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.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
My Jersey Shore Haiku Goodbye
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?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Beef: It's What's For Dinner (Unfortunately)
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?
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?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Divisional Weekend, Sunday Games
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
What Was That Whole Trent Lott Thing About, Anyway?
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."
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."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Coming to a Screen Near You? Not if the Right Has Anything to Say About It.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)