GM,
It's 2:30 in the morning, and I just finished watching Paranormal Activity... at home... alone... with the lights off.
A little boring, I must say.
It's clearly just another Blair Witch Project, which seemed to draw the scorn of most viewers I know. PA, on the other hand, has been quite the hot topic 'round these parts, so much so that even I heard about it. "Strange," I thought, considering that I'd never seen a preview. After minimal research, I learned that the movie's distribution and marketing strategies were quite unique. The film opened about a month ago but only for midnight showings and only in 12 major college towns. Those who didn't feel like making the drive were asked to log onto PA's website and "demand" the film in their city. When 200,000 people demanded the film, it was released in 20 more cities. When a million people demanded it, it opened nationwide.
This sounds like an amazingly interesting marketing campaign, doesn't it? "Don't push the product onto the people; make them want it first. After all, the American consumer is fickle, particularly when it comes to entertainment. Only by depriving people of a movie that cost $15,000 to make can we make them want to see it."
But here's my question: Why wasn't I asked to demand the damn thing?! Over a three-week period, more than a million people knew about, wanted to see, and took time to request a movie that I had never heard of. So what am I doing wrong?! I live in a college town and watch three hours of television every weekday! What's wrong with me?! I feel like George on Seinfeld when the Sunshine Carpet Cleaners didn't try to recruit him for their cult. GM, what are we doing--or not doing--to put ourselves out of the loop?
-JW
JW,
Let me start by saying that I like whatever I'm doing that keeps me from hearing of things. (I heard of Twitter yesterday; Facebook, last week.) Getting to the bottom of my pop-culture seclusion seems akin to wondering why I haven't been killed by a suicide bomber--an academic rather than a practical question, and one I'm not desperate to explore. Nevertheless, it is interesting that a person living amongst a movie's target audience could avoid picking up on the film's release merely by osmosis. Given what I've heard about Paranomal Activity's hostility toward its audience (Justine Elias of The Boston Globe wrote that it's "like watching a YouTube clip of your irritating neighbors."), I'm wondering if missing things is a skill that you can market.
Regarding the film's marketing idea, I couldn't be less impressed if a Paramount executive came to my house and kicked me in the crotch. Articifical scarcity? In the 21st century? Please. Furthermore, the very notion that consumers can be "tricked" into buying something is more than a little insulting. It's true, I'm sure, but I still don't like it. In a world of my design, commercials would consist of a simple shot of the product itself with no other adornments. No quick cuts, no girls in bikinis, and no Morgan Freeman doing his wisest-negro-on-the-plantation voiceover schtick. I'm interested or I'm not, and the very notion that I can be persuaded otherwise ("I am hungry for Fritos!") is ridiculous.
-GM
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Moral Victories, Immoral Losses
JW,
Halfway through a first year in which he's managed to offend everyone but dwarfs, Mennonites, and the Knoxville Fireman's Association, University of Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin had this to say about Saturday's 12-10 loss to number two-ranked Alabama:
"I don't believe in moral victories. We should've won the game."
Cousin to the win by forfeit, the moral victory gets about as much respect as male cheerleaders, Survivor contestants, and the winner of the Meineke Car Care Bowl. But should that be so? And what does a college football win really mean? Let's take a Smarter look.
The Circumstances
Not since the Lin Elliott game has a loss been so decidedly the fault of a kicker. Forget the fact that junior Daniel Lincoln had already seen one kick blocked and another fall short earlier in the game. The 44-yarder that would have won it was so low that Tide nose guard Terrence Cody spent the post-game thanking God for his cup. Asked about his performance afterwards, Lincoln stated, "My leg is so weak that I should be cut from the team immediately." Or at least he should have. The fact of the matter is that any loss that comes down to one botched gimme counts as a win. At least in my book.
