2026 NFL Playoffs---WILDCARD WEEK

         I refer the reader to previous articles on my NFL playoff predictions for the philosophy that guides me.  In a nutshell, the teams that win the NFL playoffs are teams that can complete long passes.  The best defensive teams rarely win.  Teams with run-based offenses never win.  What you must do to win a Superbowl is throw the ball down the field.

 

           For this reason, my primary tool is a number I call AYP, or “adjusted yards per pass.”  This is the number of yards gained passing during the season divided by the number of passes thrown and adjusted downward for the number of interceptions thrown.  A very good team will have an AYP over 7 for the season.  An AYP of 6 is pretty good.  Teams with an AYP under 5 do not play games in the month of February.

 

          Since AYP can also be calculated for a team’s pass defense, I do so, mostly so I can look at the extremes: who has a good pass defense and who has a bad one.  I also glance at point differentials over the course of the season.

 

          Finally, I note how each playoff team did in blowouts (defined as a game decided by 11 or more points), during the season.  When one good team beats another good team with a last-second field-goal, it may mean they got lucky. But when a good team beats another NFL team by 28, it tells me something.

 

         We start with the three categories of teams.

 

         With 14 teams in the playoffs, the occasional weakling may sneak through to the second round, but they have no real shot at playing in February.  The PRETENDERS in 2026 are the Broncos, Steelers, Chargers, Bears, Panthers, and  49ers.

 

         COULD GET LUCKY teams are those that have something going for them and could get to the Super Bowl with a few breaks here and there.  This year, there are four: the Jaguars, Texans, Eagles, and Packers.

 

         CONTENDERS are the best of the best, and this year they include the Patriots, Bills, Seahawks, and Rams. All of them expect to win the Super Bowl, and they will be disappointed if they don’t at least get there. 

 

L.A. Rams (-10.5) @ Carolina Panthers

 

         The Rams present an AYP of 7.2, best in the NFC.  The Panthers, with a 5.2 AYP have the worst number in the 14-team tournament.   The game looks very much like a blow-out, and the Rams are 8 – 0 in blow-outs this season, while the Panthers are 1-5.  And did I mention the Rams have outscored opponents by more than ten points per game while the Panthers have been outscored by four points per game?

 

         On the other hand, Carolina BEAT the Rams 31-28 on November 30.  This was the beginning of a disappointing last six games for the Rams where they went 3-3 (other losses to the Falcons and Seahawks) and gave up 28 ppg for those final six.

 

         This is not my favorite game of the weekend, and asking a fading Rams squad to cover a large spread like this is maybe asking too much.  Still, the Rams CAN throw the ball down the field and the Panthers don’t belong here, so I’m laying the points.  One thing I know is that the Rams can score the points---they scored 518 of them this year, highest in the league.

 

Green Bay Packers @ Chicago Bears (-1.5)

 

         Green Bay’s injuries late in the season have been a problem.  Micah Parsons is out until next year and Jordan Love ended December with a concussion.  The Pack lost their last four games and the last two were blowouts by the Vikings and Ravens.

 

         Love has cleared the concussion protocols, however, and will play.  While Green Bay may not go deep into the tournament, the return of Love should be enough to get them past the Bears.  The Packers’ AYP is 7.1, mostly due to Love’s excellent season, while the Bears’ AYP is only 6.3.

 

         The Bears are here for two reasons.  First, their division, which looked so scary last year, is not nearly as strong as it was, allowing the Bears to rise to the top.  Second, while Chicago’s pass defense is only 9^th best among playoff teams, they posted 23 interceptions this year, and some happened to come in close games in the last minutes.

 

         The Bears and Packers split their two games, each winning at home.

         

         The wrong team is favored.  Green Bay will win outright.

 

Buffalo Bills (-1.5) @ Jacksonville Jaguars

 

         These are both good teams, and either is capable of getting to the Superbowl.

 

         Jacksonville has won eight in a row and six of them were blowouts.  They have beaten their opponents by eight points per game and they may have the best pass defense in the NFL (partly because of 22 interceptions).   They are 13-4, one win better than Buffalo’s 12-5.

 

         Buffalo is close in all the secondary categories I look at.  They outscored opponents by 7 ppg (the Jags margin was 8ppg), and they were 6 – 1 in blowouts (Jags were 7 – 1).

 

         The major difference is that Buffalo can make the big plays.  Their AYP, thanks to Josh Allen, is 7.0, best in the AFC.  Jacksonville’s is only 6.1. 

 

         I will be on Buffalo, laying the points, but I expect a close game that could go either way.

 

San Francisco 49ers @ Philadelphia Eagles (-4.5)

 

         An offensive tackle is not usually viewed as THE key to a team’s offence, but Trent Williams is that guy for the 49ers, and it appears he may be too injured to play.  Without an effective offence, San Francisco is in trouble because they have gotten this far by outscoring their opponents.  Their pass defense is among the worst in the playoffs.

 

         Both teams have outscored opponents by about 3.5 ppg and have recorded more blowouts than blown-outs.  Philly has a meaningful edge in the AYP game (6.6 to 6.1) however.  That, the 49er’s weak pass defense, and the injury situation, lead me to take the Eagles and lay the points.

 

L.A. Chargers @ N.E. Patriots (-3.5)

 

         This is one of the easier choices.  The Pats dominate in almost every category.

