I Wish I Could Quit You, Tom Brady

Updated, No-Trade Mock Draft

2011-04-22T17:18:00.000-07:00

Now this isn't exactly what's going to happen, because there are inevitably going to be a few trades. But in the scenario of any single team being in their starting point, here is my best guess:

1. Carolina- Cam Newton - QB
2. Denver- Marcel Dareus - DT
3. Buffalo- Von Miller - OLB
4. Cincinnati - AJ Green - WR
5. Arizona - Patrick Peterson - CB
6. Cleveland - Nick Fairley - DT
7, San Francisco - Blaine Gabbert - QB
8. Tennessee - Robert Quinn - DE
9. Dallas - Cameron Jordan - DE
10. Washington - Julio Jones - WR
11. Houston - Aldon Smith - OLB
12. Minnesota - DeQuan Bowers - DE
13. Detroit - Jimmy Smith- CB
14. St. Louis - Cory Liuget - DT
15. Miami Dolphins - Mike Pouncey - OL
16. Jacksonville - JJ Watt - DE
17. New England - Muhammed Wilkerson - DE
18. San Diego - Tyron Smith - OT
19. NY Giants - Gabe Carimi - OT
20. Tampa Bay - Ryan Kerrigan - DE
21. Kansas City - Anthony Castonzo - OT
22. Indianapolis - Nate Solder -OT
23. Philadelphia - Prince Amukamara - CB
24. New Orleans - Justin Houston- DE
25. Seattle - Jake Locker - QB
26. Baltimore - Cam Heyward - DE
27. Atlanta- Adrian Clayborn- DE
28. New England - Brooks Reed OLB
29. Chicago - Danny Watkins - OG
30. NY Jets - Phil Taylor - DT
31. Pittsburgh- Aaron Williams - CB
32. Green Bay - Mark Ingram -RB

It Must be Spring--He's Knocking Out Mock Drafts.

2011-02-18T15:41:00.000-08:00

Here's a First Shot at Round 1 of April's Draft. Inevitably, things will come up that change the spots, and I'll end up modifying this at least a couple of times. Big things to expect:

1) Loads of the DE/OLB guys going in Round 1, especially in the 10-25 range.
2) Not much for the skill guys. Probably only 2 QBs, 2-3 receivers and only 1-2 RBs.
3) Expect a handful of the defenders to really jump when they inevitably have monster workouts, namely Robert Quinn, Corey Liuget, and Aldon Smith.
4) Most of the teams that need a QB will figure out they can wait until Round 2 to get a guy like Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker, rather than spend a top 10 pick on a slightly lesser gamble. The others, well, there's a reason why they pick in the top 10.
5) Things are going to get real congested between 15 and 25, because most of those teams are looking for the same 3-4 DEs and OLBs.

1. Carolina- Nick Fairley- DT- Auburn
2. Denver -Patrick Patterson - CB- LSU
3. Buffalo- Cam Newton- QB- Auburn
4. Cincinnati-AJ Green- WR- Georgia
5. Arizona-Robert Quinn- DE/OLB
6. Cleveland-Marcel Dareus- DT- Alabama
7. San Francisco-Blaine Gabbert- QB-Missouri
8. Tennessee-Von Miller- OLB- Texas A&M
9. Dallas- Prince Amukamara-CB-Nebraska
10. Washington-Corey Liuget-DT- Illinois
11. Houston- Akeem Ayers- OLB- UCLA
12. Minnesota- Jimmy Smith- CB- Colorado
13. Detroit- Nate Solder- OT- Colorado
14. St. Louis- Julio Jones- WR- Alabama
15. Miami- Gabe Carimi- OT/OG-Wisconsin
16. Jacksonville- Ryan Kerrigan- DE- Purdue
17. New England- Aldon Smith- DE- Missouri
18. San Diego- JJ Watt- DE- Wisconsin
19. NY Giants- Mark Ingram- RB- Alabama
20. Tampa Bay- Adrian Clayborne-DE- Iowa
21. Kansas City-Justin Houston - OLB
22. Indy- Tyron Jackson- OT- USC
23. Philadelphia- Mike Pouncey- OG-Florida
24. New Orleans-Adrian Clayborn- DE
25. Seattle- Torrey Smith- WR- Maryland
26. Baltimore-Cam Jordan-DE- Cal
27. Atlanta- Rahim Moore- S-UCLA
28. New England- Muhammed Wilkerson- DE- Temple
29. Chicago- Jonathan Baldwin- WR- Pitt
30. NY Jets- Phil Taylor- DT-Baylor
31. Pittsburgh- Anthony Costanzo- OT- BC
32. Green Bay- Benjamin Ijalana- OG/OT- Villanova

Weekend at Paulie's

2011-01-31T20:08:00.000-08:00

It's hard not to look across the Conservative landscape and not try to pick out the likely challenger for 2012 and Barry O. That being said, the choices are pretty much a combination of the fringy deranged paranoids (Palin, Bachmann), the washed up self-parodies (Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney) and the melba-toast lingerers (Huckabee, Pawlenty). Realistically, any of these options are basically a sacrificial lamb, because there's no way they'd beat Obama in a head to head matchup.

Lingering in the background is the young Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. He's a young, good looking guy, with facially moderate views, and no major skeletons thus far (I'm assuming there isn't a "wide stance" or Argentine Newscaster around the corner, but perhaps that's too generous). The interesting thing here, is the way he's being presented--the new economic expert. Within the last two years he's submitted his own version of the Federal Budget, and delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union. This cat's setting himself to be the rising star of the GOP over the next few years and the main player for them in 2016.

The Conservative set has tried to cast him as a not just a fairly smart guy, but as a straight up expert. The problem with this, is that he really just isn't. I think of it like "Weekend At Bernie's," where the two pals end up with a dead body that they have to convince everyone is really still alive and having a good time. Sure it didn't make sense, but hey, it was easier just to roll with it and throw Bernie on the boat for a spin. Is our man Ryan an economist? No. Does he have anything beyond a BA at decent school? No. Does he wear sunglasses at parties? Hmm....

Hell, by now he's gotten good at the "I'm actually very smart, even if I actually am not making any sense, because I smile a lot and sound calm." If we were watching this on Telemundo, we'd be all set if we couldn't translate and just assumed that what he was explaining wasn't 200% made up jibberish. He was talking recently in his State of the Union reply about how bad of shape Greece, Ireland, and the UK are now (presumedly because of high taxes, over regulation, and high government spending to support a derelict populace, etc.). The problem with this, are that Greece's problem was a combination of a decades-long fraudulent government scheme to hide debts, corruption, and an under developed economy. Ireland's problem was a lack of any meaningful banking regulation, wild speculation by investment houses, and a huge property bubble collapse. The UK is probably the most relevant comparison for his point, but it's important to note that the cost-cutting measures he's supporting haven't generated the promised fixes and they were, as of 2006, the UK was recognized by the Heritage Foundation as having more "Economic Freedom" than the US (5th Highest, overall).

Inherently, the response he's looking for is "Damn! He's talking about multiple countries and even comparing them. This must be important and smart!" The problem with all this, of course, is that it's pure hogwash, and the numbers just don't make any sense. Comparing these countries is basically akin to say that Detroit and Las Vegas are both struggling for the same reason--too many street lights.

Similarly, the whole budget proclamation is all about broad generalizations, with some wild speculations tied to made-up numbers. There's a pattern of basically using some numbers to make half a point, and then just making up the rest (Thus, a 50% increase in revenue divided by a 10% shift from the public sector to private sector= Obama's a Socialist). That, or they just don't exist, because he didn't actually, as the economic experts say, "use any actual numbers or do any math."

Anyways, the real takeaway is that this guy's not going away any time soon. He's going to emerge as the inexplicable economic theorist of the Conservative political class, largely by default. But the fact that we're being sold this story of his great financial mind shouldn't cloud the fact that he's really just some guy. He's alive, which gives him a leg up on Bernie, but they're bringing the same amount of legit material to the table.

The NCAA Playoff Blueprint

2011-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:00

Now that we've reached the New Year and the peak of Bowl Season, it's time to hear the annual chants for a playoff. "Do it for Boise and the TCUs of the World!" we hear. And I get that. Now realistically, I'm not a big believer in the argument that Boise and TCU would be able to really challenge the elite teams in a game that mattered. As much as I was impressed with TCU yesterday against Wisconsin, it seems fairly apparent that: (a) Wisconsin on its best day was probably 2-3 Touchdowns worse than Auburn or Oregon; (b) Wisconsin had no business losing that game, and only did because of a bizarre strategy of throwing the ball waaaayyy to much when its huge advantage was pounding the ball on the ground. Anyway, I digress.

Regardless of that game, the playoff is an entirely workable system that we can use--and still keep the bowl system in place. I get that the NCAA and the member schools love the bowls as a huge moneymaker and to really highlight the sport. Fine. Yet because the NCAA has opted against instituting a playoff, they come off as arrogant and unresponsive to public sentiment. (Note: I recognize that the NCAA is, and has always been, arrogant and unresponsive, but there's no need to emphasize the point.)

In working this out, it's imperative to keep the bowl system in place, protect the relevance of conference plays and championships, and not just add another 4 weeks to the season. If a team has to cut an early non-conference smackdown, so be it (so Oregon may need to let go of the 2011 match-up with Portland State that it won this year 69-0).

The Plan:
Everything is normal through the week of Thanksgiving. Everyone can play their rival game just like they have. The next weekend, teams play their conference championship games, if they have one. In the week after all conference championships, we go to the polls and grab the top 8 teams. Those are the playoff schools, and generally this will be similar to the BCS schools as it stands now.

The next week, normally the first Saturday in December, we play the first round of games, 1 vs. 8, etc. The next week, we have the semifinals, and we're still only about mid-December. By this point, we have a clearly defined Championship matchup, plus there are still 2 weeks to get the Major Bowl games filled. To simplify, you can even prearrange the rankings to certain bowl games in advance, with the only changes being the teams who make it to the Championship. Or just set the most preferable match-ups. Everyone who wasn't in the top 8 is unaffected by this, and just goes to the normal bowl game they would have anyway (Helloooo Alamo Bowl!). You really need to have at least 2 weeks before the bowl games to let the tickets be distributed, hotel rooms booked, etc.

How would this look? Let's play it out:

December 4, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (8) Arkansas; (2) Oregon vs. (7) Oklahoma; (3) TCU vs. (6) Ohio State; (4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford.

December 11, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (5) Stanford; (2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU

January 1, 2011: Fiesta Bowl-(3) TCU vs. (7) Oklahoma; Rose Bowl-(4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford; Orange Bowl- (8) Arkansas vs. (6) Ohio State

January 3, 2011: National Championship: (1) Auburn vs. (2) Oregon

And there it is.

Week 11 (AKA Pats/Colts and Other Less Important Stuff)

2010-11-17T18:58:00.000-08:00

Pats v. Colts:
And here we are, the yearly installation of what has become the most historically significant rivalry since Bird-Magic. Brady's Pats and Manning's Colts stand as the two top 3 franchises of the last 15 years (with Pittsburgh), with Brady and Manning inarguably the top two players of that era.

For this week, New England seems to have the overall better squad and is well-served by a cold-weather Foxboro afternoon. The Pats should be able to win the up front battles, both on offense and defense, setting up a better chance to succeed in the passing games. Look for the Pats to try to pound the undersized Colt defense with Mankins, Light, a combination of Crumpler and Gronkowski. By hammering consistently with Green-Ellis, the play action should be effective. Brady's pass protection has been excellent lately, and it should continue--sealing the deal with short and intermediate routes.

The Colts have little choice but to try to spread the Pats out on defense, and go after the weak links in pass coverage. They're going to put as much pressure as possible on Kyle Arrington and James Sanders, since they're both liabilities in coverage. Wayne will get his, even though the Pats will try to key on him and force the secondary receivers to make plays. Look for Pat Chung to lock down the tight end Tamme and raise hell in the run game. Also, we'll probably see more Gary Guyton this week in place of Spikes since he's faster and much better in coverage.
Pats, 27-20

San Diego v. Denver:
Does anyone know whether Denver's not crappy? Hmm...I think not. I'm guessing this week will look a lot more like the Oakland 59-14 loss than last week's bizarre win over KC. San Diego looks tough, albeit flawed.

The Broncos really don't have an answer for San Diego's pass game, even though Matthews looks like kind of a stiff. He'll get better, but probably not in 2010. Even if Denver plays nickel the entire game, they can't get any pressure and the coverage will inevitably break down. The Bronco offense is actually very similar to San Diego's but the Charger defense is still a few steps better.
Chargers, 30-16

Oakland v. Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh's injuries have really killed them lately. Their offensive line is in shambles, and their front 3 in the 3-4 have taken major hits with Aaron Smith and Keisel missing time. In a normal, healthy universe, this game, at Pittsburgh, should be about a 24-13 Steeler win. But...

...the Steelers aren't healthy and the Raiders are a team well-suited to take them on. The Raider front 7 is a physical, talented unit that is going to give the Steeler offense a ton of trouble. Seymour should have a monster game--7 tackles, 2-3 sacks. On the other hand, the Raider offense is ok, but probably not good enough up front to really cause major problems. And the passing game won't see much success. If McFadden can have some success, they could make some plays with a loosened up front 7. It's going to be a close one, but I like the Steeler defense just a little more.
Steelers, 16-13.

NYG v. Philadelphia:
This game is obviously going to be determined by the ability of the Giant front 7 to control Vick. If they can force Vick to stay in the pocket and throw with pressure, the Giants can probably pull it out. If Vick is able to move and make plays, Philly wins by 10 points. The Giants need to win this game with their offense--grind it out and keep the Eagle offense off the field. Philly's defense is more opportunistic than it is really a shut-down unit, so the Giants should be able to put up points if they can avoid turnovers.

We can't put too much into the Redskins game last week. Washington flat out quit early and is a terrible match trying to cover a fast team. The Giants have to commit a constant double to DeSean Jackson and force Vick to read progressions through the other receivers. And, they have to--HAVE TO--wrap up and make tackles when they can. Almost every big play against the Redskins last week involved a broken sloppy tackle by a broken sloppy team. Another thing to watch out for--the Vick injury potential. These games against big aggressive defenses are the types where he could take a hard hit and miss some time.
Eagles, 27-24

Week 9 NFL Picks

2010-11-06T14:42:00.000-07:00

Week 9 NFL Picks:

New England at Cleveland:
The Pats are playing basically like a better version of their 2001-2002 Super Bowl club (Note: This isn't to say they're a Super Bowl team in the making, because that first Super Bowl was a crazy run with multiple upsets). Safe, extremely efficient, but able to make big plays a handful of times each game. The defense has improved immensely from the start of the year, and they look like they have rookie difference makers in Cunningham and McCourty.

In this matchup with Cleveland, the Pats should be able to load up against the run and force the Cleveland receivers to make plays on their own. Problem is, the Brown receivers can't make plays and the QB has NEVER seen the kinds of zone looks Belichick will put out there. The Pats offense will be able to grind out some points, and probably break a big pass with Hernandez or Tate. Probably not a ton of points, since New England won't play a risky offensive scheme.
Pats, 27-13

Miami at Baltimore
I'm really not a big Miami fan. That being said, Miami should be able to create some problems with the pass game in the same way that they always have given the Jets problems. Baltimore's problem is going to be Marshall making big plays on the crappy Raven DBs and Bess converting on 3rd Downs. I'd be surprised if Miami ran for more than 75 yards.

But Baltimore is going to score, since the Dolphins have a pretty good pass rush and corner in Vontae Davis. Baltimore's about a 5-6 point favorite. I like Baltimore to win, but not to cover.
Ravens, 20-16

Chargers v. Texans
How is this not a shootout, I first thought. But here's the thing: the Charger D is better than you think. And has anyone confirmed that the Texans have any heart? No evidence as of yet. Even at home, I like the Bolts. Big day for Rivers against a crappy Houston defense.
Chargers, 27-20

Giants at Seahawks
Are the Seahawks actually good? Hard to tell, since their wins are a little hollow-looking. I don't see it, and losing big to Oakland doesn't help their case. The Giants are for real, even if their wins are a little soft as well.
Giants, 24-10

Week 7 NFL Picks

2010-10-22T21:40:00.000-07:00

Week 7 NFL Picks

Here's a look at a few of the weekend games. I'm not going to get into the obvious games, since there's no use wasting space on why Baltimore will beat a 2-14 in the making Bills club.

Pats at Chargers:
Why do we think the Chargers aren't crappy? They play decent at home, awful on the road, and haven't beaten anyone worth a damn. And that was when they were healthy. And now come the suddenly rejuvenated Pats coming off two solid wins over Miami and Baltimore. The pass defense for New England is still a work in progress, but the front 7 has gotten pretty solid in a hurry. Jermaine Cunningham is a baller. The difference is that Brady and the Pats offense is going to overwhelm San Diego's defense. And San Diego's special teams will hurt them, just like they have every game so far.
Pats, 34-20.

Bengals v. Falcons:
Part of me thinks the Falcons are kind of shitty. They just aren't physical enough to win on a consistent basis, especially with teams who can bang on them with a decent offensive balance. Cincinnati might just have enough to pull it out, especially if they run Benson about 28 times. Nobody's really giving them a chance, and I while I see picking the Falcons, I can't figure out why EVERYBODY'S picking Atlanta. Here's the other thing: Cincy should be able to play single coverage on the Atlanta WRs with their corners, and load up with extra guys in the box. This should be a pretty low-scoring, close, and pretty ugly affair.
Bengals, 16-13.

Redskins v. Bears:
The question, as it is every week, is whether the Bears O-Line can keep Cutler alive long enough to score a few points. The Chicago D is good, not great. That being said, McNabb is so damn inaccurate he's going to struggle in the large number of third and longs Chicago's going to force. It's probably close, but Chicago wins it at home. In DC, the Redskins probably win it.
Bears, 17-13.

Eagles v. Titans:
I really love this matchup. Good teams. But everybody's banged up. The problem is that Desean Jackson's gone, their LT Peters is gone, and Tennesee's D-Line's going to work them over hard up front. Without Jackson, the Eagles are going to struggle to move the ball all day long. On the other side, the Titans offense has Chris Johnson and not much else. Vince Young is out, but I suspect that against a team like Philly he's more a liability than Kerry Collins because the Eagles will bait him into bad throws all day. The fact that Philly's only impressive win was at home against a Falcon team that looks like a fringe playoff team gives me pause.
Titans, 20-16.

A Sunday of Fresh Starts

2010-10-18T21:03:00.000-07:00

This Sunday saw two remarkable rebirths, one all together new and the other a long overdue return to a better place. Don Draper, he of the lost and found mojo, took the only road offering a clean break from the last few years in making it official with his Canadian flame. And, back in Foxboro, the newest Patriot Deion Branch made the long overdue return to Brady's side running 15 yard crossing patterns in the guttiest win the Pats have had in years. Did they find the entire solution to everything that's happened? Probably not. But it's clear each jumped at the only chance they had to make it back.

The Mad Men season finale left the lady and I searching for why Don inexplicably signed on to marry the Secretary du jour, Megan. For chrissakes Don what the hell are you thinking? What about the Doc? Wait--is this actually a dream sequence? No? Oh shit. Don's going to marry that goddamn secretary with the janky teeth (Side note: If you're still hot with janky teeth, you're really, really hot.) This can't work.

But wait.

Why the hell not? If he ends up running with the Doc, he's literally going to spend the next 20 years on the therapist's couch trying to come to terms with a past from which it's probably best to just run. And she knows all the things that are just going to linger like cigarette stains on a mod couch. Maybe it's the mature, healthy approach to handling his issues, but taking these things head on just isn't the way Draper rolls. Hey, he's not perfect.

With Megan, at least there was a chance to get away from the last few years. Maybe she'll turn out to be a social-climbing snake or a closet sociopath like Betty. But she's the only real option to just kick things off completely free of prior restraints. Faye wanted to conquer Don's issues, but Megan just doesn't care. Who's right? Who knows. In the end it doesn't matter. The one person who needed to resolve the issues was never going to, so why keep beating the dead horse.

In New England, the return of Deion Branch marked the end of an unfortunate odyssey of 4 lost years and probably 2 sacrificed titles. I remember when Branch started holding out and the whole situatuon became bizarrely hostile out of nowhere. New England loved Branch, and Branch loved New England. He was a team-first guy, a worker, and didn't need a lot of publicity. But at the same time, what made the relationship so perfect--the team-oriented pay structure the Pats have long observed--ultimately limited the adoration he could receive. He forced demands the team wasn't going to meet, and in the end was sent to a Seattle club with a system that just didn't fit. Seattle wanted their star receiver, and paid for one, but Branch just wasn't that guy. And deep down, he must have known.

Without taking the analogy too far, Branch's Seattle downfall aligns perfectly with the train wreck period we saw last year for Don. Like Branch, Don had his chance to be his own man. Both were free of what had seemingly been perfect situations gone awry. (It's important here to differentiate Betty in reality as opposed to an idealized version Don thought he had early on: gorgeous, non-threatening, and adoring. When things went to hell, she started hitting .333.) And both certainly had some decent moments sewing the oats and getting the prestige they sought. Sure Don won a Clio and had some good moments in cabs, and Branch made some serious money with a sporadically good team.

At the end of it all, though, where were they? Draper's mojo was so far gone he'd become a connoisseur of the NYC hooker circuit, either getting a package deal with Lane or getting slapped on his own. Branch was an unwanted part of what became a bottom-dweller who didn't care about his chemistry with Brady in 2003.

The ability of each to figure out where they went wrong--Draper straying too far from a safe and adoring female and Branch leaving a team where he could play his style and maximize his talents--was what saved them. We always have seen Don as the great womanizer, but it only really worked in the context of his own stability at home. Branch's brilliance on certain routes masked the fact that he was small and didn't run long patterns. As it turned out, each had a chance at the life raft on the same day, and grabbed it as fast as possible. Good thing, because it may have been the last chance for both.

The unfortunate part of all this, as that poor bastard Henry barked the other night, is that life doesn't just start over when you want. Draper's older and divorced, the kids are older and moving to Rye, and the firm with his name on the door is damn near going under. Branch is 31, with too many miles on the tires, and a team that has declined since the halcyon days of 2004 and 2005. But it offers the chance to move on to a better place, and that simply couldn't have happened until now.

There's no way to know how things will play out for either of them, although the earliest signs are decent. Branch looked great against the Ravens and we all felt a lot better about things seeing Megan's calm handling of the spilled milkshake. Even if things don't pan out, though, each of the new starts offered the only chance at a better future for the two. At very least, now we can root for them.

2010 NFL Forecast

2010-09-08T20:11:00.001-07:00

Thursday marked the start of the NFL Season, so it seems time to actually make the 2010 NFL Forecast, this time from 32 to one. I actually had written some bits on all the teams, but it didn't save correctly and I was too damn angry to write anymore. But here's the rankings on things to start, and some quick notes.

Quick Points:

I really like Green Bay, Baltimore, and Dallas. They seem like the three with the highest upside.
I don't understand the fixation with Miami. They're decent, but not great and have a schedule that will leave them at 7-9. People get hung up about Marshall, but was anyone actually nervous about the Bronco passing game last year?
The Jets aren't the Super Bowl contenders they made themselves out to be.
If the Pats hadn't taken the personnel hits they have so far (Mankins, Bodden, Ty Warren), I'd put have put them in the top 4. But losing 3 of your top 10 players before week 10 is tough to overcome. As it is, they probably win the division but it's hard to see them making it too far in the postseason because of the young defense. Huge year for Brady and Moss.
I'm saying Aaron Rodgers for MVP. He could throw for 35 TDs for a team that goes 11 or 12 wins.
Seattle and Buffalo are going to be effing terrible. But at least next year's draft has solid QBs, which both need desperately.
Not overly impressed with New Orleans or Minnesota the other night. New Orleans should have won that game by touchdowns, considering it was a home game against a heavily undermanned Minnesota club. They need to be a little more crisp on offense.
Minny needs some wideouts to step up. They can't rely on Shiancoe to make all the plays in the passing game. People rip on Favre for being old and kind of a hassle, but the two throws he made over the middle to Shiancoe are ones only about 10 guys in the league can make.
I like Cincy and Pittsburgh more than most. Cincinnati could be a top 8 team if things work out well. Pittsburgh, if they can stay healthy and in contention while Roethlisberger's out, isn't substantially different from the Super Bowl team of 2 years ago. They'll be tough if in contention in December. Brutal division, counting those two and Baltimore.
I'm not as sold on the NFC East being as brutal as people make it out to be. Philly and the Giants have substantial flaws, and the Dallas could be due for a run of injuries. They'll all beat the hell out of each other.

