime he opened his mouth I laughed. His scenes with Malkovich and his facial expression in his lone scene with Clooney will go down as the funniest of the year I'm sure.

You can only hope that people don't see Burn After Reading as No Country for Old Men 2, nothing could be further from it. It's unlike anything the Coen brothers have done recently, more in tune with their wacky stuff from the early days. If No Country for Old Men is their best drama, and Fargo is their best all round film (which I stand by), then Burn After Reading has to be their finest comedic work.

Crooked cops, airport vodka and Keanu

As preparation for seeing The Day the Earth Stood Still I thought I’d set myself by seeing Street Kings, the other Keanu Reeves movie of 2008. Big mistake. Clichés, gratuity and a script as underdeveloped as it is poorly written run the show here. The storyline is completely uninteresting and predictable, and the ‘twist’ at the end of the film, as well as the strange moral epilogue that follows is painfully bad. There’s nothing royal about Street Kings

Detective Tom Ludlow (Keanu Reeves) is one badass motherfucker. He’s a hothead racist cop that knows no rules or limitations. He is also Captain Jack Wander’s (Forest Whitaker) mercenary. In the name of efficiency Wander sends Ludlow out on missions to kill criminals in cold blood then plant evidence to make it look like lethal force was necessary. Corruption is the name of the game - a good deal of Ludlow’s peers are fully aware of what is going on and more than willing to turn a blind eye. Things go pear-shaped though when Ludlow’s ex-partner Washington (Terry Crews) is murdered in a convenience store with Ludlow present. Ludlow becomes a suspect, and things become even more complicated when he finds out Washington was speaking with Captain Briggs (Hugh Laurie) of Internal Affairs, seemingly ratting him out. What follows is some telephone-book and shovel smacking violence as well as a disastrous web of corruption and back-stabbing.

There are two types of characters that Keanu Reeves can play well. Icy cool leather clad action heroes (The Matrix, Constantine) and offbeat and likable characters (Bill and Ted, Feeling Minnesota). The exception to this rule is when Keanu does his absolute best to succeed at the role, throws everything into it and it comes out in a wonderful jumble. See: Point Break and The Devil’s Advocate. Unfortunately Street Kings gives us cruise control wooden Keanu, who isn’t even unintentionally funny. He’s just plain bad. Keanu is over-the-top and a complete mismatch for his character. Perhaps the highlight of the film comes when Keanu, of Asian heritage no less, goes on a racist rant against a pair of Korean gangsters. It’s ridiculous. And he doesn’t seem like he even cares. But honestly who can blame him when you look at the mess the rest of this film is.

Not all films need to have strong themes, morals and messages. I’m fine settling on occasion for something with an interesting narrative and good characters. Unfortunately Street Kings is 0-for-everying. I’m still not sure what this film is about. It flirts with ideas of alcoholism, loss, racism, revenge, loyalty and ultimately the power of secrets. Nothing is explored, everything is dealt with superficially. The storyline is no more impressive. Fifteen minutes in I was already anticipating this film’s ultimate villain and the ‘climatic’ final scene which would come in turn. These aren’t my incredulous skills of narrative deduction, no, this is just common sense.

With a relatively impressive cast and a decent author upon which the story is based I expected much greater things from Street Kings. The best I can say about it is that it’s a very poor man’s L.A. Confidential. A homeless man’s L.A. Confidential maybe is more apt. It’s not as boring as The Black Dahlia, but it’s a hell of a lot less visually impressive. It comes down to this; Street Kings does a lot of things badly, and nothing in particular good. And generally that formula never leads to a decent film. Generally.

With some things, there is no doubt at all

The brilliance of John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt is one of these such things. A complex tale of morality that keeps the viewer (as well as the characters in the film) guessing all throughout the film, and beyond that. There’s nothing flashy about Doubt, the film is a completely unpretentious piece that succeeds on the immense strength of its performances and the depth of the questions it poses. Doubt may not be the best film of the year, although it’s definitely in the conversation, but you’d be hard pressed to find a more morally and intellectually stimulative film.

Doubt is essentially about three characters and the uncertainty and reservation that encompasses all of them. The first character is Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), a well-liked and respected Priest of a Catholic church in the Bronx, circa 1964. He also lends his services to the local Catholic school, where the intimidating headmistress Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) is feared by all students. Conflict erupts when Sister Aloysius begins to suspect that Father Flynn is having an ‘improper relationship’ with a male student. Sister James (Amy Adams), an innocent and borderline angelic history teacher at the school, is caught between the two as she tries to come to a conclusion beyond any doubt.

