GM,
President Obama gave his second (though first "official") State of the Union address last night, and it reminded me how we managed to elect the guy. Forget content or feasibility for a moment. The speech sounded great. He didn't at all look like a president whose popularity had plummeted. In fact, the number of times he went through his "Smirk, Wait, and Smile" routine was staggering. The SWS occurs when the president is most proud of himself. He reels off a clever remark, smirks as the audience processes the level of sarcasm or folksiness on display, waits for applause or laughter, and smiles as if he's as tickled as everyone else is. Hey, it's better than the George W. Bush "Act like you're completely clueless" expression.
In other observations, Harry Reid yawned during his cut-away, Ruth Bader Ginsburg somehow looked decrepit and sharp, and Nancy Pelosi acted like it was all she could do not to jump the desk and begin humping the president!
But the speech included several points worth mentioning, and the world needs your take.
1. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit--one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. . . . Let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment."
A typical American might say: That sounds pretty good. If big business gets bailed out, then small business should too.
2. "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will."
Typical American: It's about time the government stopped spending so much. Like the president said, I'm on a tight budget. Why shouldn't the federal government be?!
3. After bragging about all the tax cuts, Democrats applauded vigorously while Republicans remained quiet and seated. Obama's (seemingly) impromptu response was: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."
Typical American: Why wouldn't they applaud? I thought Republicans were all about tax cuts. Is it because they wanted more tax cuts for the wealthy and none for everyone else?! Those bastards!
4. "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."
Typical American: Touche, Mr. President! You're too witty.
5. "Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. . . . Let's tell another one million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years, and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service."
Typical American: Perfect! If everyone has a college degree, there can be no more poverty.
-JW
JW,
Unlike you, I spent Wednesday evening ignoring the President's speech. Why watch when the transcript is available online even before the speech is over? Who's got time to sit through all that applause? Fully rested and refreshed, I'm ready to attack this monstrosity. Let's take it point by point.
The TARP Repayment
Not only the national debt but the yearly budget deficit is a multi-trillion dollar entity these days. I mention this because we needn't have any confusion over the source of the bailout money Obama now promises to funnel into even more government projects. Either we printed the money or we borrowed it from China. In either case, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the word, and the only proper destination for the repaid funds is a steamer bound for Beijing or an armored car bound for the incinerators. To spend the money--my hands are shaking, this pisses me off so badly--is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Obama knows this. That's why he's proposing a cut in some capital gains taxes. He would never propose an idea that "regressive" if he weren't trying to get away with something.
The Spending Freeze
George Will calls it a "flagrant falsehood." The Associated Press reports, "The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the [annual budget] deficit--and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along." Politicians and commentators like to throw around the word "cynical," but Obama's strategy--say what you know to be untrue and count on your personality and the credulity of voters to protect you--is practically its dictionary definition.
Take four minutes and listen to Bill Adair of the Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan, fact-checking website Politifact.com. In his NPR interview, he states that Politifact's exploration of seven Obama claims produced only one "true" rating. Good times.
The Tax Cuts
This was the one "true" claim that Obama made, according to Politifact.com. Yes, he did use the 2nd Stimulus Package (Bush's was the first; the upcoming "jobs bill" will be the third) to give some tax break to a large majority of Americans. For political reasons, Republicans probably should have applauded. They're probably thinking about the future, though, when the bill will come due. It's not far off.
Climate Change
Don't you just love that smarty-pants line about "overwhelming scientific evidence"? If it's overwhelming, the cause is in large measure the censorship of competing data by a "scientific" community that joins Obama in his disdain for profit. F--k them. Whether or not man-made climate change is happening, the steps required to combat it cannot be achieved by the nations of this world as they are currently constituted. (Here's George Will again--sue me; I love the guy.)
Loan Forgiveness
The high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. Great. Let's do the same thing to the college diploma by educating every deadbeat in America.
The primary economic fact is scarcity. The secondary economic fact is that when you start screwing with lenders' ability--even government lenders--to recoup loans, you change who they loan to. I look forward to a world in which poor people can't go to school because of the government's attempts to make lending "fair."