32) Seattle

31) Buffalo

30)Tampa Bay

29) St. Louis

28) Cleveland

27) Denver

26) Chicago

25) Oakland

24) Arizona

23) Detroit

22) Jacksonville

21) Miami

20) Kansas City

19) Washington

18) Carolina

17) NY Giants

16) Philadelphia

15) Atlanta

14) San Diego

13) Tennessee

12) San Francisco

11) Pittsburgh

10) Houston

9) Minnesota

8) NY Jets

7) Cincinnati

6) New England

5) New Orleans

4) Indianapolis

3) Dallas

2) Baltimore

1) Green Bay

Preseason Football and Preseason Blogging

2010-08-21T09:34:00.000-07:00

Time to get back into blogging training camp! Some quick notes from the last couple of games, nationally aired.

Pats vs. Falcons

If you're the Pats, you've got to love the way the offensive skill players are looking right now. They look like they're a solid 4 deep for wideouts plus the TEs. Moss looks fast and like he's going to get after it. Good sign for August. It's easy to forget Moss was playing with a pretty messed up shoulder for most of last season.
It's remarkable that Welker is already back from a complete knee blow-out about 7 months ago. He looks to be pretty well back in form, so he'll probably be ready to roll by Week 1. Having him back is nice, although they were realistically in a much better position to compensate for him missing time than they were last year in the Baltimore playoff game. Now they've got Tate and a more prepared Edelman, so they look much deeper.
The rookies and second year players really seem to be ready to play in a hurry. Pat Chung looks like he's really going to be a ball player at safety after not playing much as a rookie. He's a hitter but doesn't have to play out of control (like McGowan always did). Vollmer similarly looks like he's going to make a big leap. He's better on the run than the pass, but he has the feet to improve on that. He was cleaning house on the right side the other night against a pretty good line.
The rookie tight ends really look great for NE. Hernandez is going to be a playmaker for them and can create some matchup problems over the middle. I like Gronkowski overall, even though he's more of a traditional big TE. Hernandez only really blocks downfield, which is good, but not on 4th and 1. Gronkowski can move some peeps.
The problem for the Pats, like we already basically knew, is going to be in the defensive front 7. With Warren out and Seymour never really replaced, it's going to be a band-aid situation all year long. Brace looked decent, but he's got a long way to go. Same thing for the pass rush. It's a little up in the air until Burgess gets more in the loop and Cunningham gets back on the field. They can compensate against the run with the MLBs (Spikes especially--that dude is a thumper) but they lose a little coverage range with those two.
Count me in for the McCourty fan club. He looked tough out there and seems ready to rush in against the run. He's already in the top 3 for the corners and is going to get a lot of time with Bodden and Butler.
I'm not sure how much I like the Falcons. This looks like an 8-8 team to me. It just does. They seem to be pretty good in a few spots, but not great at anything.
That defense is just not physical at all. They're clearly built to beat the Saints (fine), but I don't see how they're going to match up with anyone trying to run the ball.
Roddy White is solid, but the rest of the receivers are middle of the road guys on their best day. I'm not sold on Turner as being more than a grinder type. He'll get 100 yards, but it'll take 25 carries and he isn't much of a receiver.

Eagles vs. Bengals

Really a pretty lackluster showing for the Eagles.
The Eagles interior O-Line seems to be comprised of guys who shouldn't be in the league. They got worked over pretty well last night, and I don't see how this is going to improve. You can scheme help to the ends (TEs, RBs on fakes, etc.), but if you've got constant penetration in the A-gap because your center and guards shouldn't be playing on Sundays, it's damn near impossible to sustain success. Keep in mind that for all the trouble Philly had blocking, Cincy's two starting DEs didn't even play. Yikes.
I like Philly's skill players, but they're not an overwhelming bunch. Kolb is a solid thrower but doesn't wow me right now. And I'm just not sure that any of the receivers other than DeSean Jackson are really better than average players right now. Vick looked pretty erratic, but they don't need him to throw in real games, so it's not a big concern.
Can the Bengals really believe that Andre Smith is ever going to be a legit NFL tackle? That guy is terrrrrrible right now, and looks to be about 30 pounds overweight. He looks a legit 375. We're about a season from him getting cut next September.
Overall I like the Bengals more than I expected (other than the helmets--I've always love the helmets. Those things are the effing jam.) They can run the ball, they've improved their talent level at the WR and TE position, and the defense still seems solid. TO looked better than I remembered from any point last year, although playing with that crappy Buffalo team will pretty much stifle any chance to make plays (See: Evans, Lee).
The defense still should remain tough for the Bengals. The corners are both ball players, so they can overcompensate against the run. Good unit. They'll really be helped having Odom back in there after his injury last year.

So That's Why We Had to Sell All the Library Books on EBay...

2010-07-22T22:00:00.000-07:00

Just to the Southeast of Downtown LA there's a fairly small city making a lot of headlines lately. The City of Bell, CA, with a working-class immigrant-heavy population of about 40,000 suddenly popped up on the radar last week when it surfaced that they happened to have the highest paid city officials in the country. Turns out that through a series of shady deals, the City ended up paying its City Manager nearly $800,000 annually in salary, his second in command about $375,000, and the Police Chief $450,000. Keep in mind that even in the largest cities in the country, the people with those jobs make at most half that amount. And then we need to consider the city council, all of whom were making $100K for their part time gigs sitting on irrelevant commissions. Yikes.

Like most people, my initial thought was, "how the hell do I get a job there?" Second,of course, was the question of how this possibly could have happened. We only have to look back a few years to see where the system went off the rails. In 2005, the State legislature passed a new law that limited the amount city officials could be paid. Of course this only came on the heels (and because of) a similar scandal in another city called South Gate, which happens to border Bell on the southwest side (of course it does...).

So if you're a scumbag city official and want to avoid all the hassle of state caps, what do you do? You bring a special election that no one knows anything about and turn Bell into a "Charter City." Basically, this is just a mechanism to allow cities to skirt some state control. It sounds good in theory, but then this shit happens and no one likes it anymore. The special election took place after the State passed the pay cap law, but no one made the connection. Only about 400 people of the 40,000 citizens voted (most by absentee), and no one really thought about it again.

Until now.

Problem at this point is that it's tough to undo all that's happened. The money's gone, first and foremost. The whole "drag them out in the street and shoot them" (aka "Option Eastwood") probably is off the list too. They may try to shake down the city council and officials and force retirements, but hell, even if they force them out they're still eligible for sweet pensions (LA Times reported that the manager would be on a $600K annual pension). It'll be hard to show pure fraud or other illegal conduct because most of what they were doing would have been technically legal, albeit offensive to any moral standard. There probably isn't any kind of smoking gun recording of kickbacks. So they're probably just stuck holding the bag, trying to learn for the next time.

I suppose the moral of the story is to make sure we all know who's writing the checks in these local governments, since this isn't just big city stuff. Hell, the town manager in my town growing up did some time for embezzling funds. And second, the song and dance about local control and getting rid of all those oppressive state rules isn't all its cracked up to be. One way or another, everybody's got a hustle. The trick is figuring it out before it's too late.

99 Problems But The Debt Ain't One

2010-07-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

This summer we're seeing the next political death match du jour (werewolves vs. vampires excluded), the question of whether the economy is best served by major increases in Federal spending or by cutting back on spending so as to allegedly enable more private sector growth. What's so problematic about this, of course, is that while the cable news networks are reaping the rewards of unqualified political hacks pontificating on the issues and fictional economic theories, actual humans are getting their asses handed to them by a Lohan-esque economic downturn.

The argument we're hearing from the conservative perspective essentially circles around 3 major concepts:

The government is spending too much money and needs to stop borrowing to keep it up.
Borrowing creates a larger total debt (aka Federal deficit).
The deficit is bad because eventually the amount of interest gets too high, becomes too expensive for us to repay, and the lendors will stop lending money. There's an inflation argument in here as well, but I'll address that in a follow-up post (in short, this is a bogus argument and the problem we're facing is deflation from inaction, not inflation--this is just a garbage scare tactic ala Death Panels and Obama re-education camps).

The beauty of this position, and what the GOP/Tea Party has seized upon, is basically that it makes sense from what most people see in their own financial mechanics, and it makes sense to punish the country for what people see as some sort of national wrongdoing. Hey, I get why this makes sense to a lot of people. If you run out of money and max out the Visa, you don't get any more (there's an argument that bankruptcy fixes this somewhat, but the Tea Party ain't big on nuance). And I get that.

I understand that it seems, intuitively, that we shouldn't try to fix a debt/growth problem by spending more money--and in our own house, that's possibly true. But we don't have a national economy in our living room and our checkbook doesn't have anything to do with structuring the GDP. If we all had a canoe, we wouldn't try to solve problems on a cruise liner by telling people to paddle harder and throw off deck chairs. And yet that's exactly what this "austerity" solution is doing (Note:I love how they all use "austerity" instead of "not giving money to laid off workers to eat and keep the lights on" because it sounds smarter). Paul Krugman recently stated this well, noting [paraphrasing here] that it all makes visceral sense that we should have to tighten down on everything. But we need to make economic policy with out minds, not our viscera.

The fact remains today, as it did in 1937 and 1941, that the key to a solid recovery from a crisis of this magnitude is a major jump in Federal outlays, even if the debt goes up dramatically. I use 1937 as a reference point because that was the year in which FDR halted the economic recovery dead in its tracks by stopping many of the government spending programs that had been helping to drag the economy upwards. The same sense of back asswards economics that had been the cause and an escalator of the Depression suddenly came back into vogue, and brought the Country right back where it had been trying to escape. It was the start of WWII that ended the Depression, plain and simple. And obviously nobody wants a war. But the point is that going to a global war was an enormous outlay of Federal spending, and that's what put the gears of recovery into motion. Whether it's a tank or a solar power facility, somebody's going to work.

The economics of all of this makes sense, but it does require more thought than most red states want to offer (this is, by the way, the simplified Keynesian view). The national economy is essentially based on a certain level of overall economic activity that creates jobs, profits, and thus tax revenues. When times are good, the government can ease up on spending, and make more money available for private sector investment and purchasing. People have money, so they spend it, creating increases in demand and supply, as well as innovation. This pattern basically played out in the Clinton administration when he was running budget surpluses. When the economy goes into a downturn, private sector spending decreases along with investment and jobs. If a worker loses a job, he stops spending, and because he stops spending, the suppliers stop making as many products and cut jobs and input resources. Rinse and repeat after that, and we have 2008. The Fed will try to cut interest rates to make investing easier and cheaper, and while that can help to a smaller degree, alone it's not enough for major problems. By this point, borrowing funds from the Federal Reserve comes with about zero interest.

Here's where the government spending comes into the picture. If the Federal government can spend enough to overcompensate for the decline in the private sector, this will buy time for the overall economy to normalize and re-energize the investment cycle. This comes through in multiple ways. You have the obvious manner of unemployment insurance, which keeps consumer spending up while the person finds new work or training. There is direct government lending to small businesses, who in turn make more capital investments and hire workers. Similarly, Federal dollars can go to the States to help them from making huge cuts in beneficial spending and education. My favorite is government development of national infrastructure projects that make the larger economy work. Power plants, communications, roads, mass transit, water projects--all of these create enormous advances in the ability of the economy to expand and streamline. Was it Socialism when Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate highways and when FDR brought power to rural areas in the 1930s? Of course not.

Obviously, spending like the country needs to will create an immediate Federal debt. No doubt about it. And while running a debt isn't a great situation, it's a means to a better end. By investing now, the economy stays afloat and then grows, paying off the debt accrued. You keep people at work and allow businesses to grow, which lays the groundwork for the next big jump. Conversely, cutting the spending does nothing to help the situation and is a killer for actually emerging from the problem. The biggest danger we face is seeing a contraction of the economy, cutting national output, consumer spending, and tax revenue. Businesses aren't worried about Federal regulation and taxes, they're worried about people (and other businesses) not walking in the door and buying. The solution to the debt is expanding the economy so that the government doesn't have to spend as much, and the private sector can stand on its own. When it does, the debt goes down and the federal spending goes back to normal.

As for the issue of other countries suddenly stopping all lending and suddenly demanding their money loan-shark style, it's just not realistic. If we were way worse off than all the other countries and were also seeing an increase in the treasury bond prices, maybe this would be a concern. But we aren't. The rate on the loans were taking through the securities is still only about 3%, and foreign countries are eating that up because they're more confident on our economy than their own. We're still the best bet in town, even if the corporate-funded hacks on talk radio are looking for the hordes to come riding in looking for their money. Screw it maybe we should just go buy gold from Glen Beck.

As I said earlier, the simple idea of cutting the federal spending and money magically showing up just doesn't make sense in economic terms. Cutting spending seems workable if the same amount of money is coming in the door, but for the country as a whole that's not happening and the necessary level of growth isn't going to just spontaneously pop up. It's an investment people, and we need it now. This Hoover plan of "austerity" was a trainwreck in 1930, just as much as it is now. Hoover could say that at that point they didn't know any better. What's our excuse?

Thoughts Before Celtics/Lakers Game 1

2010-06-03T13:04:00.000-07:00

Here's a few things too keep an eye on both tonight and moving forward:

As much as it drives me crazy, it's more than likely that Kendrick Perkins is going to miss a game in the series due to picking up a technical. I'd be stunned if he now goes more than 4 games without a tech after watching how fast the refs are with these inane Double Technical calls that aren't even for bad conduct.
Even if Perkins misses a game, though, the Celtics have interior depth that LA doesn't. Now that Bynum's showing some serious knee problems, they're going to be even more shorthanded. If the Celtics have to play primarily with Wallace and Davis, they're not really screwed against the less physical Lakers (like they would have been vs. Cleveland or Orlando).
Look for the Celtics to try hard to run a lot of pick and roll with Rondo when Kobe's guarding him. The Celts are going to try to hammer on Bryant when the get a chance and they should be able to exploit LA's shaky interior defense with this play.
Allen should continue to have success running off picks and getting open looks, expecially with the shorter Fisher likely guarding him.
I don't see Gasol or Garnett really being able to guard each other 1 on 1. But the Celtics can help more than the Lakers can.
Lamar Odom is likely to give the Celtics a lot of trouble if he's able to get into the lane. Boston doesn't have a guy who matches up with him well. What's likely to happen is that for most of the minutes, Garnett will be on Odom and Perkins will play Gasol.
I expect the Lakers may get into some foul trouble. Rondo and Pierece generate a ton of fouls on their own, and the Lakers will get into trouble with reaches and dumb stuff.
Bryant will get his points. But he'll have to work, and that's fine for Boston. Basically, the Celts can handle stars, as they've already faced Wade and Lebron.
Look for Glen Davis to have some success off the bench agaisnt LA's second team interior guys. They don't have a sub who can body with him.
The improvement in the Celtics defense (especially on the interior) over Phoenix or Utah is going to give LA some major problems earlier. LA has been able to coast on offense against mediocre defenses for 2 rounds, and that's going to end abruptly.

Overall, I'll take the Celtics in 6 games. I'm thinking they'll take game 1, take 2 of 3 at home, and win in game 6. The defense for Boston should be good enough to keep LA in check and the improvement in Rondo is, hands down, the biggest change in these two teams since 2008. Pierce won't have the success he did two years ago, but the team overall has more weapons. The last 2 series for both teams are what seals it for me, with one team beating the top two in the regular season and the other a couple of injured stragglers.

Now Approaching Minute 15

2010-05-27T21:22:00.001-07:00

It's looking more and more like we've come to the start of the long downward slide of the incomparable huckster of the North, Madam Sarah Palin. Recently we saw the smashing failure of her most recent choice for the Idaho House seat in the GOP Primary, as her pick Vaughn Ward lost by double digits to a local guy whom he outspent six times over. This follows on the heels of her jumping on board with the NY 23rd Candidate, Doug Hoffman, and leading that ship to defeat despite the district being consistently conservative. And hell, if you can't push a winner in the state where you went to at least 60% of the public universities, what does that say? The woman was classmates with half the state for chrissakes.

Moreover, recent polling from Alaska showed that even the people up there have had enough of her that 50% view her unfavorably, with more "very unfavorably" (37%) than "very favorably" (31%). What makes this especially remarkable is the fact that not long ago she was touting herself as the most popular Governor in the Universe, let alone the country. Hell, frostbite has a lower percentage of "very unfavorable" votes.

One of the more interesting elements of this Idaho story is the fact that in general, the majority of the Tea Party crowd/local lunatic community sided with the other guy as opposed to the former flag bearer for the organization. I'm not sure what this means for her ongoing relationship with this crowd. Clearly, they're not all working with a full deck, as you can figure out from a recent situation in Maine where a group of them vandalized an 8th Grade classroom and stole items they deemed unpatriotic, including copies of--wait for it-- the Constitution--because they had been donated by the ACLU. And yet some of these nuts seem to at least be sniffing the never ending stream of bullshit she's tossing out as Americana. Granted, it's like wondering about a smoky smell when you're standing outside a coal plant, but it's a start. They sure can't smell anything when they still had their heads up their asses. Well, something, but it wasn't smoke.

I digress. In reality we really shouldn't be surprised that the start of the end has come right about now. It's been about 2 years since she became a recognizable persona (albeit mainly for hokey phrases and a patent disregard for reality), and that's the basic arc of these situations. It's the same as Ross Perot a few years ago (and he wasn't half as crazy as he's made out to be and knew the issues waaayy better than she does). He popped up on the radar about a year before the 1992 election as a 3rd Party candidate mainly in opposition of the Republicans of the time, and ended up rallying that crew to a 19% share of the election. By 1994 he had really drifted out of the limelight, and by 1996 he was only able to get about 7% of the vote, campaigning with his own funds. Keep in mind that if Britney Spears funded her own campaign she could get about 10%.

The point of it all is that there's a lifespan to all these types of firebrand "man of the people" candidates that don't appeal to a broad enough spectrum, and it's about 30 months. All this stuff about being an outsider sounds great in the campaign, but the functionality of these would-be world changers really goes to hell when they have to do things like "actually make decisions without easy answers" and "read stuff." It seemed like a good idea to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor because he wasn't part of the establishment, but the establishment looked a hell of a lot better once everyone realized that Minnesota's budget problems couldn't be solved with a steel chair and a hidden razor blade.

Palin's legacy looks likely to eventually go a different direction than the garden variety overwhelmed ideologue because of her apparent willingness to chase a buck at any point. You can look at Ron Paul's period as a national player (basically 2007-2008; please don't even make the argument that he's a legitimate candidate nationally. He's just not.) and recognize that even though his candidacies never really went anywhere, he was at least had a point to make with regard to being opposed to the central government. I think he's nuts, but at least you can respect the guy for taking his stance, making a cogent argument in support of it, and sticking to it.

With Palin, you can't even determine what she's supporting, other than a big budget of handlers. It's small government except for when she wants the government to get heavily involved. It's low taxes but no cuts in the big ticket government items. She's all for self-reliance yet supports the Washington State candidate who's taken $275K in government dollars in agriculture subsidies while running a farm made possible only with New Deal-funded dams and irrigation systems.

Moving forward, these are the paradoxes that will become both more apparent and less defensible. Whether the economy picks up and Obama's riding high or if it slows and the Tea Party types push harder, she seems destined for the ice floe treatment from both sides. There's an Eskimo saying that goes, "You never really know your friends from your enemies until the ice breaks." For Palin, I suspect the cracks are sneaking up all too quickly.

It's Time Again To Disgrace the American Legal System

2010-05-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

This morning President Obama opened up America's newest seasonal pastime, the embarrassing farce that is the Supreme Court hearings. This year it's current US Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the eminent scholar and attorney who will of course be made out by the GOP to be some sort of illiterate Bolshevik. It seemed like only yesterday we were trying to figure out what the hell "Wise Latina" meant and why Jeff Sessions was such an insufferable prick (Is it hemorrhoids, Jeff? E.D.? Wife and the gardener? Actually, it's probably because the Senate denied his appointment as a Federal Judge for making racist statements to other government lawyers. ).

Even for the normal Republican, though, they've jumped on the woman early, probably hoping to poison the well just enough to win a little public sympathy. We've already seen Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) announce that he's absolutely not voting for her, even though the confirmation hearings are weeks away. John Kyl (R-AZ) has already voiced his concerns over her "thin" experience in the biz. No doubt she would have gained more experience as a lobbyist and lawyer for giant landowners, such as Mr. Kyl. Because nothing says complex legal analysis quite like getting payoffs from condo developers and shady land schemes.

And no less a legal mind than Michael Steele is stirring up the disgruntled fringe by ranting about Kagan's statements years ago about the Constitution being defective at its origins. Of course he and the cronies will probably overlook the fact that she was discussing the fact that under the original Constitution African-Americans only counted as 3/5 of a human and remained property under the Constitution for about the first 80 years, but that's understandable. It's Original Constructionism baby! (That being said, if we could fine a way to take away suffrage from a few people I don't think I'd mind. That means you, Susan Collins.)

Perhaps the greatest irony of the process this time around is the fact that she's already come out and dismissed what the process has become as a "vapid and hollow charade," an observation even more spot-on than when she said it 15 years ago. What could be an enlightening and useful discussion about the role of the court and legal theory has unfortunately become nothing more than a sad joke. We're hearing and seeing supposedly incriminating pictures of her--wait for it--wearing a judicial style robe in the 8th grade! And talking about wanting to be a Supreme Court Justice! Sweet Jesus NO! If there's anything we can't have floating around the youth of America, it's aspiration. We need to stomp that shit out ASAP and get those kids back into Mickey Dees.

When it comes down to it, there really aren't many people who should be remotely challenged. We have to keep in mind that the hearings process isn't an election-style process where you get to pick your favorite. It's just an process to decide whether or not the appointment is qualified, not whether you'll like the way they would rule on your legislation. Senators have a vote on whether the person is qualified, not whether they like the viewpoints. There is an enormous difference, yet we're going to hear endless jabbering about why Congressmen can't vote for her on account of their differing views.

On a nauseating but serious note, this actually has a chance to get really ugly in the streets amongst the lowest of the Right's hate machine. The woman's 50, still single, and--gasp!--has a short haircut. You can see where this is going. It's not going to take much to push a few of the Tea Party loons and Bible thumpers into the streets rallying behind the argument that she (a) is gay; (b) is going to throw her gayness all over my America; and (c) doesn't like Jesus. Of course, the GOP, Fox News and talk radio will do nothing but froth up the venom or justify it in some deranged way, all the while claiming to be nothing more than passive bystanders to public sentiment. Keep in mind that at no point has she ever indicated that she was gay, and even if she was, it has zero relevance to the abilities of a qualified jurist. But, of course, you're dealing with the proto-humans who still eat that vile garbage up. I'm not saying it absolutely will happen this way, but I'll put it at 75%. When it does, let's hope the backlash is fast and carries some serious weight.

Looking forward, there's the way this should play out and the way that it actually will. It should be a open and shut matter, and she should be stamped on through without a hassle. And yet it won't. It's going to be a drawn out harassment of an enormously qualified woman who happens to be on the wrong side of some political hacks drumming up campaign dollars. We're hearing some talk of a filibuster, and while I wouldn't expect it, it could happen if only to bog down the Obama administration's attempts to actually conduct government business. In the end, we have only the public to blame for allowing it to happen. We've allowed it to trend this way for years and it's going to keep happening as long as people keep voting in these clowns to pull this crap or letting them do it when they're in office. Even if it involves a complete restructuring of the way Justices are confirmed, there needs to be some form of change. If and when it does, the process can transcend the useless and cynical character assassination it has become and reaffirm itself as a unifying and critically important part of the American judicial system.