Recruitment
Let's face it. Tennessee isn't going anywhere this season, and a one-loss Alabama team that wins the SEC Championship is probably still playing for the BCS title. Other than bragging rights, this game was about Tennessee's national presence--about reminding recruits that the Vols still exist. Big-time high school players watch games and read (um, have read to them) national coverage. What they saw on Saturday was a Tennessee team that's very close to being ready to compete, a head coach whose flexibility led to the abandonment of the Cover 2 when it clearly wasn't working against the Wildcat, and a marching band that can play "Rocky Top" at decibels frightening to behold. A good day, to be sure.
The Fans' Perspective
Anyone who expected Lincoln to win the game simply hadn't been watching. Given the miracle that was the onside kick recovery and the subsequent drive, my confidence as Lincoln lined up was shockingly low. (I gave that last kick a 40% chance of success out loud and a 10% chance in my heart.) Still, the purpose of Saturdays in a down year is not necessarily to win the huge games but to convince yourself that the team is heading in the right direction. After playing tough against Florida, destroying Georgia at home, and taking Alabama to the buzzer, is there any doubt that Tennessee's in that category?
JW, your Mississippi State Bulldogs hung with Florida much longer than they should have. What's your take on the moral victory?
-GM
GM,
It's frightening how much time I've already devoted to Mississippi State football--part of one blog prior to today. We have our pick of all the sports, political, and day-to-day news out there, and you've left me to write about a piss-poor football program just because the school is my Alma mater. Fine. Let me first make two points, though.
One, the coaches seem to be echoing the media's unfounded sentiment that Florida and Alabama stumbled a little over the weekend. Texas, which received no first-place votes in last week's poll, now has seven. I assure you that neither a near-home loss to Tennessee nor an unconvincing win at Mississippi State is as bad as playing your first five games against unranked opponents, beating a mostly-Bradford-less Oklahoma, and only playing one other ranked team, and that's Texas' formula for going to the national championship game!
Two, a week after the SEC suspended some of its officials, both Lane Kiffin and Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen were reprimanded by the SEC for criticizing the men in stripes. The steps that leagues go through to protect referees from verbal assault simply amaze me. Everything about the NFL, NBA, and NCAA are consumer-driven, so why don't we get to hear what coaches are really thinking in the postgame when that's what everybody wants?! In fact, I think officials who make game-changing calls should address the media afterward just like coaches and players who do. Everyone has a job. Why is theirs above scrutiny?
As for Mississippi State's "moral victory," I have to admit it was nice. You used to be able to pick one play at random, watch it, and realize why Mississippi State was the inferior opponent. Corners would get beaten twice in one play. Offensive linemen would cooperatively lead defenders to the quarterback. Wide receivers would chest bump passes as if to celebrate their arrival. Quarterbacks would toss the ball into a crowd and yell "200!" It was a mess--and a funny one, at that. On Saturday, State showed that ESPN2 didn't have to be sorry for coming to Starkville. We gave 'em three solid quarters, and that's more than ESPN got out of Auburn. Looks like somebody just beat Auburn.
-JW
Halfway through a first year in which he's managed to offend everyone but dwarfs, Mennonites, and the Knoxville Fireman's Association, University of Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin had this to say about Saturday's 12-10 loss to number two-ranked Alabama:
"I don't believe in moral victories. We should've won the game."
Cousin to the win by forfeit, the moral victory gets about as much respect as male cheerleaders, Survivor contestants, and the winner of the Meineke Car Care Bowl. But should that be so? And what does a college football win really mean? Let's take a Smarter look.
The Circumstances
Not since the Lin Elliott game has a loss been so decidedly the fault of a kicker. Forget the fact that junior Daniel Lincoln had already seen one kick blocked and another fall short earlier in the game. The 44-yarder that would have won it was so low that Tide nose guard Terrence Cody spent the post-game thanking God for his cup. Asked about his performance afterwards, Lincoln stated, "My leg is so weak that I should be cut from the team immediately." Or at least he should have. The fact of the matter is that any loss that comes down to one botched gimme counts as a win. At least in my book.