-GM
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bad Rules, Ignoble Endings
GM,
Similar to your prediction that the Steelers would win or lose each game by three points this year (it actually happened six times!), your Brett Favre prediction was nothing short of prophecy:
...Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it.... -Dec. 21, 2009
And it killed me. This was one of the best games any of us have ever seen, and it was ruined by horrible league policy. In this case, the NFL's failure to fix what is obviously the worst OT system in all of sports--just edging soccer's "To hell with trying to actually score; we'll just kick several times from 10 feet away" arrangement--undermined the game's legitimacy and tainted what will surely be another Colts championship. Like the conference semi-finals between the Spurs and Suns in 2007, which involved two suspensions that simply mocked logic, the fans deserved better in this one.
Forget sudden death. I'm acknowledging Sunday's first 60 minutes and no more. For the purposes of this entry, Minnesota and New Orleans tied yesterday. And what a tie it was....
Favre's second INT ruined the Vikings' chance of victory, but what made the moment so historically significant was that it was the culmination of years of abuse that somehow never sidelined football's iron man. The "Gunslinger" rolled out to an empty flat, and with his football awareness, the amount of time he had to decide on running or passing was an eternity.
Fortunately, whether you like Brett or not, you've seen into his career quite clearly. You've seen it in chapters. He was the highly-touted rookie who became the ultimate bust due to personal problems and poor work ethic. Then he became the perfect story of redemption, winning three straight MVP awards and a SuperBowl. Interceptions had always plagued his career, though, and we began questioning whether he could still play in 2005 when he threw a record-worst 29 picks. But he stuck around to break almost every career QB record. Finally, after several offseasons of indecisiveness, he shut all his doubters up with his best statistical season--only seven INTs. It appeared that the right system, an elite running back, and years of accumulated wisdom had made for the perfect fit--maybe even for one more season.
Favre entered Sunday's game looking nimble, even youthful. A few punishing hits later, he looked too feeble for the NFL. Not surprisingly, he stayed in to make a few decent tosses and get away with some bad ones. And when he rolled to the right and saw the open turf before him, he probably knew he could get enough yardage for field-goal range. He probably knew he could slide or get out of bounds to avoid contact entirely. But with his legs weakened and fatigued--his thoughts mired--all he could rely on was the old gun. Such impulsiveness had made him, and in perfect symmetry, it broke him.
I wanted a Manning-Favre SuperBowl as much as anyone. The game could have been billed as "Man vs. Machine." As much charisma as Peyton Manning has in commercials and interviews, his game is simply robotic. Favre, on the other hand, has a style of play so human that it mirrors what we assume to be his personality. That's why I want to see the man on football's biggest stage. He always gives us a heck of a show.
-JW
JW,
I got sleepy and tried to nap during the second half of the game you're calling one of the best ever, and I'll be damned if Joe Buck didn't wake me up every five minutes with another Vikings turnover!!!! My goodness, that team wanted to lose. As I joked on the telephone Sunday evening, if Buck had saved his pipes for clutch field goals, I could have slept through the entire playoffs.
Anyway, since you're refusing to acknowledge the last ten minutes or so of Vikes/Saints, allow me to fill in some blanks. If you're a Vikings fan, the NFL just screwed you. Forget about the coin toss--professional football's answer to Powerball, blackjack double-downs, and unsafe sex--and focus on the pass interference call against Ben Leber (6:29, here), made despite the fact that Brees' pass to Thomas was not a pass at all but a please-don't-sack-me throwaway. Focus on Meacham's twelve-yard "completion" (6:43, same clip) that ended the game for all intents and purposes (that's "intensive purposes" to you, Saints fans). If nothing else, this game proved for all time that NFL refs are afraid to cross a home crowd riding a generation-long crest of political sympathy--that not even Brett Favre can combat the magical formula of Disaster + Black People = Bandwagon Fans and Make-Up (For Acts of God) Calls. Once overtime hit, it would have taken Team Haiti to beat the Saints in New Orleans.
