The Call: An Apology

GM,

I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.

Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.

ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."

Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.

If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...

-JW

JW,

You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.

What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?

Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.

-GM

I Wanted the NFL. I WENT to the NFL. And the NFL Sucked.

JW,

Last night, those of us (un)lucky enough to get the NFL Network witnessed one of the all-time lousy performances by a quarterback. Five interceptions, zero touchdowns, seventeen completely unwarranted sneers and sniffles, and one entirely avoidable loss. Cutler's play was so bad that I considered the alternate titles "Cutler: An Evisceration" and "Cutler: Stop Throwing Picks, You Weak-Chinned Bitch" before settling on what you just read. And while I'm sure that the coming weeks will give us some tempting lines, I'm ready to declare that I will never, ever wager on #6 again.

The really perverse thing, when you think about it, is that the general level of excitement for Chicago's season as recently as two months ago was notably higher than it was for Denver's. Kyle Orton was a career backup--a guy who couldn't take Rex Grossman's job, for heaven's sake--and Cutler was the Pro Bowler ready to break out on a team that wanted him. (A side note: Enough with the Cutler Pro Bowl thing. Not since Zack, Slater, and Screech spent an eight-episode arc in Maui has so much been made over one trip to Hawaii.) Now? Orton's the ultimate game manager and the guy who helped bring Brandon Marshall back into the fold. Denver wouldn't trade Orton back to Chicago for a deal twice as good as the original, and Cutler's heading for numbers that would get Jake Delhomme benched. (According to Wikipedia, Cutler does volunteer work with mentally challenged young people. And copies their throwing motions, apparently.)

Strangely enough, though, I found myself believing that Cutler would pull off the win last night even while knowing everything I just wrote. When he marched the Bears down the field at the end of the fourth quarter (Perhaps "marched" is the wrong word--we haven't seen a two-minute drill this ugly since the last time JaMarcus Russell went three-and-out against his practice squad), I allowed myself to hope that he'd make a miracle happen. I was actually a bit surprised when he threw that final pick.

JW, I'm going out on a limb and guessing you didn't watch this disaster of a football game. Any sports related idiocy you'd like to talk about?

-GM

GM,

Honestly, no.

I have, however, recently come across some information that completely shook the foundation of my mentality! (It surprised me.)

1. The Colts' coach is black?! I was sure it was this guy! I remember some ESPN guys talking about how they had been planning on promoting him as soon as Dungy retired, and I've seen that guy (offensive coordinator Tom Moore) on the sidelines many times. Turns out it's Jim Caldwell who's the head man in Indy--well, behind Peyton, of course.

2. Adam Morrison plays for the Lakers?! OK, it didn't surprise me that the Bobcats wanted to get rid of this schmohawk, but why would the Lakers sign him?! He's a 37-percent career shooter whose only strength is shooting!

3. Twenty-year-old Corey Zickefoose said that the three Tennessee football players who allegedly (shouldn't he know?) held him at gunpoint should remain on the football team and that he has no plans to press charges. He's such a UT fan that he only wants what's best for the team! I don't want to insult a recently traumatized die-hard fan, but he should revisit his list of priorities.

4. Lou Holtz's entire gimmick (assuming it's not having distracting dentures) is being the biggest homer on the planet. He picked his two former teams (Notre Dame and South Carolina) to upset No. 12 Pittsburgh and No. 1 Florida this weekend. What's the point of even watching the ESPN "experts" predict if they're going to be like that?

-JW

Some Tricky Questions

GM,

I just answered 230 questions from a personality survey that was required just to apply for a job I won’t get. You know the type. It's one of those that makes about eight statements in 30 different ways and asks you to rate your level of agreement from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Just so the outside world can know the reason for my fleeting sanity, I’ve copied and pasted some of my favorites from the survey. Notice the numbers next to each, which represents the order in which I was asked them.