The sheer multitude of the questions posed by Doubt is as intoxicating as it is suffocating. Why does Sister Aloysius care so strongly about the matter? Is she merely acting on the best interests of one of her students, or is this just a power trip? What lies in the Father’s past? Does the final revelation of the film reveal the motives of the Father? Does it do so beyond a doubt? Like all of these questions, the great question of the film, did Father Flynn have an improper relationship with the student, is never given a straight answer. Ambiguity rules Doubt, and I for one am grateful for it. Doubt refuses to cave into the status quo, instead it opts to challenge the viewer and make us do something that so few films succeed in doing – make us think.

The beauty of Doubt lies in its subtleties. Just when we think we have a question answered, something changes our mind. But it isn’t a ‘Tyler Durden isn’t real!’ or a ‘Bruce Willis is actually dead!’ type of moment, no it’s much less restrained than that. Something as simple as an embrace between the Father and the student that might be a little too tender to be platonic. Doubt is full of these moments than can be analysed to death. Does Father Flynn’s infatuation with flowers suggest something about his sexuality? Yes it suggests something, but that’s what Doubt is all about. Suggestion, not finality. It’s fantastic.

I noticed that Doubt received four Golden Globe nominations for acting, yet no Best Film or Director nomination. I don’t think that’s right, but the film is being marketed on the basis of its strong performances. Getting the most hype is Meryl Streep, an early Oscar favourite. Is there any doubt as to the fact that Meryl Streep is the best actress in the business? No actor is as consistently versatile, involved and most importantly believable, with each character she chooses. Meryl Streep becomes Sister Aloysius. She’s scary, intimidating, proper, witty, cold, isolated and ultimately – vulnerable. It’s a brilliant display of the broad range of emotions in Streep’s arsenal. It’s a magnificent performance.

If Streep is the best actress in the business, Phillip Seymour Hoffman may be her male opposite. Hoffman has gone from the ‘guy you see all the time without really knowing who he is’ to an Oscar winner and acclaimed actor. There’s no question in my mind that Hoffman is the best versatile actor going around, just as Streep is on the female side. Look at the quality of performances he delivers in such a wide range of roles – Boogie Nights, 25th Hour, Capote, Owning Mahowny – all brilliant, all different. Hell, even Mission Impossible III he was good in. Here in Doubt he succeeds in making Father Flynn a believable character. He portrays the Father as a likable funny guy, someone that will make a joke at his own expense (one scene where he tells the boys what to do if they can’t get a girl is hilarious). As the film progresses he begins to show a darker side, and makes us believe in the possibility of a wrong-doing.

Perhaps upstaging them both is young Amy Adams in a memorable role. Caught between the heavyweights, Adams’ sheer innocence shines through. At times it feels like a halo is hovering over her head. Sister James is not a straight up character though, being surrounded by the cold Sister Aloysius begins to rub off on her. Adams’ portrayal is deep, complex and believable. She deserves all the accolades she receives. Finally in a William-Hurt-A History of Violence type of cameo – short but powerful – Viola Davis is memorable as the male student’s mother. Her screen-time is limited but makes an impact. Unfortunately the time is so limited that any award nomination is probably without merit.

Doubt isn’t quite a perfect film. The film builds and builds to a final confrontation between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn and the scene is honestly a little underwhelming. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good and well-acted scene, but with actors of the quality of Streep and Hoffman I was expecting something magnificent and had to settle for something merely good. That’s my only real qualm with the film, and on the basis of the brilliant performances and storyline that weaves and dodges through assuredness and uncertainty I think I can forgive it. Some films are easily digestible and forgotten about days later, while some require involvement and stay with you for weeks. There’s no doubt that this film falls into the latter.

A little too buttoned up

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a very good film. The script is very good, the acting very good and the directing likewise. That’s the problem though, everything is simply very good. There’s little to be found that you could label transcendent or extraordinary about this film. The film pulls us in and does a wonderful job of maintaining our interest, but it never succeeds in truly taking us to a higher place. Unlike the title character, the film never goes backward, but it doesn’t really go forward either. It starts off as a very good film and ends that way too.

Anyone who questions the plausibility of the movie is an idiot. It’s not supposed to be plausible. As the magical title suggests, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a fairytale. One thing that director David Fincher does superbly is maintain this fairytale feel throughout the film. The narration of the film (a common aspect of fairytales) and the occasional dry humour help maintain the fantastical nature of the film, and pleasantly reminds the viewer that we shouldn’t be taking this (and nor does it take itself) too seriously. We aren’t beaten over the head with humour though; when it comes it is subtle and appropriate.

The area where Button falls short is setting up the romance of the two main characters. I don’t buy for a second that a near perfect little girl could fall for a hideous beast, but if their was some evidence of attraction I’d be willing to buy into the premise for the sake of the fairytale. But there is no evidence. We go from Benjamin and Daisy being acquainted with each other, too madly in love with each other with no in-between. Why does Daisy feel this way about Benjamin? We get little indication of the attraction in the beginning and Daisy only begins to love Benjamin when he turns into Golden Boy Brad Pitt, which is another conversation.