Now that the Super Bowl is upon us, I'm predicting a devestating Colts win. The Saints are inexplicably inconsistent offensively, and Peyton Manning is utterly shameless about seven-yard-slanting his way to victory, over and over again, ad nauseam. Too bad that the exact matchup I've been hoping for since week five promises to be as lopsided as the Manning family's distribution of genetic gifts. They should have played this one in September.
-GM
Similar to your prediction that the Steelers would win or lose each game by three points this year (it actually happened six times!), your Brett Favre prediction was nothing short of prophecy:
...Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it.... -Dec. 21, 2009
And it killed me. This was one of the best games any of us have ever seen, and it was ruined by horrible league policy. In this case, the NFL's failure to fix what is obviously the worst OT system in all of sports--just edging soccer's "To hell with trying to actually score; we'll just kick several times from 10 feet away" arrangement--undermined the game's legitimacy and tainted what will surely be another Colts championship. Like the conference semi-finals between the Spurs and Suns in 2007, which involved two suspensions that simply mocked logic, the fans deserved better in this one.
Forget sudden death. I'm acknowledging Sunday's first 60 minutes and no more. For the purposes of this entry, Minnesota and New Orleans tied yesterday. And what a tie it was....
Favre's second INT ruined the Vikings' chance of victory, but what made the moment so historically significant was that it was the culmination of years of abuse that somehow never sidelined football's iron man. The "Gunslinger" rolled out to an empty flat, and with his football awareness, the amount of time he had to decide on running or passing was an eternity.
Fortunately, whether you like Brett or not, you've seen into his career quite clearly. You've seen it in chapters. He was the highly-touted rookie who became the ultimate bust due to personal problems and poor work ethic. Then he became the perfect story of redemption, winning three straight MVP awards and a SuperBowl. Interceptions had always plagued his career, though, and we began questioning whether he could still play in 2005 when he threw a record-worst 29 picks. But he stuck around to break almost every career QB record. Finally, after several offseasons of indecisiveness, he shut all his doubters up with his best statistical season--only seven INTs. It appeared that the right system, an elite running back, and years of accumulated wisdom had made for the perfect fit--maybe even for one more season.
Favre entered Sunday's game looking nimble, even youthful. A few punishing hits later, he looked too feeble for the NFL. Not surprisingly, he stayed in to make a few decent tosses and get away with some bad ones. And when he rolled to the right and saw the open turf before him, he probably knew he could get enough yardage for field-goal range. He probably knew he could slide or get out of bounds to avoid contact entirely. But with his legs weakened and fatigued--his thoughts mired--all he could rely on was the old gun. Such impulsiveness had made him, and in perfect symmetry, it broke him.
I wanted a Manning-Favre SuperBowl as much as anyone. The game could have been billed as "Man vs. Machine." As much charisma as Peyton Manning has in commercials and interviews, his game is simply robotic. Favre, on the other hand, has a style of play so human that it mirrors what we assume to be his personality. That's why I want to see the man on football's biggest stage. He always gives us a heck of a show.
-JW
JW,
I got sleepy and tried to nap during the second half of the game you're calling one of the best ever, and I'll be damned if Joe Buck didn't wake me up every five minutes with another Vikings turnover!!!! My goodness, that team wanted to lose. As I joked on the telephone Sunday evening, if Buck had saved his pipes for clutch field goals, I could have slept through the entire playoffs.
Anyway, since you're refusing to acknowledge the last ten minutes or so of Vikes/Saints, allow me to fill in some blanks. If you're a Vikings fan, the NFL just screwed you. Forget about the coin toss--professional football's answer to Powerball, blackjack double-downs, and unsafe sex--and focus on the pass interference call against Ben Leber (6:29, here), made despite the fact that Brees' pass to Thomas was not a pass at all but a please-don't-sack-me throwaway. Focus on Meacham's twelve-yard "completion" (6:43, same clip) that ended the game for all intents and purposes (that's "intensive purposes" to you, Saints fans). If nothing else, this game proved for all time that NFL refs are afraid to cross a home crowd riding a generation-long crest of political sympathy--that not even Brett Favre can combat the magical formula of Disaster + Black People = Bandwagon Fans and Make-Up (For Acts of God) Calls. Once overtime hit, it would have taken Team Haiti to beat the Saints in New Orleans.
Now that the Super Bowl is upon us, I'm predicting a devestating Colts win. The Saints are inexplicably inconsistent offensively, and Peyton Manning is utterly shameless about seven-yard-slanting his way to victory, over and over again, ad nauseam. Too bad that the exact matchup I've been hoping for since week five promises to be as lopsided as the Manning family's distribution of genetic gifts. They should have played this one in September.
-GM
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Gayness, Litigation
JW,
The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.
Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.
The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.
Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.
A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?
-GM
GM,
"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."
This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?
First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.
So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.
I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.
Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!
-JW
The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.
Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.
The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.
Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.
A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?
-GM
GM,
"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."
This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?
First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.
So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.
I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.
Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!
-JW
Monday, January 18, 2010
Shanking the Weekend: A Retrospective
GM,
Let's focus on the losers today. Let's talk about the disappointment that we have and that four other fan bases should be feeling. Let's ignore the fact that each of us went 1-3 in our predictions.
How bad has kicking been in the NFL this year?! The league percentage, 81.7, isn't much lower than the usual of 83 percent, but clutch kicking has been nearly non-existent. If kicking really is almost entirely mental, then Nate Kaeding's performance yesterday reminded me of Paula Abdul's clapping. I've already heard the "Jets win it or Chargers lose it?" nonsense on ESPN three times today, and it's not even close. The Chargers, specifically Kaeding, lost that game. He was one of the most reliable kickers in the league all season, connecting on 91.4 percent of his attempts. He was at home. The weather was fine. Still, he missed all three of his tries against the Jets, setting up what will surely be a forgettable AFC Championship Game. Thanks, Nate. Take some Valium and hit the beach.
Kurt Warner looked as old as he's ever looked. I think he intentionally grew that gray goatee just so our last thought of him would be, "Yes, despite his strong numbers, he's definitely ready to retire." NOTE: Neil Rackers missed his only field goal attempt.
More kicking woes in Minnesota, not that it mattered this time. Shaun Suisham was 1-for-3, including a 48-yarder on 4th-and-2 that Wade Phillips shouldn't have let him try. More important, though, was that Tony Romo couldn't hold on to the football. Two of his three fumbles were lost, and Dallas never had a chance. For some reason, people like to blame QB fumbles on bad protection and, in this case, Flozell Adams's injury. But the great quarterbacks, much like Favre taking his first sack in that game, know how to hit the deck quickly and maintain possession.
Baltimore's offense just didn't show up, and the Colts' touchdown in the final seconds of the first half was completely deflating. When there are 7 seconds left on 3rd-and-goal and the other team has no timeouts (thus has to throw quickly), how do you not jam Reggie Wayne at the line?! That was the game.
-JW
JW,
Forget kicking! The Cowboys are retaining Wade Phillips, and Chan Gailey is the front-runner for the Bills job. I don't know what's worse--the Bills settling for a guy who couldn't keep his coordinator job through Kansas City's entire preseason or the Cowboys sticking with a coach whose central accomplishment, according to Tony Romo, was "keeping together" a team that badly needs to be blown up. Either way, the only coaching-related move that would shock me more than these two did would be the Chargers allowing Norv Turner to stick around for another wasted season. He's more likely to be the president of the United States next year than to work in San Diego.
As for the games themselves, they left the prognosticator in me confused and unsatisfied. Arizona managed to lose without giving us a bit of insight into how good the Saints really are (do they hang forty-five on anybody with that effort, or just the Cardinals?), and Baltimore failed to capitalize on a first-half Colts team that was every bit as baffled and uninspiring as I anticipated--you know, since they had to interrupt their vacations for that game and all. Dallas forgot to show up for what should have been the best matchup of the playoffs, and the contest that should have sucked--Jets/Chargers--turned out to be the only one worth watching to its conclusion.
This would be a good time, then, to make a promise or two about not underestimating the Jets going forward--about acknowledging that the pass in all its glamour still can't compete with a solid defense, a solid run. Screw that. The Jets will lose by fifty this Sunday, and I'll laugh all the way to the bank. I hear Nate Kaeding's a teller.
-GM
Let's focus on the losers today. Let's talk about the disappointment that we have and that four other fan bases should be feeling. Let's ignore the fact that each of us went 1-3 in our predictions.
How bad has kicking been in the NFL this year?! The league percentage, 81.7, isn't much lower than the usual of 83 percent, but clutch kicking has been nearly non-existent. If kicking really is almost entirely mental, then Nate Kaeding's performance yesterday reminded me of Paula Abdul's clapping. I've already heard the "Jets win it or Chargers lose it?" nonsense on ESPN three times today, and it's not even close. The Chargers, specifically Kaeding, lost that game. He was one of the most reliable kickers in the league all season, connecting on 91.4 percent of his attempts. He was at home. The weather was fine. Still, he missed all three of his tries against the Jets, setting up what will surely be a forgettable AFC Championship Game. Thanks, Nate. Take some Valium and hit the beach.
Kurt Warner looked as old as he's ever looked. I think he intentionally grew that gray goatee just so our last thought of him would be, "Yes, despite his strong numbers, he's definitely ready to retire." NOTE: Neil Rackers missed his only field goal attempt.
More kicking woes in Minnesota, not that it mattered this time. Shaun Suisham was 1-for-3, including a 48-yarder on 4th-and-2 that Wade Phillips shouldn't have let him try. More important, though, was that Tony Romo couldn't hold on to the football. Two of his three fumbles were lost, and Dallas never had a chance. For some reason, people like to blame QB fumbles on bad protection and, in this case, Flozell Adams's injury. But the great quarterbacks, much like Favre taking his first sack in that game, know how to hit the deck quickly and maintain possession.
Baltimore's offense just didn't show up, and the Colts' touchdown in the final seconds of the first half was completely deflating. When there are 7 seconds left on 3rd-and-goal and the other team has no timeouts (thus has to throw quickly), how do you not jam Reggie Wayne at the line?! That was the game.
-JW
JW,
Forget kicking! The Cowboys are retaining Wade Phillips, and Chan Gailey is the front-runner for the Bills job. I don't know what's worse--the Bills settling for a guy who couldn't keep his coordinator job through Kansas City's entire preseason or the Cowboys sticking with a coach whose central accomplishment, according to Tony Romo, was "keeping together" a team that badly needs to be blown up. Either way, the only coaching-related move that would shock me more than these two did would be the Chargers allowing Norv Turner to stick around for another wasted season. He's more likely to be the president of the United States next year than to work in San Diego.
As for the games themselves, they left the prognosticator in me confused and unsatisfied. Arizona managed to lose without giving us a bit of insight into how good the Saints really are (do they hang forty-five on anybody with that effort, or just the Cardinals?), and Baltimore failed to capitalize on a first-half Colts team that was every bit as baffled and uninspiring as I anticipated--you know, since they had to interrupt their vacations for that game and all. Dallas forgot to show up for what should have been the best matchup of the playoffs, and the contest that should have sucked--Jets/Chargers--turned out to be the only one worth watching to its conclusion.
This would be a good time, then, to make a promise or two about not underestimating the Jets going forward--about acknowledging that the pass in all its glamour still can't compete with a solid defense, a solid run. Screw that. The Jets will lose by fifty this Sunday, and I'll laugh all the way to the bank. I hear Nate Kaeding's a teller.
-GM
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Four Games, Two Disagreements
JW,
After a wild-card round about as exciting as an afternoon with C-SPAN, I'd like to tell you that this weekend is going to be playoff gold. Sadly, the AFC doesn't look like it's going to oblige. Over the course of the past week, we've heard lots of "experts" claim that the Jets and Ravens have a chance to make things interesting, but it just isn't so. People, it seems, will say anything to get on TV.
With that in mind, let's take a Smarter look at a divisional round that promises to be a study in contrasts. We'll start with the good stuff.
Arizona at New Orleans
I'll be damned if the Cardinals didn't steal my bitching-about-the-overtime-rules thunder last weekend by making their one defensive play of the game when it counted most. Watching that play unfold, I found myself wondering if Aaron Rodgers had suddenly lost his peripheral vision. Michael Adams was maneuvering about as quickly as a Wal-Mart greeter, and he still got there with time to spare. Is it possible that Rodgers' small-town values had him rooting for one more week of Kurt Warner?
Pagan New Orleans, it's safe to say, will have no such qualms about ending the Holy One's career, at least until his August comeback. Like the Green Bay game, however, this one simply can't be called. Both teams score big; both trot out defenses that couldn't stop a Big-10 quarterback; both depend on timing, momentum, and finesse. The game will come down to one or two huge stops or giveaways, and we'll all go home convinced that running the football couldn't be less important. I give Arizona the slight edge, but only because I know their offense is clicking. I'm not positive about the Saints'.
Dallas at Minnesota
Dallas could go one of two ways now that their playoff curse has been lifted. In scenario one, they fall to a Vikings team that, unlike them, isn't just happy to be here. In scenario two, they destroy everyone and win the Super Bowl without much of an effort. I like scenario two.
Minnesota, after all, has proven time and again that Brett Favre alone is going to win or lose big games, and I love him to lose this one. Adrian Peterson--24th in the league in yards per carry and entering famous-for-being-famous territory--lacks the will and charisma to demand the ball, and Dallas has slammed the door shut on runners all season. Look for Favre to panic and overreact to an early deficit. I say his interception total beats Peterson's number of goal-line carries.
Baltimore at Indianapolis
I hate the Colts very much, but even I have to admit that this is a great team. Yeah, they stubbornly lose their rhythm and momentum every December to protect their starters, but it takes a better team than the overachieving Ravens to exploit that fact. I'm predicting an early Ravens lead followed by thirty-five unanswered points by Manning and his joyles, workaday Colts. The Ravens beat a New England team that verifiably stinks. No one cares.
New York at San Diego
If New York seriously challenges in this game, I will s--t myself.
-GM
GM,
Allow me to respond.
Cards at Saints
The Saints are strangers to me, while the Cardinals remind me of a girl I once dated. Entirely unpredictable. Hot one minute; cold the next. Unbearable when at their worst; a thing of beauty when at their best. The problem with this type of girl (errr, team) is she absolutely cannot be counted on when the stakes are high. Are these stakes high enough? Probably, but...
New Orleans has managed to turn everyone into doubters based on its performance in December and beyond. Since a November 30 thrashing of New England, which the Saints would like to be the season's defining moment, they've sneaked by Washington in OT, held on to a three-point victory over a beat-up Atlanta team, allowed a soul-searching Dallas to revive itself while ending their perfect season, lost to three-win Tampa Bay, and failed to try against Carolina. What the Saints may still have is an ability to strike quickly, especially in the fourth quarter, but Arizona can respond. The over-under for this game is 57.5! I know that defenses tend to rise to the occasion when people predict shootouts, but it just seems impossible to me that the winner of this doesn't score 45 by itself! I can't believe I'm saying this, especially since I didn't think Arizona could beat Green Bay, but the Cardinals are pulling this upset even without Boldin.