The Annoying:

213. Business decisions must be based on the assessment of facts.

215. The assessment of facts must serve as the basis for business decisions.

The Streaky Annoying:

128. In almost all situations, proven processes should not be changed.

129. It is important to experiment with new ideas in the workplace.

130. I adapt quickly to changing work situations.

131. Coworkers would describe me as someone who prefers a frequently changing work environment.

132. I have always adapted fairly easily to changes at work.

133. I adapt quickly to new work environments.

The "We don't mind insulting your intelligence" Annoying:

180. I like to see other people get ahead in the workplace.

211. I like to see other people succeed in the workplace.

The "There is no God" Annoying:

205. I feel hurt when I receive criticisms of my performance.

206. I am hurt by criticisms of my performance.

If this company actually hires me, nothing will stop me from completely wasting two hours in the first week--perhaps to blog. I want my survey time back.

-JW

JW,

As a member of a field (higher education) whose job-seeker to job ratio engenders emotions that can best be described as "Kafka-esque," I sympathize with your troubles. Clearly, someone in HR is having a laugh at your expense right now, and if that joker is reading this blog, let me join the long line of people who undoubtedly hope that he'll go f--k himself. 230 questions? For every applicant? Are they trying to weed out anyone who isn't desperate?

Actually, that's exactly what they're trying to do, if my thinking is correct. We've all taken these tests, after all, but no one's ever heard the psychological validation for this kind of thing. I'm not even sure what they're looking for. Consistency? Inconsistency? The ability to finish the test while all of your instincts are shouting "stop"? And what would happen if an applicant took careful notes and managed perfect consistency, on the molecular level? While that sounds impressive, I'd be hesitant to hire someone so unphased by subtlety. What a drag around the office!

The underlying issue, of course, is that in a job market this bad, employers have way too much power to nitpick. I've been to lots of businesses, and I've interacted with several corporations, and I'm here to tell you that whatever skill this test supposedly measures is not one that is possessed by the average person in corporate America. (Don't get me started on the people to whom we outsource jobs. Yikes.)

The point is, if you don't like this test, just wait awhile. In fifty years or so, you'll be giving it out to people who want to hire you. That'll be the day.

-GM

Hasan Was a Terrorist, Dammit. We Refuse to Stop Saying So.

JW,

When I came across this article on MSN.com (via MSNBC.com and first appearing in the New York Times--and they say the Right is well-organized), I was immediately drawn to its title: Muslims at Fort Hood voice outrage. My first thought (well, my first thought after "outraged Muslims = bad news for commercial airline passengers") was that the outrage in question had to be directed toward murderer and obvious terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Right? It couldn't possibly be directed at the army, the West, or any other jihad-inducing Straw Man. Could it?

In fact, the article's first paragraph seems to lean in the direction of reasonableness. "Leaders of the vibrant Muslim community here," we read, "expressed outrage on Friday at the shooting rampage being laid to one of their members, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who had become a regular attendee of prayers at the local mosque."

I could do without "vibrant"--a word used solely by white liberals to describe communities of color--but this is good stuff, right? It's exactly what we want to hear from the Muslim community right now. The problem occurs with the article's first two quotes. I'll let you decide if they sufficiently fulfill the first graph's promises.

"When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal," said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. "But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad."

. . . and . . .

"Ultimately it was Brother Nidal’s doing, but the command should be held accountable," Mr. Benjamin said.

Some outrage.

As you can imagine, the rest of the article is more of the same. Muslims fear retribution; Muslims have always "lived peacefully" with their Christian neighbors. All the way down in paragraph eleven, we get some decent condemnation ("The Islamic community strongly condemns this cowardly attack, which was particularly heinous in that it was directed at the all-volunteer army that protects our nation."), but the general thrust of the article has little to do with Hasan's actions and much to do with Islam's perceived grievances.

Looking again at the first paragraph, in fact, I can't help wondering what the phrase "being laid to" is all about. It's syntactically unfamiliar--unidiomatic, even--and it reads very much like "being blamed on." It wouldn't be a problem if we were dealing with a situation in which blame was at all negotiable, but Hasan clearly shot those people. He was himself shot while doing so. The idea--a mere rhetorical seed, but a potent one--that, looking around for some place to lay blame, we settled on a Muslim is an absurdity. This is the guy! He did it!

Nevertheless, the "coverage" of the shootings has been dominated by breathless concern for soldiers' breaking points (try here and here for two examples among many), as if Hasan is in any way the moral or factual equivalent of actual veterans (he never saw combat) returning from actual wars (he was never deployed).