Recruitment
Let's face it. Tennessee isn't going anywhere this season, and a one-loss Alabama team that wins the SEC Championship is probably still playing for the BCS title. Other than bragging rights, this game was about Tennessee's national presence--about reminding recruits that the Vols still exist. Big-time high school players watch games and read (um, have read to them) national coverage. What they saw on Saturday was a Tennessee team that's very close to being ready to compete, a head coach whose flexibility led to the abandonment of the Cover 2 when it clearly wasn't working against the Wildcat, and a marching band that can play "Rocky Top" at decibels frightening to behold. A good day, to be sure.
The Fans' Perspective
Anyone who expected Lincoln to win the game simply hadn't been watching. Given the miracle that was the onside kick recovery and the subsequent drive, my confidence as Lincoln lined up was shockingly low. (I gave that last kick a 40% chance of success out loud and a 10% chance in my heart.) Still, the purpose of Saturdays in a down year is not necessarily to win the huge games but to convince yourself that the team is heading in the right direction. After playing tough against Florida, destroying Georgia at home, and taking Alabama to the buzzer, is there any doubt that Tennessee's in that category?
JW, your Mississippi State Bulldogs hung with Florida much longer than they should have. What's your take on the moral victory?
-GM
GM,
It's frightening how much time I've already devoted to Mississippi State football--part of one blog prior to today. We have our pick of all the sports, political, and day-to-day news out there, and you've left me to write about a piss-poor football program just because the school is my Alma mater. Fine. Let me first make two points, though.
One, the coaches seem to be echoing the media's unfounded sentiment that Florida and Alabama stumbled a little over the weekend. Texas, which received no first-place votes in last week's poll, now has seven. I assure you that neither a near-home loss to Tennessee nor an unconvincing win at Mississippi State is as bad as playing your first five games against unranked opponents, beating a mostly-Bradford-less Oklahoma, and only playing one other ranked team, and that's Texas' formula for going to the national championship game!
Two, a week after the SEC suspended some of its officials, both Lane Kiffin and Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen were reprimanded by the SEC for criticizing the men in stripes. The steps that leagues go through to protect referees from verbal assault simply amaze me. Everything about the NFL, NBA, and NCAA are consumer-driven, so why don't we get to hear what coaches are really thinking in the postgame when that's what everybody wants?! In fact, I think officials who make game-changing calls should address the media afterward just like coaches and players who do. Everyone has a job. Why is theirs above scrutiny?
As for Mississippi State's "moral victory," I have to admit it was nice. You used to be able to pick one play at random, watch it, and realize why Mississippi State was the inferior opponent. Corners would get beaten twice in one play. Offensive linemen would cooperatively lead defenders to the quarterback. Wide receivers would chest bump passes as if to celebrate their arrival. Quarterbacks would toss the ball into a crowd and yell "200!" It was a mess--and a funny one, at that. On Saturday, State showed that ESPN2 didn't have to be sorry for coming to Starkville. We gave 'em three solid quarters, and that's more than ESPN got out of Auburn. Looks like somebody just beat Auburn.
-JW
Friday, October 23, 2009
'Creeps' of Wrath
GM,
You’d have to be a pretty faithful reader of
The word "creeper" is derived from “creep,” but it's more than that. It's like a creep/stalker. So if a frat boy approaches a college girl in a bar (although they're usually too scared to), it's fine. If an old man does it, he's a creeper. If one were to search Facebook until he found a girl whose last name he didn't already know, he'd be a creeper. If a guy is drunk and hits on multiple girls in the same bar, creeper.
One time, a girl I'm real-life friends with practically called me a creeper for getting her e-mail address from her Facebook account. "Why didn't you just send me a Facebook message? That was just weird." Also, an interesting phenomenon has occurred. "Creeper" is so established that girls are trying to sororitize it even more. In the same spirit that drives "whatevs" and "
I say all that to say this. A girl I don't know just sent me a Facebook message:
Hey, this is really random and may be creepy, but I found your ID a parking lot tonight. I don't know if you want it back or have already gotten a new one, but if you want it, I can give it to you.
-H
“Random,” by the way, is a sorority favorite that goes back to my own college days. Its various misuses are fascinating (people can be “randoms” now). But how could her message be random or creepy?!?! It's helpful and logical! I once found a girl’s flash drive, opened a file on there, and got her name from a paper's heading so I could look her up and get it back to her. She must be traumatized!!!