Cowboys and Vikings
Vike me. (ESPN may have sold out to affirmative action and "jockocracy"--Howard Cosell's version, not what Urban Dictionary has--but it still makes great SportsCenter commercials.) GM, Favre's twilight years, depending on when you assume they began, have consisted of his throwing single, crucial late-game picks rather than littering the field with floaters into triple coverage. But he's not ready for that, anyway. The Vikings are the only team in the league with more momentum right now than Dallas, and it's all because of Week 17. After losing a heart-breaker in Chicago in which Favre and Childress again butted heads and Minnesota looked like it had lost its first-round bye, they were completely in the dumps. But in the season's final week, Philly gift-wrapped the bye in purple and gold and mailed it first-class to Minneapolis. That team is rejuvenated like no other. Of all the key playoff figures who needed a week of rest, Brett Favre was at the top of the list. They're still the most balanced team in football, and if Brad Childress simply overcomes his stubbornness and uses Adrian Peterson more like a 2002 Charlie Garner and less like a 2007 Larry Johnson, Minnesota wins. Oh, and I'm not making this up: I dreamed last night that Flozell Adams false started.
Ravens at Colts
I'll never forgive this Colts team for forfeiting the perfect season. In 2007, Bill Belichick wanted to piss off division rival Miami by going undefeated, and he wanted to piss off Peyton Manning by having Tom Brady take his touchdown record. I hate the Hoody with a passion, but if I could put that hatred aside, I'd want him coaching my team in a heartbeat. Jim Caldwell had the chance to have a season in which he made history by going 19-0 (as a first-year head coach!), to solidify the Colts' reputation as the most clutch franchise in the league, and to make Belichick look stupid for that fourth-down decision. And if he really believes that a Super Bowl victory is the only relevant part of that equation, he doesn't understand greatness. Who will people remember more, the 2007 Patriots or the 2008 Steelers? It's obvious, isn't it? Just as obvious is that this year's Colts team won't be remembered at all. After all, they're following their proven formula to lose a playoff game at home.
Jets at Chargers
I love Rex Ryan. There, I said it. I also think Norv Turner is a waste of space. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe the Jets will win today. None. Convincing someone otherwise would be a more daunting task than convincing him to switch to AT&T using Luke Wilson commercials.
-JW
After a wild-card round about as exciting as an afternoon with C-SPAN, I'd like to tell you that this weekend is going to be playoff gold. Sadly, the AFC doesn't look like it's going to oblige. Over the course of the past week, we've heard lots of "experts" claim that the Jets and Ravens have a chance to make things interesting, but it just isn't so. People, it seems, will say anything to get on TV.
With that in mind, let's take a Smarter look at a divisional round that promises to be a study in contrasts. We'll start with the good stuff.
Arizona at New Orleans
I'll be damned if the Cardinals didn't steal my bitching-about-the-overtime-rules thunder last weekend by making their one defensive play of the game when it counted most. Watching that play unfold, I found myself wondering if Aaron Rodgers had suddenly lost his peripheral vision. Michael Adams was maneuvering about as quickly as a Wal-Mart greeter, and he still got there with time to spare. Is it possible that Rodgers' small-town values had him rooting for one more week of Kurt Warner?
Pagan New Orleans, it's safe to say, will have no such qualms about ending the Holy One's career, at least until his August comeback. Like the Green Bay game, however, this one simply can't be called. Both teams score big; both trot out defenses that couldn't stop a Big-10 quarterback; both depend on timing, momentum, and finesse. The game will come down to one or two huge stops or giveaways, and we'll all go home convinced that running the football couldn't be less important. I give Arizona the slight edge, but only because I know their offense is clicking. I'm not positive about the Saints'.
Dallas at Minnesota
Dallas could go one of two ways now that their playoff curse has been lifted. In scenario one, they fall to a Vikings team that, unlike them, isn't just happy to be here. In scenario two, they destroy everyone and win the Super Bowl without much of an effort. I like scenario two.
Minnesota, after all, has proven time and again that Brett Favre alone is going to win or lose big games, and I love him to lose this one. Adrian Peterson--24th in the league in yards per carry and entering famous-for-being-famous territory--lacks the will and charisma to demand the ball, and Dallas has slammed the door shut on runners all season. Look for Favre to panic and overreact to an early deficit. I say his interception total beats Peterson's number of goal-line carries.