My Very Final 2010 Mock Draft

2010-04-22T08:57:00.001-07:00

Finally, the day is here. With that, I'm submitting my final (trade-free) mock of the first round. I don't doubt there will be a few trades that will throw off the works on this, but so be it.

(1) St. Louis Rams - Sam Bradford (QB)
(2) Detroit Lions - Ndamukung Suh (DT)
(3) Tampa Bay Bucs - Gerald McCoy (DT)
(4) Washington Redskins - Russell Okung (OT)
(5) KC Chiefs - Trent Williams (OT)
(6) Seattle Seahawks - Eric Berry (S)
(7) Cleveland Browns - Derek Morgan (DE) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(8) Oakland Raiders - Anthony Davis (OT)
(9) Buffalo Bills - Dan Williams (NT)
(10) Jacksonville - Rolando McClain (LB) *Expect Trade action on this Pick
(11) Denver Broncos - Dez Bryant (WR)
(12) Miami Dolphins - Earl Thomas (S)
(13) San Francisco - CJ Spiller (RB)
(14) Seattle Seahawks - Brian Bulaga (OT)
(15) NY Giants - Mike Iupati (G)
(16) Tennessee Titans - Jason Pierre-Paul (DE)
(17) San Francisco - Jimmy Clausen (QB)
(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Maurkice Pouncey (C)
(19) Atlanta Falcons - Brandon Graham (DE)
(20) Houston Texans - Joe Haden (CB) *Possible Trade Spot
(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Jermaine Gresham (TE)
(22) New England Patriots - Sergio Kindle (LB)
(23) Green Bay Packers - Kyle Wilson (CB)
(24) Philadelphia Eagles - Charles Brown (OT) *Possible Trade Spot
(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas (WR)
(26) Arizona Cardinals - Jerry Hughes (LB)
(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen (S)
(28) San Diego Chargers - Ryan Matthews (RB)
(29) NY Jets - Linval Joseph (DE) *Possible Trade Spot
(30) Minnesota Vikings - Kareem Jackson (CB)
(31) Indianapolis Colts - Brian Price (DT)
(32) New Orleans Saints - Sean Weatherspoon (LB)

Trends I'm thinking we'll see:

Corners going unusually late in the first round.
Some of the "safer" picks dropping a little (Morgan, Bulaga, Haden)
Look for teams to try to trade up to the mid teens to get a shot at Spiller, Haden, Clausen, or Pierre-Paul. Maybe something like Minnesota trading it's first rounder and a 2nd to get Clausen at 15.
I don't believe the hype of Colt McCoy or Tebow in the first round. I just can't see why a team would do that when they can get a starter late in the first. This is a great draft, overall.
The best spots to be are in the range of 10-16. There could be guys like Bryant, Spiller, Morgan, Haden, JPP and one of the top OTs left who would normally be top 8 picks. And there should be some serious pushes for teams to get up into that range.

Some Easy Trades That Sadly, Won't Happen

2010-04-21T15:56:00.000-07:00

Here's a list of some snappy trades I'd love to see happen in the next day or so. Most of these are tied to draft picks, so it's easiest this time of year. Unfortunately, most teams don't trade as much as they should, since that involves at least 1 iote of risk, and they're more comfortable being mediocre and avoiding any potential blame. Think of these as the trades that all end up with both teams better in the long and short terms, and that seem pretty equitable.

Jacksonville Trades First Round Pick #10 for Philadelphia's First Round Pick (#24) and Second Rounder (from Washington, #37).
Why?
Philadelphia either can take Safety Earl Thomas or even trade up more to get Eric Berry. Safety is their biggest need by far and they can get one of the top 2 guys to start this year. Jacksonville is on the fast track to irrelevant, and they can turn one pick into two. They have multiple needs and can now get a solid linebacker (say, Weatherspoon) and a safety like Mays in Round 2.

Buffalo Trades Second Round Pick (#41) to Baltimore for Jared Gaither (OT).
Why?
This allows Baltimore to get good value for a player they don't really need right now with the development of Michael Oher. They can get one of the better wideouts if they don't get one in round one, or a tight end to replace Heap. Buffalo has a huge need for OL help and in Gaither, they fill the toughest position to find in one swoop. This also allows them to go any number of directions with their first rounder (Dan Williams would be especially helpful). I'd be a strong advocate of Kansas City making this trade with Baltimore, for basically a similar package, probably pick #36. Baltimore might have to toss in an extra 5th Rounder to make the #36 happen, or KC a 5th round extra (they have 3) if it was the 50th pick.

Carolina Trades DeAngelo Williams (RB) to New England for 2nd Round Pick (#53 overall).
Why?
Williams still has some mileage left on the tires, and the Pats can plug him right into the offense to give them a 3-down back with game-changing talent. Conversely, Carolina's basically in rebuilding mode and already has an excellent back in Jonathan Stewart. They need talent all over the roster, and they can turn Williams into an immediate starter elsewhere.

NY Giants Trade Osi Umenyiora to Cincinnati for 3rd Round Pick (#84):
Why?
Cincy needs to add more talent to their defensive front 7, and Osi can be a top notch pass rusher. He played every game last year, so he looks to be healthy, and they still have a 3rd Round pick left. The strength of the AFC is now in the passing units (Indy, NE, Miami, Pitt, poss. Baltimore, San Diego, potentially the Jets if Sanchez improves), so they can't get stuck with a crappy pass rush. NY is actively shopping Osi since he's apparently unhappy about the situation, and here they can get a solid pick to help replace or fill a different spot. Some people are talking about NY getting a second round pick for him, but I have a hard time seeing it since he's already 28 and has a little bit of an injury history.

Washington Trades Albert Haynesworth to New Orleans for a 2nd Round Pick (#64) and either 2010 3rd Round Pick (#95) or 2011 2nd Round Pick (Prob. about #60. )
Why?
OK, I admit that this one's pretty far-fetched. But doesn't it makes sense? Haynesworth doesn't really fit with the Redskins 3-4 front and has been publicly unhappy. Send him to New Orleans and the Saints fill their biggest need, a defensive tackle to stop the run, and Washington can recoup much of what they've lost. New Orleans can make the numbers work if they cut Charles Grant (which they've discussed anyways a lot) and either let Bush's monster salary leave or redo it. Redskins can take an actual 3-4 DE and then get more help in this draft, plus dump some salary on a guy they don't want. I love this trade, even though it won't happen. Haynesworth's value isn't nearly what it was a year ago, since it's clear he needs to be a 4-3 DT and makes a ton of money. And remember, Brandon Marshall was only swapped for a pair of 2nd Rounders, so it's not far from what they got.

Seattle Trades 4th Rounder (#127) to Washington for Andre Carter.
Why?
Seattle can get a productive 4-3 DE who can fill a starting position for about 3 years, and mentor their young defenders. The Redskins can get a developmental player for the price of an aging DE who didn't really fit in their 3-4 look.

This Just In: The Conservatives Are Still A Pack of Scumbag Liars

2010-04-20T13:01:00.000-07:00

This is a pretty great video I came across the other day. Basically, Bill O'Reilly had Tom Coburn (R-OK) on his show lately and tried to claim that Fox News had been unfairly targeted by Coburn for misrepresenting the issues on health care, specifically the bogus claim that you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. O'Reilly proudly proclaims that despite their strident efforts, they could find no instances where anyone on Fox discussed going to jail. When Coburn refutes this, O'Reilly shouts louder and laughs. Fortunately, the rest of the universe lives in reality and the video is pretty great in hammering home the fact that this was a talking point on the network for about 2 weeks straight.

Well, damn, either Bill was lying or he just has the most amazingly bad research team in the history of both research and teams.

The Link

(Note: Video is about halfway down the page)

We Only Thought We Knew the Tea Party. Oh Wait, We Did After All.

2010-04-16T12:51:00.001-07:00

There has been some discussion recently about a NY Times poll outlining the Tea Party crowd and how a different picture of them has come to light. They're not just angry old white guys, we're now hearing, it's much more of a reflection of the populace at large than that wacky leftist media has claimed. They're more educated and wealthier than we thought, as the argument goes. What we're supposed to do with this info is a little unclear, although my interpretation is that I'm supposed to be more sympathetic or respectful than before, because they're not just the yahoos spitting on Congressmen or flying planes into IRS offices.

But here's the funny thing: I actually come away from the polling data with a lower regard for that crew, because now it's just exposing these people as even more self-serving and arrogant than previously suspected. At least in the past, we could dismiss the crowd as being poor, uneducated, and struggling to find a place in modern society, but now it's even more clear that the majority of these people are doing just fine. Not only that, but they're happy to let the other people do all the hard work at these rallies while they sit at home and pat each other on the back for their patriotism.

Some of it we knew already, basically that it's 60% male and about 90% white. The arrogance is amazing, in that somehow 84% of these people think that most people agree with what they're doing. If that's the case, why is it that less than 20% actually do? The part I find most troubling is that while 92% believe the country is "headed the wrong direction," 78% of the Tea Party respondents described their economic situation as very good or fairly good. So basically these people are fine economically yet see the government as destroying America. OK then.

The other thing that comes up has to do with who they see as being the beneficiaries of all this Obama Socialism (92% claiming he's pushing Socialism), specifically the poor (56%) and minorities. In the eyes of this crowd, he's too focused on the problems of black people (52%) and over a quarter believe his policies are specifically intended to benefit blacks over whites. But of course, this all assumes people tell the truth, which is tough to be completely sure of on a poll like this. To be honest, I'm dubious of the education levels and income claimed by this crowd, but that's just me. I have a hard time buying that 75% of the Tea Party is over 44 years old, but almost 2/3 claim that neither they nor a family member are covered by Medicare.

We hear all these complaints about the deficit, and the reality is that every Conservative banging the drum on how Democrats raise the debt is absolute crap. It just is. Can you name the 5 Presidents since 1960 who left office with a smaller debt than when they came in? Try Clinton, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy. Oh, it gets better. The 3 Presidents with the highest rates of job creation since 1960? Clinton, Carter, and Johnson.

Yet where were all these principled fiscal conservatives during the 8 years of Bush deficits? We hear every one of these people describe the glory days of the Reagan America where he cut spending and we all lived happily in a state of economic responsiblity. And while this makes for great storytelling, it's just flat wrong. They always seem to forget the fact that Reagan drove the deficit from 32% of GDP to 53% of GDP. This isn't some kind of quirky numbers game, it's just a fact.

So what are we left with? A lot of aging white people hellbent on getting what they can but deathly opposed to paying for things. Everybody loves dead Presidents for reasons completely at odds with reality, and dislikes the current one for ones similarly made up in right-wing imaginations. Everyone's screwing them but they're still doing just fine, even though no one knows why. The evil President is trying to Socialize everything but the tax burden is okay and 62% say Medicare and Social Security (the 2 most Socialist programs on the books) are good plans that are worth the money.

Well, at least now we've cleared everything up. In the words of the imitable Dennis Green, "they were who we thought they were"-- deluded and self-serving.

What's in Your Easter Basket? My NFL Mock Draft (Part 2)

2010-04-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

Part 2, hopefully, will be a little shorter. Great apologies on the delay.

(17) San Francisco 49ers - Jimmy Clausen
While the 49ers don't desperately need a QB, I can't imagine anyone really thinks Alex Smith is going to get them close to the playoffs either this year or in the future. The biggest question is whether Clausen would be available, but as we've seen, there just aren't that many teams who can afford spending a first rounder on a QB (STL, BUF, maybe WAS and OAK) with all the other needs they have. The 49ers would likely take Earl Thomas if Clausen's not there.

(18) Pittsburgh Steelers - Mike Iuapati
Iupati's a guy who will need some seasoning at the pro level, but he's got a ton of potential and the Steelers need to get bigger and tougher in their offensive line.

(19) Atlanta Falcons - Sergio Kindle - DE
They'd love to get a shot at Graham since they can't get any pass rush as things stand. I like Kindle here because he can either end up as a pass rusher from the DE or OLB spot.

(20) Houston Texans - Earl Thomas - SS
They need a lot of help in the defensive backfield. I was torn between Thomas and Kyle Wilson form Boise State, but in the end I figured they'd like the local kid a little better. Don't mess with Texas, or some reasoning like that.

(21) Cincinnati Bengals - Dez Bryant - WR
Maybe it's just because I want to see what happens, maybe it's because Cincy doesn't care what's on your rap sheet, and maybe because it's a fanstastic matchup of prospect, value, and need. I lovd Bryant here in this situation, and he really can help the Bengals a ton.

(22) NE Patriots - Jared Odrick -DE
I've really gone back and forth on this pick. My final stance is that the order they'd like to get is Pierre-Paul, Jared Odrick, Graham, Jerry Hughes. The biggest question on Odrick is whether he can make the switch from DT in the 4-3 at Penn State to the 3-4 DE he'd be for the Pats. He has the size and seems more like the 3-4 type anyways, so it would probably work fine. They need a long term replacement for Seymour, and he seems to fit the bill. The Pats can probably wait a little and get a 2nd rounder to play the OLB spot, maybe a guy like Ricky Sapp or Hughes if he drops to 44. I actually could see NE trading either up to get a guy like Pierre-Paul if he drops to somewhere near 11 at Denver, or also if they dropped and took one of these guys closer to 27. I just don't think they're real excited to get the OLBs who are under 6'2".

(23) Green Bay Packers - Kareem Jackson - CB

(24) Philadelphia - Taylor Mays - S
While I'm not a huge Mays fan, he does provide some elements Philly can use. They need safety help and even if he's mostly stays in the box, that's a huge help in the NFC East. The main knock on him is that he can't turn and run like you'd want to see in a safety, which is concering since he's the last line of defense. He can probably turn into a Rodney Harrison type, and be focused on run support and covering tight ends like Witten and Cooley.

(25) Baltimore Ravens - Demaryius Thomas -WR
I love Thomas for the Ravens, since he can be a big play receiver down the road, and provide at least a threat right now. I'm not a big fan of the TE option here, since you can find someone in the 2nd who can do what they need.

(26) Arizona Cardinals - Anthony Davis - OT
Davis, despite the concerns over his heart, is the best talent left at this point and fills a position of need. I doubt they'll reach to get a linebacker when you can find those guys in the middle rounds.

(27) Dallas Cowboys - Nate Allen - FS
They'd probably grab David if he was available, but it's a pretty iffy proposition that he would be.

(28) San Diego - Ryan Matthews - RB
For a team with a fair amount of talent, they have some serious gaps. Both lines are pretty shaky and the running back situation is a mess. Matthews gives them a legit running back with power to pair with Sproles. Some people might argue Terrence Cody here, but the fact that he probably is only a 2-down guy and may eat himself out of the league in 2 years both are major red flags.

(29) NY Jets - Arrelious Benn - WR
Probably looking to the offensive side of the ball, they'd really help Sanchez a ton getting a decent wideout.

(30) Minnesota Vikings - Devin McCourty - CB
If Clausen dropped this far they'd grab him. They might actually move up a bit if he started to get near 20. As it is, they need to start adding young players to the defense. If you're a contender in the NFC, you've got to be able to defend the pass, so the pick should be a corner. Probably McCourty or Patrick Robinson, depending on who they like better.

(31) Indy - Brian Price - DT
They need help on both fronts. Likely the better pick here is a thick DT. Price seems to fit well as a one-gap defender. They could also grab an OL if someone good were to be available, but there's a pretty marked dropoff after Iupati and Davis.

(32) New Orleans - Sean Weatherspoon - LB
Good fit for the Saints, who need help after Scott Fujita left town as a free agent.

What's in Your Easter Basket? My NFL Mock Draft (Part 1)

2010-04-03T21:02:00.000-07:00

Spring time is a great thing. Birds, flowers, warm weather, and most of all, the NFL Draft. It's 3 weeks off and we're really starting to see things forming into a model that makes sense (sort of). I realize this is the type of stuff that's pretty hit or miss interest-wise, but I eat this stuff up so I'm plunging in with both feet. I'll have notes on some picks, but maybe not all, since it's going to get mad long fast doing that. And so it starts...

(1) St. Louis Rams - Sam Bradford, QB
Really, this is the only reasonable thing to do. Bradford is a big-time QB and they need to finally jump on a guy to be the face of the franchise. There were some concerns over the shoulder injury, but it appears to be fine and he looked great at the pro day, especially after adding some much needed muscle mass.

(2) Detroit Lions - Ndamakung Suh - DT
(3) Tampa Bay Bucs - Gerald McCoy - DT
Both teams desperately need help up front and these two are hands down the top defensive prospects on the board. They're different in that Suh's more a 2-gap power guy (think Richard Seymour) while McCoy is more the quicker guy trying to shoot gaps (think Warren Sapp/John Randall). I like Suh more than McCoy, and I think he immediately becomes an upper-echelon guy right away. He's the type to make all the football junkies all swoony this time of year.

(4) Washington Redskins - Russell Okung - OT
Here's where things get hazy. The Redskins are more than likely weighing between Okung and Jimmy Clausen, but I can't see why they take a QB this high based on their needs. For all the weaknesses on the Redskins, Jason Campbell isn't near the biggest, and their line is in shambles after Chris Samuels retired. Right now they're basically screwed at the LT position, and they need to address it ASAP to improve overall.

(5) KC Chiefs - Dan Williams - DT/DE
Nobody's hoping the Redskins take Clausen more than the Chiefs, because they'd jump on Okung in a heartbeat. Problem is, when he's gone there's a big drop in the players they'd be excited to have. There have been rumors about them going for Eric Berry, the Tennessee safety, but let's get something clear: safeties are always a bad pick in the top 10. They're just too injury prone and too easy to replace to spend a high pick and all the money that goes with it. That's why I like Williams here. He's a big dude, and can play either at DE or NT in the Kansas City 3-4. They need big time defenders wherever they can get them, and the other OTs are a big step down from Okung. Also, consider that Pioli came through the Belichick/Parcells lineage and is going to be predisposed to taking those big guys that you can't just find at the 7-11.

(6) Seattle - Trent Williams - OT
Seattle doesn't necessarily have the huge need at a single position, but they have a lot of places where they're running out a fringe-starter (namely OT, DE, DT, and CB). This might actually be a worse situation, because they'll need to upgrade damn near everyone and won't pick this high normally. Williams gives them a good solid OT who they can try to use as a replacement for Walter Jones.

(7) Cleveland - Eric Berry - Safety
The real tragedy here is that Holmgren is overseeing the draft, so we won't get to see this pick get traded to the Jets for Mike Devito, a 4th Round Pick, and 2 dozen glazed donuts. Since they need talent everywhere, they'll probably just take Berry, the guy all the TV crews will be calling the "best available player." None of the other top guys fit a need as much since they traded for Sheldon Brown at corner. The other issue is that the one position they're ok with is OT, and that's where they'd need some guys. I don't like teams that are crappy taking risky guys, so I'd likely rule out Jason Pierre-Paul or Dez Bryant. Side note: This is a 4-12 team in the making. I hate the Browns.

(8) Oakland Raiders - Joe Haden- CB
Odd team here to figure. They'll do anything, even if it makes no sense, and they just don't care. My guess is that if Trent Williams were here, they'd take him. There's a chance they'll take Bruce Campbell, the OT from Maryland, since he was great at the combine and looks like a professional wrestler. Problem is, while he was at Maryland, nobody thought he was any good. He didn't get a single all-conference vote, which is a pretty big indictment in a mediocre conference. My guess is that they'll be a little gunshy on Bulaga, since the last OT from Iowa (Robert Gallery) was somewhat a bust. The McNabb situation creates some uncertainty, if he goes to Oakland, they'll need corners in a big way. But for right now, we'll guess they take the top CB in the draft and really create a good situation for themselves in pass defense.

(9) Buffalo Bills - Brian Bulaga - OT
I really like Bulaga here, although maybe it's just because he's a thick white guy who would fit in on wing night up in Buffalo. That and the Buffalo O Line is abysmal.

(10) Jacksonville Jaguars - Rolando McClain - LB
For chrissakes I hope they don't take Tim Tebow here. This team needs a lot of help, and they're an MJD hamstring pull from being 3-13. In McClain they can drop in a guy who can be the key playmaker for the next 8 years and fill in a big need. Part of me would love to see them take a guy like Dez Bryant, but his act and baggage won't fly up in that area. If Joe Haden fell here I think they'd have to consider him.

(11) Denver Broncos - Jason Pierre-Paul - LB
Denver's in a position where they need to figure out their own house before they try add new guys. If they plan on trading Brandon Marshall, they'll probably need to add Bryant. If they don't see Orton or Brady Quinn as the long term QB, maybe it's Clausen. They'll know what's up, even though it's tough for the public. If McClain was available, I think he'd be the pick. As it is, I like Pierre-Paul here as a developmental pass rusher for the 3-4.

(12) Miami - Brandon Graham -LB
I would have considered Bryant here, but it sounds like he completely effed up his workout and forgot his cleats. Troubling move for a guy with more character flaws than Don Draper. They'd love to get Dan Williams if available, but I have some doubts about that possibility. They'd likely jump at a trade to move down if someone wanted to come up and get Clausen or Bryant. Right now, they'll need a pass rusher and I like them to grab Brandon Graham, the high-production rusher for the 3-4, although I wouldn't be surprised to see them get Earl Thomas.

(13) San Francisco - CJ Spiller - RB

(14) Seattle - Derek Morgan - DE

(15) NY Giants - Maurkice Pouncey - C/G
They'd love a shot at McClain if he was available. Another team who could absolutely try to trade back a few spots to get some play. Probably a good time to get a serious upgrade for the OL, and Pouncey gives them flexibility to play either center of guard.

(16) Tennesee Titans - Carlos Dunlap - DE
Dunlap's fallen out of favor a little lately, and there are some concerns about character and work ethic. But that being said, the guy's a great size for the position and was a major contributor for the top franchise in the NCAA. Tennessee needs a ton of help in the front 7, and they'll remember the success they had with Jevon Kearse.

A Sad Case of Over-Nuggetry

2010-03-30T20:58:00.000-07:00

In the past few weeks, ABC has begun airing a show called "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution," and I've gotta say, it's a pretty solid hour. It really touches on something I've been increasingly finding at once both liberating and frustrating, and something that is going to play a huge role in American life in years to come. It all really comes down to the issue of an over reliance on heavily processed and pre-packaged food and an jarring rejection of anything resembling actual cooking.

Hearing that the show was to be set in West Virginia, I had to assume that the problem was that the locals were overdoing their possum stew and raccoon meat. Unfortunately, this all came down to just a matter of the locals devouring frozen pizzas and chicken fingers like they were breath mints and having coronaries at age 46.

The cast of characters reads about the way you'd guess, and while it borders on being a little predictable, they all seem to fit together pretty well. We focus have our struggling hero Oliver, a likable and earnest figure trying to make sense of all the deranged opposition. Among the most notable opponents are a surly radio host working to maximize his prick quotient at every opportunity and school administrators puzzled at what possibly could be wrong. It's amazing with the school crew, as they somehow manage to be both ambivalent as to what's happening and yet protective of the status quo. It's the equivalent of a 2006 New Orleans noting that there was a little bit of a water issue, but not a big deal. And who doesn't like swimming, right?

Most acutely serving as the primary villain, Oliver and the viewer are confronted by a lunch lady appearing to be the twangy offspring of a "Lord of the Rings" orc and Nurse Ratched. She's hellbent on tossing deep fried frozen crap into the oven and responds to most of Oliver's requests as though he's asking to wipe her hair net on his balls. Most troubling was her admission that she only had become a school cook for the money (wow, didn't see that one coming. Move over hedge fund managers, you've now got rivals in the yacht market). I'm still weighing whether this is more an indictment of the school or her, but either way she makes a hell of an antagonist. While ABC needs to make sure they don't get too heavy handed with her, but I actually fear they may have some corny turnaround and they all become friends over broccoli and apple slices.