The acting in Benjamin Button has been lavished with monumental praise. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are both early Oscar contenders. The praise is a little overdone. Blanchett, as always, is very solid in her role. Like everyone else in the film, she does a decent job with the New Orleans accent, and she makes us believe in Daisy. The so-called ‘revelation’ of the film though is that Brad Pitt can act. It’s hardly a revelation, Pitt has quietly been one of the best actors of his generation. He’s not quite Ed Norton or Kevin Spacey, but he’s the next rung down. Overshadowed by commercial big budget turns in Troy, Mr and Mrs Smith and Ocean’s Eleven, is the fact that Brad Pitt can really act. His roles in 12 Monkeys and of course Fight Club were both Oscar worthy. He’s versatile and he commands the screen. Benjamin Button isn’t Pitt’s finest work and it’s not even close. Sure he’s good in it, but he’s too low key, almost to the point of being boring. And it never really seems like he captures the essence of Benjamin’s character. The mark of a good film is often how good the supporting cast is, and in Benjamin Button it’s one of the highlights. The characters in the elderly home are wonderfully charismatic, and the performances in particular by the actors playing the respective roles of Benjamin’s father and his foster mother are brilliant.

Maybe the main talking point of the film has been the way it, and in particular Brad Pitt, looks. First of all, from an aesthetic standpoint the film looks phenomenal. The cinematography seems to capture each and every era that we pass through perfectly. We can tell with little degree of difficulty that we’ve moved from the swinging 50s to the freedom of the 60s. The make-up job on Brad Pitt is fantastic. As an old man he’s almost unrecognisable, but not to the degree that we can’t tell the character bears some resemblance to Pitt. It gets a little shaky when Benjamin reaches his 50s; Pitt looks a little too crusty, but other than that it’s smooth sailing. The most incredible moment of the film (and the one occasion where it might in fact take us to a higher place) comes when we see Benjamin in his late teens to early 20s, and he looks exactly like Brad Pitt just at that age. It’s amazing how impressive the job done on Brad Pitt is, the natural look achieved is incredible.

Some might complain of the lengthy nature of the film (clocks in at just under three hours), but the fact is that a good film can never go on for too long, and Benjamin Button is just that – a good film. The length doesn’t hamper the film, in fact a reduced running time would almost certainly have hampered it - at its length the story has time to breathe. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is not a perfect film by any means. There’s a few things that could be improved upon (I still don’t understand what the intended symbolism of Hurricane Katrina in the background was), but for the most part the film hits the mark and does so with poignancy. It's not quite Best Picture material, it lacks the extra something that The Departed and No Country for Old Men had in spades (and even Crash to a lesser degree), but lesser pictures have taken home the statue, some of which have not been very good films. And Benjamin Button may be just that, but I can't help but feel an opportunity was missed.

NFL picks Divisional Round

Last week (4-0) (Playoffs 4-0/Season 10-5-1)

Baltimore (+3) over TENNESSEE
The AFC has played out great for Baltimore. Of the five teams in the playoffs, the two that would give Baltimore genuine problems (Indy and San Diego, because of their ability to throw the deep ball) are either gone or are likely to be beaten this week. In fact, you could make the argument that the three teams the Ravens likely play to get to the Super Bowl (Miami, Tennessee, Pittsburgh) are their three best matchups in the entire playoffs. Baltimore own the run on defence, and Kerry Collins isn't going to beat them by himself with Ed Reed looming downfield. Baltimore 24 Tennessee 13

Arizona (+10) over CAROLINA
Taking the road team again. This is going to be a shootout. The Panthers will win, no doubt, but the Cardinals will go out with a bang. These teams played one of the better games of the season earlier on, and in terms of entertainment this is my pick as the game of the weekend. Carolina 37 Arizona 28

NEW YORK (-4) over Philadelphia
I still don't buy this Eagles team. They made plenty of mistakes against Minnesota, if the Vikes had say even Matt Cassel I think they win that game. The Eagles are a talented, strong on defence and special teams with a solid offence but with a bad coach. The Giants just don't make mistakes. They play hard, they play smart and they won't lose the game off their own back. I question the Eagles' ability to come out and win this one. New York 24 Philadelphia 17

PITTSBURGH (-6) over San Diego
Without a healthy and in-form LT how does San Diego reach double digits here. Really. Unlike the Colts, the Steelers have the speed to match Sproles - the Chargers won't eat the Steelers up on the ground like they did the Colts. This here is the lock of the week, I don't see a scenario where the Chargers win this one. They're a mediocre team that lucked into the playoffs and a perfect matchup, with some favourable refereeing to boot. Love the Steelers here. Pittsburgh 21 San Diego 6