-JW
JW,
Imagine taking a football coach from before the invention of the forward pass and setting him down in today's game. That's me if I ever have to date again.
Because I got married in 2003--just missing Facebook and texting as integral parts of the process--I'm completely oblivious to the rules of today's game. Reading your post, though, I think I'm getting a sense of some general principles. First of all, saying words in their entirety has clearly become passe. Second, the guidelines for acceptable behavior seem to have grown more rigorous. (Emailing is wrong but sending "a Facebook message" is okay? What the hell?!) Third--and this is the big one--initiating a conversation outside of "normal" channels (in person, in a bar) is now so stigmatized that a person doing so for even altruistic reasons has to stammer and apologize her way through it.
Let's discuss this for a moment.
I've been saying for years (though not yet on Smarter Than Y'all, sadly) that Facebook and texting are going to be the death of actual conversations--that, like letter writing, meaningful face-to-face interactions would become the province of hobbyists and Luddites. What I didn't anticipate, however, is the way in which online and digital means of communication have explicitly driven us away from one another. Forget looking up your telephone number. The girl who found your ID was hesitant to make contact even by the least formal method, and not because of shyness or modesty but because of her confusion (warranted, I suppose) regarding what's acceptable. The proof isn't in the "random or creepy" moment, but in the message's conclusion: "if you want it, I can give it to you." If you're willing to see a human being you haven't previously seen, in other words, I can spare you hours of bureaucratic hoop-jumping.
Imagine taking a football coach from before the invention of the forward pass and setting him down in today's game. That's me if I ever have to date again.
Because I got married in 2003--just missing Facebook and texting as integral parts of the process--I'm completely oblivious to the rules of today's game. Reading your post, though, I think I'm getting a sense of some general principles. First of all, saying words in their entirety has clearly become passe. Second, the guidelines for acceptable behavior seem to have grown more rigorous. (Emailing is wrong but sending "a Facebook message" is okay? What the hell?!) Third--and this is the big one--initiating a conversation outside of "normal" channels (in person, in a bar) is now so stigmatized that a person doing so for even altruistic reasons has to stammer and apologize her way through it.
Let's discuss this for a moment.
I've been saying for years (though not yet on Smarter Than Y'all, sadly) that Facebook and texting are going to be the death of actual conversations--that, like letter writing, meaningful face-to-face interactions would become the province of hobbyists and Luddites. What I didn't anticipate, however, is the way in which online and digital means of communication have explicitly driven us away from one another. Forget looking up your telephone number. The girl who found your ID was hesitant to make contact even by the least formal method, and not because of shyness or modesty but because of her confusion (warranted, I suppose) regarding what's acceptable. The proof isn't in the "random or creepy" moment, but in the message's conclusion: "if you want it, I can give it to you." If you're willing to see a human being you haven't previously seen, in other words, I can spare you hours of bureaucratic hoop-jumping.
The sad thing is that a lot of people her age probably would have had to think about it.
-GM
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Making News?
JW,
Every now and then, a completely obvious piece of news is presented so breathlessly that it simply must be mocked here at Smarter Than Y'all. Such was the case Monday morning, when my search for "Jeff Fisher Shot Dead By Titans Fans" stories led me to the following headline in Nashville's Tennessean: "Poor kids' teachers earn less in Metro (Nashville)."
Well, my goodness.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining that public school teachers (at least here in Smarter Than Yall country) are not currently ordered to and fro by a beaurocratic entity determined to spread the best teaching across the racial and socioeconomic spectrum. As surely as you and I breathe, that day will one day arrive, but it hasn't yet. Instead, individual teachers apply for individual jobs, and individual principals hire them. Thus the existence of the following truths, as voiced by reporter Jaime Sarrio:
"Some of Nashville's hardest-to-educate students are taught by the district's least-experienced, lowest-paid teachers"
and
"The district's top earners with the most experience and education are more likely to work in schools with fewer poor and minority students."
Let's parse these earth-shaking revelations for a moment, first by admitting that teachers will choose a tolerable environment if allowed to do so. Next, let's remember that principals boasting good schools will naturally receive the most job applicants. Finally, let's assume that principals will act rationally by hiring the best of those applicants--i.e., those with the most experience, the most education, and, inevitably, the highest salaries.
All of this is as obvious as any other market phenomenon, right? So why the frantic reporting, particularly when this is the exact sort of thing that gets white people called racists?
In fact, the issue isn't racism at all but the rather predictable tendency of humans not to make their lives harder than necessary for purely altruistic reasons. Furthermore, the "best" teachers remain so in part by gravitating toward students capable of achievement. As Patrick Welsh wrote Sunday in an article as prescient as Sarrio's is precious, many "poor and minority students" simply aren't.
Now that's news.
-GM
GM,
Not only is your last statement news, it's news that, if true, should be swept under America's rug. I'm not sure whether I should agree with you or call you a racist, un-American cynic (read: modern-day liberal). If "poor and minority students" truly aren't capable of achievement, then one of two ideals must be right.
1. The Liberal Point of View: The notion of the American Dream only applies to those whose foundation is strong enough to set them up for success. No amount of hard work or God-given intelligence can even theoretically offset the disadvantage of being born to a single mother who collects welfare checks and looks to overpopulate the planet in order to increase the dollar amount on them. Only if he were to somehow be rescued by a more responsible part of society (i.e. put into a private school with richer, whiter people) would he be able to improve his hand in life. Therefore, we must use our government to correct this societal imbalance--to right the wrong created by the inherent inequity of births.
2. The Libertarian Point of View???: While it is impossible to rise above certain unfortunate situations, the more fortunate have no responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Even though some people have no chance whatsoever, I expect them to respect my property and family until they die of starvation. If someone wants to house and feed them out of charity, I won't stand in the way.
I can only assume that you fall into category No. 2, GM. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but our point-counterpoint format doesn't give you the chance to elaborate. I believe that every generally healthy American has a chance to live a happy life--even to control his fate to a certain extent. And if our school system fails to make that a true statement, then maybe we should be shuffling teachers around until the best wind up in the inner city. Of course, that would ruin the incentive for teachers to excel at their jobs, but maybe, just maybe those who get into teaching do it because they want to make the world better, not just for the summer's off.
-JW
Every now and then, a completely obvious piece of news is presented so breathlessly that it simply must be mocked here at Smarter Than Y'all. Such was the case Monday morning, when my search for "Jeff Fisher Shot Dead By Titans Fans" stories led me to the following headline in Nashville's Tennessean: "Poor kids' teachers earn less in Metro (Nashville)."
Well, my goodness.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining that public school teachers (at least here in Smarter Than Yall country) are not currently ordered to and fro by a beaurocratic entity determined to spread the best teaching across the racial and socioeconomic spectrum. As surely as you and I breathe, that day will one day arrive, but it hasn't yet. Instead, individual teachers apply for individual jobs, and individual principals hire them. Thus the existence of the following truths, as voiced by reporter Jaime Sarrio:
"Some of Nashville's hardest-to-educate students are taught by the district's least-experienced, lowest-paid teachers"
and
"The district's top earners with the most experience and education are more likely to work in schools with fewer poor and minority students."
Let's parse these earth-shaking revelations for a moment, first by admitting that teachers will choose a tolerable environment if allowed to do so. Next, let's remember that principals boasting good schools will naturally receive the most job applicants. Finally, let's assume that principals will act rationally by hiring the best of those applicants--i.e., those with the most experience, the most education, and, inevitably, the highest salaries.
All of this is as obvious as any other market phenomenon, right? So why the frantic reporting, particularly when this is the exact sort of thing that gets white people called racists?
In fact, the issue isn't racism at all but the rather predictable tendency of humans not to make their lives harder than necessary for purely altruistic reasons. Furthermore, the "best" teachers remain so in part by gravitating toward students capable of achievement. As Patrick Welsh wrote Sunday in an article as prescient as Sarrio's is precious, many "poor and minority students" simply aren't.
Now that's news.
-GM
GM,
Not only is your last statement news, it's news that, if true, should be swept under America's rug. I'm not sure whether I should agree with you or call you a racist, un-American cynic (read: modern-day liberal). If "poor and minority students" truly aren't capable of achievement, then one of two ideals must be right.
1. The Liberal Point of View: The notion of the American Dream only applies to those whose foundation is strong enough to set them up for success. No amount of hard work or God-given intelligence can even theoretically offset the disadvantage of being born to a single mother who collects welfare checks and looks to overpopulate the planet in order to increase the dollar amount on them. Only if he were to somehow be rescued by a more responsible part of society (i.e. put into a private school with richer, whiter people) would he be able to improve his hand in life. Therefore, we must use our government to correct this societal imbalance--to right the wrong created by the inherent inequity of births.
2. The Libertarian Point of View???: While it is impossible to rise above certain unfortunate situations, the more fortunate have no responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Even though some people have no chance whatsoever, I expect them to respect my property and family until they die of starvation. If someone wants to house and feed them out of charity, I won't stand in the way.
I can only assume that you fall into category No. 2, GM. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but our point-counterpoint format doesn't give you the chance to elaborate. I believe that every generally healthy American has a chance to live a happy life--even to control his fate to a certain extent. And if our school system fails to make that a true statement, then maybe we should be shuffling teachers around until the best wind up in the inner city. Of course, that would ruin the incentive for teachers to excel at their jobs, but maybe, just maybe those who get into teaching do it because they want to make the world better, not just for the summer's off.
-JW
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Patriots vs. An Empty Field: A Recap
GM,
Yesterday, the Patriots' 59-0 blowout of the Titans left few people wondering if New England was for real and if Tennessee was really that bad. It's a resounding "yes" to both. What some may have forgotten, though, is Bill Belichick's far-from-normal-anywhere-outside-of-intramural-football coaching mentality, which leads to passing, calling timeouts, and going for it on fourth down while pummeling a team mercilessly. This was the 2007 Belichick; the 2008 Belichick just didn't have the horses.
Allow our readers to get a glimpse into our lives. You may remember having this phone conversation yesterday at halftime, after Tom Brady had thrown his fifth touchdown pass of the second quarter thanks to Belichick's running a hurry-up offense while up 38-0:
GM: Can you believe Belichick called a timeout to get one more score in?!
JW: Well, honestly, I can understand not kneeling on your opponent's 10-yard line in the first half. That could be more disrespectful. But if Brady comes out in the second half...
GM: Oh, I hope they end his career.
JW: Exactly. And if he throws a pass, I hope they find a way to end Belichick's too.
What ensued, of course, was a Brady-led drive that consisted of three runs and six passes, the last of which hit Moss for his third TD of the day and Brady's sixth. You may take a different stance than I on running up scores, but what about leaving your Hall-of-Fame quarterback in the snow 13 months after he suffered a season-ending injury--in a game that was actually close at the time?
-JW
JW,
It says something about Tennessee's collective psyche that Tom Brady made it out of Gillette Stadium yesterday with working legs and a head still attached to his body. Seriously? There wasn't a third-string safety willing to take one for the team and give Brady the career-ending ass kicking he so richly deserved? There wasn't a bounty on his photogenic head? Sure, the refs nipped any chippiness in the bud by issuing a bulls--t roughing-the-passer penalty on the second half's first play from scrimmage, but I'm not sure they needed to. The Titans are done in every conceivable way, and you have to care before you can take revenge.
Here's some other thoughts, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:
1. We'll hear a lot about Jeff Fisher's job over the next few days, but perhaps it's owner Bud Adams who needs to hand over the reigns. Asked to comment on yesterday's loss, the 86-year-old stated, "The way it is going, I don't know if we'll win any games, and that is unheard of in the National Football League." I think it's safe to say that the Detroit Lions are popping champagne corks and slapping each other on the backs. Meanwhile, Bud's trying to convince his financial people that the stock market can never have an off year.