Of course, that's nothing compared to the morally bankrupt ending of our original article:

"[Muslims] do have the right to retaliate," [Victor Benjamin] said, "but he who does not is twice blessed."

Chilling.

-GM

GM,

According to the article, yes, the outrage was directed toward Hasan with a very quick "but" to follow. The fact that a guy named Victor Benjamin II is sharing in their sentiment--that Hasan's action may be a product of extreme burnout or trauma--would seem strange to me if I didn't already know so many Americans who seek to apologize for everyone else first. I realize that people can't be expected to produce off-the-cuff statements that completely reflect their actual views, but I would like to explore this Benjamin quote simply because it seems so misguided:

“G.I.’s are like any equipment in the Army. When it breaks, those who were in charge of keeping it fit should be held responsible for it.”

I've heard some poor analogies in my time, but this one belongs on the short list. If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken. Hasan's homicidal demeanor probably wasn't as easy to detect. Is Benjamin suggesting that the military is somehow responsible for knowing the psychological state of its entire personnel? Should we really spend more tax dollars on Army psychiatrists, especially considering that Hasan was just that?! It seems like the easier solution would be to make it clear on the front end that killing sprees are frowned upon. After all, if it was just a matter of "going postal," then Hasan's urges could have been prevented with a little therapy, maybe some morale-boosting videos or messages of caution. But, of course, if the guy who attended church at the same Virginia mosque as two 9/11 hijackers happened to be acting on religious beliefs, maybe we shouldn't let those types of people into the military. Here in America, though, even practical "discrimination" is an ugly word.

-JW

JW,

I'm writing a one-time-only follow-up due to your suggestion that "If a tank or helicopter breaks, it doesn't go on a killing spree. You also usually know when it's broken."

In fact, the Times reported today, U.S. Intelligence Agencies (no doubt crippled by Obama's Don't Make Muslims Look Bad policies) did know that Hasan was broken. They intercepted communications between him and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric who has already praised Hasan's attacks, and they did nothing.

But hey, it's a big army. Maybe the CIA thought Hasan was talking to the guy undercover.

-GM

Mean Girls, Mean Boy

GM,

It occurred to me this morning that we don't discuss women enough and that we've never given any attention to soccer. New Mexico junior defender Elizabeth Lambert has given us reason to touch on both. Thanks to play so unsportsmanlike that ESPN gave it 90 seconds of highlights, Lambert will open the eyes of many to the unnecessary brutality of women's soccer. Hair-pull takedowns, kicks to the head, punches to the back--apparently all part of the game and not even worthy of an ejection in her case.

This type of behavior really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Take Rachel McAdams's character in Mean Girls--a movie liked by an astonishing number of guys and somehow tolerated by me. She's deceitful, manipulative, arrogant, conniving, and hyper-competitive. Attribute those characteristics to a butch college athlete (I don't care what her sexual orientation is; that chick is butch), and you could understand how she would play "with no regard for human life" (Kevin Harlan voice)!

I don't know what's so attractive about violence in our society. These UFC and MMA matches bore me worse than an August baseball game between the Royals and Orioles. I haven't been in a fight in well over a decade, and I'm thrilled about it. Who has the energy?! Even the winner of a fight comes out a little worse off than he was going in. Right, Tom Cable?

-JW

JW,

Speaking of Cable, it's not just assistant Randy Hanson who's been on the receiving end of his rage. Reports have been leaking in the last few days that Cable was also abusive to the women he dated (or all women if the title bar of this article is to be believed). My only question is whether or not Cable shouted "Allahu akbar" as he hit them. The Fort Hood gunman did (fast-forward to 3:20), and that's being equally underreported.

I'll be honest. If Smarter Than Y'all weren't such a great name, I'd be happy with Too Lazy For Violence. We've written before about MMA and its attendant silliness, but it's worth restating that only sociopaths (both functional and non-) can watch this s--t without getting sleepy. Women soccer players are biting each other's tits off? Of course they are! They saw it on TV!

I'll close with a warning and some mockery. The inevitable by-product of society's comfort with violence occurred yesterday. Nidal Hassan (nickname: I'm Obviously a Terrorist) may have been evil, but he wasn't an evil genius. He got his plan the same place they all do: every video game, movie, and television program released in the last decade.

Too bad he couldn't have been satisfied with Mean Girls.

-GM