But we're not there yet, and far from it. It's clear from both the show and life in general that most kids would eat their parents and the family dog if they came as a nugget with barbecue sauce. But that being said, blaming an 8 year old for food choices is the same as blaming a raccoon for raiding the trash or The Situation from tanning too much (damn I miss that show). It's ultimately the responsibility of the school and parents, and in the case of this West Virginia disaster, they seem to be in a contest to be the most inept.

The turning point we're working toward is the gradual transition to actually making kids and families understand the enormous importance of knowing what they're eating and the actual simplicity and savings of just taking responsibility for what happens at the table. It drives me CRAZY when people piss and moan about being too busy to actually make something decent and having to rely on this pre-made crap. Here are 2 facts: (1) it's cheaper than people think; and (2) most of these people have enough time to do something totally reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking quail eggs and filet mignon with creme brulee. I'm talking crock pots, pasta, and frozen vegetables. I know some people are really busy, I really do. I grew up in one of those households and I get it. That being said, no one can convince me that there's enough time to throw some frozen peas in a pot for 8 minutes. If people can find an hour to watch bad singers on American Idol, they can throw dollar a pound chicken into the oven.

That's the part of the show I like most, overall. The stuff Oliver's pushing is, at its heart, easy and filling stuff that isn't what people think of under the title "Food Revolution." It's just a matter of making spaghetti for 4 people in about 20 minutes as opposed to baking a frozen pizza in the same amount of time. Hell, make the damn pizza yourself and you're still ahead of the game (it's much easier than you'd think and tastes like the $20 bistro stuff). Admittedly, I drive the wife crazy with running the grocery bills on dinner and exclaiming "this all cost $5.50 for the whole meal and we'll eat it again tomorrow!" But at the end of the day the point's completely valid, and that's the underlying fact that needs to be driven home: you can eat better and cheaper if you open your eyes and just think about what you're doing.

The trouble here is getting that point across to the enormous segment of the population that is so reluctant to buy into this idea. In a lot of ways, the focus really has to be on the younger generations in school now, and on trying to promote the idea that most of your meals shouldn't come from a cartoon character. I love that he's trying to teach some basic skills, and that's where the gains are going to be made. It's a waste of time just banging the anti-KFC drum without offering up something as an alternative that people can throw together fast and cheap.

Of course it's a little tricky because the people selling all that shit as real food are making big money off of fat third graders. Do you think Sysco (they did all my school lunch food growing up) is excited to lose any of their $36 Billion in annual revenue? Oh Helllllllls no. Of course they're lobbying for all these crazy administrative rules that confuse what can be served. It's easy to rip on Mickey Dee's for what they're pulling, but there's no excuse for school administrators to completely whore out students for food suppliers when they can do it themselves with some decent planning and some sweat. Hey, I love me some lunch ladies and if they can hack it, then I say great. But do you think it's odd that the makeup of restaurant cooks is completely different than what you'll see in every school in America? If we need to reshape the whole system, so be it. There are omlettes to be made, and in the end there may be no way to avoid some broken eggs.

So to wrap it up, check out the Oliver show on Friday nights and start paying attention to ways we can promote a little more self-reliance on what we eat. I'm sure there's a term for this already, and I'm obviously not making up new concepts here (I'll leave the exact phrasing for the better foodies than myself). But we have to be cognizant in the end of what's happening in our schools and the ways that public policy decisions directly impact health patterns leading into years ahead.

And if that doesn't work, we'll just outlaw nuggets.

A Few NFL Updates

2010-03-18T20:38:00.000-07:00

It's been a little while since I've written anything, so I'll jump back into the fray with a little NFL talk. Lot of stuff going on, but I suspect we may look back and see it as a lot of action without much impact on the serious contenders. Remember the wildness over Albert Haynesworth last year? Exactly.

At this point we have to assume that the economy has hit the Rust Belt worse than we thought and Cleveland hasn't had electricity or outside communication in the last year or so. That's the only explanation for the hands down worst decision of the NFL offseason, the Browns' gift of a 2-year deal to Jake Delhomme, the biggest meltdown of 2009. Seriously, Bernie Madoff had a better 2009 than Jake Delhomme. How unwanted was Delhomme? The Panthers had signed him to a new contract that they just decided to eat after 1 season, despite the fact that they're paying him $12 mil this year. He was that bad. They're paying him $12 mil to leave town. And what do the Browns do? They hand him another $7 mil for 2010 to throw awful picks to the AFC North. He'll never see the 2011 money, so forget about the second year of the deal. It's amazing, when you think that people get paid a ton of money to make these decisions.
I actually really liked Julius Peppers to the Bears. I don't think they're as far away as you'd think, considering last year's debacle, and if they can shore up that garbage heap of an O-line, they could make a push (they had to bring in Piano-crate sized casket the 1,000 pound guy got buried in to take away Orlando Pace). Tough division though, with the Packers and Vikes overall better clubs. But Peppers gives them a playmaker on the defensive front 7 who can create problems, and that's hard to come by.
The Pats actually did real well by overpaying to keep their key players instead of tossing big money at a scarce free agent market. It makes big news to pay Karlos Dansby $45 million, but was anyone ever scared by the Arizona defense when he was there? Ummm...no. Paying Wilfork 125% of his market value was a good move in an uncapped year, and shows the crew management's on their side. Same thing for Bodden, who's the second best corner in the division.
Cleveland, be prepared to be let down by Ben Watson. His hands are inconsistent and he doesn't block. But if it comes down to a Tight End 40 meter dash contest, you're in great shape! Nice work you goddamn morons. If one of the best passing offenses in the league can't make much use of him, I'm sure Mangini and Delhomme will fix things. Good use of $12 mil. Maybe next time just pile up $6 mil and just set it on fire. At least then it won't take 3 years to get rid of it.
I don't like the Jets moves as much as everyone else. If Antonio Cromartie is really a stud cornerback, why the hell is San Diego sending him away for a 3rd round pick? And what's with the swap of Thomas Jones for a clearly washed up Ladainian Tomlinson. I understand that Jones is probably on the downside of his career, but how is the best solution to bring in a guy who's not only at the bottom of the hill, but in a ditch at the bottom of the hill.
As for the draft, the Rams just have to take Sam Bradford. They just do. Try to integrate him into games where you can, but realize that this is going to take a couple of years. Actually, following the Detroit plan can work. I like the Lions' big picture plans and they're putting together a solid roster of good players. I love Ndamukong Suh for them at #2, and with a good draft they're an 8-8 team in 2011. If they were in the NFC West, I'd take them to win the Division in 2011. But they're not, so they won't.
I don't like all the talk about safeties going high in the draft. This just never works, even if Kiper and the crew are all in love with Eric Berry. Even if he's a great safety, these guys don't lead crappy teams to the playoffs. I hope the Chiefs don't do it. The Chiefs are my emotional #2 team and I have to root for them. But dammit guys, help me out here. I'm ok with Cincy at 22 or Philly at 24 (even though I sure wouldn't reach for these positions), but a top 10 on a safety is a bad, bad move.
I like Baltimore getting Anquan Boldin, but he's not the difference between them and the elite. He's essentially a better version of Mason at this point, the other receiver they have, and doesn't do much downfield. I saw some good metrics on him and he's very specific in what he does, mainly the intermediate stuff. I like what they did with Stallworth, assuming his head's on straight after the prison sentence. How troubling is it that we have to factor that into the equation?
Ugh. Buffalo is going to be bad. Bad Bad Bad. Like 2-14 bad. Who are they paying on that team? Is there anyone who would start for more than 50% of the teams in the league? Anyone? Maybe Lee Evans, but even that's pretty iffy.
Ugh. So are the Rams. Like 3-13 bad. Maybe another win, but not much more than that.
I have some concerns about the Giants. They're getting a little older on both lines, which is the clear strength of the team. I don't see any real playmakers right now, unless the 2nd year wideouts like Nicks really kick it to a higher level.
I still like Dallas a lot. They seem to be well positioned to make a solid run, and I'm guessing they put up a 12 win season next year.
Kind of a big quiet story in the works is the attempted revamping of the Indy offensive line. They bounced starter Ryan Lilja after he had a mediocre game against the Saints, and they're trying to change the unit to become more physical. Sounds good, except that the key to this team is consistency and good pass blocking, so a decline there has a "one step forward, two steps back" feel to it.
Finally, my early read on the Pats is that they'll be better next year than this season. Remember Brady is a full season removed from his monster knee injury, so he'll be better. The defense should be tougher and faster, but they'll need to figure out how to get a little more punch in the receivers if Welker isn't ready. I like Tate and Edelman to step up, although I'd like a receiving tight end like Greg Olsen (Bears) or Aaron Hernandez out of Florida to lighten the load.

OK, that's it for now. Catch y'alls later.

The Time Is Now

2010-03-01T17:53:00.000-08:00

"America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination, and unbeatable determination to do the job at hand."

~Harry S. Truman

Right now the Congressional Democrats and Obama Adminstration stand on the cusp of driving through critical insurance legislation that stands as a major first step in the healthcare overhaul at least a decade overdue. At this juncture the only potential means for passing the legislation will be through a rare but fully legal step known as reconciliation, in which the House would need to pass the Senate bill approved in December (before Scott Brown's win ,when it had 58 Democrats and 2 Independents), and then work out changes that satisfy both the House and Senate. There is some indication that a handful of the House Democrats are going to get antsy, but my guess is that they'll get into line eventually to avoid pissing off literally everyone on their side, especially Barry O.

It's clear that once this becomes a realistic possibility, the Republicans are going to go apeshit claiming that this is some sort of government takeover and the death knell for freedom. Glenn Beck's face might actually melt off "Raiders of the Lost Ark" style (Dear God I hope so. One way or another, there will be tears from that man. Mark it down now--he's going to cry on his show.). The total hardliners will beat their breasts in anger and more than likely, it's going to feed the same sort of Teapartiban acts of terrorism that we saw in the plane attack on the IRS office in Texas (as a side note, how awful is it that people like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are rationalizing this clear-cut act of domestic terrorism and facebook support pages are popping up? He tried to murder over 100 ordinary hardworking citizens and somehow he's a hero to these people.)

Both the public and Congressional Democrats need to man up and get real about what's been happening. No more bullshit, it's time for action.

The GOP has had endless opportunities to offer up possibilities for real change over the last year, and they've done everything possible to flat out sabotage any meaningful progress. Instead of useful cooperation, they've offered us the following concepts: (1) Death Panels (although it did give me my fantasy football squad name); (2) Scrapping everything to start from scratch, when they had nothing new to offer; (3) the whole "this is the end of capitalism" rant; (4) Vilification of happy, functioning places like Canada; and (5) Nearly irrelevant, drop in the bucket solutions like setting caps on malpractice. The problem with this malpractice argument is that it's always been a tiny part of healthcare costs (as in 3%), and is 110% a red herring to distract people from real issues. And even at that, the vast majority money that is going to malpractice is going to completely legitimate victims and litigation costs, not frivolous junk suits, as this great report from the New England Journal of Medicine outlines.

Nope, instead of offering anything useful the GOP has remained hellbent on maintaining their position as health insurance whores to the detriment of the American populace. And for this reason it becomes even more critical that the option of reconciliation be used for the crisis at hand. By this point, the conservatives have made it clear that they had no intent to cooperate on anything substantial the party in power has tried, as denoted by filibustering 80% of his major legislative acts last year. When once the civil and judicious thing to do for the voting public was to vote your position and let the chips fall, they've instead used these rules to prevent any meaningful legislation to even come to a vote. These are historically high numbers, and essentially demonstrate that one party is simply opting to gridlock the Federal government until they can muster enough support for their plans, American people be damned. The worst thing of all for the GOP is that they don't even have any plans for the future. It's simply to prevent the other side from making real differences. The gloves are off at this point, and for better or worse the Democratic majority has to recognize that and respond.

The good news is that we've dealt with terrorists, kidnappers, and extortionists before, so we've seen this story play out. They say they want something, be it a new bill or a duffel bag of unmarked cash, but we all know that won't solve the problem. Are the Somali pirates suddenly going into retirement if you pay them off once? Oh hells no. It's the same here. The Democrats need to respond to political aggression with a similar conviction, and force through what needs to happen. No one's going to care how the bill was passed in 6 months if it gets done. Again, the time for jockeying, the politicking, and the preening is over. The final step starts now.

From Here To Eternity (But More Specifically June): Part I

2010-02-24T09:52:00.000-08:00

Now that the NBA trade deadline has come and gone, we can get a pretty good outlook at what teams have coming down the home stretch. All but a few teams have taken the approach of making a run for it or tearing up their teams with a chainsaw to clear cap room for the upcoming off season. The ones in the middle either are improving but too young or injured to seriously compete for a title (OK City, Houston) or just crappy and still trying to figure out how to get their heads above water.

I liken it to the scenario of going out to your car and finding a rabid raccoon tearing up the seats, and your decision is basically decided by what you're driving.

Your options:
1) 2010 Cadillac: You've got to get that damn raccoon out of the back seat before the foam stains the leather. There's the high risk/high reward option of shooting the raccoon inside the car repeatedly (Cleveland trading for a good but aging and expensive Jamison) or the conservative route that might not work, like opening the window and hoping like hell the raccoon just leaves before he finds the stereo (Boston trading for Nate Robinson).

2) 2001 Nissan: You can still get around in this ride OK, but it's fair to say you're not going to turn many heads. The best option now is probably to let the raccoon wear himself out and then try to get the insurance money to seriously upgrade everything when the sale comes this summer (Chicago dumping Thomas for 50 cents on the dollar and the Clips sending Camby to Portland).

3) 1986 Hyundai: This is a complete piece of shit and everyone knows it. The best option is set the car on fire (don't worry about the raccoon, he'll make a run for it) and start from scratch. Just do it. That raccoon's rabid, remember? You had nothing before, and you're walking for awhile, but at least you can put all the insurance money into the new car. Of course, there are only about 3 cars that can drive you anywhere exciting, so nothing's guaranteed. This, my friends, is the NY Knicks and Sacramento.

So who really can contend moving forward?
(Note: I'll do the East in a Separate Post)

Western Conference:

Lakers: 40% Chance of winning West
The Lakers do look tough, but I think they're a step down from last year and the rest of the Western elite have improved. Kobe is banged up but still elite, and Gasol remains a big time threat. But otherwise, it's not the same Lakers. Artest is always up and down, and Bynum goes back and forth between looking like an elite interior presence and a foul-prone journeyman. The key player here is Odom. When he's on, he creates enormous matchup problems and creates for the other guys. If he's ineffective, teams can pack it in low and force Kobe to beat them with jumpers. He'll get a few of them, but not enough to consistently beat elite teams. Derek Fisher is absolutely killing them right now because he's about 120 years old and still 6'1''. And for whatever reason, they suddenly have started clanging free throws like a PAL team. But as always, the Mamba makes you dangerous as all hell in the clutch, an element you can't escape.

Denver: 40% Chance of winning West
These guys look substantially better than last year and appear ready to get it done. They have everything you'd want in a contender, although they might be a little shallow in terms of paint scoring. Fortunately, Carmelo creates enough mismatches that he can get the easy buckets to ensure offensive flow. I love their backcourt depth with Lawson and JR Smith giving them totally different looks from the starters. They're hungry, deep, and talented, and I would take them in a matchup with the Lakers right now, with Billups and Lawson both having big series. I'd be a little nervous about the potential for front court injuries, since their big guys have been a little injury prone over the years, but overall they've held up well so far this season.

Dallas: 15% Chance of winning West
People are sleeping on this team and it's a mistake. I love their starting 5 and they have solid backcourt depth with Terry in the rotation. Nowitzki's playing extremely well and they seem to have solid balance throughout the lineup. The trade with the Wizards was a total steal for this year and the guys they brought in are playing well. My biggest concern is the frontcourt depth. They have Haywood at the 5, but the only other size they have is Nowitzki at the 4 (not exactly on the Barkley/Oakley level of physicality, you could say) and the rickety corpse of Erick Dampier. This could be a major problem against LA, but likely less so against Denver. Matchups are the key here.

The Rest: 5% Chance of Winning the West.
I'm sorry, but Utah, Portland, OK City, and the others aren't going to win the conference. They might challenge in a series and even pull an upset, but they nobody's going to go through all of the first teams listed on the road and do it 3 times. Probably OK City is the most dangerous team, because Durant could go for 45 any night of the series, but it's unlikely he'll do this enough to go further than round 2.

Note: We'll finish this and talk about the East in another post coming soon.

My Day of Olympic Glory

2010-02-22T13:55:00.000-08:00

Sunday marked the peak of my Winter Olympic viewership and interest, a mix of the entertaining, the exciting, and the purely baffling. We were already feeling like world class athletes in our own right. Earlier in the day, the lady and I started our tennis careers a day after getting some sweet new rackets. We've since decided that we were in fact born to be child tennis prodigies and have been working under that presumption. This mainly involves shouting "PHENOM!" every time we hit the ball well (about 5% of the time, overall) and pouting extensively.

Catching the action on a mix of live and delayed-feed, we started out watching some early skiing with Bode Miller and a guy named Axsel. While I thought the "s" in Axsel was pretty unnecessary, he seemed to have a good story about coming back from a face-crushing injury. That being said, I can't tell the difference well at all on most of the skiing and really only get interested when they shout about someone winning or crashing. It's kind of like watching NASCAR, although I don't immediately dislike all of the skiers.

After that we went to the biathlon, which is fast climbing as one of my favorite Olympic sports. Not only do the skiiers have to ski around for awhile and shoot like a squadron of spandexed commandos, they have to do a lap in the loser loop for every miss (note: I don't care what the official name for the penalty area is. I want it to be called the "loser loop" or "chump dump." Those are the only options.). Finally one emerged as the winner, but I couldn't help but wonder if some rogue competitor ever shot a rival on the course either to win or just to screw somebody else. This must have happened at least once, right? Again, this goes back to the skiing issue where I kind of wanted someone to be gunned down at the finish line, WWF style.

We eventually reached the big USA-Canada hockey game, oddly shown on MSNBC. For one thing, if it's on MSNBC they should have had Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow doing the play by play, leading to smarmy comments like "I haven't seen anyone miss on a shot that badly since Dick Cheney!" and "The way they're going, the Canadian defensemen are going to need some enhanced interrogation to figure out those American power plays!"

I realized about halfway through the game that this was the first hockey game I'd watched in about 8 years, and actually contemplated catching more of the games in the tournament. The problem with this game was the extent to which it really highlighted what's gone wrong with the NHL over the last 15 years--a lethal mix of placing teams into puzzling markets like Tampa Bay, Phoenix, and Atlanta, as well as failing to modify rules to allow for the open style of hockey we see in the Olympics. As for the game, it was exciting as all hell and there were enough 1980 team references that we were compelled to shout "Miracle!!" every time they scored. Great game overall, and undoubtedly the highlight of the day. Miracle 5, Canadians 3.

After a brief return to more of the skiing that I really didn't follow very closely (Bode Miller won over some other people who, based on what the announcers said, didn't ski very well), the night took a MAJOR turn towards the bizarre. That of course means only one thing: ice dancing. The instructions for the night appeared to be some theme along the lines of "Dress up like some sort of insanely over the top version of what you think another country might be like, and then skate around in a way that makes no sense except for being potentially offensive." And boy did they ever follow orders. Probably the most common approach was to dress up like gay cowboys and strippers (reflecting America and Canada, obviously) and to skate in circles to Johnny Cash. I'm sure Mr. Cash would be proud. I can't even explain how troubling I found the brother-sister combos that had to grab each other pretty intimately and pretend to be lovers in a deranged Western flick. Maybe I'm a square, but I can't picture myself with a potential sister like this. In case you were wondering, he's driving her as a truck. I think. I hope.

No doubt the most controversial element was the Russian team who opted to represent the Aboriginal tribes of Australia by wearing full-body blackface suits and putting fake leaves on their skates. Also, apparently the Aborigines also have employed the same hair stylist as Pebbles Flintstone. They had modified the suits somewhat to make them allegedly less offensive, although I think it's probably a good rule of thumb for skating or really, life in general, you should probably rethink what you're doing if it results in this or this. Just a good little rule of thumb, you know? Actually, I thought they looked more like a pair from the Jersey Shore crew, like Pauly D and Snookie with more foliage on them. Better get some Ron-Ron Juice, team!

All in all, a pretty solid day for the Olympics. Exciting at points, completely odd at others, and generally interesting for the majority of the day. I suppose that's way it is for most people, and at once both the strength and weakness of the games. They're familiar enough you can follow what's happening, yet uncommon enough that there's a novel feel to everything. That's what makes it work, and why we can get so engrossed every 4 years without really knowing much about what's happening. I say for 2014, count me in.

We Just Need Some Space

2010-02-18T09:22:00.000-08:00

In the past few weeks, there has been a growing rumble as to the future of one of the flagship American entities, NASA. In essence, we're seeing a serious reevaluation of the entire structure of NASA and the way we're allocating our energy, funds, and focus on space exploration generally.

The idea here is to shift a lot of the routine (routine being a relative term, of course) operations to private companies for the low Earth orbit stuff and shifting NASA's main focus onto deep space exploration and Mars (I believe Hobbits would still be in charge of Middle Earth transport). The corporate elements would generally entail moving scientists and astronauts back and forth between Earth and the space stations that currently orbit the planet. My guess is that this would also cover the possibility of Russian oil tycoons paying to go into orbit, but we'd have to see.

The argument in favor of this privatization is mainly that it isn't that complicated since it's what we've been doing for years, and requires such a substantial outlay of maintenance and operating costs that it's draining too much money from the major exploration projects like getting to Mars. Obama is actually pushing this pretty hard now, and I can understand his point. Getting to Mars and potentially beyond is clearly the on cutting edge of modern space discovery, and it's something that can only be attained through bold actions designed to make it happen. We're not going to just stumble onto Mars, folks, and we need to start now to get there in the next 20-30 years.

In 2004, President Bush initiated a program called Constellation that was focused on getting us back on the Moon by 2020. It was noble in terms of being a "rah rah! We're the Best!" thing, but it wasn't actually going to be that useful since we don't really need to be on the Moon. We've been there, and there's really not a heck of a lot of reason to go back. It would be like refocusing the Navy for 10 years on checking the Pacific for new islands--even if we find a new small one, so what? There's no substantial belief that there's some magic rock or secret on the Moon that's going to be useful, so why spend 10 years and tens of billions of dollars going back, except for all the back slapping that could result.

Obama's already made it clear that he's scrapping Constellation because it's a waste of time and money. The idea is that by dumping this program and moving NASA out of the ferrying game, NASA can really key on developing technology to put astronauts on Mars and potentially futher (although we're talking at least 20 years). It's going to be a completely different type of technology that gets humans on Mars and beyond. The petroleum combustion operations we've been using to get us to the Moon and into orbit aren't going to be enough, since we need a much larger vehicle capable of greater speeds. By reallocating our focus, we can more effectively get to places like Mars that could be useful down the road, instead of spending 10-15 years trying to get somewhere that we know isn't going to be of use.

Why Mars? Because it's the only planet we could reasonably colonize and make use of down the road, and because there are potentially enormous sources of minerals that we could use both now and in the future. It's the greatest potential source for human expansion into space and it could be the way mankind survives in case of a crazy global disaster in the next century (like an asteroid or nuclear war, not another "Jay Leno Show" or the Detroit Lions). That's why.

So what are the drawbacks? Well clearly, there is a huge potential problem of quality control. This plan looks a hell of a lot worse after a sloppy private company kills 15 scientists because nobody looked into the "check engine soon" light or because Rocketmart duct taped on a discount booster. There is going to need to be some sort of quality control oversight from NASA or another agency to make sure everything is done technically sound and without cutting corners. My guess is that this could be done reasonably effectively, but you get nervous when you see things like this Toyota brake recall. The good thing is that the technology isn't novel and NASA has been contracting out a lot of the work for years, so it's not a secret how to shoot a rocket into space.