2. Given the fact that I was still hearing a few "The Titans Really Have To Win This One" stories as late as Sunday morning, I think it's safe to say that we've been overvaluing them as a football community. Folks, let's agree. Unless "have to" means "shouldn't because it will compromise their draft position," the Titans no longer have to win anything.
3. In 2002, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Arizona Cardinals 49-0 at home, showing flashes of the offensive brilliance that would lead them to a 10-0 start the next season. Their next four games? 2-2 and a date with the remote control come January. While the Patriots are good, they're still not great. And they're certainly not beating anyone else that badly anytime soon.
4. Vince Young didn't step onto the field until eleven seconds remained in the third quarter of a 59-0 game. He promptly went 0-2 with an interception. Titans fans, say hello to your savior.
-GM
Yesterday, the Patriots' 59-0 blowout of the Titans left few people wondering if New England was for real and if Tennessee was really that bad. It's a resounding "yes" to both. What some may have forgotten, though, is Bill Belichick's far-from-normal-anywhere-outside-of-intramural-football coaching mentality, which leads to passing, calling timeouts, and going for it on fourth down while pummeling a team mercilessly. This was the 2007 Belichick; the 2008 Belichick just didn't have the horses.
Allow our readers to get a glimpse into our lives. You may remember having this phone conversation yesterday at halftime, after Tom Brady had thrown his fifth touchdown pass of the second quarter thanks to Belichick's running a hurry-up offense while up 38-0:
GM: Can you believe Belichick called a timeout to get one more score in?!
JW: Well, honestly, I can understand not kneeling on your opponent's 10-yard line in the first half. That could be more disrespectful. But if Brady comes out in the second half...
GM: Oh, I hope they end his career.
JW: Exactly. And if he throws a pass, I hope they find a way to end Belichick's too.
What ensued, of course, was a Brady-led drive that consisted of three runs and six passes, the last of which hit Moss for his third TD of the day and Brady's sixth. You may take a different stance than I on running up scores, but what about leaving your Hall-of-Fame quarterback in the snow 13 months after he suffered a season-ending injury--in a game that was actually close at the time?
-JW
JW,
It says something about Tennessee's collective psyche that Tom Brady made it out of Gillette Stadium yesterday with working legs and a head still attached to his body. Seriously? There wasn't a third-string safety willing to take one for the team and give Brady the career-ending ass kicking he so richly deserved? There wasn't a bounty on his photogenic head? Sure, the refs nipped any chippiness in the bud by issuing a bulls--t roughing-the-passer penalty on the second half's first play from scrimmage, but I'm not sure they needed to. The Titans are done in every conceivable way, and you have to care before you can take revenge.
Here's some other thoughts, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:
1. We'll hear a lot about Jeff Fisher's job over the next few days, but perhaps it's owner Bud Adams who needs to hand over the reigns. Asked to comment on yesterday's loss, the 86-year-old stated, "The way it is going, I don't know if we'll win any games, and that is unheard of in the National Football League." I think it's safe to say that the Detroit Lions are popping champagne corks and slapping each other on the backs. Meanwhile, Bud's trying to convince his financial people that the stock market can never have an off year.
2. Given the fact that I was still hearing a few "The Titans Really Have To Win This One" stories as late as Sunday morning, I think it's safe to say that we've been overvaluing them as a football community. Folks, let's agree. Unless "have to" means "shouldn't because it will compromise their draft position," the Titans no longer have to win anything.
3. In 2002, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Arizona Cardinals 49-0 at home, showing flashes of the offensive brilliance that would lead them to a 10-0 start the next season. Their next four games? 2-2 and a date with the remote control come January. While the Patriots are good, they're still not great. And they're certainly not beating anyone else that badly anytime soon.
4. Vince Young didn't step onto the field until eleven seconds remained in the third quarter of a 59-0 game. He promptly went 0-2 with an interception. Titans fans, say hello to your savior.
-GM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