Baltimore at Indianapolis
I hate the Colts very much, but even I have to admit that this is a great team. Yeah, they stubbornly lose their rhythm and momentum every December to protect their starters, but it takes a better team than the overachieving Ravens to exploit that fact. I'm predicting an early Ravens lead followed by thirty-five unanswered points by Manning and his joyles, workaday Colts. The Ravens beat a New England team that verifiably stinks. No one cares.
New York at San Diego
If New York seriously challenges in this game, I will s--t myself.
-GM
GM,
Allow me to respond.
Cards at Saints
The Saints are strangers to me, while the Cardinals remind me of a girl I once dated. Entirely unpredictable. Hot one minute; cold the next. Unbearable when at their worst; a thing of beauty when at their best. The problem with this type of girl (errr, team) is she absolutely cannot be counted on when the stakes are high. Are these stakes high enough? Probably, but...
New Orleans has managed to turn everyone into doubters based on its performance in December and beyond. Since a November 30 thrashing of New England, which the Saints would like to be the season's defining moment, they've sneaked by Washington in OT, held on to a three-point victory over a beat-up Atlanta team, allowed a soul-searching Dallas to revive itself while ending their perfect season, lost to three-win Tampa Bay, and failed to try against Carolina. What the Saints may still have is an ability to strike quickly, especially in the fourth quarter, but Arizona can respond. The over-under for this game is 57.5! I know that defenses tend to rise to the occasion when people predict shootouts, but it just seems impossible to me that the winner of this doesn't score 45 by itself! I can't believe I'm saying this, especially since I didn't think Arizona could beat Green Bay, but the Cardinals are pulling this upset even without Boldin.
Cowboys and Vikings
Vike me. (ESPN may have sold out to affirmative action and "jockocracy"--Howard Cosell's version, not what Urban Dictionary has--but it still makes great SportsCenter commercials.) GM, Favre's twilight years, depending on when you assume they began, have consisted of his throwing single, crucial late-game picks rather than littering the field with floaters into triple coverage. But he's not ready for that, anyway. The Vikings are the only team in the league with more momentum right now than Dallas, and it's all because of Week 17. After losing a heart-breaker in Chicago in which Favre and Childress again butted heads and Minnesota looked like it had lost its first-round bye, they were completely in the dumps. But in the season's final week, Philly gift-wrapped the bye in purple and gold and mailed it first-class to Minneapolis. That team is rejuvenated like no other. Of all the key playoff figures who needed a week of rest, Brett Favre was at the top of the list. They're still the most balanced team in football, and if Brad Childress simply overcomes his stubbornness and uses Adrian Peterson more like a 2002 Charlie Garner and less like a 2007 Larry Johnson, Minnesota wins. Oh, and I'm not making this up: I dreamed last night that Flozell Adams false started.
Ravens at Colts
I'll never forgive this Colts team for forfeiting the perfect season. In 2007, Bill Belichick wanted to piss off division rival Miami by going undefeated, and he wanted to piss off Peyton Manning by having Tom Brady take his touchdown record. I hate the Hoody with a passion, but if I could put that hatred aside, I'd want him coaching my team in a heartbeat. Jim Caldwell had the chance to have a season in which he made history by going 19-0 (as a first-year head coach!), to solidify the Colts' reputation as the most clutch franchise in the league, and to make Belichick look stupid for that fourth-down decision. And if he really believes that a Super Bowl victory is the only relevant part of that equation, he doesn't understand greatness. Who will people remember more, the 2007 Patriots or the 2008 Steelers? It's obvious, isn't it? Just as obvious is that this year's Colts team won't be remembered at all. After all, they're following their proven formula to lose a playoff game at home.
Jets at Chargers
I love Rex Ryan. There, I said it. I also think Norv Turner is a waste of space. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe the Jets will win today. None. Convincing someone otherwise would be a more daunting task than convincing him to switch to AT&T using Luke Wilson commercials.
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