The other element is how to control cost and try to maintain actual competition. You can't make the argument right now that it's going to follow a model like commercial air transportation because you don't have the enormous number of consumers who would actually use the services. For awhile, it would really be just the governments of the United States and a few other major nations who would be using this. As a result, we may be looking at a scenario where one private company does almost all of the flights and serves only a handful of consumers at a huge price. Not an ideal situation at first, but in this case I guess we'd have to hope that it becomes more financially efficient down the road.

In total, we're on the verge of a change in the way the US handles space exploration unlike anything since we decided we were going to the Moon in the 1950s. That plan took over a decade to come to fruition in 1969, and this one certainly will as well, if at all. Although I have concerns over the functionality of turning over the low-tech transports to the private sector, it appears to be the best way to reach the larger goal of exploring Mars and deeper into space. The American space program has taken criticism in the past for becoming somewhat complacent, and this may be the best way to ultimately kick-start the entire field into gear as we progress into this century.

Fact: Valentine's Day Requires Red Cake

2010-02-12T09:35:00.000-08:00

In honor of this weekend's Valentine's Day festivities, I'm linking the IWICQYTB up to another blog for a fun and info filled primer on making Red Velvet Cupcakes. Dear friend Andrea has a fantastic food blog called "Alphabeet Soup" and recently posted a video we shot discussing how to make Red Velvet Cake, Cupcakes, and Whoopie Pies. We used two pretty normal modern recipes for the first 2 batches and then a third that used beets for its coloring. They all turned out really well, although the one with beets had a flavor like, well, beets, and almost went more of a savory cake direction. Good, but different.

One final note: 2 of the recipes, like almost every recipe you'll see now, did use red coloring to bring out the coloration. Way back when, you might not have needed to because the cocoa didn't undergo a treatment called "Dutch Process" and so it kept more of the natural cocoa coloration, yielding a sort of brick color. For a long time though, cocoa producers have done this Dutch Process which makes the cocoa a little more alkaline (less acidic) and darker brown, but also better tasting. So that's why now we have to add the red coloring. Keep in mind also that the old way of making this in the pre-Dutch Process era didn't have that Canadian Flag red we see now.

The Link:

http://alphabeetsoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/red-velvet-bake-off.html

The Constitution Just Doesn't Work That Way

2010-02-09T09:58:00.000-08:00

Lately we've all heard quite a bit from the GOP on whether Federal authorities were wrong to have given Miranda warnings to Umar Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bombing suspect. As their argument goes, we've made ourselves less safe and given a huge unfair advantage by letting him "lawyer up." Leading the charge has been the insufferable Sarah Palin and her band of error-wielding cohorts, now featuring Maine Senator Susan Collins. While I'm not surprised that Sarah Barracuda she didn't get into the subtleties (or apparently main principles) of Constitutional law at Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College, the University of Idaho, Matanuska-Susitna College, or back at the University of Idaho a second time, I at least wished Madam Collins might have suspected something was off. Don't get me wrong though, Susan Collins has always made me wonder if there was a radon leak in her home or something. Damn that woman is dumb.

The problem here is that those two have echoed a sentiment as to the mechanics of the Constitution that is absolutely flat wrong. They've repeatedly made arguments in essence claiming that the Obama administration completely messed up by issuing Miranda warnings to the suspect because only US Citizens possess the right to counsel or to receive Miranda warnings. And as much as they wish it were so, it just plain isn't. This whole "lawyer up" thing they're ripping on and selling as a way for Obama to let terrorists run amok is one of the central tenets of American law, and is basically just an argument to deny all rights to anyone we think is a terrorist. It's the same as arguing that he shouldn't be able to have a trial, refuse to speak, or cross-examine witnesses.

The Constitution has NEVER been limited to just American citizens. It just doesn't work that way. The entire premise of the Constitution is that it's a set of limits on the Federal Government, not a set of specific powers granted to Citizens (or people at all, really). The reason law enforcement officers read you Miranda Rights in the form of "you have the right..." is to make it easier for mainstream civilians to understand what the limits are on the government's authority. It's just easier for people to understand "you have a right to remain silent" when being arrested as opposed to the more complete but confusing, "you cannot be compelled under the Federal Constitution to make statements in a criminal prosecution or investigation under compulsion or non-coercive interrogation which may tend to incriminate you in the absence of emergency situations, imminent public safety threats, immunity brokered through state or Federal prosecutorial agencies, or various other scenarios allowing for governmental agencies to force you to speak under potential for civil or criminal sanctions." Yeah, it gets a little wordy.

It's sometimes easier to think of the whole Constitution/civilian question for other protections like speech limits. For example, when you want to protest something political, you can because the government can't make it illegal to do so. It's more of a limiting rule on the government as opposed to instilling a power in the speaker. The best way to see this is if you tell your boss to go fuck himself. The government can't set any laws against it, but you can be immediately fired by your private employer on the spot, even while you claim your free speech rights protect you They don't, by the way. And this doesn't matter whether you're a full-fledged citizen or a one-day tourist from Madagascar.

In this same context, Miranda warnings and counsel access have never been limited to citizens alone. Do you really believe that we can just deny normal Constitutional rights to aliens, illegal or not? Of course not. And it shouldn't in a society focused on individual liberty instead of creating a caste system of legal protection. Where there are particular provisions that do limit the breadth to Citizens (or other issues like age limits for voting and running for the Presidency), they're specifically listed and explained thoroughly. You better believe the core rights of a defendant aren't falling under those narrow exceptions.

The only context where you could deny the Miranda warnings or counsel is where you weren't going to try to use any of the statements in a criminal prosecution. I understand the argument that they were looking for information to use to intervene in international terror plots, and I think there is some merits there. But this isn't what they're tossing out into the public forum. They're just using it in this xenophobic drum-banging that we can just start interrogating anyone who we think is a terrorist and deny them the Constitutional protections that we don't want them to have.

It's scary as hell especially because it goes back to this whole idea that we ought to be treating any would-be terrorist as some sort of quasi-military setup. Hell, why are we even doing trials, Sarah? Why don't we just shoot everyone we think might make trouble? If he's a non-citizen, he doesn't get the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right? Let's get out the torture racks!

Trying to just chip away at civil rights on the basis that we have to to protect ourselves is the crazy thinking that takes us places we don't want to go. As a Franklin quote my friend Len had posted summarizes well, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

At Long Last, Super Bowl Sunday

2010-02-06T19:49:00.000-08:00

Setting It All Up:

I suppose it really did need to come down to this matchup to resolve the whole season. Indy and New Orleans have been the two best teams over the course of the year, and while I had some pretty serious reservations about the Saints' win over the Vikings, everybody deserves to be here. As of Saturday, Indy is about a 6 point favorite, so the majority viewpoint puts the Colts on top pretty substantially. Keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean that the oddsmakers believe the Colts will win by 6--it's just that this is the number they give the Saints to get a 50/50 split on the public betting. In don't see it quite like that, and lets take a look at how the Saints might win, and why they will.

Indy Offense vs. New Orleans Defense:

Clearly, Manning is playing at such a high level that he has every ability to win this one almost on his own. The guy is just throwing it all over hell and making it look easy, and it's hard to see them coming up with less than 24-27 points. He's generally been tough against the blitz because he's so good at assessing where the pressure is coming and finding the hot read quickly. That being said, if New Orleans plans on just sitting back and letting him consistently throw against 4 man rushes, they better pack their bags and head on home right now.

Here's the part where I think New Orleans actually is decently well-equipped to handle the Indy passing game: pass defense is what they do well. If Indy is able to consistently run it with Addai and Brown they're going to be extremely tough to beat, but I don't foresee this even being a big part of the game plan--they're going to rely on Manning to make their plays (not a bad plan at all). In essence, the entire game plan for New Orleans all year has been to (1) get points on the board early with the offense; (2) force the other team into throw the ball to catch up; and (3) play aggressive pass defense because they know the other team isn't going to run it at them. The reason Minnesota was so tough for them to handle last week was that Minnesota could pound the hell out of them up front while still posing a deep threat (also, the Vikings were a damn good team). The Colts don't seem to pose that same threat up front, and this should allow the Saints to basically attack them constantly the same way that they did Arizona. Granted, Indy's a better team than Arizona, but the approach for both teams are in essence the same.

Moreover, while New Orleans doesn't have a single corner on par with Revis of the Jets, they have a tough top man in Greer and solid depth. The Jets were able to seriously control Wayne, but Lito Sheppard, Lowery and the other corners were beaten consistently. Now we hear Wayne is banged up, which is obviously a help to New Orleans. Don't get me wrong, Manning and the pass game will generate offense and points. I just don't see them able to control the game like a lot of people are thinking.

New Orleans Offense vs. Indy Defense:

I can't for the life of me understand why people aren't more concerned about the Saint run game. New Orleans has the personnel to consistently spread Indy's corners, which should allow some great fronts for Pierre Thomas and Mr. Kim Kardashian to gain some good chunks. Thomas is a hell of a lot better than people give credit for, and the Colts sure as hell aren't set up like the Vikings up front. I like Thomas to have a pretty big game with a few long runs.

The other element is that the run game is going to set up some really solid play-action. Because they're a smallish defense, the Colts rely on their corners and safeties to help on the run defense. If New Orleans can consistently pose a run threat, this should force more Colt defenders close to the line and allow Brees to toss it down field against single coverage. Sean Payton is so damn good at structuring offensive plays to isolate single defenders against his wideouts, and he's going to get that done tomorrow.

Overall, I like, but don't love, the matchups for the Saints in the pure passing game. The New Orleans Offensive line is good without being great, and the matchup on the ends favors Indy even if Freeney is limited with the ankle injury. Mathis is too good against the right side of the Saint line to handle with a single blocker, so they'll have to chip with tight ends consistently to prevent him from making big plays. The Saint receivers didn't play all that well last week, but my guess is that they'll bounce back a little and make plays.

Summary:
All together, I actually like the Saints to win this, although in a way a little different from most of their wins this year. They aren't going to be able to just spread Indy out and throw it all over the field. Their coaching staff is probably the best in the league right now at creating mismatches and openings, though, and they'll be able to do this enough to get some big plays. And most of all, I like them running the ball. The Jets and Ravens couldn't run very well against Indy because their pass games were shit and Indy could stack everyone up front.

For the Colts, it's a matter of protecting Manning and getting good games out of their young receivers. Wayne more than likely won't have a huge game because of his injury and Greer, so Garcon and Collie take on an extra importance.

To beat the Colts, you have to flat out attack them on offense. If you remember the first 3 quarters of the New England game this year, the Pats were able to gain a big lead being extremely aggressive on offense, much as the Jets were able to in the first half last week. This is what New Orleans must do at all costs, be it with the run game or the pass--attack constantly. And fortunately for them, this is when they're at their best.

The Pick: Saints, 34-31

Nothing Says Political Unrest Like Surf &Turf

2010-02-04T12:52:00.000-08:00

Today marks the kickoff of what's being called the "National Teaparty Convention," which was the promoters preferred over the other name being tossed around, "Giant Fleecing of Angry Scared Morons." There has already been some dissension among the whole tea party crew as to whether having a big single convention was actually a good idea, but the biggest hubbub has been over the money that's being tossed around, and ultimately kept by a handful of organizers.

Listen, I've got no beef with people getting together to stew angrily over some sort of misguided political disaffection. I get it. The economy is tough, that uppity Obama doesn't seem to care what you think, and there's someone telling you that the only way to fix the universe is to shout louder. It seems so damn easy, and that's the hook. Fine, go with it.

But here, in this Convention stuff, we have potentially the most obvious whoring out of the entire movement (and that's really saying something considering the underlying corporate funding that's been happening throughout this fiasco). Somehow, a for-profit corporation has been able to pass off a money making event with a--no joke--lobster and steak banquet and a $100,000 keynote speaker as the great symbol of everyday Americans taking back power. You also get to hear some of the local leaders tell you their strategies for fomenting your neighborhood government overthrow (you know they're not paying this crew anything--has anyone ever had to try hard to get a no-name conservative to talk about how smart and important they are? I think not.) All this for the low, low, price of $549, plus an additional $9.95. I'm assuming the extra fee is for Bald Eagle chow, but hopefully everyone also gets a flag ShamWow.

How are the angry masses supposed to pay the $549 you ask? To quote the organizers on their website (note: I kept the grammatical errors in there because it makes it funnier):

"Fifty people in a small tea party group for example each investing $10-20 dollars would take care of most of the costs to a delegate. This is not a huge investment money but information wise it will yield huge returns."

Ohhhhhh! Now I get it! Have the other shmucks at your local gun range/anti-government compound/Klan rally pay for you to go! Because that just screams "fiscal self-reliance."

Clearly, the big draw of the event is Sarah Palin, the darling of the allegedly oppressed right and current $100K per appearance speaker. She's taken some heat for all the money getting tossed around, and so now we're hearing she's planning on giving it to some organizations to do more funds. But when you think about it, isn't she just replacing the government if we make this a comparison to taxes? Why doesn't the organization just give the money to the organizations instead of to her, for her to redistribute it to those groups who need it? Consistency was never really her strong point anyways. (Side Note: I can't get over her answer to when she was asked which of the founding fathers she most admired: "You know. Well, all of them." I'm sure that's what Doris Kearns Goodwin said too.)

Moreover, even if Palin says she has problems or even concerns over the huge charges, she's completely exposing that as utter bullshit by still going and getting her big paycheck. Hell, if she just gave back her fee to help cut the costs, that would be a pretty big chunk (for all the non-math majors, if they had 1,000 sign up, it's $100 per person). Other people have actually started to withdraw in light of all the negative elements. That goddamn nut Michelle Bachmann pulled out completely, although we can all be certain that it was because of all the Senate rules on shilling for corporations as opposed to any personal problems with the scam. The only exception, of course, it was the company who makes hoods for waterboarding. She'd stand up for those free-marketers, Senate rules be damned.

Hopefully by Sunday night the Republic will in fact still be intact despite the efforts of those leading the 2nd Revolution. If it is, we can only assume those fine Patriots were too weighed down by the lobsters and drawn butter to take arms against Obama and his Socialist pals. Next week, though, watch out, the Rebellion is On! Oh wait, next weekend is Valentine's Day and there are ex-wives to be stalked. Screw it, let's just go back to the shooting range.

Conference Championships! Woo Hoo!

2010-01-23T09:40:00.000-08:00

Colts vs. Jets:

The problem with trying to call this game is that the Jets have some sort of gypsy mojo going on that seems to carry about 1 team each year way too far. Last year Arizona spontaneously went from crap to gold in 3 weeks and Pittsburgh was able to duck a much better Tennessee team in the AFC Championship because the Titans had 146 turnovers in the divisional round. In 2008 it was the Giants and stuff like the ridiculous Tyree catch. In 2007, Indy inexplicably figured out how to defend the run after 10 years of not stopping anyone, and made a miraculous comeback against an exhausted Pats team in Indy's dome, which had been raised to 85 degrees (no, I'm not bitter about any of this--why do you ask?). The point here is that when you look up close, there's crazy stuff happening. But when you take a step back, crazy stuff ALWAYS happens and the surprise is what it is and who gets the breaks.

As I mentioned above, the Jets are riding the mojo train right now. They had a great break playing a shitty Bengal club and then pulling the upset of the Chargers largely on the back of 3 missed field goals. When you have the NFL's all-time most accurate kicker screw up 2 short field goals (I'll give a pass on the long one) and then get that preposterous Revis interception in the same game you win by 3 points, things are going your way.

Against Indy, I just have a hard time seeing them able to put up enough points to win. I think they'll keep it close, maybe a 3 or 6 point margin, but does anyone feel comfortable betting against Manning at home now? Granted, Manning has never been as good in the playoffs as in the regular season, as his career playoff record is 7-8. (Odd stat I just learned: In the Colts' 2007 Super Bowl run--their only successful postseason-- Manning actually had his worst set of playoff games, finishing with 3 TDs and 7 INTs. How 'bout that?) I have a great deal of respect for the Jet defense, and they're playing as well as any unit except potentially Minnesota.

I just have some concerns about the Jets putting points on the board. Can someone tell me how the Jets are going to do things differently from the Ravens did? They're basically running the same type of game, and despite winning 2 games, Mark Sanchez flat out isn't doing enough for them to beat Indy at home. They're going to need to get to 20 to win, and I can't see them getting there. On the running side, the Jets have a hell of a combo with Greene and Thomas. But so did the Ravens. The Jets can pound Indy inside, and they'll have to if they're going to have a chance. I'm guessing Indy stacks it up in the front and forces the Jets to force it to the outside, where their ends and undersized linebackers can run them down.

For Indy, they'll occasionally try some draws and their stretch play in the running game, but it's going to be 90% Manning. Manning has been traditionally been tough against the blitz because he's able to find the open man quick and get it out, even if it's only for a short gain. The key element is going to be the Indy blitz pick-up. If they can prevent the first rusher from getting in Manning's face, Indy wins it by 7-10 points. If the Jets can get to him and force bad throws, they might be able to pull the upset. I think Revis will slow Wayne, but the other wideouts will get just enough space to make a few catches when they need them. I don't see who is going to cover Clark, and I look for him to have a pretty good game--maybe 70 yards and a TD.

I'm guessing it's sort of a grinding type game with some long drives for both sides. Neither team has the big play type of offense and both have enough defensive speed to limit the other side down field. The Jets play a style that keeps these games close, but I'm thinking Manning makes just enough plays to get the win.

The Pick: Indy, 20-16.

Minnesota vs. New Orleans:

I look at this game and for whatever reason, I just see the Pats-Giants Super Bowl. I know there are some differences, but my guess is that it plays out somewhat the same. Right now the over/under is about 53, but I'm guessing it finishes about a little below that. While I think the Saints have the higher potential upside, my sense is that the matchups in this game favor the Vikings slightly. Not only that, I hear Prince has written a song for the Vikings, so that's worth about a TD or so.

Clearly, New Orleans' approach to every game is to score a lot of points early with the pass game, and then allow the defense to attack while the other team tries to come back. It's a pretty good system, but by the same token, if you can get up on them or just stay conservative, you can put points on the board. The top element of this game is the way that the Minnesota front 4 matches up with the Saint O-line. I don't care how good the QB is: If he's running for his life, he's not going to be effective. What makes the Vikes so tough is that they can bring big-time pressure without having to being extra men. The general rule is that against bad quarterbacks you blitz, and against good ones, play coverage. The Vikings don't have a Revis-level corner, and they need to maximize their coverage with extra guys back there. I love Jared Allen and Kevin Williams up front, and I think they make an enormous impact in forcing early throws.

I don't like the matchup for the Saint run game. They're basically a finesse line who get their yardage as a change-up from the pass game, and when teams play extra defensive backs. Since Minnesota won't likely change what they do, I don't foresee much success up front for the Saints. They'll get some yardage, but it won't be a major element of the game, maybe a total of 22 carries for 80 yards or something. Bush had a big game for them last week, but he's so inconsistent that it's hard to gauge what he'll do. He's playing for a new contract, but I have a hard time seeing him having an impact like he did last week against an abysmal Cardinals defense.

On the other side, the key for the Vikings is to slow the game down and pound Peterson as much as possible. It's a big Viking line that had their best game in a long time against a good Cowboy unit last week, and they should be able to get some push up front. The Saints are a smaller unit, similar to the Colts, and they'll probably need to commit more men up front to slow the run game. If the Vikes are effective running the ball, this should set up more play action for Favre. I was surprised at the success Favre had throwing the ball down field last week, considering how many of them were basically just thrown up in the air. That being said, the safety Sharper will make plays if given a chance, and Jabari Greer is pretty tough. Using the play action to hold Sharper for a second will give the Viking receivers a big help in getting open.

As for the Saint pass rush, the Vikes should be able to handle it if they commit the extra man on Will Smith. They should be able to use Kleinsasser to chip on him, and he doesn't have the size to get off of McKinnie once they get locked up.

Certainly the absence of Percy Harvin would be a big loss if the migraines keep him out. He gives Minnesota another big play option and a special teams presence that could bring some serious impact. But overall, this game should come down to two matchups: (1) the pass rush of the Minnesota front 4 vs. the Saint blockers; and (2) the Minnesota O-line in run blocking vs. New Orleans' front 7, allowing Peterson to get into the second level of defenders. Essentially, the other matchups are lop-sided, in that there's no way the Viking defensive backs can match up with the Saint passing game without pressure up front. No Way. Similarly, I don't see how the Saints can effectively run on a consistent basis against the Viking front 7. In the end, it ends up being close in what should be a well-played game.

The Pick: Vikings, 27-24.

My Jersey Shore Haiku Goodbye

2010-01-21T17:22:00.000-08:00

When I got back in this afternoon, I realized that tonight, tragically, was the season finale of the Jersey Shore. Things got a little misty out here and I needed to work out some emotions. And so here, I give you, my Jersey Shore farewell Haikus.

Vinnie

You played the nice guy

And yet threw barbs at the clowns.

Is that Pink Eye gone?

Snookie

A tragic figure

Four-Nine and Sober...umm...when?

I didn’t bang—yet.

Pauly D:

Good God what is that?

Like Hair, Yet Plastic and Glue

Is Rhode Island Deaf?

The Situation:

It’s Gym, Tan, Laundry.

Perhaps we can rename you

The Desparation

Angelina:

It took two Thursdays

Before your trash bags were gone,

You Cock Block Master

JWoww:

You’ve got issues and

I Hope Surgeons give refunds.

Wait, is that a shirt?

Sammie:

More hassle than fun.

You make a wet blanket look

Like Six Flags on Crack

Ronnie:

You broke your love rule

But kept it lively with brawls.

Dude, what are you on?

All of You Damn Guidos:

How did we find love?

So dumb and yet so much fun.

Do we have Valtrex?

Beef: It's What's For Dinner (Unfortunately)

2010-01-20T19:57:00.000-08:00

I was inspired by a brief but interesting article in Time this week (thanks, btw, to the postal worker who mistakenly delivered a neighbor's Time to us) to look more deeply into the potential for major benefits in switching from beef raised on silage corn to pasture grass. This is serious business, since there are more greenhouse gases coming from livestock production than human transportation. How 'bout that? Let me insert a plug here that I'm not opposed to eating beef, even though I actually eat about 10% of what I used to growing up. Turns out turkey is the shizz.

OK, I get that it seems like a small change, but think about what happens when we eat beef that's raised on a major beef production plant, in, say Texas, the top beef producer in the country. Well, that cow on a giant plant in Texas needs to eat--a lot. But we're not growing the corn in Texas, we're growing it in Nebraska.

So we have to first grow corn on our happy little corn farm (well, 3,500 acres--more on this later), which creates its own production costs, dumps a shitload of chemicals all over the land, and uses a ton of fuel. Then we have to process all this corn into a mix that can be easily be digested and turned into beef fat ASAP. Then we have to truck all this corn mix 800 miles to the plant where we're finishing up cows. At this point, the cows are munching on their grub--I'd imagine it tastes like Fritos--but because they're way too close together, you have to give them a shit ton of cow drugs to keep them from getting sick. The other problem, well, it's the poop.

Turns out manure (and everything else coming out a cow's butt) is chock full of methane, the same stuff that comes out of your car. This is sort of bad. Back in the day, it was no sweat because it all just went on the grass, fertilized new grass, and the cows or whatever ate that later on. Circle of life, baby, circle of life. But when you have 8,000 cows all pooping around each other, it's more crap than a Tea Party rally (sorry, I couldn't resist). So beside the point of "hey wait, do I want to eat this cow that's been hanging around poop all day? Is there a hyphen in E. Coli" (No, and No), you have to haul this mountain of poop somewhere, which takes more fuel. Then there's the whole problem of having to truck all this meat to it's final destination, which is likely hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away, since I want my Big Mac in Maryland.

On the other hand, if you have cattle and let them just graze on a big field somewhere, you're pretty much just skipping a ton of these steps. The cow eats grass, he walks around, poops all over the field, the poop makes healthy grass, and in the end, things take a turn for the worse for him. I'm not talking anything crazy like making everyone raise their own cow and eat him. Sounds pretty good, right?

Two Problems (But ones we can fix!):

1) It's more expensive to do it the grass-fed way.
2) The people in the grain-fed chain of production don't want anything to change. Ever.

The solutions really overlap on this whole mess, which helps simplify somewhat, but also means you need to really bring the wood if you're going to fix this clusterfuck.

Right now, it's probably going to cost you about twice as much to go get grass-fed beef at the store (We'll call it $6 per pound for grass to $3 per pound for corn), but those costs aren't actually reflective of, you know, reality. Here's the issue: it doesn't really cost $3 to get that pound of beef. It's more than that. But all along the chain, the Federal Government is paying the producers straight cash money to keep doing what they're doing. Here's how this works, in essence: The government guarantees a certain price for corn, say $10 per bushel. In our hypo, the price of corn on the open market works out to be about $7 per bushel, because the producers grew way more corn than ever was needed, and because they know they get paid even if the price drops low due to an over-saturated market. The government pays the extra $3 per bushel to the producer, probably a big corporation like Arthur Daniels Midland (ADM). Repeat this for each of ADM's 50 million bushels of corn every year. Repeat this process for the company responsible for the beef as well. Literally, the Federal government spends Billions every year doing this crap. And you're paying for it.

So the first thing is to really blow up this process and start over. A 2007 study noted that agribusiness spent over $135 million in 2006 on lobbying and campaign donations, about 2/3 to Republicans. Every time it comes up, we all see ads showing a small farmer wistfully looking at his scraggly crop and aging house, and that's what they want. The problem is that that guy's probably an actor, and 75% of the money spent goes to 10% of the recipients. The bottom 80% get about $700 on average, so forget about about the happy little storyline.

We all need to be waaaaay more proactive about this funding issue, because we're getting completely screwed on this, and as it turns out, we as the public are the only ones. ADM, Cargill, and Tyson are pretty much wiping their ass with Franklins that we're throwing at them, and we're responding to all of this by sending more bills. We need to get on this ASAP, and not let it slide when people like Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) get a ton of money from these guys and then use their seats on the Senate Agriculture Committee to keep this sham moving. This is why ADM has a 7-foot bronze statue of Ronald Reagan outside their corporate headquarters, not because he was a flashy dresser.

Ultimately, we can do a hell of a lot of good by just eating less beef, and focusing on the grass-fed stuff when we partake. If you ever see an ad claiming that beef farmer Jones is going under because we're not eating beef ,think to yourself, "Wait, Farmer Jones can afford to be on a national TV ad, but not to eat on a regular basis? Hmmmmm." Because it's as fake as the day is long. Also, by choosing locally raised meat that doesn't involve the mega-industrial elements, we'll push the market towards more desirable stuff, who actually are small farmers, increasing the demand and then subsequently the supply, and the price goes...? Down, that's right!

Guess what else? We can save loads of fuel by eating locally, and eat way less of the bacteria and drugs that they have to put into the system to make it sustainable. And I'm not even getting into the issues of how they treat the animals. Jesus, it's a rough, rough, business (and another blog entry, but not for today). Moreover, Lord knows it's clear that red meat is a nutritional disaster, regardless of what McDonalds and Kroger say. Try that turkey, because like I said, it's the shizz.

Hope this all makes some sense, and maybe down the road we can be a little better about what we're eating. Like I said before, I'm not anti-meat or anti-beef. I love meat, and I love beef. But just handing over money to these giant corporations so they can tell us to look the other way while they screw us seems a little unnecessary, no?

Divisional Weekend, Sunday Games

2010-01-15T16:29:00.000-08:00

Cowboys vs. Vikings (Sunday Afternoon):

Let me start by saying that I love the way the Cowboys are playing right now, and this is the game I'm most interested in watching. Both teams look good on both sides of the ball, and they're doing things that they should be able to sustain throughout the playoffs. Running the ball hard and rushing the passer aren't fluky things the way that needing your QB to throw 350 yards and 4 TD to win can be.

As much as people have talked up the size of the Viking offensive line (the Fox guys are going to keep throwing it out there because Troy can't learn new material), they haven't actually been playing that well. The Dallas front 7 should be able to play Peterson and the run game well, and in general the Vikes haven't handled physical defensive lines well. Don't get me wrong, Peterson will get his yards, and it wouldn't be surprising if he ended up with 100 yards and a TD. If Dallas can keep him to around 100 yards on 25 carries, that's fine for the Cowboys. They need to avoid the big runs and make Favre beat them consistently.

The more Favre has to throw against this Dallas team, the more the game sways away from the Vikings. Favre is liable to make mistakes once he has to start making plays on his own, especially against a team with defensive play makers. The Vikings are at their best when Peterson can run effectively, setting up play action and some 2nd and 2 deep throws.

I love the Cowboy offense right now. It's an attack that can both grind the ball to wear you out and yet has potentially the top big play guy left in the playoffs in Felix Jones. The pass game tends to be safe and consistent, but I guess you could argue that the deep throw isn't really a big part of the game for them. Against Minnesota, I'm guessing they'll struggle with a lot of the interior runs with the Viking DTs being so tough to handle, but I do think they can break some runs on the exterior. Look for some draws to be run at Jared Allen, which should slow down his pass rush as well as create some opportunities for Jones and Barber to get out in space on the perimeter. The Cowboys are crazy to try to force the ball down field in the pass game because (1) the Viking pass rush is really tough, especially on the fast Metrodome turf; (2) Flozell Adams cannot consistently handle Jared Allen whatsoever without a ton of help; (3) they don't really have a downfield guy anyways.

I'm guessing the first half is going to be a somewhat defensive type game. There may be a big play, but the teams probably won't be able to just drive it. Maybe a halfime score around 13-10, 10-10, etc. The Cowboys have a little more explosion on a play to play basis, and I fear Favre might turn the ball over if he has to make plays on his own. I say the Cowboys do just enough to pull it out and head on to the NFC Championship. That being said, I do think these are the 2 best teams in the NFC, so I'll take the winner next week as well.

The Pick: Cowboys, 27-24.

Jets v. Chargers (Sunday Late Game)

As good as the Jets looked last week, we need to keep in mind that the Bengals really just weren't a very good team. They just weren't. That, and the Jets literally played their perfect game. People are underselling this Charger club and this week they'll make some big plays to show they're the real deal.

The Jets are clearly a run-first team, so look for a lot of heavy sets from the Chargers. San Diego isn't a particularly good team against the run game, so they'll have to commit extra guys up front. That being said, the Jets run game is more of a pound the rock approach as opposed to a big play team, so there still be situations where Sanchez needs to convert 3rd and 7. The biggest thing to watch out for, if you're the Chargers, is the Sanchez roll out where he's trying to get the TE Keller across the middle. They'll need to commit a safety to run with Keller, and they should be able to slow him a lot if they do.

On the other side of the ball, there is a huge hubbub about Darrell Revis and his ability to stop the passing game. The problem with this idea is that while Cincy only had one legitimate receiver, San Diego has Jackson, Gates, Naanee, Floyd, and Sproles, all of whom can catch the ball and make plays. Revis will generally be matched up with Jackson, and really close him off, but the Chargers are probably better equipped to respond to this than any team in the league (except maybe New Orleans or a healthy Arizona). The Jets will try to bring a ton of pressure, but the Chargers will respond by trying to get rid of the ball quick. Look for a lot of quick passes to the WRs and Sproles. The other issue is that the Chargers can throw a lot of the jump ball passes, and they should have a substantial advantage over the smaller Jet corners.

The Chargers aren't much of a running team, but it's not as bad as people made it out to be. Tomlinson has played better at home than on the road, and Sproles should be able to make some hay on sweeps and draws. That, and you can run on the Jets (Benson had 167 yards alone last week on the ground against 8 man fronts). All this being said, this game isn't going to be won or lost by the San Diego ground game--they're probably throwing it 35 times this week.

Overall, I like the Chargers to pull away once they get warmed up. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Jets score first or get an early turnover, but the Chargers seem like a team that's at least a touchdown better. Don't overvalue last week, since this happens every year.

The Pick: Chargers, 27-17.

Divisional Weekend - Saturday Games

2010-01-15T09:26:00.000-08:00

Cards at Saints: (Saturday Afternoon)

Right now, Warner and his offense are playing at an exceptionally high level, reminiscent of last year's monster run. He's throwing the ball all over hell and I don't actually see the Saints being able to stop them consistently. The run game is also looking tough, and Wells looks like a developing big-timer. The return of Boldin will help them somewhat if he can play, although he'll clearly be limited if he's out there at all.

That being said, Arizona's defense really is pretty shaky, and this should be what turns this in favor of an explosive Saint offense. Going to overtime with 45 on the board is never a good sign, especially when you're playing at home. The Saints have looked a little erratic but I'm thinking they'll be a little too much for the Arizona defense to stop. They seem like a team that can get a little sloppy against mediocre teams, but gets up for big games. Brees should be able to throw for a solid 300 yards and a couple of TDs. I'm actually expecting a very good game from the New Orleans running backs because you know Arizona's going to have to play a lot of nickel and dime sets. Pierre Thomas should be able to rip off a few big runs.

I think in the end Brees and his guys are able to get a lead and pull away. Warner should be very sharp, so I don't expect many turnovers from either side, although if New Orleans gets up they'll be able to start bringing heavy pressure. I'm guessing it's a pretty high scoring affair, but New Orleans wins it by about a touchdown.

The Pick: New Orleans, 38-30.

Ravens at Colts: (Saturday Night)

Maybe I'm putting too much weight on the Pats/Ravens game from last week, but I really like the chances of the Ravens to pull this out. I see it like this: if you're going to beat the Colts, you need to be able to (1) run the ball (check); (2) bring pressure without blitzing (check); and (3) put touchdowns on the board, not field goals (check).

It's pretty clear that the Ravens are going to try to just run it right at the Colts and try to both break a long one and wear them down. The Colt front 7 is fast, but they aren't a big group and Baltimore is going to be able to wear them down just banging away at them. Teams that have done this have, in general, had pretty good success against the Colts, even if they didn't win. My guess is that this game will be similar to what we saw in the first match-up with these teams, except Baltimore will be able to punch it in a couple of times. Remember, when they played earlier in the season, Baltimore was didn't get a single touchdown in four red zone trips when a single one would have won it. I think Rice and McGahee combine tomorrow for 180 yards and 2 TDs.

People are making a lot about Flacco struggling last week, but it's important to note that he never really had a chance to get into a rhythm because of the big lead. I don't foresee him having a huge game, but he'll be fine and make a few plays on pass action. Probably a final line like 14-20, 185 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.

On the other side, Manning is of course fantastic. The only shortcoming here is that I don't see them being able to run it on the Ravens front 7, a big, strong crew. Wayne's tough, but the other WRs are pretty average and won't draw double teams. Moreover, Baltimore will be able to bring pressure against Manning without blitzing as much as they did last week. Keep in mind that since it's the 3-4, they can rush a linebacker without losing much in the way of coverage because they only have 3 linemen.

Overall, I'm guessing Baltimore comes out early and gets a lead. The Colts haven't played a serious game in about a month, and the Ravens are a team that's riding high with confidence and extremely physical. I'm saying the Ravens lead it 17-10 at the half and hold on for a 27-24 win.

The Pick: Ravens, 27-24.

What Was That Whole Trent Lott Thing About, Anyway?

2010-01-13T16:39:00.000-08:00

It goes without saying that Harry Reid's had a tough week. First it was cold all weekend in D.C., then some extra office time on this health care stuff totally cut into the weekend. And then that whole racial business. Tough run, Harry, tough run. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that if you're ever being compared to Trent Lott, you've probably done something really dumb or illegal (fortunately for Reid, it was just dumb). At this point, let's take a look at what both people said, and compare them put them into context.

Turning first to Reid, there probably isn't anyone jumping in to argue that they loved to hear what he said, because it was stupid and inappropriate in the way he said it. And now the Republicans are trying to portray it as though he was burning crosses on Obama's lawn in a sheet. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, since half of what they argue every day is pure lunacy, but this is even more audacious because it flies in the face of both reality and their own actions.

The issue with what Reid said (basically, Obama was "light-skinned" and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.") is that the point he was trying to make wasn't really that offensive because it wasn't making a judgment. I completely agree with every claim that the way he phrased it was in poor taste and demonstrated a lack of thinking about how this would sound. His point wasn't that he didn't like Obama, that he didn't respect African-Americans, or something to that point. His point was that as much as the country raves about racial equality, White America was going to be more receptive to someone who looked more like them. It's his speculation on how a segment of undecided voters might respond to him. It sounds bad when he says it, but the principal has long been known in studies whether we're talking about babies, choosing friends, NBA viewership, and long-debated in elections. The comment about the "Negro dialect" is a poor way to make the point, since what he appeared to have meant was basically the stereotypical/cliche jargon that the same people holding racial reservations would have found highly objectionable. If he had written the statement down, for example, we would see Reid's own quotation marks around the term to further his meaning.

The context is even more critical, as it establishes this as a poorly-phrased gaffe as opposed to a revelation of racial animus. You can't call the guy a racist if he's one of the earliest supporters of a candidate of the race he allegedly dislikes. Reid has always publicly and privately supported Obama, and put his ass on the line to push the healthcare bill.

In contrast to all this, the indignant GOP and it's lackies are pointing to Trent Lott and claiming a double-standard. But what really happened back in 2002?

Lott, let's remember, had already been known for: (1) voting against Martin Luther King Day; (2) voting against extending the Civil Rights Act; and (3) voting against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And so, on this lovely day in South Carolina, Lott proclaimed that if Strom Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948, the Country wouldn't have all the problems it does now. The problem with this, of course, was that the chief platform of Thurmond's 1948 campaign was maintaining Southern Segregation. Keep in mind this wasn't a fringy, secondary issue--this was the main point of his campaign. Maybe Lott would try to explain it as referring to something that was purely secondary, but that's like saying, "Man, I wish those Nazis had won! That Holocaust thing was a downer, but the mail never got delivered faster! And the brown shirts were a great earth tone, good for any season."

In the end, the comparison just doesn't add up to make any sense. On one hand we have a poorly-phrased idea that doesn't correlate with the speaker's background, while on the other we see a clearly intentional statement that fits squarely within a pattern of opposing racial equality. It's clearly a weak attempt by the GOP and the industry shills to try to make Reid look bad and distract the public from the health care legislation they've desperately tried to block. It's offensive and counter-productive, but it's all they've got. That being said, it doesn't seem to be working well. You know you're not playing the race card well when all the people who would have been offended aren't, and the only ones up in arms are angry white men and Michael Steele, who, to borrow a phrase from the "The Chappelle Show," "makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X."

Coming to a Screen Near You? Not if the Right Has Anything to Say About It.

2010-01-12T11:08:00.001-08:00

As if the overly-righteous Prop. 8 advocates weren't offensive enough, now they've been tried to close the proceedings as much as possible to make sure the public doesn't see them make their case for discrimination. In essence, the conservatives have made a strong push to have the cameras removed from the courtroom against the wishes of the gay marriage advocates. It's amazing how these people were so proud to be out in public on the ads when they could control everything and not be questioned as to their beliefs , but once they might have to answer a tough question, they're suddenly scared for their safety. Right. What a bunch of slime balls.

The law on these issues is a little uncertain as of right now. There's a generalized presumption that open courts are a good thing, and there's no way that this would be completely closed. Basically, the public and press has a well established right to have court rooms open (except in special cases involving children, vulnerable victims, private medical records, etc.), but the issue has to do with video and television. The element of the youtube broadcast is a new one for the court to take head on, and they'll address it soon. The most important case law on the matter is the 1980 decision Chandler v. Florida, where the court held that cameras in the court room are allowable so long as they don't infringe on the rights of the involved parties, but more importantly, that states have the right to "experiment with evolving technologies." This should carry the day, but you never know.

I have a hard time seeing how any of the parties are going to demonstrate that their rights are being infringed by the case being shown on youtube. The Prop. 8 supporters have consistently brought themselves into the public arena and the safety concerns are at best shaky.

How is this going to play out? Sotomayer and Breyer are almost slam dunks for allowing cameras in the courtroom, and I think they can get the 5 votes they need. My guess is that Stevens and Ginsburg will join on, so the question is really Kennedy. It's not clear, but I think he might go for it. He seems to be of the persuasion that the courts can decide for themselves, so I'm guessing he'll let the judge do what he wants. Of course Clarence Thomas will vote against it because he's an angry incompetent bigot, and that's how he rolls. Plus, if he's ever on TV he'll look like a moron, and he wants to do what he can to keep that from happening. Scalia probably will also close it down. Alito used to be more open to these things, but he appears to have turned towards closing them, and same for Roberts. One key part of this, of course, is that they're deciding whether a judge can open his own court room, and not whether the Supreme Court has to allow cameras in their court. That's a less likely proposition than letting the trial judge decide for himself.

Of course all of this overlooks the fact that at the heart of the matter is the fact that we should all be offended by the conservatives trying to keep the public from seeing what's happening. If they're as proud and firm in their beliefs, why do they need to hide from the public? Why hide if the facts and law are on your side? I think we can pretty reasonably draw our own conclusions.

The Plan to Fix the Pats

2010-01-12T09:15:00.000-08:00

As bad as the Ravens game looked (and it was so, so bad), I actually don’t think the Pats are really that far from being a serious contender for a championship and not just the playoff fodder they resembled for most of this season. It’s a situation, for example, where the defensive backs looked shaky at times, but a lot of that was due to the complete lack of a pass rush, which left them exposed for too long. Fix the pass rush and bam! We’ve now fixed the pass rush and defensive backs look better.

I’ve broken down a number of the players who would seem to be the potential source of some changes:

Players to Let go, or include as trade chips if people want them:

Adalius Thomas:

He’s not a terrible player. He really isn’t. But he’s making too damn much money and has started to become a malcontent. The Pats aren’t using him effectively, so he’s basically wasted. This will save some serious dollars and give them some useful flexibility. In short, he has to go.

Matt Light:

Matt, we’ve had a good run. But the struggles against good pass rushers has become too much to withstand (ugh, that first Suggs strip sack was 110% Light getting beat. Again.) and we have a good, young replacement in Vollmer who already appears better. If Light is willing to take a pay cut, we can keep him as a sub/rotation guy. But $4.5 million for a middle of the road tackle isn’t going to work. He's only signed through 2010 anyways, and there's no cap hit if we cut him.

Ben Watson:

Just let him go. He drops too many passes and isn’t much of a blocker. We can replace him without much issue.

Derek Burgess:

It just didn’t work, and there’s not much more to add than that. There’s $2 mil off the books.

Fred Taylor:

I've got nothing against this guy, but at this point in his career he's a guy who's injured all the time and about a middle of the road guy when he's healthy. And he makes almost $3 mil, when you factor in his bonus cap charge. This isn't going to fly. Gotta renegotiate this or just cut him loose.

Guys to Re-Sign:

Wilfork:

They need to bring him back, one way or another. He’s a huge part of the run defense, and extremely tough to replace. He’ll want some serious money, and they need to give it to him. By the time the Pats can track down someone to replace him, Brady’s at the very end of his career. We need to make this happen.

Guys To Try To Re-sign, But Don’t Break The Bank To Do It:

Leigh Bodden:

We should be able to get him back with a decent contract. He had a pretty good year, and I like the trio of Bodden, Springs, and Butler moving forward. Maybe $5 mil per year should do it. If he wants more than that, let him go--he's not a $7 mil per year Pro Bowl guy. Overall, we aren't spending that much money on the defensive backfield, so we can pay him a little.

Logan Mankins:

Like Bodden, I’d like to keep him but if he’s demanding $7 mil per year, he can pack his bags. Contenders don’t pay that kind of money for interior linemen. The Vikings are paying Hutchinson that kind of money, but they’re winning because of Favre and Peterson. Keep him for $5 mil or let him walk. Interesting situation on him: if 2010 is an uncapped year, he won't have accrued the 6 years of tenure required to become a free agent and he's stuck in New England. If it's a capped year, he'll likely get the old rule, whichonly would have required 4 years, and he'll probably bounce. Let somebody like Tampa or Seattle throw $45 mil at him if they want.

Steven Neal:

They can keep him, but don’t go more than $2-3 mil per year. He’s an injury prone over-achiever who is good, but not that good.

The Big Trade:

To Pats: RB Steven Jackson

To Rams: Julian Edelman, Laurence Maroney, 2009 2^nd Round Pick (#57)

OK, this is a big trade here. Jackson is a monster tail back in the prime of his career. He’s making some serious money, but if we cut costs by dropping Thomas and Maroney, that helps a lot. Same thing for Light, if we need to keep clearing space. As for Edelman, he’s somewhat redundant for the Pats when Welker comes back, and as much as everyone would love to keep him, you have to give something to get something. Maroney wasn’t a bad runner, he just wasn’t the best fit and the Pats can gamble on a big timer like Jackson for 3 years. Also, the Pats have 3 SecondRounders, so they can afford to lose one without suffering too badly. They might need to throw in another low pick, and if so, do it.

For the Rams, it makes sense as well. Jackson’s going to be done by the time they get close enough to contend for anything, and they’ll basically just win 2 games either with him or without him. They get a talented young receiver who can clearly play on a winning team, as we’ve seen the last few weeks. They have nothing for receivers and he would be a cheap, reliable starter next year. Maroney can step in as a primary ball carrier for 2010 and they can decide what to do with him at that point. And the 2^nd round pick is a good one in a deep draft.

Draft:

We flat out need pass rushers who can come off the edge in the 3-4. We’ve been getting killed by the absence of a game changer at this position and trying to fill it in with guys like Tully Banta-Cain has a limited upside. The other big elements are a developmental DE to occasionally fill in for Warren and to replace Seymour’s position, a young Tight End, and a big receiver to develop.

Keep in mind also that there are a handful of young guys who we didn't see much of this season due to injury, namely WR Brandon Tate and LB Tyrone McKenzie. Both of them looked like solid prospects before they got banged up. OLB Shawn Crable looked like he had some potential, but he's always hurt and hasn't made any impact in his time with the team. He might get cut anyways if he can't get it figured out soon.

Free Agents to Target:

With the free agents, I don't see much point in picking out the big name guys and saying "We need Peppers! We need Brandon Marshall!" since those are pretty unlikely scenarios. The guys listed below are the types of players they'll likely target, since re-signing their own guys is a higher priority.

Deion Branch:

There’s no way Seattle keeps him around, based on his performance, price, and the team outlook. They’ll cut him this offseason and we need to grab him for an affordable price to play the 3^rd Receiver role.

Bo Scaife:

I like this guy and the situation. Tennessee has a good young TE in Jared Cook, and Scaife seems like a guy who could be a decent short yardage TE and blocker.

Bertrand Berry:
Here's a guy who has done well as a situational pass rusher in the 3-4. He's an older guy, so a 2-year deal would probably work just fine.

Wildcard Weekend, Episode II

2010-01-09T17:15:00.000-08:00

Patriots vs. Ravens:

If you ask some people, they'll say that this match-up is going to be controlled by the loss of Wes Welker. I'm not one of them. I love Welker and everything he brings to the Pats. That being said, New England will be surprisingly adept at playing without him. How, you ask?

The Pats are going to change what they're trying to do in a broader sense. Edelman will be able to give them about 75% of what Edelman would have, except that they're going to throw less to that position. Playing the Ravens creates a little bit of an odd match to start, as the Ravens have tended to be a tough defense to run on. You'll hear a lot about how tough the Ravens are to run the ball against and there will be some ranks and stats tossed out there. But when you look at the game breakdowns for the Ravens, they're a team that gave up some pretty big yardage totals to good teams and really shut down the run games of bad teams and good teams who don't run well (like San Diego and Indy). Teams like Minnesota and Cincinnati ran it right down Baltimore's throats. So don't think that you can't run on these guys. Granted, if New England wins, they'll run a heck of a lot more in the upcoming game(s).

The other reason teams didn't run it a ton is because the corners for the Ravens are pretty mediocre and give up big plays. Foxworth gets beat in coverage like it's his job, and outside of Ed Reed there isn;t much back there. My guess is that the Pats will try to establish the run and then work some play action off of that, likely a few deep throws to Moss. If the Pats get Moss isolated on a single Baltimore corner, mark it up for 6. Brady's going to be spreading the ball around, so I don't think any one receiver will have huge numbers. Moss will get his 100 yards and TD, but otherwise look for about 6 receivers to have 30 yards.

Baltimore will oppose this by trying to force 3rd and long situations and bring pressure with Suggs. New England knows they're going to need to help the tackles against him and as a result, I don't see Watson or Baker having huge games like some people are suggesting.

On the other side of the ball, the number one issue is whether Flacco can have a big game. My guess is that the Pats will absolutely focus on Rice, and limit his damage. They'll do this by playing a lot of men close to the line and they'll be helped enormously by the return of Wilfork and Warren. That being said, it's going to create opportunities for the Baltimore wideouts and Heap to make plays agaisnt single coverage. The matchups of Leigh Bodden & Springs vs. Derek Mason and Clayton are going to be huge, and likely will swing the game dramatically. I'm guessing those 2 corners will do a pretty good job and prevent them from making catches consistently. The other factor is the pass rush, and Tully Banta Cain should be able to make a play or 2 around the outside--he's the best rusher they have and is fast enough to turn the corner on the left tackle Gaither.

In summary, I think the Pats pull this one out. They've traditionally played well at home, and Baltimore hasn't shown itself to be a team ready to make big plays when it matters. I don't like their receivers or corners, and I think Belichick is going to be creative in bringing pressure on Flacco to get him on the move, where he's far less effective. New England will be able to grind out enough rush yardage to create opportunities downfield. I also expect an increase in the use of Faulk in the screen game to help slow the pass rush down.

The Call: Pats, 24-17.

Wild Card Preview, Episode I

2010-01-08T09:20:00.000-08:00

Sweetness! The Playoffs are here and I'm pumped as all hell. The next two weeks are the best all season, with a pair of big time match-ups both Saturday and Sunday. So go grab a few brews and a half dozen pizzas and get it ready for the weekend.

I'm going to discuss each game, first the Saturday games and then post notes for the Sunday affairs separately.

Jets vs. Bengals:

This is going to be the ugliest game to watch, hands down. We're going to see 2 good defenses, 2 decent but predictable offenses, and some cold weather. It's a combination likely to max this game out at about 32 points total. An odd element here is that while I think Cincinnati is better overall, the Jets are a terrible match-up for them and pose some serious problems for a 6 seed.

I don't like the way Cincy's offense matches up here. Basically, their primary receiver (Ochocinco--BTW, this has given me endless laughs over the last 2 years. I don't care if it's corny, I love it.) is going to be seriously limited by Revis, the top corner in the game right now. After that, the Jets can commit 8 man fronts to stopping the Bengal run game, which is their bread and butter. I like Benson as a grinder-type running back, but I can't see them making a living when the Jets are stacked against the run. If Cincinnati is going to win, you're going to see some big plays out of Andre Caldwell Laverneus Coles. This of course reminds us of the age-old football proverb: if you're relying on Andre Caldwell and Laverneus Coles, you're probably screwed.

On the other side of the ball, the Jets have no choice but to focus on running the ball. To say rookie quarterbacks traditionally struggle in these situations is like saying trees traditionally struggle in wood chippers. Additionally, Sanchez doesn't really have the cannon that you'd like to see in a cold, breezy day. They'll try to mix in some play action so loosen the linebackers up a little. The Cincy corners are good, and the Jets receivers are at best a mediocre lot, so don't expect a lot of downfield stuff. I think we could see some good things out of TE Dustin Keller. Most of all, it's all about how well the Jets can pound out the rushing yards. I think you can run on the Bengals a little with the injuries they've had (like Maualaga's broken ankle) and that's something the Jets will try to exploit.

I'm guessing this one stays close, but the Jets are able to make a couple of big plays on defense. Maybe something like an interception or sack and fumble recovery for a TD. Cincy just can't put enough points on the board, and Jets squeeze it out with the D.

The Call: JETS, 17-13.

Eagles v. Cowboys:

First of all, don't put huge stock into what happened last week. Those week 17 games don't generally have much impact on the next week. That being said, the Cowboys have looked excellent the last few weeks and have shown they can handle the passing game probably as well as most anyone. I'm not as high on the Eagles as a lot of people. They look to me like a team that has feasted on teams that either weren't any good (like KC and Tampa) or who were all messed up at the time of the game (like the Giants late in the year or Atlanta w/o Matt Ryan or Turner). I don't see any quality wins on their schedule (link).

I like the way the Dallas defense matches up with the Eagles. The corners, especially Jenkins, have played real well in the last few weeks, and the Eagle receivers other than Desean Jackson are pretty unremarkable. The other issue here is that the Dallas defensive line is playing extremely well and should be able to dominate the Philly blockers. Look for the criminally underrated NT Jay Ratliff to make some plays and for Demarcus Ware to eat up Jason Peters, who's been living off his name for 2 years now. All this should allow for a lot of nickel and dime coverage for Dallas and a tough throwing day for McNabb. The Eagles are going to struggle running, so look for a lot of short screens and draws with McCoy.

On the other side of the ball, look for Dallas to try to wear down the Eagle defense with a big offensive line and it's tailback rotation. I like the Philly defense, but I'm thinking they may have trouble because of the versatility of the Cowboy offense. Dallas has to avoid the long 3rd downs, because the Eagles are going to blitz and have the defense designed to make big plays. Asante Samuel is excellent for the Eagles and he is going to make a big play. But by that same token, Dallas is going to run some double moves with the receivers and beat him on a long pass.

I think the home field will be a surprisingly big advantage for the Cowboys. They're going to pack the new stadium with some ridiculous number of fans, and it's going to be noisy as hell with the roof closed. The Dallas defense will surprise and really have a big game. I'm guessing it's close early and Dallas pulls away in the last 20 minutes.

The Call: Dallas 30-20

The Alamo, Part II

2010-01-07T09:53:00.001-08:00

Tonight's Alabama-Texas BCS game really doesn't look to me like much of a match-up. I have nothing against Texas in the broad sense (putting aside the Bush debacle and now the turf at Reliant Stadium), but I don't see this one ending well for the Horns. In bowl games like this, we tend to see the strength of teams accentuated because of the extra time to prepare and coach. Tonight we're going to see a ton of pressure on McCoy, and there are going to be some big plays made by the defense through their extensive blitz package.

McCoy simply doesn't have the skill or weapons to attack the Alabama defense. Tide defenders like Rolando McClain are going to look like superstars on account of their superior athleticism and the inability of Texas to handle that element. There's going to be a play early on where Shipley catches a 5 yard pass across the middle and gets decked when this all becomes pretty evident. Remember what Ndamukong Suh did against Texas last month? Suh is better than any individual Tide defender, but Alabama has a huge array of athletes of that same ilk.

The entire Texas offense is predicated on efficient passing from McCoy, and subsequently when opposing defenses are able to disrupt the timing (whether through pressure or coverage), things go all to hell. In the two games against competition similar to what he'll see tonight, Nebraska and Okahoma, he threw for an average of 155 yards, and a total of 1 TD and 4 INTs. On the running side, the Alabama defensive line is big enough and fast enough to control a mediocre Texas Offensive line without committing extra men to the box, and there's enough speed in the back 7 to prevent any long runs. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Texas only ran for 50 yards all night, and would be stunned if it really became a big part of the offense. It's just not their game.

On the other side of the ball, I've never been a huge fan of the Alabama offense but they appear strong enough to grind out some points. Ingram is tough, but I'm pretty ambivalent on the QB McElroy. That being said, I'm thinking they may get some short fields and I think you'll see a big play or two from Julio Jones. He's a monster WR and has been quiet for stretches, but he seems like someone who will make a big play on national TV. I like the Texas defense somewhat, but they seem like a defense predicated on playing from ahead. Look for Alabama to just wear them down.

The Texas defense absolutely lives on turnovers (they were tied for second nationally with 35--about 3 a game), but they are highly unlikely to get much help there tonight. Alabama has only had 10 turnovers all year, and they aren't going to get into the types of situations that tend to breed turnovers, like throwing into coverage on a 3rd and 13 situation.

Overall, I like the Tide, 27-13. I don't see Texas consistently moving the ball well enough to get past 20 points, and the Tide offense is tough enough to get that number. I'm guessing the Texas offense gets a little shell shocked in the first half and the halftime score is around 16-6. If Texas is going to win, they MUST get a big play or 2 from special teams or a defensive TD. But I just don't see it happening, on account of how safe the Alabama offense plays everything.

That's how I see it all playing out, but hey, they don't play it on paper. Unfortunately for Texas, this is going to go badly on both.

Get Those Fists Pumpin!

2010-01-06T13:27:00.000-08:00

It's been a little while since we've all beaten up a beat over in Seaside Heights, so we've got a lot to analyze. Just caught some extra stuff online where they actually had Kenny from the challenge shows interview a few of them. I'll be honest--it wasn't exactly Frost/Nixon. But there were some entertaining rips on each other.

Through 5 episodes, it's fair to say that The Situation has developed into hands down the most interesting member of the cast. The remarkable part of the arc, and what's kept him at the forefront, has been his being exposed not as the master player, but as an insecure and surprisingly desperate mess. He's kind if morphing into a spray-tanned Kanye West, minus the part about having an identifiable talent.

Unlike the rest of the house, he seems to get where he is both in the house and in the world outside of Guido City, USA. He appears to understand the fact that he's basically an aging, somewhat fugly, personal trainer who can't get any of the local skankery to return his calls.To paraphrase Ronnie, Mike would get freaky with a Gatorade bottle by this point. The fact that he gets it and has become so desperate in chasing anything resembling a female is really a surprising turn since the start and has begun to isolate him from the others--I'm guessing his trying to talk up some woman while Snookie was bleeding on the ground will be an ongoing source of contention. I'm thinking he breaks down and cries before the end of one of these things--this cat is fragile as all hell.

As for the others, there's less to get excited over. I love Pauly D, but he just might be the least self-aware character I've ever seen (insert comment about being "Rhode Island's Number One DJ"). It's entertaining in some ways, but I'm afraid he might be a little one-note after another week or so. As a side note, there was some female he brought home an episode or so ago that looked like a less attractive John Daly (pic). OK, that was just an excuse to make you look at a picture of the old John Daly.

The rest of the people seem to have their one gimmick and not a hell of a lot else. Ronnie and Sammie seem to just have their deal and are kind of boring overall. Vinnie seems likable enough, but about as exciting to watch as day old bread pudding. Snookie and JWowwheria are crazy drunken whores, but I'm not sure that we didn't know that about 35 seconds into episode 1. The two of them together are about as stable as a Jenga pile on a wake board.

And to set the record straight, the blue roses that Chumpy McGee sent JWoww aren't anything rare or exotic, or as she called them, "the rarest roses--you can't even get them in New York." I'm sure you're right JWoww, the rarest flowers in the world are only available in the seediest part of Jersey. That makes sense. For chrissakes you moron they're just white ones painted blue! I looked into this and actual "blue roses" do exist and are hard to come by, but they look mauve and not blue. Those Ikea blue ones she got were some cheap ass spray paint crap. Yes, I actually looked this stuff up and recognize the serious need to find a better use for my time. Oh well.

Until next time, keep your poofs fluffy and your hair crunchy. We'll probably revisit things in a couple of weeks.

Every Time I Lift My Shirt, A Little Part of Me Dies

2010-01-05T17:34:00.000-08:00

Bonus Post!

Dear friend of the blog (for this purpose we will name him "T WILLZZZ" or "The Equilibrium") sent along this fantastic link from Funnyordie.com. It's spot on for the blog, and leads right in to an upcoming post, probably Wednesday. Maybe my favorite part is Pauly D's unidentified accent. I can't tell if it's English or just his guess at"how a smart person would sound."

Thanks so much, Equilibrium.

Click here for the video (really need to catch the whole thing)

Looking Back From 2020

2010-01-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

Wow, so here we are in the crazy era of 2020!! Man, that Tristan really aged well. What a sexy slab of man that guy still is. It's really depressing, though, that he still has nothing better to do than blog about stuff.

While we're here, let's take a look back through the last decade or so back through to the start-up of IWICQYTB:

1) Tiger Woods bounced back from his tabloid mess and pretty much kept on winning. He made it clear that he felt bad about what had happened, but never gave in to the pricks who wanted him to come and kiss their asses. He ended up passing Nicklaus' Majors record, and while he never regained his standing as a major endorsement figure, the whole scandalous element blew over the way these things always do. He never really turned into the villain, either, he just kept to himself and won a ton of tournaments, basically a golf version of Kobe Bryant.

2) Speaking of Kobe Bryant, he won another championship with the Lake show and Pau Gasol. As Kobe started to fade a little, Gasol became more highly appreciated as a big-time NBA star, even though he never reached the level that Kobe did. Bryant retired as one of the top 10 players of all time, despite having only won 1 MVP. He might have won more, had it not been for....

3) Lebron James and his 4 MVPs, the second of which followed the 2009-2010 season. He remained in Cleveland despite the long discussions that he might leave, ultimately leading the Cavs to a championship in 2011. That title came at the point where Boston and the Lakers had passed their prime and before the beatings of the seasons started to wear James down. In subsequent years James makes it public that Mike Brown, the head coach up until the Championship season, was potentially responsible for messing up years of James' career running clear outs 20 times a night.

4) Albert Pujols retired in 2016 being hailed as one of the great hitters of all time, drawing comparisons to Ruth, Williams, and Dimaggio. He finished with 600 home runs, but more impressively with 5 MVP awards and a staggering 12 seasons voted in the top 5 of the MVP race, none of which are tainted by the steroid scandal of the 2003-2009 era.

5) Alex Rodriguez finishes his career limping to surpass Barry Bonds as the all-time home run leader. He settles into the last 6 seasons with the Yankees as a high-level role player, a preferable situation to the limelight he had previously enjoyed. He ends up at 800 home runs, but never fully regained a strong fan allegiance.

6) Tom Brady and Payton Manning both retired, Brady in 2016 and Manning a year later. They conclude their careers as 2 of the top 5 quarterbacks to play the game (with Montana, Elway, and Johnny Unitas) and with a combined 6 MVP awards and 6 Championships. Inevitably debate rages as to which of the 2 was better, and the opposing views never come to a firm stance. Manning ends up with more MVPs, and Brady more titles. This blog admittedly has a well-known personal preference on the issue.

7) The 2016 Olympics are an enormous debacle, leaving people to wonder how the IOC could have seen Rio as a sufficiently modern and functioning city to host the millions of people traveling to the games. Massive fraud and corruption charges taint every element, leaving the Olympic brand in danger of becoming permanently damaged.

8) The financial issues of the NFL received substantial press but in the end, there is little impact in terms of overall league operation. In 2013 the Jacksonville Jaguars moved to Los Angeles, despite their having made numerous attempts to gain support (namely the drafting of Tim Tebow). The labor dispute lead to a delay in the 2011 training camp schedule and threats of a lockout, but this was resolved without major disruptions in the regular season. The other major change was the development of a pay-per-view system by which fans can watch any game for about $8 per game from the NFL directly. This replaces the less successful NFL Ticket that DirecTV had marketed heavily.

Whew!! What an update over the last few years. It's been a crazy time, but we've sure as hell had a good time of it.

Just grow a pair, MTV

2010-01-02T11:46:00.000-08:00

This Thursday we were all treated to perhaps the greatest New Year's Eve gift of all: a new "Jersey Shore." It was a little bit of a letdown maybe, but that was almost inevitable after last week's masterpiece. It was the closest thing we'll ever see to the lovechild of Shakespeare and Amy Winehouse.

But as much as I have loved this parade of Bacardi-fueled debauchery, I have some serious qualms with the network itself. I don't blame the Guidos for the same reason I don't blame the cast of "Meerkat Manor" for being kind of mean to each other and getting killed by jackals and cobras--it's just what they do. That being said, over the last few weeks MTV displayed approximately the same level of consistency on the issue of violence as a rabid squirrel set on fire.

Let's run the timeline of events:

1) MTV extensively runs the clip of Snookie being punched in the face to build interest in the episode.
2) MTV circulates it online for the same purpose.
3) MTV announces that we won't be seeing the actual punch on the show because of it's concerns that the act would be condoning violence against women. There is also a serious looking PSA at the end of the show denouncing violence.
4) In the following episode, JWOWW initiates a fistfight against multiple strangers. This is followed by numerous slow-mo replays and and extended analysis by Snookie and Jwowww explaining how awesome that was, and how much she enjoys fighting.
5) Clips from next week when Ronnie apparently assumes his role of street brawler by drunkenly fighting with another stranger.
6) Snookie murders two people with a nail-filled two by four. MTV charges $39.95 on pay per view to see it live.

OK, the last one was only partially true. They wouldn't have shown it live since there would have been too little chance for replays and in-fight analysis from Snookie ("I jus saw her all up on my poof and I'm all like HELLLSS NOOOO!!! YOU DO NOT TOUCH MY POOF! And then I hit her in the eye with my board.")

The problem here is that the network made this whole push to come off as respectful of women and opposed to violence, and then spent the next 2 episodes fully advocating drunken fighting with strangers. Which inherently puzzles me as to why they felt it necessary to black out the actual punch everyone wanted to see. I don't doubt that they were receiving some flack from organizations opposed to violence (and normal society in general), but since when has this mattered? They've been catching hell from pretty much every Italian organization and I'm sure any number of feminist groups since day one, yet somehow they thought it would look responsible if they blacked out a single act that was probably the one thing that wasn't the fault of the show's characters. Huh?

I suppose it's partially to give the appearance of not trying to capitalize on violence, but it's really irrelevant in the broader context. If we're going to go the route of trashy, gritty, realism, why the hell are we suddenly censoring the elements that best demonstrate the danger and repugnance of what happened. It's because, wait for it....they don't really give a shit. If they were really concerned with violence, they'd either :(1)not show (and inherently approve of) any of it or (2) show everything and then be critical of it. Instead, they've neutered the negatives of what happened and promoted the parts where people didn't get hurt as some sort of rascally good fun. Problem is, the main arc of episode 7 isn't going to be where Ronnie has to visit his probation officer for an aggravated assault.

My stance is to just show everything and then if you want to call it bad, then do it. But the half-way thing is a complete waste of everyone's time. And the option to cut out the negative ramifications while showing how fun it is to attack strangers is completely out of line and does nothing except suggest that it's not really that bad.

I'll write more on the season so far and other items, probably some football and news. Lots to get caught up on, so I'll post next early next week.

The Decade of the Alternate Reality

2009-12-29T16:20:00.000-08:00

So I think it's fair at this point to view the last decade as overall a pretty awful period of time, when it comes to the Nation as a whole.

The odd part of it is that even though even when things started to turn problematic, we never really took that next step and actually acted on it. Somehow when the Bush administration and the whole crew of troublemakers served us all a shit sandwich, we ate the thing and ordered another one if it came with a free dessert. Don't even ask what's in the dessert.

As a result, I'm hereby offering my List of the Top 5 Frauds of the Decade:

5. The Sports Purity Myth:

This really goes to the extended period of various athletic organizations, and the perpetually fabricated notion of the games being focused on good, honest sportsmanship and competition. Hey, I'm fine with artificial enhancements when it's done openly. There's nothing morally wrong with an actress getting huge fake breasts or whatever the hell Mickey Rourke did to his face, creepy as it may be. At least they'll admit to getting the work done to have big fake breasts or whatever it was Mickey Rourke was trying to get (maybe more roles as a horrible burn victim?). Professional wrestling deserves some serious props for at least owning up to the fact that it's not real, and the guys are on huge numbers of steroids. But the sporting community has never honestly come to grips with all its demons, and that creates a huge misrepresentation of what's happening.

The biggest American athletic scandal over the last decade has been the baseball steroid situation--unquestionably. Consider where we were in the late nineties. In 1998 and 1999, Sammy Sosa averaged 65 homers and 150 RBI as the darling of both MLB and the country. Mark McGwire was still a monster star, and was suddenly promoting Bedwetting Awareness (and he made us feel bad for kidding about it). And this was before everyone from A-Rod, Bonds, and Manny Ramirez got roped into it after their enormous personal success. Ugh. What a goddamn mess everything became. The good thing is that finally everyone wised up in the latter part of the decade and became distrustful, but no one stopped watching or buying stuff, so it didn't matter.

The NFL is facing some serious problems as well, although the money situation is overall pretty good (even if there is a lock-out in the next few years, everyone involved is still rich). Most importantly of the issues, there has been an increasing focus being cast on the long-term health of players. Realistically, the NFL has about as much concern for the post-retirement lives of its workers as a Cambodian whorehouse. The average life span for players with 5 year careers is 55, and 52 for linemen. Brain injuries are an enormous part of the game and at some point, there's going to be a reckoning with all of this. I love the NFL like few other things, but the way the league has tossed aging players onto the scrap heap is a disgrace.

Others in this category: NCAA recruiting and enormous money, NBA Refs and Player Drug Use, Money controlling the Olympic Committees.

4. Fictitious Media as Reality

This is somewhat of a consolidation, as I'm combining a number of elements. We've seen the enormous growth of "Reality Television" as a mainstream form of entertainment, even though to say that it even vaguely reflects reality is preposterous. I don't mind it as a form of entertainment, and I fully admit to loving some of the trashiest entries (You know I love "Jersey Shore"), but when some of the shows create this manufactured image of the ideal and people start emulating it, that's a problem. I've got no beef with the stuff that's clearly a niche thing or documentary style (like "Real World Challenge" and "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant." You're not in Thailand eating bugs with Johnny Bananas and you'd know if you were pregnant, even though if they didn't.). Same thing for the big jump in cable news, mainly the gauntlet of derangement offered every night at Fox News. They offer up this explanation that Glenn Beck and the rest of the Patriotism Action Squad is all "analysis" and thus doesn't have to follow the normal standards of journalistic responsibility, but let's get real, people. Everything on these shows is presented as fact, and everybody knows it.

And the concept of Hannah Montana. It's a Disney show that somehow became the biggest entity since gravity, denim, and the color orange. Seriously, Hannah Montana is bigger than the color orange, and somehow she's able to still hang her hat as a "musician" or "person with a soul." When this makes sense, someone please let me know. I'll be banging my head against a wall to the beat of "Achy Breaky Heart."

3. The Conservative Co-Opting of American Social and Legal Values

When we look back in a few years, we're going to really regret a lot of what happened over the last decade in the name of: (1) traditional values; and (2) National security. We somehow managed to follow the right wing into, among other things: cutting taxes for the wealthiest segments of the population, continually undercutting the rights of gay Americans trying to just get married, rolling back gun laws, and ensuring that the all Americans have access to quality health care. We saw an administration somehow try to justify torture and pass it off as a reasonable way to gather information. We also saw that same administration take step after step to isolate the country from the rest of the world. Seriously, who thought it was a good plan to appoint someone (John Bolton) who openly despised the United Nations to be the UN Ambassador?

And yet somehow an enormous part of the population still bought this. And they bought into creationism, abstinence-only education, deregulating financial rules, and secretly screwing Veterans by cutting VA benefits and health care when they came home. But torture was OK. Right. Got it.

For chrissakes people, open your damn eyes.

2. Enron, Madoff, and Lehman, and the Myth of Getting Rich

I group these together because while the details had distinctions, the ultimate point was basically the same. In short, these 3 were able to convince enough people (and themselves) that it was possible to pull enough shady shit to get rich without anyone figuring out how it happened.

Enron went down about 10 years ago, and despite being the warning that we ought to learn a little something, nobody did. Turns out it's tougher to make a truckload of money when you can't make stuff up. Who knew? Enron, as a reminder, was a huge Texas energy corporation with a ton of power (back in the day Phil Gramm was nicknamed "The Senator from Enron") bringing in about $100 Billion in annual revenue. The problem was that they were bleeding red ink on a lot of their internal finances, and paid off their accounting firm (Arthur Andersen) to fudge the numbers by a few billion. Of course when it all shook down, the people on the bottom lost everything, all but a handful in the middle and top just walked away rich, and a couple of big players went to jail.

Within a couple of years the mortgage crisis started developing and firms like Lehman started investing huge funds into stuff that didn't really exist for purposes other than making themselves rich off of other people's money (like credit default swaps). Same deal with Madoff. Nobody questioned it when they looked like they were making money. And nobody cared about whether they were selling ridiculous mortgages if they could collect a fee and pass it off to someone else.

Maybe that's the biggest takeaway from all of this. There was always a chance to catch the financial frauds at any point, but nobody wanted to. Blowing the whistle always meant the end of the gravy train, and nobody wanted it to end. Problem was, it had to end sometime and the longer it went, more people hopped on board.

1. Iraq

By this point, it's clear to everyone that there wasn't any factual basis for why we ever stepped foot in Iraq. There was no yellow cake, no WMDs, no Al Qaeda, and no goddamn point. Now that the smoke has cleared, it's apparent that we've now lost $700 Billion, over 4000 dead American soldiers and another 30,000 wounded, anywhere between 100,000 and a million dead Iraqis, and there's no stopping any of these numbers soon. Dick Cheney used to talk about not wanting the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and instead it's just a giant pile of burning money and large sections of Iraq being on fire over the last 7 years.

The ugliest part of it is that even though the Republicans dragged us into this debacle, they're still sticking to the idea that it was a good idea and somehow the fault of the Democrats. "Well they voted for it too!" the right contends. Well no shit they did. When the President tells everyone that they have surefire evidence that we are under imminent threat of nuclear attack from the Iraqi government, I hope to hell they support action. There's nothing wrong with confronting an aggressive enemy. But when the President and his cronies make the whole damn thing up to make the hawks look good, that's just punching a ticket for disaster.

And so, here's a hope that as we move onward, we get it together a little bit and stop falling for the same old tricks. There has been a little bit of movement on rolling on past the health care scare tactics the conservatives and insurance lobby tossed out there this summer (Death Panels! Free Insurance for Illegal Aliens! Scary Public Option Bad!), indicating some growth in the bullshit radar of at least 55% of the American public. There are always going to be 30% who buy whatever Hannity and the boys are paid to sell, and they're not worth worrying about. But the remaining 70% needs to keep fighting for reality, now and throughout the next Decade.

Let's make it the Decade of (Actual) Reality.

The #1 Most Wonderful Time of the Year

2009-12-20T22:04:00.000-08:00

It's that remarkable time of year where everybody and their brother starts cranking out the "Best of the Year" List. Hey, I get it. This is a good time to look back and evaluate where we've been as a culture and compare the highs and lows. More importantly, it's an easy way to skip out on a couple of weeks of actual journalism and start up some fervent discussion as to whether "GI Joe" was better than "Old Dogs." (The answer to that, of course, will be debated by scholars for years.)

Among the most widely seen of this series of lists are the ones published by Entertainment Weekly. By now, a few of you know I have my own personal beef with EW (they don't seem to have any beef with me, I guess). I love it as a quick filler for coffee tables and dental waiting rooms, and it's impeccable as a restroom literature source. They generally get who they are just fine, and everyone's happy. The problem is that interspersed with the poppy Tiger Beat stuff, they sometimes start making comparisons to more highbrow elements and the whole damn thing blows up in a sloppy mess of artistic/cultural relativism. The whole "it's good for what it is trying to be, so it gets an A- as a tween album even though it's recycled dreck" argument.

I'm not looking for Pitchfork reviews here (Among my favorite lines from a Pitchfork review of Kid A: "The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax." I cannot understand how this is remotely helpful to anyone with their head not firmly inside their ass. I like that the stillborn child is on an Imax, though, and not a normal movie screen. Widescreens are so passe.) What kills me with EW is that they give something a mediocre review, then publicize the hell out of it and pass it off like it's culturally relevant for its artistic value. I'm fine with big successes getting covered as a newsworthy event. I don't give a shit about Twilight or the Hannah Montana movie, but I get that a lot of people do, and that has news value in itself. But to subsequently conflate this as being indicative of critical importance or to compare it to lesser known items on a single list is idiotic and realistically, irresponsible as a journalistic entity.

My main objection is Sandra Bullock. Listen, I wish the woman the best and hope she has a nice Holiday. EW just published her as the "#1 Entertainer of the Year" in this week's edition and had a cover story last week about her work. This, in short, is preposterous. The woman made two movies that both received mediocre reviews, but did well financially, and as a result, we're now declaring her to be the top artistic performer of the year? Huh? It's not that some snobby film commission didn't like it, EW noted that "The Blind Side," "isn't solid at all — it's more like cotton-candy uplift" and gave it a C. "The Proposal," her other big hit, got a B+, narrowly edging the artistic achievement, "Paul Blart."

In contrast, there was no mention of George Clooney, even though his "Up in the Air" was their film of the year (as well as a great many others'). Nothing for anyone attached to much more highly regarded films like "District 9," "Up," or "The Hurt Locker." I only reference other movies and actors to make the comparison a little more natural--they ranked Lady Gaga highly and I can't see why she lost out to the cotton-candy uplift. In the end, this is all fine if we're going to portray this as a list of "The Biggest Hits" or "Nicest Surprise for People We Thought Were Dead After "Miss Congeniality 2." But the fringing of the lines between box office receipts and putting out material that furthers the genre drives me absolutely batshit crazy.

Anyways, that's about it on this issue. I know she's gotten a Golden Globe nomination, and if I had any real regard for that, it would really mean something. Especially if she won. This stuff really falls into a lot of the same problems as the Heisman (I mention this because of a recent post criticizing voters who don't pay enough attention), so there's a grain/mountain of salt to be had with all the trophy business. I know some people take the opposite view on the whole thing and see the merging as a little more allowable, and I'm being a self-righteous prick about the whole thing. But I don't care, I'm sticking to my view: You can't be Entertainer of the Year when you make "All About Steve," and that's all there is to it.

NFL Items, 12/19 and 12/20

2009-12-19T11:48:00.000-08:00

So for this week, there are a handful of games that really do pose some interesting questions. We're at the point of the season where all the teams fit into one of about 3 categories:

(1) The few who have locked up the division and are just riding out the string to avoid injuries (Indy, New Orleans, Minnesota, San Diego, Cincinnati, Arizona, etc.)

(2) The crowd of teams with plausible to flickering playoff hopes (New England, Green Bay, Miami, Houston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Tennessee, etc.)

(3) The stiffs who are already done for the year (Buffalo, Cleveland, KC, Detroit, etc.)

Taking a look at the picks and games, what have we got here?

New Orleans vs. Dallas:
How does this not end up at about 38-30? Dallas really doesn't do much on defense, and their offense is good enough to put up some points. To have a shot at the upset, the Cowboys are going to need a couple of huge defensive plays, like a strip sack at the Saint 10 and/or an interception for a TD. Overall, an unlikely scenario.
The Equation: Saints' Explosion - Saint's Ability to Stop the Run + Dallas' Inconsistency = NO, 38-30.

New England vs. Buffalo:
New England has consistently owned Buffalo, and even when they haven't played well (like last weekend), they've done enough to grind out wins over bad teams. Buffalo shouldn't be able to throw much, and NE can stack 8 in the box and force them to win through the air. Look for the Pats to play it safe offensively, and have success.
Equation: Pats Offensive Efficiency + Buffalo's Inability to Consistently Pass = NE, 27-16.

Atlanta at Jets:
If Atlanta was 7-6 and not 6-7, I'd think about picking them here. But they're not. And I have a feeling they're going to pack it up tomorrow in the cold weather. The Jets are going to run it right over an undersized Atlanta D, and make enough plays to keep the Falcon offense in check. I'm looking for a fairly unwatchable game, TV-wise. Although I think Tony Gonzalez could play well, I don't like the Atlanta offense in this game.
Equation: Jet run game + Atlanta's questionable motivation + Solid Jet D = Jets, 20-13.

Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh's really been exposed lately as somewhere between a bully and a sham. They've really relied on beating up on bad teams, and now injuries have removed their ability to do that. Green Bay has played well lately and should be able to throw the ball on an overrated Pittsburgh secondary. Look for Green Bay to play a lot of coverage and make some plays in the secondary.
Equation: Pittsburgh's Suddenly Shaky D + Green Bay's Explosive Passing + Play Making Secondary= Green Bay, 30-20.

Bengals v. Chargers:
Best Game of the Weekend. Both teams are playoff locks, so it's really a matter of home field advantage. And of course, there's the Chris Henry factor. These things have a way of motivating the team to play with a lot of heart, and the Bengals have already shown they respond to these bad situations (Early in the year they had a huge win after the Defensive Coordinator's wife died mid-week). That, and the Cincy cornerbacks are a hell of a lot better than the public knows.
Equation: Bengals Emotional Edge + Healthy Benson + San Diego's Good but Susceptible Defense= Cincinnati, 24-20.

Bears v. Ravens:
By now, it's clear that the Bears are D-U-N. Too bad Chicago couldn't play Thursday night because then when they mailed it in they could have gotten it there by Christmas. Baltimore's going to look like world-beaters, and my guess is that this isn't close. Probably a Raven defensive TD, although I don't think Flacco is going to be the big hitter. Rice is going to have a stat line like 130 yards rushing, 2 TDs.
Equation: Bears Cashing it in+ Ravens running game + Raven Frustration = Baltimore, 34-13.

Vikings vs. Panthers
Hey, speaking of teams that have completely mailed it in, it's the Panthers! This team is really just a pile of shit in powder blue unis. This is a terrible match-up for Carolina, and Jared Allen will have 3 sacks and a forced fumble tomorrow. Even though Favre hasn't played well lately, Peterson can carry them enough to make this a lopsided win.
Equation: Well, Carolina is Junk + Minnesota's Running Game + Minn. D Line = Vikes, 30-10.

16-0? I say go for it.

2009-12-17T14:39:00.000-08:00

Tonight's NFL Network game (to be viewed by 13 people) is likely to be the toughest challenge for Indy to complete the undefeated regular season of the remaining 3 games. That being said, if they play their guys tonight a full game, they'll probably win by a TD or so.

There's been some discussion as to whether the Colts and Saints should go for the 16-0 season, but I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn't. I completely understand the claim that you don't want to allow guys to get hurt. That's fair. The only problem is that by this point, we've seen the vast majority of major injuries that are going to happen. If you make it to week 13 reasonably healthy, I see little advantage in completely changing the team's outlook on games and messing up the rhythm. Both teams are already getting the playoff bye in the first round, so there is an extra week of rest for them already on the horizon. I say go for it and don't mess with what's been working.

If both teams try to get the 16-0, I'd put the chances at about 60% for Indy and 80% for the Saints . There are a couple of odd matchups for both teams that could throw a wrench in the works. For Indy, Jacksonville and the Jets should both be able to run the ball well, which could pose problems. Moreover, the Jets defense could pose some problems since Revis will be tough on Wayne and the pass rush could be effective. Finally, they'll travel to Buffalo just after New Year's Day, which you know would be cold and windy.

I have a hard time seeing how the Saints don't run the table. They have an overrated Dallas team coming to town this weekend, a crappy Tampa the next, and then a road game at the Panthers, who should have mailed it in by that point. Maybe Dallas or Carolina could have a big game running the ball and pull off the upset, but it's hard to see either team holding New Orleans under 30 points.

Are you there God? It's Me, John Thune.

2009-12-16T12:27:00.000-08:00

Andrea sent a youtube link (many thanks; see below for the link) through that captures Senate footage of John Thune (R-S. Dakota) and the incomparable Al Franken (D-Minn.) debating the timing on taxation and benefits of the current health care proposal. Essentially, Thune just made up some ridiculous crap about the benefits not starting until 2014 although the taxes would start now. He omitted the fact that benefits will start immediately, a point which Franken clearly explained, undercutting Thune's entire point. Thune responds by arguing, "but it's on my chart! Did you see my chart?" Touche, monsieur. If you put it on your chart, it obviously could not be wrong. Shit, everyone knows Kinko's has a magic machine that makes everything you print true. It's in the back room near the candy machine.

At first, I'm trying to figure why this Thune character wants to take on Franken. Franken's CLEARLY a hell of a lot smarter and more informed on the matter, and the kind of person who's going to go through the details to make his point. The guy has made a goddamn career out of getting the details straight. Thune has long made it clear that his mission in Congress is to instill Evangelical concepts onto national policy (this was one of his central reasons for promoting the Iraqi invasion--because the Iraqi people just couldn't wait to get some of his good South Dakota Christianity). He went to a no-name Christian college in LA with substantially lower academic standards than Auburn. And he's kind of an ass, although that's a different issue.

The problem, of course, is that Thune's (and the Republican Party's) purpose in this is not to argue facts. As John McCain noted, "facts are stubborn things." Thune, et al. have to throw out this malarkey just to keep the base happy. It just doesn't matter any more what he says. The more he gets his name out in public, the more he gets the poor, old, and scared to send in their $10 of Social Security each year.

Accuracy on the facts doesn't make the tea party nuts show up to wave Obama=Hitler signs, it's just the arguing with the other side. So in the end, it doesn't really matter what he says. He can claim that a key point of the bill is that Obama gets to shit on everyone's lawn on Wednesdays, and make the Democrats respond to it. Until the dust settles Fox News can have the round table on why this CLEARLY demonstrates that Obama is a Socialist and how you can show him that nobody shits on your lawn by watching Hannity more often. Maybe Glenn Beck can start advertising Obama lawn shit cleaner like he used to do with ads for buying gold (after telling people on the show they needed to buy all the gold they could). "Act Now, and Don't Let that Big Stinky Pile of Communism Stay on Your Lawn Any Longer! Only $19.95!"

The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n2P0QsTe8c&feature=player_embedded

All this Casey Anthony Craziness

2009-12-15T21:54:00.000-08:00

So we've seen the first elements of the Casey Anthony being put forth, and, unsurprisingly, I'm torn over the matter. Since I love estimating things and making up scales and measurements that may or may not exist, I'm 70% in it for blood, 20% in it for the legal stuff, and 10% guilty that I'm even paying any attention to it at all. At least I can get it on the mainstream news and not rely on that rabid harpy Nancy Grace. Jesus Heathcliff Christ that woman's annoying.

Of course the whole damn thing is sordid as hell, but still, the Old Testament side of me is all "electrocute that cold bitch and let's all be done with it!" For anyone who didn't catch it the first time through, Casey had a young child named Caylee, who turned up missing. The problem here (well, one of many) was that mom didn't tell the police for about a month, and spent that time allegedly leading her own investigation. Her investigation, from what later surfaced, primarily involved her grinding on strangers in Orlando area dance clubs and devastating the Central Florida supply of Mike's Lemonade and Aftershock. At that point she blamed a random person she apparently found in the phone book, and ever since, a mountain of evidence has slowly emerged indicating that she obviously did it in cold blood. Bad, bad stuff.

On a side note, I wonder if this might have been the basis for a snappy new cop show where she, OJ, and La Toya Jackson all hunt down "the real killers" in Florida golf courses, bars, and the occasional unemployment office (shout-out to the Toya!) Call it something like "The Juice and the Squeeze."

Anyways, this actually has an interesting legal outlook, as it could become one of the top death penalty cases in recent memory, and one of the few where an attractive (in a somewhat trashy way) woman is on trial. No joke, they might kill her ass for this, and it's clear that's the prosecution's plan. They just offered her a deal where she could admit to the crime and take a life sentence, or go to trial and potentially get the big ticket. She opted for the trial, and is hoping to cry herself to a long sentence. My guess is that there will be someone in the jury box who gets a little weak in the stomach and votes for life, but there's at least a 50/50 shot she's getting plugged into the wall for this one. Now that's rolling the dice-- I'm sure as hell hoping she comes up snake eyes.

Why We Can't Trust Heisman Voters

2009-12-12T08:02:00.000-08:00

Tonight will see the Heisman selection and I'm just going to say it now: They're going to get it wrong. My guess is that the pick will be Mark Ingram, because he's basically the best offensive threat on the best team (and they are the best team, probably by 10 points). He's had big games on TV, especially the Florida game, and the voters will put a lot of stock on that one.

But they'll have it wrong. The rightful winner, and hands down best player, is Ndamakong Suh. He's dominated every metric for defensive linemen all year long, to an extent that the other players on the list haven't. There are a couple of huge issues that are going to kill his chances. First, Nebraska doesn't have the TV air time that Texas or Alabama does, so there hasn't been nearly enough exposure.

Here's the other problem: Heisman voters are lazy and don't do the research they should. Rather than pay close attention to the game footage, they spend 15 minutes looking at some stats and sign off on it. This inherently places players like Suh at an enormous disadvantage, because they can't accumulate stats that leap out at the voters. Gerhart is a fine player, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't 40 running backs in the country who could get the stats he did on that Stanford team in the PAC-10. Most of the voters can't accurately access the positions other than QB, RB, and WR, and overvalue the players at those spots. That's why they work for the Kansas City Star instead of the Kansas City Chiefs.

To reasonably pick the best player, you ultimately need to compare him to an average player at his position, and see how much better. I like Mark Ingram and all, but like Gerhart, a merely good tailback could do extremely well in that system. Same thing for McCoy. Put Jimmy Clausen or Jake Locker in that Texas QB role and they're the finalist, not him. Replace Suh with anyone else in the country and you get an enormous difference.

And so we are left with Suh. He faced double and triple teams every week and nevertheless dominated the line of scrimmage like no one else in the country. He almost single-handedly beat Texas last weekend without touching the ball. Ask any pro scout who they're drafting first of the finalists and Suh's the only name you'll hear.

And nevertheless, he's not going to win it tonight.

NFL Thoughts for 12/13

2009-12-11T10:36:00.000-08:00

Some thoughts on a handful of the NFL Games this weekend:

Pats vs. Panthers:
I have a hard time seeing this being close. The Pats have played extremely well at home, especially in cold weather, and now they get a struggling Panthers team playing with a young QB. Panthers will be able to run the ball somewhat, but they are not going to be able to keep the game close.
The Equation: Cold Foxborough + Mediocre QB+ Shaky Panther Defense = 37-16 Pats win.

Packers v. Bears:
The big problem for the Bears is that they're secretly pretty terrible. (1)They don't play defense; (2) their OL is awful; and (3) their QB has a tendency to throw the ball to the wrong jerseys. Granted, 3 is largely a product of problems 1 and 2, but it still counts as a pick. Green Bay will be comfortable enough playing in cold weather and they'll generate a couple of critical turnovers.
Equation: Bad Bear Defense + Turnover Prone GB Defense + No Bear Running Game = 24-13, GB.

Jets v. Buccaneers:
If the Sanchise (or is it Sanchize?) was playing, I'd expect a blowout. As it is, the Jets defense should be able to control the game. The Bucs, as has been clear all year, are junk. Look for a Jets defensive TD, as these are the games where Rex Ryan can get his guys to look good.
Equation: Unprepared Bucs QB + Attacking Defense + Just enough Jets Running= 24-13, Jets.

Colts v. Broncos:
Broncos are going to look better than most people think. They have a fairly balanced offense and can run the ball well. Clady can do a solid job on Freeney, which is a huge help. Dumerville is going to have a big day on the turf, because the Indy OL isn't that good. But clearly, Manning is extremely tough to handle now, and Indy will get their points. Look for big games from Marshall and Moreno. I'm thinking Moreno gets 18 carries for 110 yards and a TD or 2.
Equation: Well-Suited Bronco D + Manning Doing His thing + Bronco Running Game = 30-27 Denver upset win.

Bengals v. Vikings:
I don't like this matchup for the Bengals one bit. They're a team reliant on running, and the Vikes stop the run well. The other problem is that the Bengals only get about 17-20 points per game, and I think the Vikes are going to top that every time in the Dome. Game is probably close for the first half, and the Vikes pull away late.
Equation: Tough Minn Run Defense + Peterson's Consistent Running + Cincy's Lack of Big Plays = Minnesota, 24-16.

Eagles v. Giants:
This is going to be an ugly, ugly game. It's going to be cold and rainy, so plan on both teams struggling to pass and the defenses playing 8 in the box. Manning can't throw in bad weather, and the Eagles can't keep up their pass-heavy ratio. The game's going to turn on a couple of fluky big plays, like a 55-yard screen pass with 3 missed tackles that goes for a TD. Good for the Eagles, since they can get the ball to guys like Jackson, Vick, and McCoy.
Equation: Bad Weather + Run Heavy Defenses + Slightly More Playmakers =Eagles, 20-13

Et Tu, Situation?

2009-12-11T09:31:00.000-08:00

After last week's 2 hour installment of "Jersey Shore," I had my doubts as to whether I'd be able to commit to this train wreck of humanity on a weekly basis. I love me some drunken Guido sluttery just like everyone else, but 14 weeks in a row?

Fortunately, the zookeepers at MTV opted instead to turn the monkeys loose on each other, which is clearly going to be the best part of the show (other than the Valtrex dispenser bolted to the wall). Last night saw the Situation become openly creepy toward Ronnie and Sammie/Sammy/Sammi/Samm% (whichever one is right) and discuss his own relationship with her. This was done with approximately the same level of skin-crawling that would accompany a child molester explaining his relationship with his 11 year old step-daughter. Classy, my friend.

The other big development was JWoww making out with and then inspecting another roommate's pierced junk 14 hours into being there while allegedly maintaining her Elizabethan morals. By the way, seeing her in the morning officially requires a name change to "JYikes" or "JUghhh." It's like she stole those hair extensions from George Clinton's back hair. I can't even describe how much I loved her whole "Now that I'm single, I'm going to slut it up" forecast. She's going to have a new disease named after her by the end of this thing, and I'm naming it right now: JWowwerrhea.

The departure of Angelina was pretty unremarkable since by the time she left everyone hated her. Basically the equivalent of a Mark Sanford resignation (Really? He's still on the SC dime? I love the South and the bible thumpers.). She was right though, it was some huge courtesy she threw at the store manager telling him that she was hung over and leaving. Emily Post would be proud.

Climategate? Really?

2009-12-10T18:42:00.001-08:00

This entire "Climategate" thing is just bafflingly stupid. For those who didn't catch the story, it's basically that some right wing hackers stole the emails of some climate scientists and ever since, the conservatives have been twisting random language into a vast conspiracy to fool the world. Points along the lines of "we need to get better ways to track greenhouse gas/temperature correlation" has suddenly become "We need to make up some fake stuff to keep fooling people." Thank you Mr. Limbaugh for your insightful analysis.

It's clear from the facts that the hackers who stole the emails actually did it in the fall, and waited until now to publicize them so as to interfere with the Copenhagen meetings. Nice thinking, you scumbags.

I understand (though find idiotic) the argument that there isn't enough evidence to clearly state that man is causing global warming. At least they can argue that there is some small level of uncertainty. But why do they think that all these scientists care enough about this to just make this whole thing up? Hey, I'm all for a good conspiracy. But the whole point though is that there needs to be a benefit to the involved people to make it worthwhile, and otherwise it's just a bunch of wasting time. Of course Exxon has an incentive to say that it doesn't exist--they sell a product directly responsible for the change. But why does an oceanographer make up a career-long story about changing ocean chemistry? Ummmm....he doesn't.

First Things First

2009-12-10T18:25:00.001-08:00

Why am I doing this?

It's a couple of things in particular. The biggest reason is that I've recently concluded that the Facebook postings are too short and it forces me to cut my posts off when I'm half done. Damn you Facebook! The other big element is that because I haven't started working on a full-time "career" job yet, I have some extra time and figured I'd keep myself busy writing down all the crazy stuff I think about all day.

What is it that you'll see and be mesmerized to read?

I'm thinking it's going to be sort of a combination of the things that I find interesting in general, namely sports, food, some political/news items, West Coast living, and pretty likely a million other things that just happen to come up. So you'll read about the upcoming Patriots game, a crazy left-wing rant I'm currently on, and why I think Chipotle is 200% overrated as compared to other Mexican joints (seriously, I cannot understand why people go there).

How often?

Hard to say, although I'll try to stay on it as best as I can. Probably at least a few times a week. Maybe more.