 

         The Pats outscore opponents by 10 ppg; the Chargers beat theirs by only 1.5.  New England is 7 – 0 in blowouts, while the Chargers are only 5 – 4.  Most significantly, the Pats have an 8.1 AYP, best in the tournament, and the Chargers’ AYP is a mere 5.7.  New England also scored the most points of any AFC playoff team, and the Chargers scored the least.

 

         The Patriots will cover with room to spare.

 

Houston Texans (-3.5) @ Pittsburgh Steelers

 

         This too looks like an easy cover for the favorite.

 

         Houston started the season at 3 – 5, then won their last nine games.  They have not lost since November 2^nd, when the Broncos took them 18 – 15 on a field goal on the last play of regulation.  Along the way, the Texans blew out five teams and never got blown out themselves (Pittsburgh was just 3 – 3 in blowouts). They also outscored their opponents by 6.5 ppg and the Steelers outscored theirs by half a point per game.

 

         Houston’s AYP of 6.1 does not suggest they will be playing in the Superbowl, but the Steelers are even lower, at 5.8.  Finally, the Texans have given up the fewest points (295) of any team in the AFC.

 

         I’m taking Houston and laying the points.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

Democratic Republics vs. The Creepozoids

         When somebody like Maduro (or Assad, or Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein) gets taken out by the U.S. or some alliance of democratic states, one complaint you always hear is some variation of the how-dare-we argument.  Venezuela, or Libya, or whatever, is a sovereign state and this guy is their leader, and we have no right to kill or arrest another country’s leader. And if we can kill so-and-so, why can’t they come here and kill our president?  What’s the difference?

 

         Well, here’s the difference.  If you killed Vito Genevese, the 1950’s mafia boss of New York City, nobody would care except for a few people who might have been depending on him for a paycheck.  But if you killed Dwight Eisenhower, the nation would go to war against you.  Even people who hated Eisenhower would come after you because in attacking him, you were attacking our nation.  We elected him, so you were attacking us.  Even today, when there are plenty of Americans who hate Donald Trump, a foreign power killing him would be viewed as an assault on America, and not on the individual named Donald Trump.  Even those who would be happy he’s gone would understand that Trump is a symbol of our electoral system.

 

         But Maduro and Saddam and the various other monsters around the world are symbols of nothing.  They come to power and they maintain their power through force and weaponry and torture and bribes and phony elections and by making deals with other homicidal creeps like themselves.  And when they’re gone, nobody misses them.

 

         Eight million people fled Venezuela during Maduro’s reign, and today those people are dancing in the streets and kissing each other in cities around the world.  The same celebrations occurred when Qaddafi went down, and Milosevic, and all the others.  The issue is never how do we get them back?  The issue is always how do we make sure they and their henchmen never sneak in here again?

 

         Pundits and columnists (e.g., Thomas Friedman of the NYT), will sometimes tell us that totalitarian governments like China have an advantage over democratic republics like the U.S. because they can “get things done” or implement policies “more efficiently.”  An arguable point, though government by edict can sometimes produce ridiculous results (huge empty Chinese cities), that could never occur in a politically-free society.

 

         However, for all the “inefficiency” of political fights among elected officials in a republic, there are enormous advantages in having leaders who were put in place by popular support.  Having the citizenry behind you means you are “legitimate,” even to those who opposed you or even to those who think you are scum.  And this legitimacy is a weapon that can and should be used more often against the Maduros and Ayatollahs of the world.  When dictators and strongmen appear, we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because of our history and familiarity with tyrants, monarchs and conquerors.  This is the head of their government?  Well, who are we to judge?  Maybe this is how the people in that country like it. 

 

         But they don’t like it, of course.  They don’t like the guy who grabs all the wealth and tells you how to pray and always gets the best cuts of meat and the backstage passes to the Zeppelin concert and who, when you object, cuts your head off.  A thousand years ago, or even three hundred years ago, this kind of ruler was usually the only option, but we’re past that, or we should be.  We had the Enlightenment, remember?  And the American Revolution.  There are elected parliaments all over the world now.  The entire world wants the bedrock principle of politics to be the consent of the governed.  So why do we tolerate hoodlums who torture their critics or seize property that doesn’t belong to them or massacre people from religions they don’t like or make women walk around in bags?

 

         These things take time, I suppose.  The Brits passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and abolished slavery throughout the Empire in 1833, and the world basically laughed at them.  Those crazy Englishmen!  No more slavery?   Are they kidding?

 

         But the abolitionists and Abe Lincoln and William Wilberforce eventually won the battle, at least the battle for the world’s moral consciousness.  Today, there are still plenty of slaves around the globe, of various traditional and modern varieties, but the difference is that nobody defends the institution of slavery.  Also, if we catch a slaver, he will sometimes get prosecuted and go to the chokey.  Progress has been made.

 

         Removing the creepozoids, however, has taken a long time and will probably take a lot longer.  There are still people who, faced with the U.S. extraction and arrest of Nicolas Maduro, find reasons to object.  Many of these are creepozoids themselves, of course, like Putin or the Cuban apparatchiks or Xi Jinping, or wannabe-totalitarians like Bernie Sanders and Mamdani, but the point is that they exist.  They think allowing Chavez/Maduro to destroy a nation like Venezuela is a good thing, and that expressing such a view is permissible in polite company.  

 

         It shouldn’t be.  Just as nobody defends the institution of slavery, nobody should defend the monsters in the world with “sovereignty” notions that should have disappeared centuries ago.  It is time to start shaming the defenders of these tyrants for their moral ignorance.  It is time to make it clear that the defenders of the creepozoids are little better than the creepozoids themselves.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki