Athletic Reporter Blog

Joe Mauer Commercials

2010-03-26T22:28:00.001-07:00

Here's all the great Joe Mauer commercials:

PlayStation 3

"This is 'SportsCenter'"

Sideburns

Take it Outside

NFL 2008 - Week 16, Part One

2008-12-18T14:44:00.000-08:00

COLTS @ Jaguars +6

Look for Part Two tomorrow over at PoopReading.com.

NFL 2008 - Week 14, Part I

2008-12-04T10:02:00.001-08:00

RAIDERS @ Chargers -9

New The Best Show on TV post...

2008-12-04T09:59:00.000-08:00

... here.

Those those happy few out there who are fans of my stuff, the best place to find it now is over at PoopReading.com (motto: "Don't Worry; It's Classy").

Don't be afraid to check back here once in a while, but for the most part you'll find me over there now.

NFL 2008 - Week 13

2008-11-27T11:45:00.000-08:00

Week 12: 8-8

[Woooooo-hoooooooooooooooo! Non-losing week! Wooo-hoo!]

Overall: 77-87-3

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

LaDainian Tomlinson -- Pomeranian Tomlinson

[Gold. Just gold]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

Lee Evans -- Bee Evans

[Not my best work; I feel like the Buffalo Bills deserved better]

Normally I pick Thursday games on Thursday afternoon, and then post a full preview on Fridays. But I'm certainly not going to feel like working on that this weekend, so let's just do them all now. What am I worried about; I'll have a crappy week with lots of bad picks? Been
there!

Let's start with the three Thursday games…

TITANS @ Lions +11

The Lions have to win one, don't they? Nobody goes 0-16. Maybe that's not the case… last year, more than a few people assumed that the Patriots would lose in the regular season, just because nobody goes 16-0.

As far as the Lions are concerned, maybe we should just be saying that no team has gone 0-16 yet.

(although they still host the Vikings coming up; they'll win that one. It'll be 2001 all over again; that year, the 0-12 Lions finally won a game when they hosted Dennis Green's Vikings. TheLions are in line to be 0-12 again this year when they host the Vikings a week from Sunday)

Seahawks @ COWBOYS -12.5

The Cowboys look like they might be back. The Giants are the best team in football, but who knows who the #2 team in the NFC is? It could just as easily be Dallas as anybody.

CARDINALS @ Eagles -3

A few weeks ago I said the Eagles were good; I'm not so sure now. The Andy Reid-Donovan McNabb era could be coming to an ugly end sooner rather than later.

Also, the Cardinals can clinch the NFC West in Philly on Thursday. In Week 13. With their eighth win. Not a murderer's row, that NFC West.

COLTS @ Browns +5

Around the same time I said the Eagles were good, I implied that the Colts weren't. I'd like to take both of those assertions back now, please, if I could.

The Colts have won their last four games, but by an average of four points. Still, I'm okay with giving away five, because the Browns are kind of a mess. And because the weather in Cleveland on Sunday isn't supposed to be terrible. A little snow; nothing the Colts shouldn't be able to handle.

RAVENS @ Bengals +7

Baltimore hasn't really had any problems on the road of late, and they really shouldn't have any problems with the Bengals.

In fact, the Colts, Ravens and Patriots, all 7-4, are essentially fighting for their playoff lives every week now; it might not be a good idea to pick against any of them unless you really think you have to. All three teams are in second place, all three teams are really good, but due to the fact that there are only two Wild Card playoff spots available, one team is likely to be left out of the postseason mix (technically they all three could make it if one or more of them end up winning their division, but then that leaves either the Steelers or Jets out of the playoffs, which is just as crazy).

DOLPHINS @ Rams +7.5

I could only find one website willing to list a line for this game, I suppose due to the uncertainty about Rams starting quarterback Marc Bulger. I think that the way the Rams are going, they could start the genetically engineered clone offspring of Johnny Unitas and Sammy Baugh at quarterback and it wouldn't matter much.

49ERS @ Bills -7

Don't let the Bills' offensive explosion against Kansas City last week -- or their winning record -- fool you… they're pretty lousy. I know I haven't give you much reason to believe me this season, but, believe me on that.

The 49ers are lousy too, of course, but, my point is… you know what? Let's move on to Panthers-Packers.

PANTHERS @ Packers -3
We know the Packers are an up-and-down team; we know the Panthers are among the class of the NFC. Home field advantage, it is often pointed out, is generally thought to be worth about three points. Are oddsmakers saying that they think these two teams are equally matched?
I'm not sure I agree.

Saints @ BUCCANEERS -3.5

Here's the thing, and, I looked it up: NFC South teams are 7-0 at home this season within the division. It would follow, then, that NFC South teams are 0-7 on the road this season within the division.

It looks like the Saints are getting hot at the right time, I'm still not all that impressed by the Buccaneers, but I'm not going to go against a nice, juicy trend like 7-0. Can't do it. Wanna do it;
can't do it.

GIANTS @ Redskins +3.5

Remember at the beginning of the season when the Redskins fired off four really good wins against four good teams on the way to a 4-1 start?

Yeah; that was right around the time John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate and took a sizeable lead in all of the national polls.

Things change.

Meanwhile, the Giants are the sort of team that can go on the road, play without two of their marquee offensive names (Burress, Jacobs) for the bulk of the game, and still beat a playoff-caliber team decisively. In other words: the Giants are really, really good. They weren't the last remaining undefeated team in the league this year, and it's hard to get too excited about anyone this early when just last year we saw an undefeated team lose the Super Bowl, so that might be why you're not hearing quite as much about the Giants as you ought to be. You will soon.

FALCONS @ Chargers -4.5

Close personal friend Bill Simmons has floated a theory on his podcast a few times this season: it takes two years for the effects of a bad coach to show up on a good team. He has floated this theory as a way of explaining Norv Turner's 2008 San Diego Chargers, who are 4-7 after making a trip to the AFC title game last season.

And then you've got the Falcons, who just got done blowing out a really good Carolina team and who could make a major playoff push if they win this week at San Diego and next week at New Orleans. Although I wouldn't hold my breath as far as that New Orleans game goes; that's an NFC South road game, and we know how those go.

Steelers @ PATRIOTS -1

Matt Cassel seems to be taking all of the Tom Brady comparisons to heart; just a few days ago he knocked up a B-list starlet and then ditched her for a European supermodel. Later this week, he plans to pose for some sexually suggestive photos with farm animals and talk about how much he likes internet porn.

To complete the picture, on Sunday he'll lead the Patriots to win over Pittsburgh in a gut-wrenching fashion that makes every Steelers fan feel like they have to puke.

BRONCOS @ Jets -7.5

Let down? Let down, anyone? Do I hear let down?

Chiefs @ RAIDERS -3

The Chiefs have played some close games, is the thing. But the Raiders should have enough.

BEARS @ Vikings -3.5

I swear, I meant to pick the Vikings last week. I don't know why I didn't type it up that way in last week's column; I knew they were going to beat Jacksonville. You watch a team enough, sometimes you just know. Like how I knew that they would beat Carolina in Week 3. Still, they're playing for the outright lead in the NFC North on Sunday night; I've got to go back to picking against them for misery insurance. And because when they do win, it's usually an
excruciating, last-second affair, which means that I can't possibly give away three-and-a-half points.

Three, maybe; not three-and-a-half.

Jaguars @ TEXANS -3

Yech. ESPN should hire the Sklar brothers to goof on this game live as it happens; then, I might watch.

NFL 2008 - Week 12, Part Two

2008-11-21T01:12:00.000-08:00

Week 11: 6-10

Overall: 69-89-3

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

Rams @ 49ERS -6.5

Peeee-yew.

[the 49ers won 35-16, and the game pretty much stunk]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

The Eagles are damn good, but they play in the brutal NFC East. As such, they can't possibly afford to lose winnable games if they want to have any shot at the playoffs. I suspect they'll come out Sunday and tear the Bengals limb from limb, just to be safe. They know they can't afford to take any game for granted.

[the Eagles pretty much played like crap and, after their game with the Bengals ended in a tie, Donovan McNabb admitted that he had no idea ties could happen in the NFL. This despite the fact that in the 2002 playoffs he quarterbacked the Eagles against the Falcons, who had a tie on their record that year]

Before we get to the picks, let's talk about a disturbing trend in the NFL.

Last Sunday's Steelers/Chargers game marked the second time in as many weeks that NFL officials prominently blew a relatively easy interpretation of the rules.

Referees -- like other, regular people -- make errors in judgment; until that glorious day when games are officiated by artificial intelligence, removing human error and allowing the players -- and only the players -- to determine outcomes once and for all, this will remain a fact of life. Sports fans have no choice but to live with, and hopefully to tolerate, blown judgment calls (such as holding, pass interference, etc.). What should not be tolerated is apparent ignorance, or incorrect interpretation, of basic rules.

Two weeks ago, the Vikings were awarded a safety after Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers was whistled for a penalty in his own end zone. So far, so good; the problem was that the officials announced the penalty as an "illegal forward pass." Now, if you've watched much football, or if you've ever seen any football, or if you've even heard of football, or if you have feet, you probably know that teams are allowed one forward pass per play, and that pass must be made behind the line of scrimmage, and you can throw the ball pretty much any way you want, including underhanded, like Rodgers happened to (I imagine a few other obscure rules governing forward passes exist, but they're not relevant here). Rodgers was in his own end zone, which means that he was, by definition, behind the line of scrimmage. It goes without saying that no Green Bay player had thrown a previous forward pass in the course of that same play as Rodgers scrambled away from the Vikings pass rush. As such, the officials' call of an illegal forward pass was indeed a bizarre one, because in that specific situation Rodgers couldn't possibly have thrown an illegal forward pass even if he had suddenly been seized with the overwhelming desire to do so.

Apparently the league later altered the game log to state that the officials had called intentional grounding; this would have been an incorrect call, as there was a receiver in the general vicinity of Rodgers pass, but at least it would have been merely an error in judgment and not a misinterpretation of basic NFL rules.

A week later, an officiating mistake at the end of the Steelers/Chargers game didn't affect the outcome but caused an estimated $64 million swing among sports bettors. The Steelers, five-point favorites, led 11-10 in the closing seconds as the Chargers lined up for a last-second play that, in effect, had no chance of working. But why not try, right? After a completed forward pass and a lateral, a second Chargers lateral was broken up, hit the ground, and was scooped up by Pittsburgh's Troy Polamalu and returned for a touchdown. This made the score 17-10, which meant that the Steelers had covered the spread on a freaky, last-second fluke play. This might have stood as one of the greatest moments in sports gambling history, something like the Music City Miracle and Robin Ventura's game-winning grand slam single combined.

Replay officials looked at the play again, and initially the referee signaled that the touchdown was good. Just as the game's broadcast ended, though, CBS showed the final score as 11-10, with little explanation. We'd all just seen Troy Polamalu score a touchdown; why on earth had it been disallowed?

The NFL confirmed shortly after the game that the touchdown should have counted, which was cold comfort for those who had bet on the Steelers, seen their bet come through on one of the craziest plays in recent memory, and then had the touchdown erroneously disallowed (the NFL is officially unconcerned with point spreads, but common sense tells us that a large measure of the league's popularity is due to gambling, and such popularity is unlikely to last if the integrity of the league's final scores is called into question).

Still more frustrating is the revelation that stupid, lazy miscommunication turns out to be the culprit. I'll explain, since to the best of my knowledge nobody anywhere else really has. The play was relatively simple: Chargers QB Philip Rivers threw a garden-variety forward pass to LaDainian Tomlinson, who caught it and then lateralled to Chris Chambers, who attempted to pitch it back to a teammate. The Chambers lateral was broken up and hit the ground before it was returned for a touchdown.

The NFL released a statement attempting to clarify the error; in part, it read that the Tomlinson pass "was initially ruled a legal backward pass but then reversed in replay to an illegal forward pass," and that "[t]he officiating crew mistakenly determined that the backward pass that Polamalu legally recovered and returned for the touchdown was the pass that was reversed in replay to being forward and illegal."

They won't come out and say it, but, clearly, here's what must have happened: at some point, after initially reviewing the play and calling the touchdown good, the officials on the field got word that "the lateral" was, in fact, an illegal forward pass. Officials must then have concluded, without bothering to think much about it, that "the lateral" in question was the one made by Chambers, the one eventually scooped up by Polamalu. One problem: that pass had clearly, even to the naked eye, gone backwards, by at least two or three yards. Any officials watching the play as it happened should have had no trouble seeing this. But, hey, they replay guy just said
that "the lateral" was, after further review, an illegal forward pass. Who are you gonna trust, the replay booth or your own lyin' eyes? Apparently, in all the hoopla, everyone on the officiating crew just forgot that there had been another lateral on the play that the replay booth could have been -- in fact, was -- referring to. "Well," the officials must have thought, "the replay booth says that the Chambers lateral was an illegal forward pass. We could have sworn we saw it go backwards by a good three or four years, but oh well." Obviously, no one of the officiating crew thought to ask the all important question, "are you sure we're talking about the same lateral?"

When a legal backwards lateral, like the one attempted by Chambers, hits the ground, that's simply a fumble. When a forward pass -- legal or not -- hits the ground, the play is dead. Since they thought Chambers' lateral was an illegal forward pass, officials ruled that once it hit the ground the play was dead and the game was over. What should have happened, as confirmed by the NFL, was that San Diego should have been penalized for Tomlinson's illegal forward pass. Pittsburgh would have had the right to decline that penalty, which they certainly would have, since no team would ever voluntarily give up even an inconsequential garbage-time touchdown.

Two major foul-ups in two weeks. As I said, fans have no choice but to live with blown calls (for now). We shouldn't have to live with ignorance and incompetence.

On to the games… can I avoid getting into double-digits in the loss column this week? Only time will tell. Also, since I clearly have no aptitude for picking NFL games -- maybe since I don't really watch very much football anymore -- and since I've already blathered on long enough, in lieu of analysis I'll just provide you with my pick for each game, followed by what I would imagine to be each team's most prominent "Zooperstar" (Zooperstars are weird, mascot-like characters that derive their names from animal puns of famous athletes. Whale Gretzky, for instance. Or Clammy Sosa. Snail Earnhardt, Jr. You get the idea).

Bengals @ STEELERS -11

[you'll notice that I finally picked a Thursday night game correctly]

Bengals: T.J. Houshmandzadeh -- T.J. Houshmandzebra
Steelers: Ben Roethlisberger -- Ben Mothlisberger

Texans @ BROWNS -3

Texans: Mario Williams -- Mariorangutan Williams
Browns: Kellen Winslow II -- Pelican Winslow II

Bills @ CHIEFS +3

Bills: Lee Evans -- Bee Evans
Chiefs: Larry Johnson -- Dromedary Johnson

PATRIOTS @ Dolphins -1

Patriots: Matt Cassel -- Rat Cassel
Dolphins: Ronnie Brown -- Ronnie Brown Bear

Jets @ TITANS -5

Jets: Brett Favre -- Brett Larvae
Titans: Kerry Collins -- Kerry Collie

Eagles @ RAVENS -1

Eagles: Brian Westbrook -- Lion Westbrook
Ravens: Ray Lewis -- Manta Ray Lewis

49ers @ COWBOYS -10

49ers: Frank Gore -- Frank Boar
Cowboys: Tony Romo -- Pony Romo

BUCCANEERS @ Lions +7.5

Buccaneers: Warrick Dunn -- Warrick Dung Beetle
Lions: Daunte Culpepper -- Doggie Culpepper

Vikings @ JAGUARS -2.5

Vikings: Gus Frerotte -- Gus Ferret
Jaguars: Maurice Jones-Drew -- Maurice Jones-Kangaroo

BEARS @ Rams +8

Bears: Kyle Orton -- Crocodile Orton
Rams: Marc Bulger -- Shark Bulger

Raiders @ BRONCOS -9.5

Raiders: JaMarcus Russell -- JaMarcus Mussel
Broncos: Champ Bailey - Chimp Bailey

PANTHERS @ Falcons -1

Panthers: Jake Delhomme -- Snake Delhomme
Falcons: Matt Ryan -- Bat Ryan

GIANTS @ Cardinals +3

Giants: Plexico Burress -- Plexico Burro
Cardinals: Kurt Warner -- Kurt Wormer

REDSKINS @ Seahawks +3.5

Redskins: Clinton Portis -- Clinton Porpoise (or, if you prefer, Clinton Tortoise)
Seahawks: Matt Hasselbeck -- Cat Hasselbeck

COLTS @ Chargers -2.5

Colts: Peyton Manning -- Pigeon Manning
Chargers: LaDainian Tomlinson -- Pomeranian Tomlinson

PACKERS @ Saints -2.5

Packers: A.J. Hawk -- ... (sorry; I couldn't think of one for him)
Saints: Reggie Bush -- Reggie Bush Baby

NFL 2008 - Week 12, Part One

2008-11-20T07:38:00.000-08:00

My weekly incorrect pick for the Thursday night game:

Bengals @ STEELERS -11

(look for more on the Steelers in tomorrow's full column)

The Best Show on TV, Part 10

2008-11-20T07:31:00.000-08:00

The Best Show on TV

"The Office" (NBC) -- 2/9/2006 - 4/2/2006
"Huff" (Showtime) -- 4/6/2006 - 8/26/2006
"Big Brother" (CBS) -- 8/26/2008 - 10/4/2006
"South Park" (Comedy Central) -- 10/4/2006 - 11/30/2006
"The Office" (NBC) -- 11/30/2006 - 1/14/2007
"24" (FOX) -- 1/14/2007 - 4/5/2007
"30 Rock" (NBC) -- 4/5/2007 - 4/10/2008
"House" (FOX) -- 4/10/2008 - 10/5/2008
"Dexter" (Showtime) -- 10/5/2008 - 11/18/2008
"The Shield" (FX) -- 11/18/2008 - present

I've been a bit worried lately. I was facing something of a lose-lose situation with the seven-season run of "The Shield" coming to an end. You see, if I gave the show the Best Show on TV Title as a sort of lifetime achievement award, it might compromise the integrity of this list. Yet if a show as great as "The Shield" went off the air without ever having held the Best Show on TV title at any point in the title's almost three-year existence, it might compromise the integrity of the list.

My worries intensified as Season 7 debuted with confusing, convoluted episode after confusing, convoluted episode. The series finale airs on November 25th; what was I to do? But then, in the last couple of weeks, things got really good.

And, after Tuesday night, I needn't worry anymore.

[warning: mild "The Shield" spoilers ahead. Although, to be honest, if I hadn't ever seen "The Shield," and then I read the following, and then I went and watched "The Shield," I would think to myself, "you know, those spoilers weren't so bad"]

In the show's pilot, Los Angeles police detective Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis) murders a fellow cop. He does this because the officer was a mole, assigned to Mackey's "strike team" to bust them for their rampant corruption. When he and his team aren't working on the case of the week, the majority of Mackey's time throughout "The Shield's" run has been spent trying to stay one step ahead of politicians, fellow cops, internal affairs guys, family members, gang bangers and anyone else who might be able to put him away for the murder. Or for any of the myriad crimes he and his team committed in its wake.

Which brings us to the final scene in Tuesday night's episode. For reasons that I won't get into, Vic is offered a deal by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They want his connections to L.A.'s criminal underbelly, and they imagine he's not much dirtier than your average dirty cop. Just as his crimes are finally about to catch up with him, he is offered immunity for any and all prior crimes to which he confesses at the time he signs the deal, and only for those prior crimes to which he confesses at the time he signs the deal. ICE knows he's not squeaky clean, but they figure maybe he falsified some reports here, ignored some gang activity there, or roughed up a
suspect once in a while, all in the name of getting the job done.

Instead, in a scene that I would describe as downright Shakespearean if I wasn't worried that would under-sell it, Vic must sit in a room, across from another human being, and confront exactly what he has done and what he has become by literally saying the words out loud. The look on Michael Chiklis's face as he lists all of his transgressions, his fate predicated on forgetting none of them, lets us know that for
Vic, finally having to say it means it's real. All those things he did: they're real. That's him. He can't hide behind his rationalizations any longer. Meanwhile the entire deal is contingent on his providing the full measure of his efforts to ICE, which will now be looking for any excuse to break the agreement.

What will such a man do now? Will he opt for a scorched-earth approach, attempting to burn down everything and everyone around him in an effort to secure his own freedom? Will he decide that enough is enough, and agree to accept the punishment he must know he deserves? The way "The Shield" has set it up, no one knows. At this point, I doubt that Vic himself knows. I can't imagine a series finale with higher stakes. I can't wait to see what happens.

NFL 2008 - Week 11, Part Two

2008-11-14T06:27:00.000-08:00

Week 10: 6-8

Overall: 63-79-3

When a 6-8 week represents a marked improvement, I think it's safe to assume it's not your year.

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

Raiders stink.

[Carolina played pretty dreadfully and still managed to cover a 9.5-point spread in Oakland]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

RAMS @ Jets -9

[The Jets won by 44 points. You'd think I would learn to stop picking against them. Maybe next week...]

Jets @ PATRIOTS -3

The Jets won 34-31 in overtime; it looks like we can look forward to me picking the Thursday night game wrong as a new weekly feature.

Broncos @ FALCONS -6.5

Four games is a pretty small sample size; nevertheless, the Falcons have yet to lose at home. The Broncos' winning record is almost some sort of bizarre joke; they're like a mocked-up version of a good team, like those fake cars that Michael Keaton and George Wendt try to pass off at the end of Gung Ho. That's right: Gung Ho. That's the reference I went with. It's a brand new week, kiddes, and I'm feeling good about things.

Texans @ COLTS -8

"How I Met Your Mother" -- which, if you aren't watching, you must -- introduced another new and immediately indispensable phrase into the cultural lexicon this week: The Cheerleader Effect. The Cheerleader Effect occurs when a group of women, as a whole, combines to look much better than the sum of its parts. None of the individual women might be particularly good-looking upon closer inspection, but from across the room they appear to be a group of hot chicks.

That's what the 2008 Colts are: a Cheerleader Effect of a football team. From across the room you see the winning record, you see Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, you see Bob Sanders and Dwight Freeney, you see Tony Dungy over on the sidelines; why, they hardly look any different than the team that won the Super Bowl a scant 21 months ago. But take a look at the parts: Manning is battling injury and isn't quite himself, Harrison is aging faster than Tom Skerritt, Sanders is always banged up, Freeney isn't the dominant player he was a few years ago, Dungy be thinking about retirement and have one foot out the door, and the team, while 5-4, has actually trailed by double-digits at some point in three of its five wins.

It would be hard to make the case that the Colts should be favored by eight, but, luckily for them, they're playing the Texans this week. As I pointed out last week, the Texans looked like they might be in the mix after a three-game winning streak against the Dolphins (decent), Lions (really bad) and Bengals (really, really bad), but after two losses against two decent teams since that streak, I think we can declare the Texans' season a lost cause. Sorry, guys. I really thought the fact that one of your players celebrated a touchdown with the Conan O'Brien "string dance" would have been a harbinger of great things for you.

Raiders @ DOLPHINS -10

The Dolphins haven't beaten anybody by as much as ten points since Week 3, but, the Raiders are certainly the team against which you'd expect them to buck that trend.

Miami's "Wildcat" offense -- in which a running back takes a direct snap from center --has been the talk of the NFL thus far in 2008, and other teams have run their own versions of it in recent weeks. The degree to which the NFL is a copycat league never ceases to amaze; every NFL coach and coordinator knew that this particular football tactic existed prior to the Dolphins' unveiling of it in Week 3, and yet nobody was using it at all. It has been around essentially as long as football itself, but, now that the Dolphins are using it, other teams suddenly thought, "oh, yeah, let's try it too?" If it's so great, why weren't you already doing it? What the heck are they paying you for? Huh?

Ravens @ GIANTS -7

Atlanta's rookie quarterback Matt Ryan is getting a lot of attention this season, and deservedly so; the Georgia Dome was a mausoleum last season, and Ryan, along with new coach Mike Smith, have helped resurrect the Falcons franchise much more quickly than almost anyone thought possible.

But let's save some rookie quarterback love for Baltimore's Joe Flacco, who was playing for the Fightin' Blue Hens of the University of Delaware this time last year, facing off against the likes of Towson, Monmouth, New Hampshire and James Madison. Flacco has survived a rough start (one touchdown against seven interceptions as the Ravens opened the season 2-3), the quantum leap in the quality of competition he's facing, and the fact that he looks like Adam Carolla's little brother and has become the type of solid, mistake-free quarterback (six TDs, zero INTs and one fumble during Baltimore's current four-game winning streak) that these Ravens have always depended on in order to win.

That said, Flacco and his mates face the best team in football on Sunday in the defending champion New York Giants. The Giants run the ball better than any other team in the league, while the Ravens stop the run bette than anyone. It should be a tough, physical, grinding kind of game, and I hate to give away seven points, but the Giants are just so darn good, so let's take them.

Lions @ PANTHERS -14

It's not that Carolina is incapable of honking a game here or there ("here" being Minneapolis and "there" being Tampa, if you look at their schedule so far this year), but they're not going to do it at home against the worst team in the league.

Meanwhile, Daunte Culpepper is back in the NFL and starting for the Lions, and, take it from a lifelong Vikings fan: Daunte Culpepper does not go on the road and beat good teams.

EAGLES @ Bengals +9

The Eagles are damn good, but they play in the brutal NFC East. As such, they can't possibly afford to lose winnable games if they want to have any shot at the playoffs. I suspect they'll come out Sunday and tear the Bengals limb from limb, just to be safe. They know they can't afford to take any game for granted.

Bears @ PACKERS -3.5

The Bears really don't have any bad losses (the four teams that have beaten the Bears are a combined 28-8 this season) this season. The Packers haven't lost to a team without a winning record, either... tell you what: let's go with the Packers, just because they probably need this one more. You don't want to fall two games out of first place with only six more to play.

[note: originally, the above read "let's go Packers, just because they probably need this one more." I changed the wording, because I'll be damned if I'm ever going to write the words "let's go Packers" in any context. So there]

SAINTS @ Chiefs +5.5

The Chiefs have actually been in their last three games, against three decent-to-excellent teams. The Saints are slipping, their playoff hopes getting slimmer by the minute (yes, even this minute, while they're not even playing. I know; it's weird). Still, I couldn't feel good picking the league's worst defense, Kanas City, against the league's best offense, New Orleans. I'd like to pick the Chiefs this week to beat that spread at home, but I just can't.

Vikings @ BUCCANEERS -4

Back when the Vikings and Buccaneers used to be in the same division, and would therefore play each other twice every season, they used to split those two games almost without fail. The year the Vikings went 15-1 in the regular season? That one loss was, of course, to Tampa Bay; they even split that year.

These two teams could both wind up in the playoffs (if the Vikings get exceedingly lucky), so I'll hope that Tampa Bay wins this one. That way, if they play again, the Vikings are a shoo-in.

Rams @ 49ERS -6.5

Peeee-yew.

Cardinals @ SEAHAWKS +3

The Seahawks are pretty much out of it, so hosting first-place Arizona this week is about as close as they're going to get to a playoff game. They're playing for pride at this point. Seattle QB Matt Hasselbeck ought to return from injury this Sunday, and something tells me that the Cardinals are due to honk one here.

TItans @ JAGUARS +3

This should be a heck of a game; the Jaguars really need it to keep their slim playoff hopes alive and avoid having 2008 turn into a crushing disappointment after coming in with very high expectations.

The Titans come in at 9-0, and I have a feeling that this could be the game after which everyone does that spin where they say it's actually good that they finally lost, because now they don't have to worry about winning streaks and being undefeated and whatnot. I never really bought into all of that until last year, when, as we saw, the Patriots came into the Super Bowl at 18-0 looking really uptight and ended up giving the game away. Now, I suspect there might be something to it. Am I saying the Titans will lose on purpose? No...

Wait, why not? Screw it: I guarantee that the Tennessee Titans will lose Sunday's game in Jacksonville on purpose. Why not? I'm 63-79-3 this year; what have I possibly got to lose?

Chargers @ STEELERS -5

I don't know what to make of these Steelers; not at all. The Chargers should be able to throw the ball on them, but, who knows? Ben Roethlisberger is still banged up and the Steelers secondary is depleted, but, who knows?

I think, ultimately, I'm going to have to get over my suspicions that the Chargers are going to turn things around and be an elite team again this year. Let's start by picking against them right here, okay?

COWBOYS @ Redskins +1.5

The Redskins are banged up at running back, and haven't looked particularly impressive for the last month or so. The Cowboys are getting Tony Romo back, albeit with a balky finger on his throwing hand. A loss to Washington would go a long way toward completing Dallas's free-fall from "consensus best team in football" to "on the outside of the playoff race, looking in." Dallas coach Wade Phillips even got the dreaded "the coach's job is perfectly safe" kiss of death from owner Jerry Jones this week.

Can I abstain? Can I just pick neither team? No? Well, I'll take Washington, with much trepidation.

No, wait: Dallas. I just realized I feel just a little bit better about Dallas.

Browns @ BILLS -5

The Bills need this one desperately. Hopefully that'll be a good enough reason to take them.

NFL 2008 - Week 11, Part One

2008-11-13T15:13:00.000-08:00

Jets @ PATRIOTS -3

I feel very good about this one.

NFL 2008 - Week 10, Part Two

2008-11-06T20:44:00.000-08:00

Week 9: 4-10

Overall: 57-71-3

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

(oh, who even cares anymore?)

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

(see above)

Titans @ BEARS +3

Because the Titans have to lose at some point, and what better time to pick that than a week in which they not only play a first place team on the road, but also a week in which they were featured on the cover ofSports Illustrated? I'll not bet against that powerful curse.

Jaguars @ LIONS +6.5

Things were looking so good for the Jaguars on the evening of October 12th. They had won three of their last four after a shaky start and were heading into their bye week on the strength of a road win over the first place Broncos. Not only that, but after the respite came a stretch of games against the Browns, the Bengals and the Lions, teams whose combined record at the time was 1-14. Life was good.

Then, of course, the Jaguars came out and lost to Cleveland at home and Cincinnati on the road. Will they lose to the suddenly competitive -- if still winless -- Lions? I don't know. What I do know is that I don't want to give the Jags six-and-a-half points, not with the way they've been playing lately.

RAVENS @ Texans +1

It looked like the Texans were on a roll there for a while; they weren't. They fattened up on the likes of the Dolphins, Lions and Bengals (which, as the Jaguars proved, is not exactly easy, but, still), and then couldn't really hang with the decidedly average Vikings last week.

Normally the smart money won't back a rookie quarterback on the road, but Baltimore's Joe Flacco doesn't make a ton of mistakes. The Ravens' defense, on the other hand, is capable of causing the other team to make plenty of them.

Bills @ PATRIOTS -3.5

The Bills aren't that good. Most teams, if things break just right and they hit a relatively easy chunk in their schedule, can win four games in a row. That's what happened with the Bills, I think, when they started out 4-0 and suckered us all in. They've shown themselves to be pretenders now. And, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the Patriots just don't lose two games in a row.

Saints @ FALCONS -1

Big game; the Saints are in last place in the NFC South but, at 4-4, are only two games behind the first-place Panthers. The Falcons are only one game out of first in the same division, but haven't beaten an NFC South opponent yet. Both teams are still alive for the playoffs; the loser of this one will have a tougher road to get there.

Seahawks @ DOLPHINS -8

These two teams have basically just switched places in the NFL hierarchy since last year: the Dolphins are good now, and the Seahawks are hopeless.

PACKERS @ Vikings -2.5

I will not talk myself into thinking that the Vikings have the stuff to get it together and make a playoff run. I will not talk myself into thinking that the Vikings have the stuff to get it together and make a playoff run. I will not talk myself into thinking that the Vikings have the stuff to get it together and make a playoff run. I will not talk myself into thinking that the Vikings have the stuff to get it together and make a playoff run.

I'm not going to set myself up for that sort of a fall.

RAMS @ Jets -9

My heart's not in it this week, folks. You lose ten games a week for like a month straight in your picks column and see how you feel, okay?

PANTHERS @ Raiders +9.5

Raiders stink.

Colts @ STEELERS -3

I'm not sure it matters this week who plays QB for Pittsburgh; they'll be fine.

Chiefs @ CHARGERS -15.5

You just can't ever be sure whether the Chargers will be great or whether they'll be listless and sloppy. They haven't played a great game in a little while, and they're all rested up from their bye week, so I'll take them. Even though that point spread is ridiculously high.

GIANTS @ Eagles -3

I need to see the Eagles beat another good team before I'm completely convinced.

49ers @ CARDINALS -9.5

The Cardinals start to pull away from the rest of the field in the NFC West. I know; I never in a million years thought we'd ever see anybody write that sentence, either.

NFL 2008 - Week 10, Part One

2008-11-06T15:59:00.000-08:00

Broncos @ BROWNS -3

(This game is starting in just an hour or two; I wanted to get my pick on the record on time)

A Little Bit More About Election 2008

2008-11-03T21:03:00.001-08:00

Well, it's a good thing for McCainiacs that the Washington Redskins no longer predict the outcome of the presidential election. It used to be that if the Redskins won the final home game they played before an election then the party in the White House would retain it, and if the Redskins lost the final home game they played before an election then the opposition party would win. This held true for a staggering 17 consecutive elections. In 2004, however, the Redskins lost their last home game before the election, yet the Republicans held onto the White House.

Tonight, of course, the Redskins hosted the Steelers on "Monday Night Football" and lost. Thanks to 2004, though, that doesn't necessarily spell doom for the McCain campaign.

Also, as an addendum to my previous post, I would say that if I were feeling particularly cheeky I would predict a final electoral count of Obama 303, McCain 235, with Obama picking up the electoral vote that goes with winning the Omaha, NE congressional district (Nebraska and Maine don't allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis).

But I wasn't feeling sufficiently cheeky, and I didn't predict that. If it ends up 303-235, and I missed out on the chance to be pretty much the only person in the world who called it, I shall, as Prince Humperdink once said, be very put out.

Election 2008

2008-11-03T16:03:00.000-08:00

Since I pick NFL games every week, I may as well make an election pick as well. It looks to me, right now, just hours before election day, that the best McCain can realistically hope for is 260 electoral votes. Some columnists say that if he wins every state where he's within five points, he wins the election. This is only true if you cherry-pick your polls; indeed, if McCain wins every state in which any poll shows him within five, he'll win handily. Heck, if most of the undecideds break towards McCain he wins, albeit with very little room to spare.

But I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, if Obama can't manage to lose Pennsylvania despite essentially promising to bankrupt the coal industry, and with Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha calling his constituents racists and rednecks, then it really just isn't McCain's year.

You heard it here first:

Obama 302, McCain 236.

Obama wins California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

NFL 2008 - Week 9

2008-10-31T01:01:00.000-07:00

Week 8: 3-10-1

Overall: 53-61-3

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

Sooner or later I might have no choice to admit that these Bills are for real; first let's see how they handle an AFC East foe on the road (lest we forget, they haven't had to do that yet).

[I picked against the Bills, and they lost. Not a stunningly brave or insightful move by me, but beggars can't be choosers]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week (and so many to choose from…):

Browns @ JAGUARS -7

I don't get this line at all. I don't know who in the world would take Cleveland here.

[the Browns won the game, so obviously plenty of people knew something I didn't]

A less-than-stellar week, I'm not going to lie. I lost like three or four games by 1/2 a point, but even if I'd gotten all of those I wouldn't have been in great shape.

Onward…

Jets @ BILLS -5.5

I've played a decent amount of blackjack in my day. I like to think I know what I'm doing at a blackjack table, more or less. I also like to think I know when somebody else doesn't know what he's doing. Why do I bring all of this up? Here's what Jets quarterback Brett Favre said about blackjack this week, according to Yahoo!:

I used to always take hits on 16. Does it depend on what the guy next to you has?... I would sit at the table and [have] everyone get up because [they'd say], "that guy takes hits on everything." When you're betting 10 dollars, who cares?

Could Favre have said anything -- anything at all -- that better explained the last ten years of his career? Hitting on 16 is just like forcing a throw into double-or-triple coverage; it might work a small percentage of the time, and when it does it makes you look brilliant and ballsy. The vast majority of the time, though, it not only ends up screwing you, it screws everybody else who's playing right along with you.

But, as Favre says, "who cares?" He's a multi-millionaire, so ten bucks means nothing to him, so screw everybody else at the table. He's an all-time great who has already won a Super Bowl (would a more discerning Brett Favre have won at least three?), so screw everybody else on the field.

I remain not sold on the Bills, especially given their loss at Miami last week, but this Jets team isn't that great either. They've built a 4-3 record on some pretty iffy wins, they're only 1-2 on the road, and I don't think they're ready to wear the big-boy pants quite yet.

JAGUARS @ Bengals +7.5

The Bengals have to win sometime, one would think. But I've picked them two weeks in a row, and they've been pathetic. In fact, in last week's column, I named picking the Bengals two weeks ago The Dumbest Thing I Said [That] Week, and then proceeded to pick the Bengals again.

No more. The Jaguars are gasping for air and they badly need a win. Watch; this will be the week the Bengals finally do it. I don't care. I can't pick them anymore.

RAVENS @ Browns -1.5

The Ravens are good. I'm going to go ahead and say it. And I understand that the Browns have sort of come on strong of late. Still, as my great-grandpappy used to say, "son, any time you've got a team with the NFL's 30th-ranked offense going against a team with the league's 2nd-ranked defense, put your money on the latter." Keep in mind that there were only 28 teams in the NFL when he passed away, and you'll realize just how much he knew about the game.

TEXANS @ Vikings -4.5

Ladies and gentlemen, the end zone celebration bar has been raised considerably. Though touchdown dances have been around for quite a while, the mid-'90s saw the emergence end zone celebration luminaries such as Carolina's Wesley Walls, who would spike the ball and then "shoot" it out of the air with a pretend shotgun, and San Diego's Alfred Pupunu, who, in a nod to his Tongan heritage, would act like the football was a coconut, twist the top off and "drink" of the milk within.

It was the early years of the 21st century, however, during which the likes of Steve Smith, Joe Horn, Chad Johnson and the Mozart of end zone celebrations, Terrell Owens, brought the genre to previously undreamed of heights. One still weeps when one contemplated the beauty of Owens pulling a Sharpie marker out of his sock and autographing the ball immediately following a score.

All of those acts were mere prelude, however, to what we saw last Sunday, when wide receiver David Anderson of the Houston Texans caught a pass from quarterback Matt Schaub, scampered into the end zone, and unleashed upon the world…

The Conan O'Brien string dance.

Video of the incident is readily available to anyone who wishes to Google "David Anderson" and "string dance," and doing so is highly recommended.

It's not as if any team needs help beating the spread against the Vikings, but the good karma that is sure to follow the Texans after David Anderson's revolutionization of the very concept of the end zone celebration makes this game the safest bet of the week.

Lions @ BEARS -13

Ah, hell. You hate to give away 13 points. But it's the 0-7 Lions, on the road. So even though this line of thinking has burned me before, I'll go with the premise that you really just have no choice but to take the Bears.

BUCCANEERS @ Chiefs +8.5

Can the Buccaneers score enough to justify taking them on the road with this big of a spread? Maybe; they're averaging over 21 points a game. And this is a semi-must-win game for them, heading into their bye week. They need to beat the Chiefs if they want to stay near the top of the NFC playoff hopefuls.

CARDINALS @ Rams +3

You know, you get to the middle few weeks of the season, when the thrill of having the NFL back in your life has worn off a bit and the playoff scenarios haven't really quite started to take shape yet, and there are going to be certain games that you just don't really care that much about. Cardinals @ Rams is one of those games.

Packers @ TITANS -5.5

When did we decide that the Packers could hang with what we have no choice to refer to as the best team in the league in Tennessse? Was it those consecutive wins over the lousy Seahawks and the shaky Colts (who should probably just be known officially as the Shaky Colts, like how Anaheim used to be the Mighty Ducks)? I wasn't consulted about that (hard to believe, isn't it, given my record of picking games this season?).

Dolphins @ BRONCOS -3

Are these teams evenly matched? For some reason, and this is going to sound ridiculous, I think the Dolphins are better, but I feel relatively good about taking Denver this week. The Broncos are coming off a bye week and they've beaten some decent teams at home this year. With such a volatile team, I'd rather just assume they'll take care of things at home.

And while we're here, talking about the Broncos, now seems as good a time as any to mention that the end of an era will take place, a torch will be passed, and a new dawn will come to the National Football League. Yes, we've been hearing a lot about change in the last few months, and on Tuesday we will head to the polls and decide who will replace Mike Shanahan of the Broncos as the NFL Head Coach Who Looks Most Like the President. Will we need to hold a runoff between Herm Edwards of the Chiefs and Tony Dungy of the Colts, or will the underdog, Giants coach Tom Coughlin, defy the odds and the pollsters and pull it out in the end?

Either way, it's an excting time to be an American.

COWBOYS @ Giants -9

This line is too high for an NFC East battle the the Cowboys really need to win, so even though the Giants defense should beat up Brad Johnson and whoever replaces him midway through the second quarter when he inevitably gets hurt or yanked from the game, I'm still taking Dallas.

EAGLES @ Seahawks +6.5

If this game were being played during the Taft administration, then Andy Reid and Mike Holmgren would be engaged in an all-time classic Texas death match for the undisputed NFL Head Coach Who Looks Most Like the President title.

But it isn't.

The Eagles are up and down, but so far this year they've handled all of the bad teams they've had to play, well, handily. That should continue.

FALCONS @ Raiders +3

The Falcons might make the playoffs. You heard it here first.

PATRIOTS @ Colts -5.5

It seems like the Colts and Patriots play like eight times a year, doesn't it? Of course, sophisticated football fans know that the real number is much closer to five or six.

Last season's November matchup between these two teams, into which they both entered undefeated, was commonly referred to as "Super Bowl 41 1/2." This year's meeting, however has been unofficially dubbed the "Meineke Car Care Bowl 6 1/2," after the caliber of players we're likely to see taking the field for the two injury plagued clubs.

I'll go with the Patriots, because until they lose a couple of games in a row, I'm going to go on assuming that they're kind of still The Patriots.

Steelers @ REDSKINS -1.5

It used to be if the Redskins won their last home game before a presidential election that meant the incumbent president's party would keep the White House, and if the Redskins lost their last home game before a presidential election then the incumbent party would lose. Believe it or not, this held true for 17 consecutive presidential elections, dating all the way back to 1936.

In fact, in 2000 the Redskins lost by one point in double overtime on a controversial call, and then George W. Bush went on to defeat the incumbent party on his way to a controversial electoral college win. Spooky, huh?

[note: I made almost all of that last paragraph up. First of all, you can't win by one point in overtime. Nor is there such a thing as double overtime in the NFL's regular season. What's wrong with you?]

In 2004 the streak came to an end, with the Redskins losing their last home game before the election and Bush retaining the presidency, breaking a 68-year-old pattern in the process (really, is there anything that man can't accomplish? I mean, other than things he claims via banner to have already done?).

Lucky for me, that frees me up to pick the 'Skins to beat Pittsburgh. If the Redskins' uncanny predictive powers were still in play, we'd all be forced to go with the Steelers on Sunday, since Obama's going to win.

And, in that spirit, let's "hope" that this is the week my luck in picking games will finally "change." Am I right, America?

Choose or Die! (or whatever it is Puffy says)

I Rule

2008-10-25T18:00:00.000-07:00

Left to right:

Adam Carolla, me, Bill Simmons.

I rule.

NFL 2008 - Week 8

2008-10-24T00:40:00.000-07:00

Week 7: 5-9

Overall: 48-52-2

In my defense, a lot of favorites won their games but failed to cover the spread. Sort of a weird week. Don't worry; we'll bounce back.

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

[You] can say what you want about Pats coach Bill Belichick -- for instance, I want to say that he's a philandering sourpuss who sullied his and his team's legacy by blatantly cheating and then clearly lying about it -- but the last time his Patriots lost back-to-back games was almost two years ago, and the last time they lost back-to-back games prior to that was in December of 2002. The point being that if something is wrong, Bill Belichick usually fixes it but quick.

[The Patriots beat the first-place Broncos 41-7]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

I'll… pick… the… [sorry, I'm having a tough time actually typing the words]… Bengals.

[you just don't pick the Bengals]

Raiders @ RAVENS -7

Baltimore has played very well at home, their only loss coming by three points to undefeated Tennessee. In fact, they'd be tied for a playoff spot if, to describe things in the laziest way possible, the season ended today.

The Raiders still stink; I don't care what they did last week against the Jets. Every team gets a weird win here or there over the course of a season that they shouldn't have gotten; the Raiders won't get two of those in a row.

While we're talking about the Raiders, by the way, we should bring up the issue of calling a timeout the millisecond before the ball is snapped on a last-second field goal try, something that has become quite the little fad in the NFL these days despite the indisputable fact that it hurts your team's chances to win. What we're seeing is this: a team lines up for a last-second field goal that will either tie or win the game (which sort of goes without saying; a last-second field goal that would do neither of those things would really be pointless to attempt). The ball is snapped and kicked, the field goal made or missed, but wait! The opposing team's coach stood next to the referee, hovering next to him like a creepy guy on the subway, and called for a timeout just before the ball was snapped (one assumes he figured the opponents would snap the ball just as the play clock ticked down to zero, and timed his timeout call appropriately).

The play was whistled dead, but not in time to prevent the kicking team from snapping and kicking the ball. So, now they've got to do it again.

It doesn't take a great deal of mental gymnastics to figure out why this is a bad idea, other than the fact that it's a useless and supremely annoying tactic. Let's imagine that the kicker makes his first kick, which, if you called your timeout, doesn't count. Now he's thinking to himself, "well, there you go. I can make that, no problem. All I've got to do is do it again."

Now, let's imagine the kicker misses his first kick, and your timeout means he gets to kick again. Well, then he'd be thinking, "that God that wasn't the real kick, or we would have lost! Plus, now I know what I did wrong. I can't wait to kick it again, for real this time!"

The point is, what exactly is to be gained from doing this?

In each of the last two weeks, this tactic has resulted in what amounted to a second chance for a team to kick a tying field goal that they basically missed the first time, converting their gift-wrapped second chance. As proof that God has no interest whatsoever in the outcomes of NFL games, the teams that called the Doucebag Timeout (as I insist that it be called from now on) and handed their opponents an extra chance to tie the game -- those two teams being the Raiders and the Cardinals -- went on to win in overtime.

Sometime soon, though, hopefully in a critical game, some coach is going to use this tactic and end up negating a missed field goal that would have won his team the game, and then his team is going to go on to lose. And then maybe public opinion may, for all intents and purposes, ban this ridiculous tactic if the NFL won't get off its collective ass and do something about it..

Cardinals @ PANTHERS -4.5

The Panthers are gangbusters at home, even against good teams, a group that we are now probably forced to admit includes the Cardinals.

Not much else to say about this game, but, as I was watching the highlights of the Panthers-Saints game from last Sunday, it finally hit me: the Panthers uniforms -- which have never looked good but which I don't complain about a lot because thanks to the Broncos, Titans, Bills and Vikings we've got much, much bigger fish to fry in that department -- are officially the most dated looking uniforms in sports. Everything about them screams early-to-mid '90s, and that's just not the look you want for your sports team. Not since Cincinnati Reds finally abandoned their Big Red Machine-era pullovers has a team so needed to make a change. Really, take a look this week at the style of lettering they use to paint the word "PANTHERS" in the end zone; I bet if you walked up to 100 random people on the street, at least half of them would be able to correctly guess the exact month in 1994 during which that end zone font was designed and approved (also, Zogby would have you believe that like 85 of those 100 people are voting for Obama).

[POW! That's right… political humor! Deal with it, bitches!]

[actually, I apologize to my readers for that. Especially to the female ones. But that's what happens when you watch too much "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." That is, if it were possible to watch too much "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"]

BUCCANEERS @ Cowboys -2.5

Can we possibly trust the Cowboys at all, at this point in the season? What does it say about your team when the antics are Terrell Owens are like the sixth of seventh worst thing you're dealing with? Half of their secondary, their quarterback, their electrifying rookie running back… all out. The lackluster Rams defense had little trouble with the Cowboys last week; what are the odds that they'll muster up much offense against a superior Buccaneers unit?

Redskins @ LIONS +7.5

Do I dare pick the Redskins to cover a big spread for a third straight week, after they didn't even come close to getting the job done the last two times?

They're playing the Lions… don't I have to?

No. Fool me once, shame on you...

And, as a wise man once sort of meant to say: can't get fooled again.

Bills @ DOLPHINS +1.5

I'm still not sold on the Bills. That win over the Chargers last week may have been due in part to the fact that, as I pointed out in my previous NFL picks column, "the Chargers are a west coast team playing an early game in the east, and the Bills are nice and rested up after their bye week."

Of course, I then went on to pick the Chargers anyway, which was pretty dumb (although not the dumbest thing I said last week; see above).

And I'm not certain if the Ravens provided the league with a blueprint on how to stop Miami's now-slightly-less-vaunted Wildcat Offense, because I'm not certain that "be as good as the Ravens defense" is necessarily a blueprint that can be followed by everyone.

Sooner or later I might have no choice to admit that these Bills are for real; first let's see how they handle an AFC East foe on the road (lest we forget, they haven't had to do that yet).

Rams @ PATRIOTS -7

The Patriots don't stop the run particularly well, so one might be concerned about another big day from Rams running back Steven Jackson (160 yards and three touchdowns last week against Dallas). Jackson has a strained thigh muscle and missed a couple days of practice this week, though, so odds are he won't be at full strength. And after two big wins, the Rams are bound to fall back to earth soon, seeing as how they stink and all.

The Patriots, meanwhile, with all the trouble they've had, sit there at 4-2, a game behind Buffalo in the AFC East with two shots at the Bills later in the season. If they win a few more games, here, one could be forgiven for suggesting that the Patriots might be in what almost looks, from a certain angle, like the driver's seat.

CHARGERS @ Saints +3 (in London)

As we have seen, I mentioned last week in talking about the Chargers that west coast teams tend to have a little bit of trouble playing on the east coast. Well, this week, the Chargers will be playing on the east coast.. of England! So there's that.

Both of these teams are 3-4, so why do I feel like the Chargers are better? Is it because, as I also discussed last week, one of their losses was very fluky and another was completely illegitimate? Maybe. Let's just pick them, then, and be done with it.

Chiefs @ JETS -13

I suppose you have to take the Jets, don't you? Even though they have as man wins over plus-.500 teams as the Chiefs do (one).

Okay, so... look: we all know Brett Favre is so great that Barack Obama, Angelina Jolie and Burt Reynolds from (m: The Longest Yard) could all have three-way sex, and the messianic super-baby they produced would still not be worthy to gaze directly at Brett Favre's awesomeness without having its face melt off like that Nazi who drank from the wrong Holy Grail in Last Crusade. No one's trying to say that's not the case.

All I'm saying is that maybe the announcers could ease off on the Favre worship during those points in a game in which Favre a) is in the process of losing to the Raiders, and b) just threw what against any other team would probably have been a game-killing interception less than two minutes ago.

That's all I'm saying.

OKay, let's try and power through these last six...

FALCONS @ Eagles -9

Nine points is too much for an Atlanta team that has shown they can hang with a good team on the road.

BENGALS @ Texans -9.5

I was in Vegas in autumn once years ago, and someone at a blackjack table jokingly asked if I wanted to make a certain move that would have been particularly stupid (I forget exactly what it was). I said, "look, if I wanted to just throw my money away, I'd go and bet on the Bengals."

Well, it turned out that the Bengals were playing Houston, and, since no one goes 0-16, and Houston was a brand-new team, I actually did end up betting on the Bengals. And I won.

So I'll take them for nostalgia's sake.

Browns @ JAGUARS -7

I don't get this line at all. I don't know who in the world would take Cleveland here.

Giants @ STEELERS -3

Clearly the game of the week, a matchup of two 5-1 titans (neither of whom, as luck would have it, are the actual Titans, who are in fact 6-0). I still think a person could be slightly worried about the Pittsburgh offense, although that's not much to go on. The Giants have looked very mortal the past couple of weeks, too... I'll just go home team here. Should be a hell of a game.

Seahawks @ 49ERS -5

No one really cares about this game; it will have nothing to do with who makes the playoffs and it's up against the best game of the season so far in Giants-Steelers.

Colts @ TITANS -4

The actual Titans keep the winning streak alive on Monday night.

NFL 2008 - Week 7

2008-10-17T02:09:00.000-07:00

Week 6: 6-8

Overall: 43-43-2

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

[T]his Vikings team has no business being favored by more than five or six points against anybody, ever, for any reason.

[The Vikings beat the winless Lions by two points on a last-minute field goal]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

The Redskins, despite their charge to the top of the NFC pile, have won their games by five points, seven points, two points and six points, respectively. Some might take that as a sign that they're not the sort of team that will blow anybody out. This week, I'm going to choose to take it as a sign that they're just about due to -- in the words of the great WWE announcer Jim Ross -- stomp a mud hole in the Rams' ass and then walk it dry.

[The Redskins lost to the Rams by two. Why I would spend half a paragraph detailing the fact that they don't win games by very many points, and then pick them to cover a 13.5-point spread, is beyond me, but that's what I did]

I don't think it's fair to call Week 6 a disaster, but, neither was it my finest hour. Still, we're sitting right at .500 for the season; here's where we turn it around, my friends.

CHARGERS @ Bills -1

We have to figure that the Chargers are good, don't we? Their first two losses, to Carolina and Denver, were, respectively, very fluky and completely illegitimate. I know that LaDainian Tomlinson has a gimpy toe and Shawne Merriman is out, but overall they've been almost -- not quite, but almost -- the solid team we all thought they were going to be. What they did to the Patriots on Sunday was impressive. Sure, the Patriots are a weak 3-2 and could very well miss the playoffs… still. Blowing out the Patriots is blowing out the Patriots.

And I think we all got a bit too excited about Buffalo. When last we saw them, two weeks ago, they were getting blown out by the Cardinals. Sure, the Cardinals are 4-2 and a virtual lock to make the playoffs… still. Getting blown out by the Cardinals is getting blown out by the Cardinals. The only thing that gives me pause is that the Chargers are a west coast team playing an early game in the east, and the Bills are nice and rested up after their bye week. That's not quite enough to talk me out of the Chargers, though.

Saints @ PANTHERS -3

The four NFC South teams are 4-0 against divisional opponents at home, and 0-4 against divisional opponents on the road. That might not have much to do with the Saints/Panthers game on Sunday, but it's not a trend I feel like bucking.

Vikings @ BEARS -3

The Vikings beat the winless, hapless, hopeless Lions, as I have noted, by two points, on a last-minute field goal. Here's the thing: they could beat the Bears by 24 points. They could lose to the Bears by 24 points. I can't rationally discuss the Vikings anymore, so I'm not going to pretend that I can. But, to repeat, they beat the Lions by two points, on a last-minute field goal. It's extremely easy to believe that they'll lose to be Bears by more than three.

Steelers @ BENGALS +9.5

This line's too high, and the Bengals are due. After all, the Bengals have been sort of almost competitive in most of their games. Under the "No One Goes 0-16" theory, I'll… pick… the… [sorry, I'm having a tough time actually typing the words]… Bengals.

TITANS @ Chiefs +8.5

You hate to give away 8-and-a-half points on the road, but, this boils down to one of the NFL's worst teams hosting one of the NFL's best. Arrowhead Stadium is supposed to be a really tough place to play, and it can be, but not when the upper sections are half-empty and the fans that do show up can hardly be bothered to care.

Ravens @ DOLPHINS -3

It might not have been the single dumbest thing I said last week (or, actually, it might have been), but picking the Ravens on the road against an always-dangerous Colts team wasn't the most spectacular bit of football prognostication the internet has ever seen. Probably not the best idea, as a rule, to back a rookie QB on the road against a team that won the Super Bowl two years ago and still has most of those players.

The Dolphins' Wildcat offense (so named because it was inspired by Sandra Bullock's character in Speed) (not really) is taking the league by storm, and even though they lost to the Texans last week I still think they're good now. The Wildcat offense -- which, to this observer, consists mainly of having two tailbacks on the field, one of whom takes the snap -- is sure to be imitated by other teams around the NFL if it keeps working as well as it has. For starters, maybe it can help the Dolphins rebound from that loss at Houston last Sunday.

49ers @ GIANTS -10.5

We all might have gotten just an eensy bit carried away about the Giants prior to that 35-14 pasting they received at the hands of the Cleveland Browns on Monday night. But can you blame us? They were the undefeated Super Bowl champs; it seemed like they had a good thing going.

But are we going to count on their defense and their quarterback having another off day against another lousy team, this time at home? I sure wish the line was a little lower, because the 49ers seem like they could put up a little bit of a fight, but, let's just assume that the Giants right the ship this week.

COWBOYS @ Rams +7

Speaking of getting an eensy bit carried away, I think we may have gotten an eensy bit carried away about the entire NFC East, what with the Cowboys, Redskins and Giants falling to the Cardinals (4-2, but still), Rams and Browns in Week 6. Maybe it was just a down week for those teams, but maybe the NFC East isn't quite the collection of badasses we assumed it to be.

On to the game at hand; are the Cowboys ready to fall apart? Are things finally coming together for the Rams? I say not quite yet, and no way.

Lions @ TEXANS -9.5

They really, really want people to take the Lions this week, don't they? Well, I, for one, took them last week, and they beat the spread for me, this in a game in which their quarterback basically sprinted out of the back of his own end zone and didn't realize it for at least a solid five-count. This week, I'm not going to press my luck.

COLTS @ Packers +1.5

The Packers are banged up at cornerback, which might not be the best recipe for trying to stop a Colts team that has rediscovered its dominant passing game to the tune of 271 yards and three touchdowns last week Sunday against the #1-ranked Baltimore defense.

I don't have much more to add about the game itself, but when I was checking out the Packers' injury report for the week I noticed that "A. Hawk" was listed as "probable," with a groin injury. This referred, of course, to Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk, and I knew that, but it still looked really weird. Can we all just agree that guys who go by initials get their entire initials listed in such a situation, rather than just the first one? Even the millisecond that it takes the brain to asses the situation and recalibrate ("wait; who's 'A. Hawk'? Oh, right; A.J. Hawk") is one millisecond too many; we've all got enough to worry about these days without adding that to the pile. And if you say, "that's not fair; why should A.J. Hawk get to have what amounts to his entire name listed, while other guys only get their first initial?," I'd respond by pointing out that when months are abbreviated to three letters "May" always just gets to be written out in full, and you don't hear the other months bitching about it.

(in completely unrelated news, I'm sort of running out of stuff to say about the NFL)

JETS @ Raiders +3

The last time Brett Favre visited Oakland (to play NFL football, at least; I'm not as up on the travel habits of Brett Favre as I used to be, so he could have visited Oakland for pleasure since then, although people who can help it have generally been known not to), he torched the Raiders for 399 yards and four touchdowns, leading the Packers to a 41-7 victory on "Monday Night Football" just one day after his father died of a heart attack. It was one of the performances that will forever define his career.

I like to make a lot of jokes in this column, but I won't joke about somebody's dad dying of a heart attack. If I did indirectly joke about the situation by saying that I wouldn't put it past Jets fans to try and take out Favre's mom on the eve of Sunday's game just to see if Favre could replicate his performance from five years ago, that would be a joke (barely) about Jets fans, not about Favre or his dad.

Besides, all kidding aside, I don't think that even a Jets fan would stoop that low. Not in October, when they're only playing the Raiders. They'd save something like that for the playoffs.

Browns @ REDSKINS -7

What to do, what to do... tell you what: go up and look at The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week. Let's just pretend that I was talking about this week's Redskins game against the Browns, and not last week's Redskins game against the Rams, okay? Deal? Deal. It has to apply at some point, right?

Seahawks @ BUCCANEERS -10.5

I can only throw raw data at you, at this point. Tampa Bay's record at home this season: 3-0. Tampa Bay's average margin of victory in those games: 16 points. Overall record of the three teams Tampa Bay played in those games: 11-7. Seahawks' record: 1-4.

The numbers speak for themselves, people.

Broncos @ PATRIOTS -3

You might not know it from watching them the last few weeks, but both of these teams have winning records and, if the season ended today, would make the playoffs. After the relatively unimpressive performances both teams delivered last week you don't really want to pick either one one, but I'll take the Patriots, even with their old, slow linebackers and seemingly hopeless quarterback. Why?

Well, you can say what you want about Pats coach Bill Belichick -- for instance, I want to say that he's a philandering sourpuss who sullied his and his team's legacy by blatantly cheating and then clearly lying about it -- but the last time his Patriots lost back-to-back games was almost two years ago, and the last time they lost back-to-back games prior to that was in December of 2002. The point being that if something is wrong, Bill Belichick usually fixes it but quick. These Patriots might prove to be beyond fixing, but for this week at least, Belichick has earned the benefit of the doubt. In that respect if in no other.

Don't Give Up Yet, McCainiacs...

2008-10-16T12:28:00.001-07:00

It may not matter if he can't win Virginia, but, John McCain is now, in certain polls (okay, one part of one poll), back to within the margin of error.

Call me audacious if you must, but I still have hope.

The Best Show on TV, Part 9

2008-10-13T19:22:00.000-07:00

The Best Show on TV

"The Office" (NBC) -- 2/9/2006 - 4/2/2006
"Huff" (Showtime) -- 4/6/2006 - 8/26/2006
"Big Brother" (CBS) -- 8/26/2006 - 10/4/2006
"South Park" (Comedy Central) -- 10/4/2006 - 11/30/2006
"The Office" (NBC) -- 11/30/2006 - 1/14/2007
"24" (FOX) -- 1/14/2007 - 4/5/2007
"30 Rock" (NBC) -- 4/5/2007 - 4/10/2007
"House" (FOX) -- 4/10/2008 - 10/5/2008
"Dexter" (Showtime) -- 10/5/2008 - present

And we return to my favorite ongoing series of articles, The Best Show on TV. For those of you joining us already in progress, this is based on one of my favorite web pages in all of cyperspace, the WWE Title Histories page. If you can't spend countless hours of fun looking at a list of who defeated whom, and when and where, to win the WWE title, then I'm not sure exactly what more there is to say between us.

To clarify, this list chronicles a history not of my favorite show on TV, but of the actualbest show on TV. I'm not deciding what that show is, I'm just reporting the facts. Now, you might think another show is better; that's your business. But you should know that arguing that there was another show on TV that was better than "The Office" on, say, December 12th, 2006 would be essentially the same thing as arguing that Eddie Guerrero was not the WWE champion on May 23rd, 2004. You can argue it if you want, but we've got a list to refer to, and you're just going to end up looking silly in the end.

Anyway, even though you're reading this today, the title officially changed hands, as you can see, back on October 5, with the airing of that evening's episode of "Dexter." I'm writing it up today because last night was as soon as I was able to download a nice copy of the episode off the internet -- er, that is… last night was as soon as I was able to come to an understanding of what Season 3, Episode 2 of "Dexter" contained without resorting to any illegal means whatsoever.

For those who don't know, "Dexter" -- based on the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay (don't worry, I hadn't heard of it either, although I'm sure it's good) -- is the story of a serial killer who only kills other killers. You see, young Dexter's pathology was noticed very early in his life by his foster father, Officer Harry Morgan, and Harry decided, for good or ill, that since Dexter would inevitably become a killer, his urges might be steered in a "constructive" direction via a strict code, producing a Dexter who would arguably aid society instead of injuring it. The end result is Dexter Morgan, crime scene analyst (specializing, naturally, in blood spatter) for the Miami Metro Police Department by day, serial murdering vigilante by night.

It should be noted that "Dexter" is most certainly not for kids, or even for most adults; in Season 1 particularly, the subject matter becomes intensely dark, to the point that those who haven't grown up in a popular culture awash in slasher flicks and torture porn may well be so put off that it would be impossible for them to get anything out of the show. Not that the violence actually depicted onscreen is necessarily all that brutal; your average scene in Hostel or Saw makes the worst of "Dexter" look like some fabric softener commercial where a new mom smells her baby's head while tinkly piano music plays in the background. It's more that psychologically, "Dexter" plunges so far down into the depths of the morass of human depravity that you should really make sure you've got a vine tied around your ankle before you commit to diving in.

So why watch it, one might ask. Well, why watch any entertainment? Usually, we watch TV either for the purposes of pure escapism, or to get a laugh, or, perhaps best of all, to get a vicarious thrill from what we see. "Dexter" provides this in spades, because although we'd never admit, don't we all sort of fantasize that it was up to us to punish the wicked, to decide who gets to live and who gets to die, and to be able to do it with the unambiguous certainty that comes with total belief in our righteousness? We know, of course, that in a practical sense it's not doable because if we tried to do it we'd break a bunch of laws and get caught right away. We also know that in a philosophical sense it's not doable because we're fallible, and in no position to take it upon ourselves to administer justice when there are institutions, however imperfect, set up to take care of that for us.

But Dexter works for the cops, he vets his victims carefully, and he doesn't have a conscience per se, so he's the perfect man to live out our aberrant little fantasies on the screen every week. And, since we know that the people he's killing are fictional characters, we get our dose of fantasy fulfillment without any of those pesky horrific, soul-searing nightmares you or I might get from treating flesh-and-blood human beings like Dexter treats his victims.

But "Dexter" doesn't let Dexter off the hook, either; it would be too easy to depict a character who simply has no conscience, no regular human emotions or attachments. Instead, we're given a character who thinks he has no conscience, no regular human emotions or attachments. His affection for his foster sister, Deb, belies his claims of inhumanity, and the relationship he "acts out" with his girlfriend, Rita, grows steadily into a real relationship as the series progresses. Dexter's nervousness and discomfort during a Season 2 dinner with Rita, Rita's mother and a very attractive young woman from Dexter's life (I won't spoil it by divulging the nature of the relationship) show that, despite his claims to the contrary, he can certainly pick up on the same social cues and behavioral ticks on which the rest of us rely, as long as they're obvious enough. Think of Dexter as a blind man who imagines that he must not have any idea what a "cube" is like; if that man were suddenly given the power of sight, he'd probably discover that his guesses weren't far off at all.

Dexter, though he believes he's "apart from," "different than," is but a few tweaks away from experiencing things just like the rest of us do. And so, if my math checks out, that means we're but a few tweaks away from Dexter. Which is probably why it's such a damn good show.

NFL 2008 - Week 6

2008-10-10T01:44:00.000-07:00

Week 5: 7-6-1

Overall: 37-35-2

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

We may have all underestimated the Giants. Which is dumb of all of us, considering that they're the defending Super Bowl champions.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

[you know what? I'm giving myself a pass on this one. Sure, I missed six games, but going back over last week's picks, I didn't say anything particularly stupid. Don't worry; I promise it won't happen again]

BEARS @ Falcons +3

We start things off with a nice matchup of 3-2 teams that not a ton of people thought would be 3-2. And I mean that literally: if you took all of the people in the entire world who honestly thought that the Atlanta Falcons (in particular) would be 3-2 at this point, the total combined weight of those people would not equal 2,000 pounds. But 3-2 they both are.

Although, now that I look at the Falcons' schedule, they hosted the Lions and the Chiefs, so it's not like you wouldn't have given them an excellent chance to be 2-3. The win last week over the Packers at Lambeau Field, though, finally made people think, "hey, are the Falcons kind of good?"

(well, either that, or "hey, are the Packers kind of bad?")

Want to know something kind of interesting? Both the Falcons and the Bears, at 3-2, have lost to the same two teams, the Panthers and the Buccaneers. Not sure what that means, if anything, but, there you go.

Anyway, the Bears have a pretty solid run defense, which could help negate running back Michael Turner, Atlanta's biggest weapon. And Atlanta's near the bottom of the league in passing, so this ought to be another week in which the Bears edge ever closer to the proverbial driver's seat in the wide-open NFC North. And if I'm going pick them to win, I may as well pick them to cover that three point spread, no?

DOLPHINS @ Texans -3

To the folks who set this point spread, and who obviously just emerged from a coma they fell into back in late August, I would like to say the following two things:

1) She's the governor of Alaska. Yeah, I know, she's super-hot for a politician. And for a 44-year-old. Hell, for anybody. And it's not so much that she's dumb, just that she was probably unprepared to play at this level.

And,

2) In their last two games, the Dolphins have defeated the two participants from last year's AFC Championship Game. And the Texans are winless and had part of their stadium wrecked by a hurricane. So I understand that, since you just got out of your coma and had no way of knowing these facts, you figured the Texans should be three point favorites. But the Dolphins are good now, and the Texans turned out not to be.

RAVENS @ Colts -3.5

Is it possible that the Colts actually aren't that good? Their two wins have to rank as two of the all-time garbage wins in garbage-win history, and they came against teams with losing records (although, to be fair, one of those teams, the Vikings, only has a losing record because the Colts beat them). Their two losses came at the hands of the Bears and Jaguars, solid teams perhaps but teams that are by no means setting the league on fire.

The Ravens might be tougher to figure out; they can't really score, but with the league's #1 defense they don't hardly need to. Since their two losses were both by three points, to arguably the AFC's two best teams, I'll go with them. Three-and-a-half might be a little bit high for a Colt's team that you really can't be sure is good.

LIONS @ Vikings -13

Sort of getting an early start on next week's "The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week?" No; I just think this Vikings team has no business being favored my more than five or six points against anybody, ever, for any reason. They needed a blown face mask non-penalty, a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown and a fumble recovery deep in Saints territory to get to 30 points last week; who wants to count on stuff like that happening again? Not this guy!

(you couldn't see it, but after I typed the "this guy" part I pointed both of my thumbs in roughly the direction of my head)

Raiders @ SAINTS -7

The Saints just lost a bad one at home, and really need a win, so you've got to like them this week, even with some banged-up receivers.

Al Davis's Raiders, whom you may have heard just fired their coach over the bye week, were competitive in their last two games, so you know that won't happen again.

And you've got to feel for interim Raiders coach Tom Cable; really, would anybody other than a Make-A-Wish kid who always wanted to be on the sidelines during an NFL game even consider taking the Raiders job now? Al Davis is officially the football version of George Steinbrenner at this point, except Al's teams doesn't win.

(or, to make that analogy more apt to the last several years, Al Davis is officially the football version of George Steinbrenner at this point)

Bengals @ JETS -5.5

Remember how we discussed that the Dolphins' last two wins came against last season's AFC Championship Game participants, the Patriots and the Chargers? Well, the Jets' only two losses have come against those same two teams. And while they aren't quite the same Patriots and Chargers they were last season, they're not chopped liver either. If there's anything to the 2008 Jets, anything at all, they should handle the Bengals.

And isn't it nice to see the Bengals being really bad again? It just sort of seems like that's how it should be. It's comforting. I didn't quite know how to feel a couple of years ago when they went 11-5 and hosted a playoff game; it weirded me out a little bit, made me kind of uncomfortable, like when Jim Carrey did The Number 23; now, this fall, the Bengals stink and Jim Carrey is doing a comedy in which he's required to say "yes" to everything anyone asks him and he licks people's faces. All is as it should be.

PANTHERS @ Buccaneers -1.5

Hey, I remember you, Panthers and Buccaneers. You're the two teams that beat the Bears and the Falcons, right?

If only that helped us here.

The 4-1 Panthers can seize early control of the division with a win here, and I say they do it. They're a darn good team, their only loss -- to the Vikings -- coming in one of those "a mediocre team happens to put absolutely everything together for 60 minutes, and there's not a whole lot you can do" games that seem to happen to the elite teams a couple of times a year. Not that the Panthers are necessarily an elite team. Although I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

Rams @ REDSKINS -13.5

The Rams defense is next-to-last in the league, but the good news is that they just fired their coach and gave their defensive coordinator, Jim Haslett, the job. So it's not like he'll have a lot on his plate this week or anything.

The Redskins, despite their charge to the top of the NFC pile, have won their games by five points, seven points, two points and six points, respectively. Some might take that as a sign that they're not the sort of team that will blow anybody out. This week, I'm going to choose to take it as a sign that they're just about due to -- in the words of the great WWE announcer Jim Ross -- stomp a mud hole in the Rams' ass and then walk it dry.

Jaguars @ BRONCOS -3.5

The Jaguars just generally don't score a lot of points, and the Broncos defense, which had been bad, held Tampa Bay to 13 last week.

The Broncos generally score a lot of points, so since I'm getting tired I'm going to go ahead say that's reason enough for me to pick Denver.

COWBOYS @ Cardinals +5

Do you realize that the Cowboys, a 4-1 team that just about everyone thought was the NFL's best a short two weeks ago, are now in third place in the NFC East? There's no way another division has any chance at getting a Wild Card berth, is there?

That said, you absolutely have to figure that the Cardinals are winning the NFC West and going to the playoffs, don't you?

Even so, I figure the Cowboys win this one, and if I'm figuring that they're going to win, I may as well figure that they're going to win by at least six.

EAGLES @ 49ers +5

The Eagles really need a win to stay in it. So do the 49ers, but, the Eagles are better.

PACKERS @ Seahawks -1.5

I realize the bloom might be off of the Packer rose a little bit after that grim home loss to Atlanta, but let's not go crazy, here. Remember how it took like three years and a trip to the Super Bowl for everyone to finally agree on the fact that the Seahawks were good? Let's not let the same thing happen with regard to agreeing that the Seahawks are bad. Which they are. The Packers aren't great, but, the Seahawks are baaaaaaaad.

PATRIOTS @ Chargers -4.5

Well, here we have those two teams that, as has been mentioned, met in last year's AFC Championship Game. I think I just trust the Chargers a little less than I do the Patriots, so let's just go with that.

GIANTS @ Browns +7.5

I sure picked lot of road teams this week, didn't I? Oh, well. What's one more?

NFL 2008 - Week 5

2008-10-05T09:42:00.000-07:00

Falcons @ PACKERS -5.5

NFL 2008 - Week 5

2008-10-02T16:45:00.000-07:00

Week 4: 4-9

Overall: 30-29-1

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

After the Michael Vick saga, and after their coach up and quit before last season even ended, the rebuilding Falcons are an admirable 2-1. That said, they could very well be the most underwhelming 2-1 team we've seen in quite a while. They've won two home games against the Lions and the Chiefs, who are not only two of the worst teams in the league but arguably two of the worst NFL teams in years.

When they had to go on the road against a playoff-caliber team they lost 24-9 to the Buccaneers, with rookie QB Matt Ryan posting no TDs, two picks and a less-than-robust 29.6 passer rating.

And lookie here: this week, the Falcons go on the road against a playoff-caliber team in the Carolina Panthers. Sure, the Panthers only managed ten points against the Vikings last week, but the Vikings defense is really good; I'm not sure the same is true for Atlanta's. Carolina gets an easy win.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

CARDINALS @ Jets -1.5

"Hey, we went 4-12 last season; what do you think our problem was?"

"Um... I know! Our quarterback wasn't old enough! He was only in his early 30s!"

"Hey, you're right!"

And then of course that quarterback goes out and throws like 11 touchdown passes.

Titans @ RAVENS +3

The Titans are off to a flying 4-0 start, and there's talk that they may in fact be the class of the AFC. But wait: let's see just who it is that they've beaten, shall we?

The Jaguars, who got off to a shaky start before winning two close games over two other teams that got off to shaky starts. And besides, Titans-Jaguars is one of those "throw out the records" games that always has the potential to go either way, no matter how good or how bad either team is.

The Bengals… 'nuff said.

The winless Houston Texans, and

The Vikings, a talented team perhaps but a team in disarray, and a team that, even when in full array, is always a threat to lose any game they play, at home or on the road.

So, while the Titans are certainly in the AFC driver's seat and their fans certainly have reason to be pleased, I'm reminded of what Harvey Keitel said in Pulp Fiction: "Let's not start [naughty word]ing each other's [naughty words] just yet."

I'll take a flier and say that the Ravens, who admittedly have yet to beat a good team, play the Titans really tough this week, in a brutally boring game to watch. It could be a 2-0 game, this one.

Chiefs @ PANTHERS -9.5

After I spent half of last week's column making fun of Kansas City Chiefs fans and pointing out that, as a Vikings fan, I could have it a lot worse, the Chiefs beat the undefeated Broncos 33-19 while my Vikings went down rather meekly in Tennessee. This was clearly a case of karma kicking me in the nuts, and, I have to admit, I have half a mind to move into a fleabag hotel in Camden County and spend the next few years atoning for the various wrongs I've committed in my life with the help of my dimwit brother. But both of my brothers are really smart, so I'll probably have to think of some other way to heed karma's warnings.

I'd love to start by picking the Chiefs to beat that 9 1/2-point spread this week, but, given that the Panthers just got done beating a bad team at home handily, I've got every reason to believe that they'll beat the Chiefs at home handily.

BEARS @ Lions +3.5

The Lions finally fired longtime GM Matt Millen this week after a 31-84 run of futility, during which the team and Millen himself became something of a laughingstock. Don't be surprised if, on Sunday, the Lions players walk around with a look of satisfaction and contentment like Andy, Red and the rest of the crew that tarred the Shawshank plate factory roof in the spring of '49 as they sat and sipped their ice cold beer and, for the first time in a while, felt like men.

But, sort of like how those Shawshank inmates, after the roof was tarred and the beers were drunk, were still prisoners; the Lions players, after the Millen-firing celebrations have died down, still play for the Detroit Lions.

And I know I said that you can't really know anything until Week 5, and that once we hit Week 5 things should get easier, but, I still don't have any idea what to make of the Bears. Luckily they're playing the Lions this week, or I wouldn't know what to do with them.

Falcons @ PACKERS

Nobody has any odds posted for this game, because nobody's sure whether Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is going play. If I forget to check back Saturday or early Sunday morning before the games to see if odds have been posted, let's assume that I pick the Packers no matter what the line is. If Rodgers doesn't play then it'll be rookie QB vs. rookie QB, but with one of them playing at home with a better team behind him.

But I reserve the right to come back and change my mind once the odds are posted; that's only fair.

COLTS @ Texans +3

Expectations were high for the Houston Texans this year, but they got off to an uninspired 0-3 start. Expectations are always high for the Colts, but they got off to an uninspired 1-2 start. Coming off of a bye week, I have to think that the Colts will regard this game as a must-win and, having had a week off to heal up, will take care of business against an inferior team.

Chargers @ DOLPHINS +6.5

When last we saw the Dolphins, they were throttling the Patriots in New England two weeks ago. They used an almost Boise State-like array of trick plays to throw the Pats off of their game and, for good measure, completely outplayed them as well. Was this just a crazy aberration, or are the Dolphins turning into a half-decent team? We'll see.

And I just don't trust the Chargers.

Seahawks @ GIANTS -7

We may have all underestimated the Giants. Which is dumb of all of us, considering that they're the defending Super Bowl champions.

REDSKINS @ Eagles -6

Even after they beat the widely-agreed-upon best team in the NFL on the road last week, I'm still not sold on the Redskins. Still, a six-point line seems a bit high against an Eagles team with a banged-up running back and a banged-up quarterback, especially considering that the Redskins are coming off of three straight wins over three tough NFC teams. Well, two tough NFC teams and the Cardinals.

BUCCANEERS @ Broncos -3

I guess the oddsmakers didn't get the memo: the Buccaneers are good! And did you see how the Broncos lost badly to the Chiefs -- the Chiefs! -- last week? To call the Broncos defense "porous" would be an insult… to pores!

BILLS @ Cardinals -1

I'll assume the Bills are for real until we see some evidence to the contrary.

And, after last week, I'll assume that the Cardinals aren't capable of holding an opponent to under 56 points until we see some evidence to the contrary.

Bengals @ COWBOYS -17

Who would have thought that Terrell Owens would start running his mouth and prove to be a distraction for the Cowboys, huh? Luckily they're playing the winless Bengals this week, so -- as you can do when you're solving for "x" -- you can just take the ridiculous, distracting wide receivers on the Bengals' roster and cancel out Owens, leaving us only to ponder the question of whether the Cowboys are better than the Bengals.

Which they certainly are.

Plus, after a bad loss to the Redskins last week, the Cowboys will be pissed.

PATRIOTS @ 49ers +3

Before the season began, could anyone possibly have foreseen a scenario by which the Patriots would only be favored by three points going into San Francisco this week? Well, probably, yeah; that scenario would be that Tom Brady got hurt and couldn't play. Way to ruin the setup to this particular blurb; I hope you're proud of yourself.

In any case, it's difficult for me to believe that coach Bill Belichick, a man who seems to have embraced Jesse "The Body" Ventura's old wrestling philosophy*, won't have his team more than ready to go, eager to show the world -- or at least the proportionally small percentage of the world's population that pays close attention to NFL football -- that the Dolphins loss was a fluke and that the Patriots are still a team to be reckoned with.

* "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."

Steelers @ JAGUARS -4

Pittsburgh is a deceiving 3-1, with wins over a couple of bad teams, a couple of key players on injured reserve, and a quarterback whose shoulder is being held together with duct tape and rubber bands, Kevin-McHale's-knees-in-the-late-80s style.

One could probably be forgiven for calling the Jaguars "iffy," but this is the game where they turn their season around.

Vikings @ SAINTS -3

At this point it's just easier to pick against the Vikings, unless it's blatantly obvious that you shouldn't. At least then when they lose I get a check mark in my own personal "win" column for the week.

NFL 2008 - Week 4

2008-09-25T15:47:00.000-07:00

Week 3: 12-4

Overall: 26-20-1

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

I don't think that the Jets are all that great, even with Saint Favre under center, and I think the Chargers will win a no-doubter.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

I'm still not sold on the Pats with QB Matt Cassel at the helm. Their defense has looked impressive, but against the Chiefs and the Jets. And the Chiefs and the Jets are not exactly the 1999 Rams on offense.

But the Dolphins may be even worse, so it would be silly not to pick New England this week.

[considering that I first picked the Dolphins, then changed my mind, and then the Dolphins won by 25 points, that was indeed a dumb thing so say]

A very nice week, but I won't do too much crowing since, as I've said before, you can't really know anything until about Week 5.

So, one more week until this gets really easy!

Week 4 Byes: Lions, Colts, Dolphins, Patriots, Giants, Seahawks

Browns @ BENGALS -3.5

Nearly everyone remembers last season's crazy 51-45 Browns-Bengals shootout in Week 2 that kick-started the Browns' run to playoff contention. Nearly no one remembers the 19-14 Bengals win in Week 16 that effectively killed the Browns' playoff chances. We ought to remember that the Browns are 0-3, demoralized, and probably just plain bad, while the Bengals, though also 0-3, can't be demoralized because everyone assumed they would stink, still have some weapons on offense, and looked tough on the road against the defending champs last week.

Texans @ JAGUARS -7.5

The Texans have lost by 21 and 19 and haven't played a home game yet. The Jaguars have lost by seven, lost by four and won by two. Something's gotta give. I say Jacksonville's offense -- particularly quarterback David Garrard, whose four interceptions through three games eclipsed his entire 2007 interception total by one -- gets back on track. It's said that the Jags saved their season with their last-second win at Indianapolis on Sunday; if they handle the Texans they'll be fine going forward at 2-2.

Falcons @ PANTHERS -7

After the Michael Vick saga, and after their coach up and quit before last season even ended, the rebuilding Falcons are an admirable 2-1. That said, they could very well be the most underwhelming 2-1 team we've seen in quite a while. They've won two home games against the Lions and the Chiefs, who are not only two of the worst teams in the league but arguably two of the worst NFL teams in years.

When they had to go on the road against a playoff-caliber team they lost 24-9 to the Buccaneers, with rookie QB Matt Ryan posting no TDs, two picks and a less-than-robust 29.6 passer rating.

And lookie here: this week, the Falcons go on the road against a playoff-caliber team in the Carolina Panthers. Sure, the Panthers only managed ten points against the Vikings last week, but the Vikings defense is really good; I'm not sure the same is true for Atlanta's. Carolina gets an easy win.

BRONCOS @ Chiefs +9

With the Broncos defense going up against the Chiefs offense, you've got the proverbial moveable force meeting the resistible object. The Broncos are rolling, though, 3-0 even if they easily could have lost their last two; and it's hard to imagine a team in worse shape than the Chiefs. The poor, poor Chiefs.

Listen, I know that Seattle sports fans have gotten a lot of attention lately, what with the Mariners being terrible, the usually-strong Seahawks getting off to a bad start and the SuperSonics up and leaving town. And, as I noted last week, we all know that God hates Cleveland. But can you imagine being a Kansas City fan? It's a small city in the middle of nowhere, so we forget what Chiefs-slash-Royals fans have gone through. The Royals have had one winning season in the last 14, and the last time the Chiefs won a playoff game you -- and I mean you, specifically -- hadn't heard of Sandra Bullock or email.

Three times since they last won a playoff game, the Chiefs have entered the playoffs at 13-3, with a first-round bye and Super Bowl hopes, and have been upset at home in the AFC divisional playoffs. Three times!

Do you know who the last Chiefs quarterback to win a playoff game was? Go ahead, guess. You won't believe it. Seriously, guess.

Nope; it was Joe Montana. Joe Montana! Yes, that Joe Montana, who's so old you can barely remember when he was even playing! You know who the running back was in that last playoff game the Chiefs won? Marcus Allen! Marcus Freaking Allen! Whose earliest years in the league were juuuuust barely captured on color film!

Do you know who the Chiefs beat in that, their last playoff win, in 1993? The Houston Oilers! Who most people can barely even remember having been a team!

Okay, I'll stop.

[it's just that as a Vikings fan, you have little choice but to mock those few fans who are less fortunate in order to try to make yourself feel better]

[and, inevitably, you remember that the Chiefs, of course, beat the Vikings in Super Bowl IV]

[Shit.]

49ers @ SAINTS -5.5

Faithful readers will remember that a 5 or 5 1/2 point spread is, I contend, the oddsmakers' way of letting you know that they don't think you have a clue about this game. Usually they're right; I don't. Last week, though, I made some pretty good guesses and went 4-0 in such games.

The Saints have lost tough games against decent teams, and no one's convinced about the 2-1 49ers yet, particularly since they started 2-1 last season on their way to a 5-11 campaign.

So to which of the following, time-tested game-picking maxim do we adhere?

- The 49ers stink, or

- Don't trust the Saints?

Since the Saints are playing at home, let's just go with them and move on, no?

CARDINALS @ Jets -1.5

"Hey, we went 4-12 last season; what do you think our problem was?"

"Um... I know! Our quarterback wasn't old enough! He was only in his early 30s!"

"Hey, you're right!"

Scene.

PACKERS @ Buccaneers -1

Brian Griese of the Buccaneers threw 52 passes in the second half last week as Tampa Bay came back to beat Chicago in overtime. Seeing as how the NFL record for pass attempts in a game is 70, one can infer that 52 passes in a half is quite a few. Not sure what that means for this week's game, but, it bears mentioning.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Packers didn't just lose decisively at home to the Cowboys; the Cowboys are the best team in the NFL. Most everybody would lose decisively at home to them (until they choke again in the playoffs, at least). The Packers are still a strong team; they were one of the best teams in the league last season and, except for that loss to the Cowboys last week that I've already decided we're disregarding, have looked almost as good this season.

And I still contend that the Bucs are middle-of-the-pack outfit. For some reason I'm utterly convinced of that; they could go 15-1 this season and I'm pretty sure I'd still argue that they're a mediocre team.

Vikings @ TITANS -3

This had been noted elsewhere, but, could anyone have imagined two years ago -- let alone two weeks ago -- that a Gus Frerotte/Kerry Collins quarterback clash would be a marquee Week 4 matchup with the potential for major playoff implications before the season is out?

There's a decent chance that the defenses in this game could outscore the offenses. I'll just take the misery insurance and pick Tennessee.

Chargers @ RAIDERS +7.5

I counted on the Chargers to win big last week, and it paid off. Don't ask my why, but I'm counting on the Chargers to let the Raiders keep it close this week.

Ordinarily you'd assume that a team going through such mishegas as the Raiders would fold up shop (can you "fold up shop?" If you can, then that's what I'm suggesting such a team would ordinarily do) and just mail in the rest of the season, but the Raiders followed up a decisive road win in Week 2 with a close game against a tough Bills team in Buffalo last Sunday.

Now a division foe is coming to town, the fans are excited, that 41-14 travesty of a loss to the Broncos in Week 1 is ancient history... yeah, I'm talking myself into the Raiders again, to at least keep it close.

BILLS @ Rams +8

The struggling St. Louis Rams look to quarterback Trent Green, hoping he can help end the culture of losing that has befallen the team in recent years.

A nice thought, and one the Rams had -- word-for-word -- back in 1999! Remember? Green was the brand spanking new quarterback for a Rams team that had been the losingest NFL squad of the 1990s, and hopes were high. Then Green got hurt before the season started, unheralded backup Kurt Warner filled in, and the team won its first Super Bowl; it's pretty unlikely that this go-round of Trent Green To the Rescue will produce a Rams Super Bowl title.

I'd talk a bit about the Bills, too, but to be honest I know almost nothing about them other than the fact that they're 3-0.

Redskins @ COWBOYS -11

Last week, the Cowboys beat the Packers on the road by 11 points. This week, the Cowboys host the Redskins. I think the Packers are better than the Redskins. So, I'm picking the Cowboys, even with the 11-point spread. I know you usually depend on this site for trenchant, insightful analysis, but that's the best you're going to get.

I'd really love to pick the Redskins, since it's a tough divisional matchup and it's easy to imagine it being close, but, the Cowboys are too good; I've got to keep picking them until they fail the cover the spread.

(and yes, I know they failed to cover the spread two weeks ago at home against a divisional opponent, and now I'm saying I can't possibly pick them to fail to cover the spread at home against a divisional opponent. Be quiet)

EAGLES @ Bears +3

The shakier the Colts look, the less impressive the Bears' Week 1 win in Indianapolis appears. Based on that win, I'd assumed that Chicago was back to their 2006 Super Bowl form; now I'm not so sure.

The Eagles are banged up, but running back Brian Westbrook and quarterback Donovan McNabb say they'll play. Even if they can't, running back Correll Buckhalter should prove an adequate replacement for Westbrook, and if McNabb can't go maybe they can see if Marky Mark can fill in at quarterback.

You know, from that movie where he played for the Eagles?

[folks, some weeks your heart is completely into your NFL picks column, and some weeks it isn't]

[needless to say, this week it IS! Come on! Marky Mark? Since when is that not comedy gold, people?]

[don't worry, we're almost done...]

RAVENS @ Steelers -5

Good defenses, bad offenses (plus, Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger is banged up). Probably a low-scoring game; don't bet on a team winning by more than 5.

[... see?]

My Bad

2008-09-23T10:00:00.001-07:00

Please see the comments section of my previous post for an explanation of why that post makes no sense.

Fuzzy Math?

2008-09-23T00:00:00.000-07:00

Last night's season premiere of Boston Legal featured a wrongful death lawsuit against a tobacco company. David E. Kelley informed us via his TV mouthpiece, James Spader's Alan Shore, that "in 2005, [tobacco companies] spent more than 15 billion on advertising and promotion." Moments later, in the very same closing argument, he tells us that "last year alone, they made 12 billion dollars in profits."

I understand that 2005 and "last year" -- i.e. 2007 -- are not the same. Even so, it doesn't take a math whiz to notice something amiss. Either the writing is unclear, or David E. Kelley believes that tobacco companies are so evil that they gleefully throw away $3 billion every year for the privilege of killing people with cigarettes.

And you know what? I don't care; I love Boston Legal. As a moderate conservative I'm forced on a weekly basis to confront passionate, intelligent arguments with which I disagree. The mental gymnastics required of me are something that I will sorely miss when the show goes off the air at the end of the season. May we all have a place where opposing viewpoints are broadcast so competently.

NFL 2008 - Week 3

2008-09-18T12:20:00.000-07:00

Week 2: 8-6-1

Overall: 14-16-1

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

It's like they're giving away money this week, isn't it? The Lions defense got carved up by a rookie QB and a career backup running back last week; do you really think the mighty Packers will have any trouble with them?

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

The 49ers stink, probably, but injuries have so depleted the Seahawks at wide receiver that, out of desperation, they just went and signed a couple of those guys who catch the fish that they throw at Pike Place Market.

I think those fish guys will get the job done.

Chiefs @ FALCONS -5.5

I said something last week along the lines of a five-point spread being a "Vegas has no idea" line. Thinking it over, I had it wrong; a five-point spread is actually a "Vegas thinks you have no idea" line.

And Vegas is right, in this instance; I don't really have much of an idea. I think this number might be lower if the Falcons hadn't won relatively big in Week 1. Then they lost relatively big last week. So who knows?

Well, one thing everyone knows is that the Chiefs really stink. I didn't spring for the DirecTV football package this season (good thing, too; if I'd had to watch that Vikings-Colts game live I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have survived it) so I was stuck with Raiders-Chiefs (the L.A. CBS affiliate apparently thought we'd rather watch that than a good game), and never did I think we'd see the day when there were large patches of unoccupied seats in Arrowhead Stadium at kickoff of the Chiefs home opener. Against the Raiders, no less.

You know it's really bad when a Vikings fan can look at the Chiefs' quarterback situation and think to himself, "wow, there but for the grace of God goes my team."

Raiders @ BILLS -9.5

Sure, the Raiders won in Kansas City last week, but they're in disarray. Nobody wants to be there, from the players to the coaches. When the attitude of everyone in the organization is less "we're going to win it all this year, yay!" and more "I didn't know it was even possible to be this miserable while making this much money," you're probably not winning two straight road games.

They're begging you to consider taking the Raiders, aren't they, with that ten-point line. I won't bite. It seems like every year a team seemingly comes out of nowhere, builds some momentum, gets every bounce and, before you know it, makes the playoffs at 12-4. This could be the Bills' year, and a home game against the Raiders could be Buffalo's coming out party.

BENGALS @ Giants -13.5

Faithful readers will remember that last week, I predicated my picks on the idea that I would want to be able to justify my incorrect picks after the fact. "Hey, how could I not pick the Cowboys, as good as they've been?," I imagined -- and later found -- myself saying after they failed to cover the 7-point spread in their 41-37 victory over the Eagles. I went a middling 8-6-1 last week, as we've seen, with no major regrets.

I tell you all of this because I'm abandoning it this week, or at least for this game. For reasons that remain unknown even to me, I'm taking the Bengals in this one. I suppose I figure that the Bengals offense can't possibly continue to be as bad as it's been, and the Giants -- last week against the Rams notwithstanding -- don't seem to be the type of team that scores a crapload of points.

So we'll see; it's a reckless pick, but maybe it will pay off.

Dolphins @ PATRIOTS -12.5

I'm still not sold on the Pats with QB Matt Cassel at the helm. Their defense has looked impressive, but against the Chiefs and the Jets. And the Chiefs and the Jets are not exactly the 1999 Rams on offense.

But the Dolphins may be even worse, so it would be silly not to pick New England this week. And, while I may be -- and sometimes am -- wrong, you've got another thing coming if you think for one solitary second that I'm going to be silly.

Texans @ TITANS -5

The Texans are coming off of a bye week, but, I'm not sure that means they'll be incredibly well-rested. I mean, there's the "banging your way through the hotel staff at some secluded Caribbean resort" bye week, and then there's the "fleeing a catastrophic hurricane" bye week, and Houston's bye week was more the latter than the former.

This was supposed to be the Texans' year (isn't it always?), but they looked pretty bad in Week 1. And the Titans look like they're for real, that kind of tough, smashmouth team with a suffocating defense and a grinding running game that needs only a competent quarterback who can keep the mistakes to a minimum (and, as luck would have it, I have just described Titans quarterback Kerry Collins, who's starting on Sunday).

Buccaneers @ BEARS -3

What a nice Week 3 game, huh? Even if it does feature two starting quarterbacks -- Brian Griese of the Bucs and Kyle Orton of the Bears -- who very recently used to back up Rex Grossman (which would be a little like a boxing match between two guys who had each recently lost a fight to Arvid from "Head of the Class").

I'm not sure these two teams are as evenly matched as the oddsmakers seem to think they are (seeing as how home field advantage is generally though to be worth three points). The Bears beat the Colts in Indy and then lost to a Carolina team that I'm convinced may well be among the NFC elite, while the Buccaneers, I contend, are a middle-of-the-pack outfit. Maybe we were all wrong about Chicago; maybe last season was the fluke, and the 2006 Super Bowl team represented the real Bears.

Cardinals @ REDSKINS -3

If you look at the Cardinals schedule, you can make the case that they could very well win the NFC West and make the playoffs without beating a single decent team. They haven't beaten one yet, and the Redskins seemed to show that they were decent last week, when they beat a decent Saints team.

I really think the Cardinals are finally going to the playoffs, but they might go 7-9 as they do. It's not as if they've got no chance against the 'Skins, but I'll believe they can beat a decent team when I see it.

Panthers @ VIKINGS -3.5

Picking with my heart rather than my head; with all the excitement at the beginning of the season, I can't bear the thought of the Vikings starting out 0-3.

But the Vikings aren't a completely irrational choice; their defense has been really good, and it looks like they're making the switch at quarterback from Tarvaris Jackson to Gus Frerotte, the world's second-most famous football-playing Gus (the most famous being the titular field goal-kicking mule from the 1976 Disney movie "Gus," starring, among others, Tim Conway, Dick Butkus, Bob Crane, Johnny Unitas, Tom Bosley, Don Knotts and Ed Asner. If you haven't seen it, you must).

SAINTS @ Broncos -5.5

You know, I'm not convinced about either of these teams. The Broncos, by all rights, should be 1-1 with their one victory coming over a bad, bad Raiders team. The Saints have played two good-but-not-great teams, beating one. So, just because I need some road teams in there, I'll pick the Saints (and, it should be noted, this game has the "Vegas thinks you have no idea" point spread, and I, in fact, have no idea. Vegas is smart).

LIONS @ 49ers -4

The first of two games in a row that, although it's only Week 3, promise to have absolutely no effect on anything relating to which teams ultimately make the playoffs. But, much like how it's the pee-break categories that often decide the winner of the Oscar pool, games like this often decide whether you put up a good week or a bad week, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I still think the 49ers are bad. I talk once in a while about how good teams, even borderline-great teams, have a hiccup every once in a while where they lose to a team they shouldn't. It should follow, then, that bad teams have a hiccup every once in a while where they beat a team they shouldn't. Really, every team in the NFL has tons of good players; a weird bounce here or there, and any team can beat anyone else (I'm really breaking some news with that revelation, I know). You only have your best ideas about what's most likely to happen; that's all you can go on. And I think the 49ers are likely to lose to the Lions by more than four.

Rams @ SEAHAWKS -9.5

There's really no way a person can justify picking either of these teams this week, is there? The Seahawks have fallen far and fast, but, since they still might be able to talk themselves into believing that they've got a shot at the playoffs if they win this week (even if I'm pretty sure that's not the case), I'll go with them.

Steelers @ EAGLES -3

I think we've got a good idea what to make of the Eagles; this game could well turn out to be a referendum on the Steelers. Are they really the best team in the AFC? If they are, you have to think they'll win this one.

I'm more sure that the Eagles are a darn good team, capable of holding serve at home, than I'm sure that the Steelers are one of the two or three best teams in the league. Throw in the fact that Big Ben is a little banged up at quarterback for the Steelers, and I'm willing to give the Eagles a shot.

Browns @ RAVENS -2.5

Because it's pretty obvious that God hates Cleveland.

JAGUARS @ Colts -5.5

Another five-point line, and another "no idea" game for me. Both teams desperately need a win, both teams are looking up at the Titans, both teams have been disappointing thus far. I like the Jaguars; the Colts had no business winning against the Vikings (a competent offense would have been up 30-0, not 15-0, over the Colts last week), and the Jaguars are too tough to expect them to lose by six or more.

COWBOYS @ Packers +3

I think the Cowboys are emerging as the team to beat in the NFC, if not the entire NFL. They'll win in the road, they'll win in shootouts, they'll just win. That classic Monday-nighter against the Eagles was too close for comfort; I don't see the Cowboys letting the Packers hang around on Sunday night.

Jets @ CHARGERS -9

The case has been made that no team ever suffered worse back-to-back losses than the Chargers the last two weeks, and that could well be true. First, they lose to Carolina on a last-second heave into the end zone. They, they lose to the Broncos in part because a referee blows a premature whistle on a play that would have wrapped up the game for San Diego (and I say "in part" because although the proper call would have certainly given them the game, the blown call didn't necessarily lose it for them).

I don't think that the Jets are all that great, even with Saint Favre under center, and I think the Chargers will win a no-doubter. They'd better, if they have any intention of getting into the playoff picture this season.

Sorry, Everybody

2008-09-12T14:35:00.001-07:00

In my most recent NFL picks column, posted yesterday, I made a joke about hurricanes (specifically Katrina and Gustav). As difficult as this might be to believe, as I wrote and posted that column it completely slipped my mind that Hurricane Ike was bearing down on Houston and the Texas coast.

Just like I let Senator Obama off the hook (somewhat) earlier this week, believing that he wasn't referring to Sarah Palin as "a pig," I will let myself off the hook (somewhat) this week, asking you to believe that I'd forgotten about Hurricane Ike when I wrote my NFL picks.

But, in the same way one should know not to make a "lipstick on a pig" joke when running against a ticket that features a women whose most famous line thus far has involved lipstick, one should also know not to make hurricane jokes when a major US city is in the path of a potentially devastating hurricane.

So, sorry about that one, folks. I will, in the future, endeavor to heed a version of the advice I myself gave out just a few days ago, and think before I write each word.

NFL 2008 - Week 2

2008-09-11T17:21:00.000-07:00

Well, I said you can't really know anything until about Week 5, didn't I?

Week 1: 6-10

Overall: 6-10

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

I don't trust the Chargers; never really do.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

I'm picking the Raiders.

TITANS @ Bengals -1

I had to quadruple-check this line to make sure it was right. What exactly did the Bengals do last week in their 17-10 loss to the Ravens that makes anyone think they can beat a tough team like Tennessee? Or is it all this weirdness with Vince Young? Whatever it is, I don't buy it.

No truth to the rumor, by the way, that the Bengals wide receiver Chad Ocho Cinco -- formerly Chad Johnson -- is planning to legally change his name to Chad Dos Dos, after the 22 receiving yards he had in Week 1.

Bills @ JAGUARS -5.5

The five-and-a-half point spread is, I think, Vegas's way of saying, "We have no idea." The Bills were supposed to be bad and the Jaguars were supposed to be good, yet Buffalo throttled the Seahawks last week while Jacksonville was losing to the Titans.

But then, Jacksonville always has trouble with the Titans. And the Seahawks, though they've won five straight division titles, have been decimated by injury.

So who knows? I'll take the Jaguars.

Raiders @ CHIEFS -3.5

Woof.

COLTS @ Vikings +2

What in the world to make of this game, huh? The Vikings came within a last-minute interception of possibly beating last year's NFC title game favorite on the road, while the Colts lost at home to one of last year's NFC also-rans. But can the Colts be all that bad? Can the Vikings be all that good?

Having watched both the Colts and the Vikings play last week, I say "no" to both. Minnesota is clearly just a quarterback away from contending, but one can perceive a sinking feeling throughout Viking Nation, a creeping dread that it's never going to come together for Tarvaris Jackson. It might be a good idea to pick against the Vikings until they give you a reason to do otherwise.

As for the Colts, unless further evidence comes to light, I'm going to assume that last week's game against the Bears was just a weird hiccup, and they'll be fine.

Bears @ PANTHERS -3

The last time Panthers quarterback Jake Delhomme played a full season, Carolina went 11-5 and reached the NFC title game. I'm not saying Jake Delhomme is the be all and the end all, but he's a fine quarterback and the Panthers looked sharp last week against a good (if untrustworthy) Chargers team. I don't know what got into the Bears last week in Indy; I wouldn't look for lightning to strike twice.

PACKERS @ Lions +3

It's like they're giving away money this week, isn't it? The Lions defense got carved up by a rookie QB and a career backup running back last week; do you really think the mighty Packers will have any trouble with them? I know the Packers offense didn't look incredibly good against the Vikings, but, the Lions defense is not the Vikings defense (I'm sure NFL bylaws would prevent such a thing).

GIANTS @ Rams -8.5

On the one hand, you wonder if any line could ever be too high when you're talking about the 2008 Rams. On the other hand, you know that the Giants aren't really an explosive, high-scoring team.

You know what? I took a few fliers last week; I ended up looking over the 10 games I lost and, for the most part, thinking to myself, "well, that was a dumb pick... I should have seen that coming... I don't know what I was thinking on that one..." This week I'll try to stick to picks where, even if I'm wrong, I can look back and say, "Well, sure, I missed that one, but it's not like I was going to pick the Rams." This week, I'm focusing on making mistakes I can live with.

As opposed to, like, picking the Raiders.

SAINTS @ Redskins pk

Will this game mirror the 2005 hurricane season, with Washington being completely unprepared for New Orleans? Or will it mirror the 2008 hurricane season, with Washington over-preparing for a New Orleans onslaught that fails to materialize? Is that a distasteful analogy? Probably, but, it's tough to think of something different to say for each one of these games.

It was only one game, but, the way the Redskins looked last week, a person could believe that the Redskins might be hopeless. And the way the Saints looked last week, a person could believe that the Saints might be back to their division-winning 2006 form.

Falcons @ BUCCANEERS -7

This line might be a little bit higher than one would expect, since the Falcons creamed the Lions last week and the Bucs lost in New Orleans. Even so, Atlanta's Matt Ryan is a rookie quarterback going up against a playoff-caliber team in his second-ever NFL game. Plus, can Atlanta count on running back Michael Turner to repeat his 220 yard, 2 TD performance against a stout (if aging) Tampa Bay defense? I submit that they cannot.

49ers @ SEAHAWKS -7

The 49ers stink, probably, but injuries have so depleted the Seahawks at wide receiver that, out of desperation, they just went and signed a couple of those guys who catch the fish that they throw at Pike Place Market.

I think those fish guys will get the job done.

PATRIOTS @ Jets -1.5

I think the Patriots could start current USC backup quarterback Aaron Corp and still beat the Jets on Sunday, so the fact that they're starting former USC backup quarterback Matt Cassel doesn't give me cause for concern.

I realize that there was much hype regarding the Jets' Week 1 victory over a Miami team that went 1-15 least season and, if anything, has gotten worse since then; it was almost a surprise that Sports Illustrated didn't superimpose Michael Phelps's eight gold medals around Brett Favre's neck on this week's cover. I also realize that the Patriots almost lost to the awful Chiefs last week. I realize that Tom Brady's injury was a devastating blow to New England (though I would reassure all of this site's female readers -- if there were any -- that since Brady's injury was to his knee, doctors say the risk is minimal that he will emerge from this ordeal any less handsome).

But riddle me this, Batman: in the 21st century, what is the Patriots' winning percentage in games in which they've been able to convince themselves that they're being counted out and/or disrespected?

(hint: if it were possible to have a winning percentage higher than 1.000, that's what it would be)

Chargers @ BRONCOS +1.5

If I were only to go by last week's games, I'd assume that the Broncos were better than the Chargers. So let's do that.

(for what it's worth, I had remembered -- incorrectly, it turns out -- that the Broncos were bad last year. They got blown out really badly a couple of times, but, in fact, they were 7-9 with two overtime losses. So they weren't that bad)

Dolphins @ CARDINALS -6.5

Is this the year the Cardinals finally get over the hump and make the playoffs? Normally, that notion would make me laugh so hard that anyone who saw me might be forgiven for thinking that I was watching a particularly good episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond." But not this year; if the Seahawks turn out to be bad -- and with their lame duck coach and an even lamer receiving corps, that's a distinct possibility -- then the NFC West is the Cardinals' for the taking, because the 49ers and Rams have about as much chance of winning that division as I do.

Ravens @ TEXANS -4.5

The Ravens beat a bad team last week, while the Texans lost to a really good one. How should I know what's going to happen on Sunday? What am I, writing an NFL picks column?

When in doubt, go against the rookie QB on the road, I suppose.

STEELERS @ Browns +6

If their demoralizing Week 1 blowout loss at the hands of the Dallas Cowboys is any indication of things to come, it looks like head coach Romeo Crennel will not be taking the Browns to the Super Bowl. Which is a shame, because "taking the Browns to the Super Bowl" means "pooping," and the closer Cleveland gets to contention, the more we get to hear about "the Browns" going to the "Super Bowl" from people who don't realize what they're saying.

What with the injury to Tom Brady and the lackluster play of the Colts, we could easily see coach Mike Tomlin take the Steelers to the Super Bowl, but even the most imaginative mind would have difficulty coming up with a way to make a poop joke out of that.

Eagles @ COWBOYS -7

The game of the week, to be sure, and on "Monday Night Football" to boot. Both teams were supposed to be good going into the season, and both teams looked really good last week. The only way I can pick this game is to live up to my decree of earlier in this column and take the pick that I'd be able to justify even if I lost. And I can easily see myself saying, on Tuesday morning, "hey, how could I not pick the Cowboys, as good as they've been?"

That doesn't mean I'd touch this one with a ten-foot pole if the whole point of this column wasn't to pick every game, though.

"Lipstick On a Pig"

2008-09-09T17:20:00.000-07:00

Just a bit ago Barack Obama was speaking in front of a crowd, working the theme that McCain-Palin was just more of the same. "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said, "It's still a pig."

Many in the blogosphere have, apparently, already decided that the comment was a personal insult directed at Sarah Palin, who famously said during her speech at the Republican convention that the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was "lipstick."

This couldn't possibly have been intentional. Say what you will about Obama; I can't imagine for a millisecond that he's either that mean, or that stupid, or both. I am as certain as one can be about anything that if it had occurred to Barack Obama that his "lipstick" comment could (and almost certainly would) easily be interpreted as a personal slam on Governor Palin -- who is widely agreed upon not to be a "pig," by any stretch of the imagination -- he wouldn't have said it. Whether or not a person in Obama's position should have known better than to say such a thing is obvious: he should have. But what it says about Obama, if anything, is less clear. We all have our brain farts, after all.

"Lipstick on a pig" is an old turn of phrase, and a decent one (I prefer "turd in a prom dress," but, given Sarah Palin's beauty queen background, that might not have gone over particularly well either). But when the opposing ticket features a woman, you might want to do all you can to avoid any references to makeup, dresses, boobs, or anything of the sort. Especially when you've already been in some hot water to referring to a female reporter as "sweetie," which a lot of people thought was a big deal, but I didn't. Throw in his comments about how Hillary Clinton "periodically, when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," and one might be forgiven for concluding that Obama is a chauvinist.

I don't think that. I do wonder what in the world has possessed him not to be incredibly, incredibly careful when using words that might have certain gender connotations, to be sure. But the very fact that he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" is enough to satisfy me that he wasn't calling Sarah Palin "a pig." There's no way -- no way! -- he would have said that if he'd realized what he was saying. When her big line is "lipstick," you really need to stay away from "lipstick on a pig," but I'm letting him off the hook for this one, and I think everyone else should, too. Even though he should have been, he clearly wasn't aware of how his comment would be received.

And, to prove my point ever further, here's what -- according to Politico.com -- Obama said after "you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig":

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

That's right: running against a ticket that includes a woman, he followed up "lipstick on a pig" with a reference to a stinky fish smell. You can't possibly make this stuff up, folks.

Senator Obama: I like you. I'm not voting for you and I hope you don't become president, but I like the cut of your jib, I don't believe for a minute that you're a sexist, and you seem like a good, well-intentioned man.

Really, though. As Marge once said to Homer: think before you say each word.

NFL 2008 - Week 1

2008-09-04T11:08:00.000-07:00

And we're off and running with another season of the NFL and, perhaps even more importantly, another season of my NFL picks column!

With the caveat that I believe you can't really know anything until about Week 5, here are my picks for Week 1.

REDSKINS @ Giants -4

Yes, the Giants are the defending Super Bowl champions. You sort of have to keep reminding yourself of that, don't you? It's not every season where the Super Bowl champ ends up being a team that no one -- and I mean no one -- was talking about until the end of the conference title games. Many times last year I referred to the Giants' annual late-season Tom Coughlin choke job; I think it's fair to say that in December '07 and January '08, it did not materialize.

But the Redskins made the playoffs last year at 9-7, only one game worse than the 10-6 Giants. Plus, they beat the Giants on the road. In fact, last year, the Giants lost their last four home games. This year is not last year, to be sure. But the Giants have lost key players, and those who are paid to say such things say that the Redskins seem to have improved. Good enough for me.

BENGALS @ Ravens +1.5

The Ravens are starting a rookie quarterback, the University of Delaware's own Joe Flacco. Now, it's been a decent few weeks for guys named Joe from Delaware, and Rich Gannon showed us that a former Fightin' Blue Hens QB can go on to become league MVP (yes, Rich Gannon is a former NFL MVP. Between this and the revelation that the Giants won the Super Bowl last year, I'm really dropping some knowledge on you, aren't I?).

But the Bengals, for all of their troubles, can score. And the Ravens defense isn't getting any younger (though, in the defense of those individuals who make up the Ravens defense, few people do). The fact that the birds are 1.5-point dogs at home tells me that nobody feels good about them, so, neither do I.

Jets @ DOLPHINS +3

I believe the Jets have offensive line issues, which is not the best scenario when you've got an aging quarterback who's been with the team for just a few weeks. Throw in the Madden cover jinx, and the Jets and Brett Favre are doomed.

And, in a historic occurrence, I will now type the sentence, "Plus, Team X really has a great chance to win this week because they've got Chad Pennington at quarterback..."

Plus, the Dolphins have a great chance to win this week because they've got Chad Pennington at quarterback. After spending his entire career with the Jets, Pennington knows them like the back of his hand. Look for the Dolphins to match last year's win total in Week 1.

Chiefs @ PATRIOTS -16.5

It's more that I think the Chiefs will be bad than I think the Patriots will be anywhere near as good as they were last season. And we know the Patriots are not above running up the score after the outcome of the game has effectively been decided. It's not so easy when you're playing a great defensive line (like that of, say, the 2007 New York Giants), but luckily for them (and me!) the Chiefs traded their one great defensive lineman to the Vikings.

Texans @ STEELERS -6.5

I'd love to tell you that the Texans are finally going to make the playoffs this year, but I'm just not sure I can do that. Yes, they were 8-8 last year and will probably be better. But in the brutal AFC in general, and the especially brutal AFC South in particular, 10-6 didn't even make the playoffs last season. Look at Houston's schedule: at Pittsburgh, hosting Baltimore, at Tennessee, at Jacksonville, hosting Indianapolis. It's pretty easy to imagine them sitting there at 1-4, even if they're good. Which they probably are.

They might even be better than the Steelers. But Pittsburgh (the team and the city) will really be up for the game, and it can be a tough place to play. It's not that difficult to imagine the Steelers winning by a touchdown.

Jaguars @ Titans +3

The Jaguars are supposed to join the NFL elite this year. It seems to me like teams that are forecast to become elite eventually do (as opposed to team that are forecast to be playoff sleepers; those teams usually flop. Of course, maybe it's just that the frequency with which the Cardinals are chosen as a sleeper pick ends up skewing the numbers).

The Titans were awfully tough last season; this is really a marquee Week 1 matchup in the aforementioned especially brutal AFC South.

LIONS @ Falcons +3

Last year's Lions were like Tara Reid: they started out sort of hot, but then it just became a disaster. Still, Detroit has some talent on offense, and -- unless somebody on the Atlanta roster has some sort of plate-spinning or machete-juggling abilities that I'm not aware of -- the Falcons don't.

SEAHAWKS @ Bills -1

The Seahawks have made the playoffs the last five years. The Bills haven't made the playoffs in a year that starts with "2." Last season is not this season (by definition, in fact), but, I'm not sure what makes anyone think the Bills will be better than the Seahawks. Although generally playing at home is seen to be worth a 3-point advantage, I think, so the Bills being favored by 1 means people think the Seahawks are actually better.

Anyway, take the Seahawks.

Buccaneers @ SAINTS -3

The Saints were such an up-and-down team last year; who the heck knows what they'll do? Especially now, before Week 5?

But I think the Buccaneers, who make the playoffs last season, weren't that great and will regress toward the mean (which is actually a pretty specific prediction if you think about it, considering that they went 9-7 last year).

Rams @ EAGLES -7.5

You don't really have much choice when a team everyone thinks will be pretty good hosts a team everyone thinks will be pretty bad, do you?

The Eagles will be in the mix; they went 8-8 and missed the playoffs last year, their season derailed by a three-game losing streak to the Patriots, the Seahawks and the Giants. That's a team that finished the season undefeated, a division title winner, and the Super Bowl champs. Tough draw. This year the sailing is somewhat smoother.

COWBOYS @ Browns +5.5

The Cowboys were essentially the class of the NFC last year. They may not have won a playoff game since the internet (that's not a typo; they haven't won a playoff game since the internet), but they're a hell of a team and everyone thinks they'll play in the Super Bowl this year.

Cleveland had a promising 2007 but looked pretty bad in the preseason, especially when they wore those solid-brown-colored pants that, at the risk of being indelicate, made them look like their legs were made of poop.

PANTHERS @ Chargers -9

The Panthers have been away too long; it seems like they've got to be in it every few years. I'll miss Vinny Testaverde and David Carr from a comedy standpoint, because Panthers QB Jake Delhomme is neither super-duper old nor looks exactly like Superman. But in all other respects, a game and healthy Delhomme serves the team better.

And I don't trust the Chargers; never really do.

CARDINALS @ 49ers +2.5

Kind of a dog of a game, huh?

Bears @ COLTS -9.5

It pretty much depends on how healthy and ready to play Peyton Manning is. Even if he's at 75%, the fact that the Colts are opening up a new stadium and the fact that the Bears are starting a white guy named "Kyle" at quarterback should make for a big win for Indy.

Don't start a white guy named "Kyle" at quarterback. You'd think teams would have learned that by now.

VIKINGS @ Packers -2.5

If the Vikings secondary is any good -- and I mean any good -- the Packers could be in for a long, long Monday night. I think the Vikings offensive line will hold even with Bryant McKinnie serving a suspension, I think Adrian Peterson will be huge this year, and I think -- at least I hope -- that Packers QB and Brett Favre replacement Aaron Rodgers will get rattled.

I'm trying to temper my excitement for the 2008 Vikings, because history suggests that they will not win the Super Bowl (them never having won the Super Bowl). But I expect big things, Minnesota. Big things!

Broncos @ RAIDERS +3

Yeah, I'm picking the Raiders. Deal with it.

Old Guy / Hot Chick '08

2008-08-29T07:57:00.000-07:00

Boy, when I'm right, I'm right!

I think this is worth like a month's worth of entirely correct NFL picks.

The 9 Most Under-Appreciated Films of My Lifetime

2008-08-21T10:17:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, a question was posed as to whether Return To Me was the most under-appreciated film of a certain person's lifetime. Unfortunately, I can't claim to share the question-poser's affection for that movie, but I can waste a bunch of my time and yours by compiling a list of my own.

Here, in no particular order (unless you count alphabetical), are The 9 Most Under-Appreciated Films of My Lifetime (November 1, 1977 - present).

Back to the Future, Part III (1990)

Some movies, you see them when you're a kid, you love them because you're a kid, you watch them a whole lot, and then some years pass, you don't watch them for a while, then, as an adult (or near-adult), you watch them again and you realize, with a twinge of disappointment, "Oh. This is not a good movie."

In this particular case, I'm referring to Back to the Future, Part II. The 1955 scenes are great, and the rest of the movie bad. It pains me to say it, but, it's true.

Part III, on the other hand, is, if you ignore a silly final minute or two (a flying locomotive? Nobody spoke up at any point and said, "maybe not a flying locomotive?"), a delight. Give it another chance, if it's been a while. And ignore the fact that Marty's great-great grandmother looks like Lea Thompson, even though she's from Marty's dad's side of the family.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

A controversial inclusion on the list, given that it's a widely acknowledged classic? Perhaps. But I still don't think it gets the credit it deserves, because I still don't think that people understand that it's not really about a high school slacker who wants to take one more sick day before graduation and the principal who has one last chance to catch him; it's about a high school slacker who realizes that this is his last chance to save his best friend's future, even if he has to risk his own to do it.

Ferris knows what Cameron has to look forward to...

If things don't change for him, he's going to marry the first girl he lays. And she's going to treat him like shit, because she will have given him what he has built up in his mind as the end all, be all of our existence.

...and he knows he won't be there to help him...

We're going to graduate soon. We'll have the summer. He'll work and I'll work. We'll see each other at night and on the weekends. Then he'll go to one school and I'll go to another. Basically, that will be it.

He's worried that Cameron will slink through life obeying his indifferent wife just like he's slunk through life obeying his indifferent parents, because that's what he's used to and he doesn't know anything different. Ferris needs to push Cameron to stand up to his parents, just so Cameron knows he's capable of standing up to somebody. The plan works a little too well for Cameron's dad's Ferrari's comfort, but we're left to assume that Cameron will ultimately be the better for it.

Plus there's all of the parts where Principal Rooney is trying to catch Ferris, there's Charlie Sheen at the police station, there's the scene with the snooty maitre d'... all the stuff that leads people to consider it one of the best comedies ever. Let's not forget about that stuff.

The Great White Hype (1996)

Excellent cast, excellent movie, excellent premise: nobody cares about boxing anymore, the undefeated champ's (Damon Wayans) fights aren't being bought on pay-per-view, but wait! The champ hasn't lost as a pro, but he lost one fight as an amateur, to Terry Conklin (now a grungy underground rocker in Cleveland). Let's get Terry out here to Las Vegas, have him get into shape, and stick him in the ring! White people will watch boxing again!

I'm not sure why The Great White Hype isn't up there with Caddyshack, Bull Durham and Major League in the sports comedy pantheon; I've always suspected it might be because of Damon Wayans, against whom I have nothing in general, but who is as miscast here as he would have been as Rod Tidwell in Jerry Maguire (a part for which some sources say he was considered). I'm not sure I can explain it, but, when you're an actor playing the heavyweight champion of the world, you should just have a certain... non-Damon-Wayans-esque quality about you. But everyone else, from Samuel L. Jackson to Peter Berg to Corbin Bernsen to Jon Lovitz to Cheech Marin to Jamie Foxx to John Rhys-Davies (not to be confused with Jonathan Rhys Meyers) to the incomparable Jeff Goldblum, delivers magnificently.

It's a fun movie, it's very quotable, it's got a great cast, it's appropriately cynical about everything that entertainment and sports have become... an under-appreciated film if there ever was one.

The Hammer (2008)

I'm a big, big, big fan of Adam Carolla. On the radio, anyway. I thought "The Man Show" was fun and I enjoyed the televised version of "Loveline" when it was on; other than that, most of what he's done on TV I can take or leave. But his is the best radio show I've ever heard, endlessly hilarious and thought-provoking even as you listen to him rail against red left-turn arrows for quite literally the 100th time (because shouldn't somebody be railing against them? Really, shouldn't everyone?).

When he mentioned on his show in the summer of 2006 that had co-written and was starring in his own movie, I wasn't sure what to expect. What we got, in the end, was The Hammer, a truly "independent" film -- Carolla essentially put together the financing for the movie and released it himself when nobody else would, justifiably proud enough of the project not to want to see it relegated to straight-to-DVD status -- and a crowd-pleaser that it's difficult to imagine anyone honestly disliking, no matter what they think of the lead actor (and I've found that people who claim not to like Adam Carolla haven't spent a lot of time listening to him on the radio. And, if they have, they almost always turn out to be the sort of uptight killjoy you'd have no interest in spending time with).

The Hammer is comparable to Carolla's radio predecessor Howard Stern's Private Parts in that people seemed surprised that a "shock jock" could be responsible for such a fun, warm-hearted romantic comedy. The Hammer has sports, sure; Carolla's Jerry Ferro is a construction worker and part-time boxing instructor who, on his 40th birthday, loses his construction gig but impresses a boxing trainer during an impromptu sparring session with a successful pro, leading to a shot at the US Olympic trials. The movie also has an incredibly well done -- if standard -- romantic arc, as Carolla meets and falls for a comely public defender in one of his boxing classes. In fact, "incredibly well done, if standard" almost sums up the movie entirely.

Almost. Except, you need to factor in the way the film completely captures the best and most entertaining parts of Carolla's radio persona (which, one suspects, differs very little from his actual persona); mix that with the incredibly well done, if standard, plot and you've got the very definition of a crowd-pleaser: a surprising, her-prizing (thanks for that one, Grandpa Simpson) movie that's just as sure to make you laugh as it is to get you laid.

(although now that I think about it, "just as sure to make you laugh as it is to get you laid" could also apply to a movie like Schindler's List... but, as far as The Hammer goes, I mean it in the fun way)

Think of it like this: if The Hammer had been put together by some unknown Czech actor instead of the "other guy" from "The Man Show," if it were the underdog story of a slightly over-the-hill Czech construction worker trying to make the Czech Olympic boxing team, if the love interest was played by a realistically cute Czech actress and the movie was in Czech, with subtitles, and if everything else about The Hammer was exactly the same; well, you would have had to physically restrain the critics from places like "L.A. Weekly" and NPR from breaking into the projection booth and attempting to dry-hump the actual film reel itself, they would have been so beside themselves with praise for the movie.

Adam Carolla himself said on several occasions during The Hammer's all-too-brief theatrical run that if anyone goes to see it and doesn't think it's "at least an 8," he would personally refund their money. I would imagine it's possible that there's somebody out there somewhere who wouldn't particularly enjoy the movie; that said, I am unaware of anybody ever taking Carolla up on his offer.

The Impostors (1998)

I sort of think of this as my movie. I rarely run into anyone else who's heard of it, let alone seen it, but some friends and I went and saw it when we were in college and we thought it was just about the funniest thing we had ever seen. Many subsequent viewings have confirmed this.

This movie was Stanley Tucci's follow-up to Big Night, which I think may have been over-praised, and since The Impostors was nothing like Big Night I think it was dismissed and ignored. It's an old-fashioned screwball comedy, a Marx-Brothers-style romp updated for the new millennium, with all the humor and none of that weird 1930s stuff that today's audiences aren't interested in anymore.

If you want ensemble casts, look no further. Steve Buscemi doesn't do it for you? Well, shame on you, first of all, but, don't worry, because there's Alfred Molina! And Tony Shalhoub! Richard Jenkins and Allison Janney as a con man-and-wife! Billy Connolly as an aggressively gay athlete (I'm still not clear, after seeing the movie several times, whether he's a wrestler or a tennis player, but no matter)! Campbell Scott, in a performance that is unlikely to be topped by him or anyone else, as a Teutonic security officer! Lili Taylor, for Heaven's sake! Isabella Rossellini! Woody Freaking Allen! Please don't embarrass yourself by saying that I need to go on, even though I easily could.

And, of course, you've got Tucci himself and the singularly brilliant Oliver Platt as two starving actors who end up stuck on an ocean liner with the very man they were wrongly accused of assaulting the night before.

I'll tell you what: watch until the cream puff scene in the bakery, and if you don't think that's one of the funniest things you've ever seen in your life, then I would encourage you to go out immediately and steal a bunch of money, use the money to buy a gun, and then murder everyone you don't like, because the eternal consequences of such actions could not possibly worry you, because neither God nor the devil is capable of damning a soul that does not exist in the first place, as yours clearly would not if the cream puff scene doesn't make you pee yourself with laughter.

And, if anything, I'm under-selling it.

The Ladykillers (2004)

I just watched this one recently, and it hasn't gotten any worse. If you've ever liked a Coen brothers flm, or a comedy, or a Tom Hanks performance, I'm not sure what would stop you from liking this. It's funny all the way through, Tom Hanks completely disappears into what is probably one of his most difficult characters to date, and, as is typical of movies from the Coens, the music is fantastic.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

This sequel had the misfortune to be released right at the apex of the Tom Cruise backlash, during the height of his couch-bouncing, psychiatry-pooh-poohing nuttiness. That, and the fact that Mission: Impossible II wasn't anything to write home about, probably kept a few people away (MI-3 made about $133 million in box office, compared with $215 million for 2 and $180 million -- in 1996 dollars, mind you -- for the original). I'm sure I still wouldn't have seen it yet if it hadn't come on one of the movie channels during free preview weekend shortly after we got our new HDTV.

It's a shame, because for all of Tom Cruise's perceived Scientology silliness, he's still a big honking movie star who can put together a hell of a movie. And thanks in no small measure to his decision to bring Alias creator J.J. Abrams on board, Mission: Impossible III is probably the best big-budget action movie in many years. I repeat: Mission: Impossible III is probably the best big-budget action movie in many years.

In a huge (and welcome) departure from the first two movies, the story actually feels small: Cruise isn't in the field anymore, he trains prospective agents, and he's engaged to Michelle Monaghan. But Felicity (or whatever Kerri Russell's character's name is), one of Cruise's favorite trainees, got captured by bad guys; so Cruise, Maggie Q, Ving Rhames and Jonathan Rhys Meyers (not to be confused with John Rhys-Davies) go to Germany to rescue her. Then, they go to the Vatican to try to capture Phillip Seymour Hoffman. But he gets away and kidnaps Michelle Monaghan, so they go to Shanghai to try to rescue her. And that's pretty much it. There's some intrigue and some double-crossing, but it's all refreshingly easy to follow. The action sequences are expertly staged, the dialogue is very clever, the acting is great, the story is standard but engaging... don't be like me. Don't assume that two Mission: Impossibles were more than enough.

Rat Race (2001)

I'm not sure who could watch Rat Race and not enjoy it. It might be one of the least hip movies I've ever seen, and not every sequence is gangbusters, but certain moments, like Seth Green and Vince Vieluf trying to dismantle the airport tower, to name just one, are almost impossible not to laugh at even after seeing them multiple times.

I debated whether to include Rat Race on this list, because I think most people think it's funny and I thought it might in fact be sufficiently appreciated; but then it never really comes up when the Best Comedies of the Last Ten Years talk gets going. The movie is only seven years old, but it's difficult to imagine it being made today; comedies have changed. I think some of the affection for Rat Race may have been hauled away by the Apatow truck, or perhaps stomped on by the Apatowsaurus, and recent filmmakers have certainly capatowized on the changing sensibilities of the moviegoing public.

Nevertheless, funny is funny. And Rat Race is funny.

So I Married An Axe Murderer (1993)

I'm not really prepared to consider the opinion that this movie is anything short of a masterpiece.

You've got a mystery plot that could have formed the basis for a very good thriller, handled very well, in the middle of a hilarious comedy with Mike Myers at the height of his (considerably extensive, lest we forget) talents, Nancy Travis delivering a Leon-Powe-in-Game-2 caliber career performance from out of nowhere, great supporting turns from Amanda Plummer, Anthony LaPaglia, Alan Arkin, Brenda Fricker and Mike Myers himself, and memorable cameos from the likes of Steven Wright, Charles Grodin, Phil Hartman and Michael Richards.

What's more, it's the only movie I can think off -- quite literally the only movie -- whose plot twists actually ensure that it's enjoyable to watch twice for two different reasons: the first time because the effective twist ending takes you by surprise; and the second time because you now know, and can appreciate, why certain characters are acting the way they are. I heard someone say that if you watch The Sixth Sense again, and you consider what is revealed at the end, some of the stuff characters do doesn't make as much sense (I've only seen it once, so I can neither confirm nor deny); So I Married An Axe Murderer makes sense the first time you watch it and even more sense the second.

And if nothing else (and there's plenty else), the movie supplied us with any insult we would ever possibly need to use against people with large heads.

Rhymes With "Blunder!"

2008-07-21T16:25:00.000-07:00

I have a great deal of affection for Oklahoma City. Once a year, growing up, my brothers, mom, grandma, aunt and my cousins would all pile into the car (sometimes two cars) and drive from Minnesota to the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond, where my grandma's sister and mom's cousin both lived. They had kids as well, two older boys and a girl around our age. For about a week we all ran around, played games, went shopping, played with their schnauzers (dude... they had two pet dogs. Don't be gross), jumped on their trampoline; it was a highlight of the summer, something we looked forward to every year. This could have been accomplished almost anywhere, of course, and half the fun was the road trip, but, nonetheless, Oklahoma City is dear -- if not often, these days, near -- to my heart.

So it was with a measure of revulsion that I learned the Oklahoma City NBA franchise, which passed the last several decades as the Seattle SuperSonics, will be called the "Thunder."

I suppose I understand the connection to the old nickname, and thunder is a distinctive part of life in the Midwest (though certainly not just Oklahoma). Still, calling your team the Thunder is undeniably stupid, and it's a further indictment of the character of team owner Clay Bennett, who almost certainly would have had to sign off on the name.

As even the most casual sports fan knows by now, Bennett essentially hijacked the beloved Sonics from Seattle with the tacit blessing of NBA commissioner David Stern, buying the team and making no realistic, good-faith effort to allow it to stay put. When e-mails Bennett had written to this effect came to light, he lied about them. Former Sonics owner and Starbucks mogul Howard Schultz, who sold the team to Bennett, even tried to sue to regain it, claiming Bennett made fraudulent promises that he would try to keep the team in Seattle. Bennett almost certainly made these promises, and then lied about that. So far we're just dealing with standard rich asshole behavior; no big deal.

But you don't get "Can Afford a Sports Franchise" rich by being stupid, and only a stupid person (or a little kid; you can't really expect little kids to know any better) would think that "Thunder" is a good name for an NBA team. Since that's the name that was chosen (and since Bennett must have approved it), we can deduce that Clay Bennett is not stupid, but most assuredly thinks that you are.

In the very beginning, professional sports teams started playing and then got their nicknames based on the characteristics of that team. The Brooklyn Bridegrooms (so called because a number of their players were married at around the same time) became the Brooklyn Trolleydodgers, after the way their fans had to negotiate crowded streets around the ballpark before and after the games. The Pittsburgh team, accused of "stealing" a player away from a rival, embraced the role of the villain and became the Pirates. The Chicago squad had a bunch of young players; they became the Cubs. At the risk of belaboring an obvious point, the basic conceit of a team nickname is that, for instance, each man who plays for Pittsburgh is a pirate; therefore that collection of men may understandably be called the Pirates.

In more recent decades, though, an annoying trend has emerged, more than likely ushered in by the NBA's New Orleans Jazz (now Utah Jazz), in which teams are occasionally named after a single entity or a single concept (like the Colorado Avalanche or the Tampa Bay Lightning). These team names are not only silly on their face, because they seem new and trendy to those who enjoy them and will therefore necessarily seem outdated and ridiculous to those same people before too long; these names also represent a complete paradigm shift in team naming.

What you have in a team is an assembly of athletes; conceptually, the athletes themselves are nicknamed and the pluralization of the nickname provides the appellation for the assembly ("Minnesota Vikings"), but the other way of thinking names the assembly itself ("Minnesota Wild"), leaving no acceptable way to refer to the individuals themselves.

What would a member of the Miami Heat be called, for instance? Before Shaquille O'Neal was a Phoenix Sun, he was... a Miami Heat? At the beginning of his career, he was... an Orlando Magic? How can you "be" a "magic?" You can be magic, certainly (as Shaq himself proved to my satisfaction in Kazaam), but you can't be "a" magic, let alone an Orlando Magic. The idea is nonsense, and such phrasing should grate upon the natural sensibilities of any reasonable person.

Team names are not necessarily permanent, but they almost never change without a relocation of the franchise (the only examples that spring to mind in recent -- or even distant -- memory are the Washington Bullets and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, who became the Wizards and the Rays, respectively). So saddling your team with a dumb name that sounds catchy at a moment in time is shortsighted, like a lower back tattoo. In a matter of years (or even months), you will be looked upon as trifling and unserious. And probably kind of slutty.

So I have little choice now but to be preemptively disgusted with the good people of Oklahoma City, who will no doubt eagerly snap up Thunder t-shirts, Thunder jerseys and any matter of product bearing the Thunder name and logo (this coming from a man who owns a Minnesota Wild replica jersey; do as I say, not as I do).

The fans of Oklahoma do, of course, possess the wherewithal to reject this name. They could ignore Thunder merchandise en masse, and in a week Bennett and his minions would be forced to reconsider. But this won't happen, of course; like college football fans, who have for years endured a nonsensical bowl structure that constantly fails to crown a champion (which is, it could be argued, the main -- if not the only -- purpose of postseason play) and have refused to stay away from the sport for even the few weeks it would take to force an overhaul of the system... like those people, Oklahoma fans will be so excited to have a professional sports franchise that they will cave in.

Or, at least, the smart ones will. The incompetent, the easily amused, the slow and the witless, they will think that "Thunder" is a great name for the team. Those who know better will -- like one who is living under the thumb of a totalitarian regime and is aware of the weight of the oppression crushing down on him but can't bring himself to say anything as long as he's getting his bread every day -- just shut up and buy their Oklahoma Thunder mini basketball. Because while sports aren't quite as vital as food, to a lot of guys the distinction is negligible. Clay Bennett undoubtedly knows this and is shrewdly (if dishonorably) counting on it.

(it should be noted, of course, that the comparison of Clay Bennett to the rulers of a totalitarian regime is not meant to be taken literally. Leaders of totalitarian regimes typically imprison and sadistically torture those who are even suspected of disagreeing with them, whereas I have been unable to prove conclusively that Clay Bennett does this. So far)

In any case, however you came by it, congratulations on the new team, Okies. I'll continue to regard you fondly. But have fun trying to convince your daughter it's a bad idea to move in with her boyfriend right out of college, when you yourself are still sporting what amounts to a garish, statewide tramp-stamp.

Consider the Bottom of This "Gotten To"

2008-06-01T15:00:00.000-07:00

A little while ago, I received an email from Christopher Hatton. "Who's Christopher Hatton?" you might ask, if you were an uneducated Philistine. Christopher Hatton, of course, is, along with Ronald Moore, the co-writer of the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode entitled "Thine Own Self." The faithful reader[s?] of this particular site will remember that I have revealed this as the episode that gave popular culture the name "Jayden," which, to update those of you who didn't rush out and research it for yourselves the minute the data became available (and shame on you for not), has passed "Aiden" and is now the 18th most popular boys' name in America, and the most popular name in the "Aidan rhyming trend."

Mr. Hatton, whom I have not met but whose emails reveal him to be a delightful man, reports to us that, upon writing the "TNG" episode in question, he chose "Jayden" as Data's alias due to the fact that his friends had a seven-year-old son named "Jayden" (hereafter referred to as "Patient Zero") who was a big "Star Trek" fan (he tells me that Jayden's parents say they made the name up, or at least they thought they did). I think we can all agree that this gesture was extremely cool, but still, just about everything I wrote previously on this subject still stands.

All that remains to be said is that, according to Christopher Hatton himself, Patient Zero goes by "Jay" as an adult.

Watcha Gonna Do?

2008-04-22T10:43:00.000-07:00

My loyal viewership of WWE programming has slipped a little lately, so, regrettably, I missed out until just now on what has to be the greatest thing that has ever happened in the history of American politics:

http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/6908728

Hard to top John McCain asking "Whatcha gonna do when McCain and all the McCainiacs run wild on you?" but, the clear winner here is Obama, who wants to know if you "smell what Barack is cooking."

My Long-Awaited Treatise on Silly Baby Names

2008-04-20T15:02:00.000-07:00

The trend among Americans in recent decades toward saddling babies (particularly sons) with ridiculous -- and, in many cases, made-up -- names has bothered me for a while. Nowhere is this trend epitomized more unfortunately than in the "Aidan rhyming trend," and, to me, no name epitomizes that trend more unfortunately than "Jaden" (and its myriad alternate spellings).

I finally decided that I needed to look into it, if only to satisfy my own curiosity (and, by cherry-picking facts in a relatively unscientific manner, to prove my own assumptions). I think I've gotten to the bottom of it, but, let's take a look at the whole issue together, shall we?

First, we must ask whether this perceived trend actually exists. If it exists, what -- that is to say, which name -- is to blame (the lead paragraph should give you a clue)? And, finally, is this trend harmless, or does it signify something slightly troubling about the state of American society and culture?

Well, the first part is easy: the trend exists. Heck, this baby name expert says so! It's part of a larger trend of boys' names ending with the letter "n" that I've observed myself. I've touched on this before elsewhere, but, I'll say it again; recently, while at a neighborhood park with my daughter, I walked past a Little League baseball game. In the course of ten minutes, I heard "Dylan," "Mason," "Jackson," "Aidan," "Mason" again, "Preston," "Wellsey" (I can only assume that one of the boys was named either Aidan, Mason or Preston Wells) and "John," which technically ends in "n," although I can hardly lump John's parents in with the rest of the group, even if it might not have killed them to have thought a little further outside the box.

The newness (I couldn't think of a better word there than "newness;" sorry) of such an overall trend has been disputed by some who learned from the 1960s that all old traditions, ideas and institutions were automatically bad and that new ones were automatically good; one progressive friend of mine in particular, with no choice but to admit that current baby-naming trends were ridiculous and without the option of conceding that a new idea can still be a bad one, was left to argue that ridiculous baby-naming trends have, in effect, always abounded, and that today's are nothing new. I welcome her challenges, because they force me to dig up proof (am I being hard on this friend of mine? Sure, but, maybe I'm trying to provoke a response out of her. I need her to keep me honest. I wouldn't have thought to prove the existence of the general trend if it hadn't been for her, after all). I bet if you spent days crunching numbers, which I'm not inclined to do, Laura Wattenberg's (she's the baby name expert in question) assertions that "[s]uch an overwhelmingly fashionable name sound ["-ayden"] is unprecedented" would ring true. This is, despite the protestations of my crazy friend (that's a "Simpsons" reference, not an ad hominem attack), a new and gender-specific phenomenon. It started in the mid-1990s, exploded at the turn of the century and shows no signs of slowing.

Let's look at some boring (to most people, probably; not to me) demographic data to see just exactly what happened when, and which name (or names) might be most at fault:

"Adan" is the first name that rhymes with "-ayden" to show up on the Social Security Administration's Top 1,000 boys' names list (hereafter, for simplicity's sake, the "top 1,000" or just "the list"), in 1928. It pops on and off the list until 1958 and has been in the top 1,000 ever since, but it didn't even crack the top 300 until 2004, almost certainly as a result of being co-opted by the rhyming trend. Its popularity has actually declined slightly in the last couple of years, and at least one baby name website gives its origins as either Hebrew or Spanish, making no mention of Ireland, from where "Aidan" is generally acknowledged to have come. "Adan" and "Aidan" aren't really even the same name, then, and "Adan" likely got swept up in the trend by coincidence. For our purposes, I think we can consider "Adan" to be a non-factor.

Next up is "Braden," which cracks the top 1,000 in 1970, drops out, then comes back to stay in 1974. I have no idea why. Let's just agree that "Braden" is an early guest at the rhyming trend party but not the primary culprit, since it (in all its permutations) is currently only the fourth-ranked "-aydan" name, and its popularity has sort of leveled off while other "-aydan" names that didn't exist 20 years ago have passed it (and by "exist," I mean "exist as a baby-naming option in the cultural consciousness of America). I only have so much time to waste writing this, and tracking down "Braden" isn't in the cards.

What I can do for you is hazard a guess as to what happened with "Hayden," which was on and off the list from 1880 (which is as far back as the list goes) until 1947, then off to stay until 1986.

In 1981, coach Hayden Fry led the Iowa Hawkeyes to the Rose Bowl, in 1985 he led them to a 10-1 regular-season record and another Rose Bowl berth, and in 1986 (the same year "Hayden" ended its 39-year top 1,000 drought) he became the winningest head coach in Iowa history. Since it only took 88 Haydens to account for that name's placement at #982 on 1986's list, I'm more than willing to accept that Coach Fry was the major reason the name came back. Also, consider that the TV show "Coach" premiered in 1989 featuring a main character named Hayden (named after Coach Fry, according to Wikipedia; I'm not going to link to everything, so just take my word for it), and Hayden's yearly rankings skyrocketed after that (going from 899 in 1988 to 167 in 1997, the year the show went off the air).

But Hayden's popularity held relatively steady during those halcyon "Coach" years, moving up the list only 27 spots between 1994 and 1999. In the next six years, though, as the Aidan rhyming trend swept the nation, "Hayden" moved up 52 spots (which means it was much, much more than twice as popular; take into consideration that each move higher on the list represents just that many more actual babies than a similar move lower on the list. Like, if two more people had named their son "Korey" in 2006, "Korey" would have improved 14 spots, from 981 to 967; but for Thomas to improve 14 spots from 51 to 37, it would have required 1,305 more Thomases). So the rise of "Hayden" coincides with the explosion of the Aidan naming trend, it doesn't predate it. "Hayden" is also less popular than "Jayden" and has fewer variations than "Jadyen" or "Caden," so I'm going to say that it's not really Hayden's fault.

Moving on chronologically, we next see "Aidan" show up in 1990. "Aidan" seems to be an actual name, albeit a then-obscure Irish one. That was before Aidan Quinn co-starred in Desperately Seeking Susan in 1985, and if you don't think that type of movie can help a name crack the top 1,000, you need to look at what Splash did to the name "Madison" (it went from not existing in 1984, was in the top 300 four years later and peaked at #2 in 2001-2002). And I'm sure there were other factors in the rise of "Aidan," not just Aidan Quinn, but, he's a handy thing to point to.

Here I'd happily concede that "Aidan" was solely responsible for the whole trend, since "Aidan" and its various other spellings would be, taken together, quite comfortably the #1 most popular boys' name for 2006. Our only problem with "Aidan" is that its popularity has declined while the trend has accelerated and, in 2006, it was overtaken as the most popular "-ayden" rhyming name by the made-up "Aiden." The 2007 figures should be out soon, and "Aidan" is even in grave danger of falling behind "Jayden," about which we'll hear plenty more later, believe you me.

Next on the list is "Brayden," debuting at 884 in 1991, and brace yourselves, because now the alternate spellings start showing up. But since I've already decided that the whole thing wasn't the fault of "Braden," let's move on.

"Braydon" shows up in 1992, as does "Caden," with "Kaden" to follow in 1993. Now, "Caden," in all its forms, shares some blame for this whole thing. It's not really, in the strictest sense, a name (a connection is sometimes made to an old Gaelic surname, and others say it's Welsh, but let's face it: that's probably just a coincidence. I mean, every combination of letters and syllables has undoubtedly been used as some sort of name for something, at some point); I think this is the first we're seeing of the pernicious trend of parents (generally moms, because... well, come on. What guy comes up with "Caden?") deciding to make up names out of whole cloth so that by God, their children will STAND OUT! Because THAT'S WHAT I -- that is to say, MY CHILDREN -- DESERVE!

What's particularly hilarious to me about "Caden" is that dads in 1992 obviously failed to put potential baby names to the "make fun of" test, even in the most basic way possible. "Saturday Night Live" explored this territory in a manner that's unlikely ever to be eclipsed, but "The Simpsons" did it also, in an episode that aired at the end of 1991, less than a year before most of the first wave of "Caden"s were born.

Most of the episode takes place in flashback; Homer and Marge are due for their first child, and they start to discuss names. Marge suggests Larry, and Homer says they can't name him that, because "all the kids will call him Larry Fairy." Louie is no good, because they'll call him "Screwy Louie." On they go: Luke, "puke;" Marcus, "mucous"... until Marge suggests "Bart." Memorably, Homer says, "Let's see... Bart, cart, dart, ee-art... nope! Can't see any problem with that!"

Well, the father of any "Caden" out there did exactly the same thing. He starting moving up the alphabet, got three letters in, and stopped juuuuuust before the letter that really would have been the dealbreaker.

"Let's see... Caden, day-den, ee-ayden, fay-den... nope! Can't see any problem with that!"

Wonderful. I mean, any "-ayden" Dad is guilty of the same, but, "Caden" parallels the situation on "The Simpsons" so perfectly that it deserves special recognition. Let's hope somebody starts worrying about this, or the top 1,000 is going to be inundated with names like "Baggot" and "Grouchebag" by decade's end. I'm not getting my hopes up, though, since "Tucker" has only been gaining popularity as a boy name since it popped up on the list in the late-'70s.

[it should be noted that my wife has a family of cousins with the surname "Tucker," and they're all wonderful people, but I think even they would acknowledge some major drawbacks -- okay, one major drawback -- in using "Tucker" for a first name]

In any case, "Caden," as I said, shares some blame for the entire Aidan rhyming trend; it's fairly clear that, after Braden, Hayden and Aidan, parents determined to showcase their originality by clinging like remora onto the two-syllable-ending-in-"n" boys' name trend in general, and the Aidan rhyming trend in particular, just started going through the alphabet looking for another letter to put in front of "-ayden."

"A" was just "Aidan;" "B" was already the province of "Braden;" so "C" was really one of the only letters left. Because "Dayden" sounds awkward with the two "d" sounds in a row, "Faden" sounds like "fadin'," none of the vowels really work at all, "G" is out for obvious reasons, "Hayden" already existed, "J" we'll get to in a minute, "K" is still "Kaden," "Layden" doesn't make much sense (although I wouldn't count it out), "Maiden" isn't a particularly good boys' name, "Nayden" is sort of going overboard on "n," "Payden" is pointless when parents searching for a girly trend name for their son already have "Peyton" (curse Peyton Manning for coming along and making this name borderline acceptable. Archie Manning has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to naming sons, considering that his youngest and most recent Super Bowl champion offspring is officially named "Elisha." Seriously), "Q" doesn't really make any sense and pretty much just makes the already-taken-care-of "K" sound, I wouldn't be surprised if "Rayden" is coming soon since "R" is one of the few available letters left, "Sayden" sounds so much like "Satan" that not even the dimmest parent could miss that, "Tayden" sounds weird but I wouldn't rule out anything at this point, "Vayden" would just be silly, "Wayden" sounds like "wadin'," "Xaden" is only a matter of time given that "Zayden" debuted in the top 1,000 in 2006, and "Yayden" sounds way too foreign (a lot of these trendy names start as variations on obscure nomenclature from the British Isles; I mean, sure, you want your kid to have a name no one else has, but, you still want him to sound like an English-speaking white person. Let's not get carried away).

So "Caden" is really the first made-up name to show up in the top 1,000, but I can't blame it completely for the Aidan rhyming trend. For one thing, it debuted at 870 in 1992 and then got less popular, almost dropping out of the top 1,000 in 1993 before bouncing back in 1994. But even in 1994, "Caden" was less popular (731) than the debuting "Jaden" (630), and in 2006 "Caden" (the most popular spelling) ranked below two forms of "Aidan," two forms of "Jaden," and "Hayden" and "Brayden." "Caden" gained ground more slowly than other "-ayden" rhyming names, so, although it's an early culprit, it's not the main one.

No, that would be "Jayden." It's the last name to show up (other than "Zayden" in 2006... I mean, honestly. "Zayden?"), but, unlike any of the other ones, "Jayden" debuted twice in the same year, with "Jaden" (more popular back then) and "Jayden" (more popular now) both hitting the top 1,000 in 1994. What's remarkable is that "Jaden" debuted at a much higher position on the list than any other "-ayden" name, or any other misspelling of any other "-ayden" name, ever had. It came in at #630 the very first time out, with "Jayden" following at #852. Taken together as one name, "Ja[y]den" debuted in 1994 at #430, which essentially means it didn't exist one year, and was in the top half of the top 1,000 the next. Back to "Ja[y]den" in a minute...

"Aiden" follows in 1995, debuting at a modest 935; the spelling "Aiden" didn't exist, you'll note, until "Jayden" and "Jaden" came along and then everything started ending in "-en." 1996 gave us "Braeden," 1997 somehow saw no "-ayden" names debut, and 1998 welcomed "Jadon."

And let's get into "Jadon," quickly; many baby name sources cite "Jadon" (a Hebrew name meaning, depending on whom you ask, "thankful," "He will judge" or "God has heard") as the basis for "Jayden," but, it seems as though someone realized after the fact that there was such a name as "Jadon" and decided, "hey, that must be where 'Jaden' comes from. After all, Biblical names have always been popular, and 'Jadon' is in the Bible!" And, really, who (other than me) would ever bother to argue with that?

If the Hebrew name "Jadon" was really the basis for "Jaden" and "Jaydon," though, wouldn't it have shown up first, instead of four years after two other spellings of the name? Wouldn't there be some people in Israel named Jadon (there don't really appear to be, although I'm sure there are a couple; this is the best I could come up with as far as Israeli name data)? Wouldn't things have started with the "actual" name -- like they did with Aidan, Hayden, Braden and Caden -- and wouldn't different spellings of "Jadon" have popped up subsequently, rather than "Jadon" popping up as a different spelling of "Jaden?"

"Jaden" and "Jayden" came first, "Jadon" was one of many alternate spellings to follow, and, since "Jadon" was the only version of the name found to have existed before the Twins won a World Series, people incorrectly (though understandably) assumed that "Jadon" is where the name got started. But it almost certainly is not.

Anyway, the floodgates open in 1999, when Ayden, Braedon, Braiden, Cayden, Jaiden, Jaydon, Kadin, and Kayden all show up in the top 1,000 for the first time. Many other forms have tricked onto the list since, generally at the rate of two or three new "-ayden" names a year, but 1999 was when it really happened. Why?

Well, I just now decided that it takes about five years from inception for a societal trend to really catch fire in today's America, so let's assume that's true. I mean, I don't have the wherewithal to prove that, but, out of curiosity, I looked a few things up: the Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync all formed in '94 or '95, and bubblegum pop pretty much hit its apex in 1999... doesn't prove anything, but, at least it's an illustration of what I'm claiming. And I picked that particular trend because of 1994 and 1999, the two key years involved. Those years are also the two key years in the Aidan rhyming trend, because, as I have just illustrated, the trend exploded with eight "-ayden" names debuting in 1999, and if we trace it back five years we come to 1994, when "Jaden" and "Jayden" both showed up.

"Jaden," a made-up name that has skyrocketed in popularity in the last decade-and-a-half, is the embodiment -- and the primary culprit -- of the Aidan rhyming trend.

[and, to strengthen my case that it's really "Jaden"'s fault, let me point out that although "Aiden" and "Aidan" are currently most popular, the rise of "Jaden" has been more precipitous; the average debut position between 1990 and 2006 of any form of "Jaden" (and there are now eight and counting) on the top 1,000 is #816, comfortably higher than forms of "Aidan" (#867), "Braden" (#881), "Hayden" (#897), "Caden" (#901) or -- God help us -- Zayden (#871). I submit that Aiden/Aidan is more popular today only because it's been around longer and had the advantage of starting off as a real, actual name]

And so we come to "Jaden," "Jayden" and 1994, the real beginning of (and, in my mind, the main contributor to) the smaller trend that embodies the larger trend that embodies what is wrong with America. Or, at least a little part of what is arguably wrong with some aspects of America (there's no need to be overly dramatic, I suppose).

At this point, if you're like me, you're asking yourself, "so... what happened in 1994? 'Jaden' was probably inevitable, but what precipitated it's statistically improbably high debut that year? No other '-ayden' names ever debuted anywhere near as high, so something must have happened in 1994, right?"

You want to know what happened in 1994?

I found out, and, I'll tell you. It turns out, after all my years of wondering, that the ultimate responsibility for the explosion of this disturbing trend in baby-naming data lies with, well, Data.

You see, on February 14, 1994, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" aired an episode entitled "Thine Own Self," in which Lieutenant Commander Data, played by Brent Spiner, ends up on a strange planet with no memory of who he is or how he got there. A young girl, with no way of knowing his name, decides to call him "Jayden."

And, there you have it. Great work, WASPs and yuppies: you've bestowed upon your sons a fake name that a little girl gave to a robot on a TV show for nerds. In an episode that originally aired, for good measure, on what is indisputably the single most womanly day of the year.

There. We've isolated the origin of the problem: it's "Star Trek"'s fault (a shame, because although I've never been what you would call a regular viewer, I kind of like "Star Trek," particularly "The Next Generation"). Now: is it really a problem? I mean, so people are giving their sons silly, made-up names at unprecedented rates... does it matter?

I'd say that yes, it matters. The Aidan rhyming trend reflects two larger problems. First, it reflects the persisting idea among academic types (no one else would ever buy into it) that men and women are inherently the same, with differences emerging only as a result of cultural and societal influences and not, say, biological differences in brain function. That plenty of people don't actually believe this, and never have, is almost beside the point; anyone born since Woodstock has grown up in a culture in which is it believed that such a notion is believed. A not-particularly-grueling Google search turns up two different studies about how male monkeys prefer boy toys and female monkeys prefer girl toys; each article seems to take for granted the idea that people believe gender roles are imposed on children, that girls wouldn't want to play with dolls and boys with trucks unless that's what they were given. "It's thought of as a sexual stereotype," says the article on one study; "It's commonly believed that boys and girls learn what types of toys they should like based solely on society's expectations," claims the other.

For the purposes of our discussion, I'm going to assume that if it is believed that this is believed, then, at least to some degree, by some people, it is believed.

What does this have to do with the rhyming trend? Let's go back to our old friend, baby name expert Laura Wattenberg:

Traditionally, male names have been much less subject to the whims of fashion than female names. Parents were always more conservative in naming boys, and less likely to view their name choice as a style statement...

I've said before that androgynous names are a one-way street: parents like boyish names for girls, not girlish names for boys. But even as we choose more and more traditionally masculine names for girls, the way we approach naming our boys is moving toward the traditionally "feminine." Today, parents are extremely fashion-conscious with their sons' names as well as their daughters -- a first glimpse, perhaps, at how this generation will be raised.

The belief in the sameness of the sexes has begun to manifest itself in the naming of children.

Other than demanding to be called "Joe" instead of "Joey" before I started third grade, I haven't really given much thought to my first name over the course of my life. As far as I know, not many of my male friends have, either. My wife, on the other hand, decided for a few of her teen years that her name ought to be spelled "Karyn;" we still have some stuff with that name on it. This was, according to her, somewhat common among her friends. Simply put, this is something that girls do and boys don't.

But parents (mostly moms, probably) raised with the "progressive" notion that the sexes are basically the same must assume, then, that boys are going to want unique names, just like they (the moms) did when they were little girls. This would account for the presence on the 2006 boys' top 1,000 of eight (eight!) different spellings of "Jayden." For my money, though, the best evidence of the blurring of the gender line is the fact that various spellings of "Jayden" -- a name that was essentially made up in the mid-90s, remember -- occupy no less than five spots on the top 1,000 girls' names list for 2006. There have always been a few gender-neutral names (and a few names would gradually and organically shift from one sex to the other), but now we're inventing new ones.

[The only other "-ayden" names on the girls' top 1,000 in 2006 were "Hayden" at #416 and "Kayden" at #624, further evidence -- as if any were needed -- that this whole thing is really "Jayden"'s fault]

Generally speaking, boys and girls -- and men and women -- are different. Yes, progress means breaking down barriers, continually fighting to ensure that, in a country purporting to stand for freedom and liberty, equal opportunities are available to all. But such progress shouldn't rule out our ability to acknowledge the observable, evident truth, should it? We can encourage our children to observe and catalogue what is typical and to celebrate the fact that we live in a place and time in which the atypical is not to be automatically dismissed and is, in fact, often to be celebrated. But promulgating ideas about gender sameness that our kids will inevitably discover to be false is counterproductive (I was going to say it was "destructive" or "dangerous," but I decided it wasn't destructive or dangerous. Just counterproductive). And starting this process before our children are even born, by giving them made-up gender-neutral names, is just plain annoying.

But the Aidan rhyming trend reflects two larger problems, I have claimed, and the blurring of gender lines is just one of them.

The other problem, and I've touched on it a little, is the idea of parents that their children are particularly special and remarkable (every parent thinks her child is special and remarkable, as well she should. I think that many people now have come to believe that their specific children are particularly special and remarkable). The baby boomer generation led early Gen-Xers and their offspring (many of whom are now having kids) to believe that they would grow up to be special and, for the most part, they're not. They're just regular lame people, same as regular lame people have always been since time immemorial. The women in particular were promised a rose garden of work, home and family, all perfectly balanced with plenty of time to attend adequately to each.

So, when you grow up and are met by the world at large with chilling indifference, you're bound to be disappointed. But by God, your kids are going to be special. So special, in fact, that everybody is going to be able to tell how special they are by the awesomely special name you give them.

On the other hand, kids who grow up being told they're incredibly special and then do set the world on fire are naturally going to think their own kids are that much more special, having come from such special stock. So while disappointed people give their kids unique (read: stupid) names out of the false belief that it will make them unique (I've left the "them" to which I'm referring grammatically unclear on purpose), successful people give their kids stupid names because, in their minds, life has borne out their belief that they are incredibly unique and worthy of adulation, and so should their children be.

And then, of course, it's even worse for celebrities, who are as successful as the successful people but as insecure and disappointed as the disappointed people. That's when you get Kal-el, Apple and Moxie Crimefighter. And then regular people who are determined to advertise the specialness of their kids take their cues from celebrities, and the cycle begins anew.

As with gender sameness, it's counterproductive to build kids up to think that they're any more special than anybody else, because that's almost certainly not going to be borne out in their lives. The naming trend itself shows how even people who try desperately to be unique tend to do so in very similar ways. Radio host Adam Carolla used to make a point using polar bears: if you wanted to know about polar bears, he said, there was no need to study every polar bear. You could study, say, 100 polar bears, and, after enough time, you'd really know all you needed to know about the behavior of polar bears. The idea was that human beings are only slightly more complex.

We get carried away with the idea that everybody is completely unique and different and her own person. I certainly prefer to live in a society and culture in which people are free to make choices as if this were true, but, the fact is that in 1999, 497 women not only decided it would be a good idea to name their son "Caden," but decided that saddling him with that name wasn't enough; they were going to inflict upon him their very own, one-of-a-kind spelling of the name, a spelling that didn't even exist for anyone else. Meanwhile, "Cayden," "Kadin" and "Kayden" all debuted in the top 1,000 in 1999, with hundreds of women determined to be one-of-a-kind having done so in exactly the same way as hundreds of others.

Constantly telling kids how special they are amounts, ultimately, to pressure on kids to be special, to be unique, to stand out, to excel. I'm going to make what may be a bit of a leap here and assume that such pressure is relatively new; post-World-War II new, at least. I would imagine that, among the "Greatest Generation" and looking backwards on in history, parents were mostly concerned that their children be healthy and good (as in "virtuous"), whereas ever since the baby boomers started having kids, more and more parents mainly want their children to be healthy and excellent (as in "to excel"). But expecting your children to be especially outstanding is setting them up to fail; by the very definition of the word, the majority of children can't be "outstanding." Saying that everyone is special, as The Incredibles reminded us, is another way of saying that no one is.

Undue pressure on kids to be unique and excellent may help account for increases in depression among adolescents. I'm not saying that if you name your son "Jaidyn" he will automatically end up killing himself, but puberty is confusing and frustrating enough without adding "Jaidyn" (or, more precisely, the skewed perspective that leads to "Jaidyn") to the mix. The Aidan rhyming trend is symptomatic of a larger (new) desire to give kids -- even boys -- unique and increasingly unisex names, which is symptomatic of a larger desire that our children atone for our own failure to turn out to be incredibly special, which could well be symptomatic of a larger problem of increased confusion, frustration and depression in kids and young adults.

To put it succinctly, the use of "Jayden" as a boy's name indicates a denial by parents of inherent differences between the sexes; it also indicates a fixation of parents on producing children who are unique, special and outstanding, likely at the expense of producing children who are good.

To put it even more succinctly: "Jayden" is a silly fake name from "Star Trek," and is unsuitable for your kid.

The Best Show on TV, Part 8

2008-04-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

The Best Show on TV

"The Office" (NBC) -- 2/9/2006 - 4/2/2006
"Huff" (Showtime) -- 4/6/2006 - 8/26/2006
"Big Brother" (CBS) -- 8/26/06 - 10/4/2006
"South Park" (Comedy Central) -- 10/4/2006 - 11/30/2006
"The Office" (NBC) -- 11/30/2006 - 1/14/2007
"24" (FOX) -- 1/14/2007 - 4/5/2007
"30 Rock" (NBC) -- 4/5/2007 - 4/10/2008
"House" (FOX) -- 4/10/2008 - present

Okay. We're setting aside some rules here.

Generally, the title is recognized to have changed hands on the day upon which the title-change-inspiring episode aired, not the day upon which The Best Show on TV blog entry was written by me.

Generally, I have to be a regular viewer of a show to be able to declare it The Best Show on TV.

But there are special circumstances. First of all, I haven't done one of these in over a year, which is mostly "30 Rock"'s fault because it kept being The Best Show on TV, but I miss doing this series. It's a lot of fun.

Second of all, the strike messed everything up.

Third of all, I just realized that I was just a tiiiiiiiiiiny bit more excited to be able to start watching new episodes of "House" than I was about the NBC comedy lineup ("30 Rock" being the sharpest tool in that drawer, though not by much) coming back.

Fourth, and finally, I watched the "House" Christmas episode on hulu.com after having caught a rerun of the post-Super Bowl episode on USA or somewhere. Those two episodes -- along with a string of reruns from past seasons that confirmed that the greatness of those two episodes was no fluke -- did it. "House" is The Best Show on TV, even if I just got into it and have never actually watched a new episode on the actual night it aired.

I didn't watch "House" for a few years even as I heard from relatively reliable source upon relatively reliable source just how good it was. And not just good; absolute-top-tier-of-anything-on-TV good. I resisted because I knew the show was about a cantankerous, physically challenged doctor who solved medical mysteries with his staff ("staff" in this case meaning either "employees" or "cane;" take your pick), "CSI"-style, and, although I had no reason to doubt those who said the show was great, how great could it be? I figured the excellence ceiling for a procedural was right about at the D'Onofrio episodes of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" or the original "CSI," both of which I enjoy, but not as much as a "Shield" or "Office" or maybe even a particularly good run of "Survivor."

But it turns out my calculations were incorrect. The excellence ceiling for a procedural is The Best Show on TV, and "House" has reached it.

"House" does a masterful job of making sure each episode works as a self-contained piece -- a must for procedurals -- while weaving in character development that generally ties into the medical mystery du semaine. Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House is a brilliant, stubborn malcontent who can't possibly accept that things aren't always the way he thinks they should be, and that people don't always think the way he thinks they should. He's also a classic narcissist-with-low-self-esteem, who sees himself -- though he wouldn't admit it -- as the proverbial piece of shit around which the entire world revolves. He has clearly channeled his frustrations in this regard not only toward the destructive practice of alienating everyone in his life, but also toward the constructive practice of attempting to bend illness itself (i.e., nature itself; i.e., existence itself) to his own will.

Long story short: he's not just your stock "closed-off grump who refuses to let anybody in" character. It runs deeper than that. Fathoms deeper.

But you don't -- as LeVar Burton used to say -- have to take my word for it. Check out "It's a Wonderful Lie" and "Frozen" for yourself. The latter episode features some guy drinking Oscar winner Mira Sorvino's pee, if you're into that sort of thing (which, based on a website I started in 1997 and can't talk about anymore due to ongoing legal action, I can assume that at least 86,000 of you are).

[it should be noted that "30 Rock" (as well as "The Office" and, for that matter, "Scrubs") return from writers strike-imposed hiatus tonight, so the title reign for "House" could be a brief one, in the manner of Kane or the late Yokozuna. We'll see. All hell's probably going to break loose when "The Shield" comes back this fall, in any case]

Hey, Kansas Finally Won!

2008-04-10T10:32:00.000-07:00

Hard to call any bracket a complete train-wreck when you get two of the Final Four and you pick the champion, but it wasn't enough to win the office pool.

Still, the entire purpose of the tournament is to determine the champion, and, I alone out of anyone who finished anywhere near the top of the office pool correctly predicted that champion, so, really, the only classy thing to do would be to give me the money. You hear that, Tomika?

My 2008 Bracket

2008-03-19T11:00:00.000-07:00

No photo of the bracket this year; rest assured that this year's bracket looks remarkably like last year's.

EAST

North Carolina (1) over Arkansas (9)

Notre Dame (5) over Washington State (4)

Oklahoma (6) over Louisville (3)

Tennessee (2) over Butler (7)

Regional Final: Tennessee over North Carolina

MIDWEST

Kansas (1) over Kent State (9)

Clemson (5) over Vanderbilt (4)

USC (6) over Wisconsin (3)

Georgetown (2) over Davidson (10)

Regional Final: Kansas over USC

SOUTH

Memphis (1) over Oregon (9)

Michigan State (5) over Pittsburgh (4)

Stanford (3) over Kentucky (11)

Texas (2) over Saint Mary's (10)

Regional Final: Michigan State over Texas

WEST

UCLA (1) over BYU (8)

UConn (4) over Western Kentucky (12)

Xavier (3) over Purdue (6)

Duke (2) over West Virginia (7)

Regional Final: UCLA over Duke

FINAL FOUR

Kansas over Tennessee

UCLA over Michigan State

CHAMPION

Kansas

For some reason, I almost always end up picking Kansas. And they never win. Oh, well.

Best Thing Since Joey-Joe-Joe-Junior

2008-03-06T12:33:00.000-08:00

Here you can find Adam Carolla and Norm Macdonald (with an assist from Teresa Strasser and Bryan Bishop) "breaking down the game film" on the Kenny Rogers songs "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town" and "Coward of the County."

[it should be noted that those with delicate sensibilities are urged -- begged -- not to listen to these two segments]

Attention, anyone who is ever planning on producing humor for the purposes of entertainment at some point: you can stop. We've got all we need. I'm not sure this is top-able.

McCain's VP?

2008-03-06T11:01:00.000-08:00

We may be in for a long, ugly battle for the Democratic nomination for president, but John McCain is now the Republican nominee. So, we can focus on the fun (for now) part: who will be his running mate?

Google "McCain" and "running mate," and you'll see that I'm not the only person who enjoys thinking about this kind of stuff.

I think it's madness even to think about potential McCain running mates before we even know who his opponent will be, since the identity of that opponent will (or certainly should, in my mind) factor heavily into the decision. Like (and this is just one man's opinion), if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I think McCain is free to pick a white man; if Barack Obama gets it, I think he'd do well not to. So it's far too early to think about this stuff in earnest, but:

Let's break down the candidates, shall we? I'll give the pros, and the cons (as pertains to McCain. I mean, if I put "reliably conservative" as a "pro," don't flip out if you're reading this and you're a liberal. I only mean to say that "reliably conservative" is a "pro" if you're going to be running with John McCain, who has the reputation of being a maverick independent).

[by the way, I have a knack for predicting this kind of stuff. I'm the guy who, the day after the 2004 presidential election, referred to the "Clinton/Obama '08" Democratic presidential ticket]

[Of course, I'm also the guy who couldn't imagine a scenario by which Rudy Giuliani wouldn't be the Republican nominee. So we'll see what happens]

[note: I added this red part after I initially published this post; I realized I forgot about Florida governor Charlie Crist. Oh, well. Just pretend he's included here]

Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota

Pros: Reliably conservative, but probably not to the degree that people in Manhattan and Berkeley will work themselves into a lather over it. Much younger (47) than McCain, but not too young (some names on the list are in their 30s; that might be too young. As a governor he has executive experience, which Senator McCain does not.

Cons: From Minnesota, not the South. Is a white man.

Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina

Pros: Much younger than McCain (47). Is from the South. As a governor he has executive experience, which Senator McCain does not.

Cons: Describes himself (undoubtedly tongue-in-cheek, but still) as a "right wing nut." Is a white man.

Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi

Pros: Is generally regarded to have reacted well to Hurricane Katrina, showing that he's at least capable, should he become president, of reacting well to something like Hurricane Katrina (which, to plenty of Americans, is something we could use in a president). Is young enough (60) where his age isn't an issue, but is old enough (60) where his youth certainly isn't an issue, either. Is from the South. As a governor he has executive experience, which Senator McCain does not.

Cons: Has a lobbying past, which doesn't particularly jibe with McCain's maverick image of bucking the special interests. Is a white man. Also, you just somehow know he's crooked, don't you? I mean, just look at him.

Joe Lieberman, senator from Connecticut

Pros: Everyone loves him.

Cons: Isn't a Republican. Not sure you can get around that.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, senator from Texas

Pros: Isn't a white man.

Cons: Isn't much younger (64) than McCain. Is from Texas, which goes Republican anyway. Is a Senate colleague of McCain, and therefore brings no executive experience to the ticket.

Michael Steele, former lieutenant governor of Maryland

Pros: Is much younger than McCain (49), but not too young. Is black, but -- and I'm trying to be sensitive here -- couldn't look less threatening to a white person wary of voting for a black man.

Cons: Is, frankly, only showing up on potential VP lists because he's black. Not a lot of other former lieutenant governors of mid-sized states showing up on VP lists.

Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State

Pros: Is relatively young (53), is black, is female.

Cons: Probably has next to no interest in being Vice President. Role in the Bush administration could be toxic when trying to court independents, at least to the extent to which anybody votes based on a VP candidate.

Colin Powell, former Secretary of State

Pros: Is almost universally respected (the only exceptions being people who would never vote for a Republican in a million years anyway). Isn't a white man. Has military and diplomatic experience.

Cons: Probably has next to no interest in being Vice President. Is only two years younger (70) than McCain.

Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana

Pros: Isn't a white man (his parents were from India). Is from the South. Is very conservative. Is much younger (36) than McCain.

Cons: Is very conservative. Is very young.

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska

Pros: Isn't a white man. Is reliably conservative, but moderate on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage (opposes it, but her administration oversaw the granting of state benefits to same-sex couples). As a governor she has executive experience, which Senator McCain does not. Isn't some greenhorn in her 30s (she's 44), but is young and vital enough that she's having a baby in May. Is, let's face it, hot.

Cons: Cons? Didn't you just read the last paragraph? Young hot female conservative governor!

In conclusion: McCain/Palin '08!

Oscar Picks, Year Four!

2008-02-22T03:46:00.000-08:00

Hey, kids! It's that time of year again. Time for the glorious Onebee.com Oscar pool, the 4th Annual Athletic Reporter Oscar Picks column, and, to a lesser extent, the 80th Annual Academy Awards.

"But Joe," you ask. "Why should we listen to you? What do you know about the Oscars? Hasn't the accuracy of your picks in recent years been less than spectacular?"

Those are all fair questions...

Anyway, conventional wisdom holds that many of this year's races are closer than usual, so it promises to be an exciting Oscar ceremony.

Like I always do, I'll cut and paste what I wrote in 2005 to explain how this works:

Please note: these are my [Athletic Reporter Oscar Preview] predictions, not to be confused with my all-important picks in Athletic Reporter co-creator and Photoshop guru Jameson Simmons' Onebee.com Oscar pool (aka "The Only Reason At All I Still Pay Any Attention to the Oscars"). I reserve the right to refine my choices for Jameson's until late Sunday afternoon.

Let's get to it!

BEST PICTURE

Winner:

No Country For Old Men

Other Nominees:

Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
There Will Be Blood

A recurring theme of this particular Oscar Picks column may well turn out to be the notion that the Coen brothers could, in spirit if technically not in practice, tie Walt Disney's record by winning four Oscars in one night. I think they will. These will be the Coen brothers Oscars.

Count me among those who thought that the bizarre final 20 minutes or so just about ruined No Country For Old Men. There I sat, enjoying an excellent crime drama, and then all this weird crap happens for no reason. At least that's what it felt like. Oh well. Even if it's not for a movie of which I particularly approve, it will be nice to see the Coen brothers finally get their due (or get their due again; they each won Oscars for writing Fargo, so you can't really say that the Academy has ignored them completely).

There Will Be Blood was pretty much a character study, a showcase for Daniel Day-Lewis's Daniel Plainview. I'm firmly ensconced on the Day-Lewis bandwagon this year, but I can see why people might think that, pound-for-pound, Blood is slightly less deserving of Best Picture than No Country.

My personal favorite (of the three I saw) was Juno, which scored the one Best Picture nomination reserved for movies that aren't actually "Best Picture-y." Still, I've heard a good deal about how "relevant" No Country For Old Men (set in 1980) and There Will Be Blood (spanning the first fourth of the 20th century, give or take a couple of years) were to today's times, but... Juno actually takes place in today's times. So, there's your relevant.

Another reason I responded to Juno more than No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood, I think, is that characters in the latter two movies can probably be said to exist to some extent as metaphors (Daniel Plainview is capitalism, Eli Sunday is unchecked religious zealotry, Anton Chigurh is the inevitable, powerful force of evil in the ream of human existence), whereas, in Juno, the yuppie couple wanting to adopt a baby is pretty much a young couple wanting to adopt a baby, the spazzy teen boyfriend is pretty much a spazzy teen boyfriend...

As I get older I tend to be a little less interested in movies about the Big Ideas and more interested in movies about regular people dealing with their lives. Probably because I used to have Big Ideas, and now I'm a regular person dealing with his life. Makes sense, I suppose.

(well, and I like movies with boobs and gunfights. That's been pretty constant since I was about 12)

Michael Clayton I didn't see. I heard it was good and I'm sure it was, but, I got the feeling that if you sent away for "Oscar Movie Set in Present Day," then 6-to-8 weeks later you'd open up your mailbox and there you'd see Michael Clayton.

Atonement I didn't see. I heard it was good and I'm sure it was, but, I got the feeling that if you sent away for "Oscar Movie Set in the Past," then 6-to-8 weeks later you'd open up your mailbox and there you'd see Atonement.

BEST DIRECTOR

Winner:

Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, No Country For Old Men

Other Nominees:

Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman, Juno
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Apparently Julian Schnabel is somewhat of a trendy upset pick, for those who want to pick an upset in this category. I don't. Nominations in a few of the big boy categories (Cinematography, Editing, Screenplay) might indicate some passionate support for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, but, I'm just going to bank on this being the Coens' year. They've been making great movies for over 20 years and they did an exemplary job with No Country For Old Men (my feelings about the film's conclusion notwithstanding), and I think those two factors will overwhelm whatever support Schnabel has out there.

As far as Jason Reitman goes, he's about the same age and my wife and I, and my wife was lamenting the other day the fact that he's a Best Director nominee and the two of us are, unequivocally, not. True, I told her, but, Buddy Holly was 22 when he died, so, in my mind, the day I turned 23 that whole "by the time this person was my age, he was doing x or y" ship had sailed in a big way. I mean, who's better than Buddy Holly? At anything?

So good on you, Jason Reitman.

Paul Thomas Anderson will probably be back in this category before too long. He's young and he'll almost certainly win Best Director one day, so nobody really has to feel like they're slighting him this year (it's sort of the same reason why they keep not giving Johnny Depp an Oscar).

And I'm sure Tony Gilroy's a fine man, but, it's tough to find anyone who thinks he's got a shot this year.

BEST ACTOR

Winner:

Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood

Other Nominees:

George Clooney, Michael Clayton
Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises

This would seem like a sure thing if it weren't for a small Daniel Day-Lewis backlash that seems to be building in some -- oh, who are we kidding? It's a sure thing.

Count me among those who loved Day-Lewis's performance unconditionally. Even the final scene, the "I Drink Your Milkshake" scene, rang true to me. And as far as There Will Be Blood is concerned, without Day-Lewis playing Daniel Plainview -- and, what's more, without Day-Lewis playing Daniel Plainview like he did -- I'm not sure you've got much of a movie.

The Cloon, I can't argue with. No one can. He's just a big honkin' movie star. You only get one or two George Clooneys (Cloonies?) every generation, and I enjoy ours (due in no small part to the lucky break that our generation's George Clooney actually happens to be George Clooney). But it's Daniel Day-Lewis's year, not his.

I've made no secret of my distaste for Sweeney Todd, but none of that was Johnny Depp's fault. He was just fine and he'll win an Oscar someday, but, as I parenthetically alluded to earlier, it won't be this year.

Viggo Mortensen's always good, and he fought some guys naked, which is pretty badass. But he won't win.

And, when I glanced at Entertainment Weekly's Best Actor prediction page and saw Tommy Lee Jones's picture, I thought, "Wait, he was nominated for No Country For Old Men? For Best Actor? He wasn't even in it that much... what page am I on? This is -- oh. Right." And I follow this stuff more closely than the average bear, so, my reaction probably doesn't say a lot for how memorable In the Valley of Elah was.

BEST ACTRESS

Winner:

Julie Christie, Away From Her

Other Nominees:

Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney, The Savages
Ellen Page, Juno

Julie Christie's British and she played a person with a mental illness (Alzheimer's). It's hard to see the Academy not voting for that.

Unless they vote for Marion Cotillard; those who've seen La Vie en Rose rave about her performance, but have enough people seen it? And, of the people who have, will enough of them decide not to vote for Julie Christie?

It's a weird year for Best Actress, since the only nominee in a movie that anyone really saw is Juno's Ellen Page, and people her age don't win Best Actress, really. Although it should be noted that I heard someone praise Daniel Day-Lewis's performance for, among other things, his perfect American accent, and, well, Ellen Page is from Nova Scotia, so let's not pretend she wasn't doing an American accent as well.

Laura Linney and Cate Blanchett, we shouldn't have to worry about.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Winner:

Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men

Other Nominees:

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton

Any other year you might think about Hal Holbrook pulling an upset for Into the Wild as a sort of lifetime achievement thing, but if they didn't give Peter O'Toole an Oscar last year they can skip Hal Holbrook on Sunday. People seem to have been fascinated by Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh. I'll admit that I don't quite get it, even though I have no trouble acknowledging that Bardem gave a worthy performance. It would probably be the biggest surprise of the evening if anybody else won Best Supporting Actor.

Too bad, though, because I kind of wish Philip Seymour Hoffman had a chance. I didn't see Charlie Wilson's War, but, based on the one three-second snippet of Hoffman's performance that I did see, extrapolated out to fill a two-hour movie, I'm sure he was excellent.

This is the one category this year where I feel there have been a number of egregious snubs, most notably Paul Dano in There Will Be Blood, but also Ben Foster in 3:10 to Yuma and John Travolta in Hairspray. Chins up, boys; there's always next year.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Winner:

Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There

Other Nominees:

Ruby Dee, American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan, Atonement
Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

Wide open, it seems. Entertainment Weekly picks Tilda Swinton but gives her only a 28% chance, with Amy Ryan at 25, Cate Blanchett at 22 and Ruby Dee at 20. Over at AwardsDaily.com, their predictions roundup had Cate Blanchett ahead, plenty of others picking either Tilda Swinton or Ruby Dee, and Amy Ryan conspicuous in her almost total absence. Swinton's own Michael Clayton co-star, the Cloon himself, predicted Amy Ryan.

So, who knows? I say, go for the safest bet. Which, in this instance, is the out-there, gender-bending performance in a weird movie people didn't see. You've got an English speaking foreigner playing a man; sort of like with Julie Christie in the Best Actress category, what is there to Cate Blanchett's performance that Oscar voters wouldn't swallow hook, line and sinker?

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Winner:

Diablo Cody, Juno

Other Nominees:

Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Tamara Jenkins, The Savages
Nancy Oliver, Lars and the Real Girl
Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco and Brad Bird, Ratatouille

I suppose there's a slight chance that this could be the award that breaks Michael Clayton's way, but, Juno's the one to beat. They've marketed "Diablo Cody" (not her real name, if you can believe it) very well, sending her on press tours and Letterman and stuff, and I'd be even more sick of all that if she hadn't written such a good script. The director and cast of Juno deserve a ton of credit, too (it's not entirely fair that Cody is probably the only person associated with Juno who's going to come away with an Oscar for her efforts), but the script was right on. Maybe it had one or two extra-cutesy moments of self-consciously hip teenage dialogue... but maybe it didn't. I'm too young to have a teenager and too old to hang out with them (or so those bastards down at the county courthouse have declared), so maybe the ones who are determined to be hipper-than-thou actually make a point to try to talk like that. And even if, by and large, they don't, it's not out of the realm of possibility that one of them would.

There's one moment in particular in Juno that, for me, serves as a microcosm of why the movie was so successful (and we get into some plot stuff you'd probably rather not know if you've got a burning desire to see Juno but you haven't gotten around to it yet, so, tread lightly):

A pregnant Juno comes to visit Mark, the husband of the couple to which she has promised her baby once it is born. They've discovered previously that they share a love for being snobby about obscure bands. Juno is drawn to Mark because he amounts to the grown-up version of her spazzy-but-cool boyfriend, Bleeker. Mark is Bleeker plus a decade-and-a-half of money made, self-confidence found and comfort-in-own-skin achieved. Mark is drawn to Juno because she's a cute young thing who thinks it's cool that he plays the guitar and likes to be snobby about obscure bands. This in contrast to Mark's wife Vanessa; she has banished all of Mark's music stuff to one small room of the house, which, subconsciously, Mark chooses to focus on instead of the fact that Vanessa keeps a gorgeous house for him to live in.

Mark and Juno are alone together. Some music is played. Juno puts her hands on Mark's shoulders. She asks him, "did you dance like this at your prom?"

They sway together. Mark looks at her.

"Actually..." he says.

The entire movie -- the lives of the main characters -- turn here, between "actually" and what Mark says next. Will he say, "actually... this might make me seem lame and old, but, it's probably not appropriate for us to be slow dancing like this"?

No; he says, "actually... it was more like this," and he re-positions Juno's arms more intimately around his waist.

And, in the audience, you think, "Oh, Mark..."

This little scene, like most of Juno, was written, directed and acted with such depth of feeling and emotional truth that I'm excited to think someone involved could end up with an Academy Award, even if it's someone who decided that it would be a good idea for her name to be "Diablo Cody."

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Winner:

Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, No Country For Old Men

Other Nominees:

Christopher Hampton, Atonement
Sarah Polley, Away From Her
Ronald Harwood, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood

First of all: yes, the blonde chick from Dawn of the Dead is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.

That's pretty fantastic, but, as we've discussed, it's going to be the Coen brothers' night.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Winner:

The Counterfeiters, Austria

Other Nominees:

Beaufort, Israel
Katyn, Poland
Mongol, Kazakhstan
12, Russia

The Counterfeiters is about the Holocaust (catnip to Oscar voters), and, on top of that, the trailer made it look really good.

I have nothing more to add about this category, except to say that with Borat last year and now with Mongol, Kazakhstan has essentially been represented at two consecutive Oscar ceremonies. I haven't taken the trouble to look it up, but, you can be pretty sure that hasn't happened before.

--------------------------------

Okay. It's getting late and this is getting long; let's plow through the pee-break categories, shall we? Here's what I always write about how that goes:

For the major categories, I'll give you my analysis; for the others, I'll just tell you who Entertainment Weekly says is going to win (that's what everybody does anyway. Like you've got any clue about Best Documentary Short).

The only danger here is if EW has an off year. Like, say, last year, when mostly listening to their picks ended me up with an 11-13 Oscar picking record. Honestly, if you'd have made me bet on whether I ever, in my life, would pick more Oscar categories incorrectly than correctly in a given year, I would have bet on "no" and felt really good about it.

[actually, that's not true. I would have bet on "yes," and then, the next year, I would have intentionally made picks that had almost no chance of winning, thus outsmarting you and winning our little wager. But, if you said I'd have to place my bet and then afterwards you'd erase all memory of the bet from my mind so I couldn't pull the little trick I described, I would have bet that there was absolutely no way I'd ever come away from an Oscar year with a losing record. I once, in college, got them all right except for two! For Pete's sake!]

Anyway. I'll just tell you what Entertainment Weekly said, unless I disagree, in which case I'll let you know that you're getting my pick instead of theirs. Usually, though, when I against them in a pee-break category, we're either both wrong or they're right. I don't think, in three years of doing this, I've ever disagreed with EW and been right. But someday I'm sure that'll happen. Has to, right?

Here we go...

BEST ART DIRECTION: Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I read somewhere else that Sweeney Todd wouldn't win because Dante Ferretti wins "all the time," but I looked it up, and, he's like 1-for-7. Not a convincing reason to pick against EW, to say the least.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: They (i.e., Entertainment Weekly) say There Will Be Blood's Robert Elswit, mainly because they assume that since Roger Deakins is nominated twice in this category he'll split the vote with himself. But, in the year of No Country For Old Men, will anybody actually vote for Deakins for The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford?

Still, Robert Elswit is supposed to be the front-runner, and this award generally goes to the movie with the most sweeping shots of the outdoors, which There Will Be Blood has in spades.

[although, when you think about it, wouldn't sweeping shots of the outdoors almost be the easiest thing for a cinematographer? I mean, doing something indoors, or with special effects, I can see how tough that would be, making sure everything in an unnatural arena looks natural; but, aren't most of the outdoors pretty much just sitting there already? Isn't that kind of what the outdoors are famous for?)

BEST EDITING: Roderick Jaynes, No Country For Old Men. Here's why No Country is going to beat The Bourne Ultimatum, which plenty of people are picking in this category: first of all, it's Best Editing, not Most Editing. Second, Roderick Jaynes is, as you may well know, not a real person. Roderick Jaynes is -- for some reason -- the pseudonym under which Joel and Ethan Coen edit their own movies. It would be a "thing" to have Roderick Jaynes announced as the winner and have the Coens accept for "him," and since when has Best Editing ever been a "thing?" Academy voters aren't going to pass up a "thing."

In any case, this is why I say the Coen brothers could tie Walt Disney's Four Oscars in One Year record in spirit if not in practice; if they win all the awards they're up for, then they will have essentially won four Oscars each on Sunday. You and I and everybody else watching will know that. Technically, however, by the letter of Oscar law, Joel and Ethan Coen will have won three Oscars each, and Roderick Jaynes will have won one. Also, if "Roderick Jaynes" wins Best Editing, there will only be one Oscar statuette given away in that category (the Coens will each get one if they win any of the categories in which they're both nominated).

So, while they may find it cute to edit their films under a pseudonym, it could cost the Coen brothers a tie for the official record for Most Oscars Won in a Single Year. Though certainly, a share of the unofficial record would be theirs.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Dario Marianelli, Atonement. Seems like everyone thinks it's between that and Ratatouille. I'll take Atonement, because the magazine says so.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG: "Falling Slowly" from Once, music and lyrics by Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova. Finally, you can just go on YouTube and watch all of these songs and decide for yourself. "Raise It Up" from August Rush isn't really very good, and the three from Enchanted probably will spit. Having seen all three, I would go straight to hell before I voted for anything other than "Happy Working Song," but others think "That's How You Know" is more likely to win. That's why they'll split the vote; they're all good enough to have a reasonable amount of support.

So, it'll probably be Once. That was nice little movie, and it would be cool to see Hansard and Irglova, who pretty much wrote the songs in the movie (and the songs pretty much were the movie), rewarded with Oscars.

Although my favorite song from a 2007 movie was this one, by far. Even though it's obviously a parody of what old white people think rap music is, it's actually a much better song than 3-6 Mafia's Oscar-winning "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp." I beg you not to click on that link if you possess any sense of decency, but, I also defy you to tell me that that video is not hilariously awesome (I'll also accept awesomely hilarious).

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Russell Earl and John Frazier, Transformers. I can't argue with this pick; when I went and bought our new HDTV I was waiting at Circuit City from them to go and get it for me, and they were showing Transformers on an even better HDTV than I bought, with the Blu-Ray DVD and surround sound... I felt like one of those people on the audience of the first-ever motion picture, who ducked when the footage of the locomotive approached. It was something else.

BEST SOUND EDITING: Ethan Van der Ryan and Mike Hopkins, Transformers.

BEST SOUND MIXING: Kevin O'Connell, Greg P. Russell and Peter Devlin, Transformers. The biggest, explodiest movie usually wins the sound stuff anyway, and this nomination is Kevin O'Connell's 20th, with zero wins so far. He got some attention for his 19th nod last year and I'm sure would have been a sentimental favorite if the movie he worked on, Apocalypto, hadn't been directed by Hatespeech von Hitler. Transformers director Michael Bay, as far as I know, has no beef with the Jews, so this should finally be Kevin O'Connell's year.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN: Colleen Atwood, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Entertainment Weekly's guess is much, much better than mine.

BEST MAKEUP: Didier Lavergne and Jan Archibald, La Vie en Rose. La Vie en Rose seems to be considered something of a shoo-in here.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Ratatouille. I'd look out for an upset by Persepolis if Ratatouille hadn't been so, so universally adored.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT: Madame Tutli-Putli. I actually did a little bit of research on this category, and that research led me to believe strongly that Madame Tutli-Putli -- and not EW's pick, I Met the Walrus -- will win.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: No End In Sight. Seems to be the favorite no matter whom you ask, although with Michael Moore (Sicko) around, I won't breathe easy until the envelope is actually opened.

Well, and then until the winner is read. The actual opening of the envelope in and of itself doesn't really reveal any -- you know what? Never mind.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Freeheld. I'm sort of depending on you completely for this one, Entertainment Weekly.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT: Tanghi Argentini. I've seen this one predicted as the winner a couple different places, so, knowing nothing of any of the nominees, I'd be silly not to pick it.

That's all, folks. Enjoy the Oscars, now that you've been given permission by the WGA to do so.

I Think I Might Have to Start Writing About Politics Soon

2008-02-15T15:21:00.000-08:00

I fear that the end times may be nigh; Joel Stein of the L.A. Times has written a cogent, perceptive, on-target piece about the fervor with which Barack Obama is being supported. Yes, Joel Stein. Cogent, perceptive and on-target.

End times, I'm telling you.

Equally as insightful -- but far less surprising -- is Charles Krauthammer's column on the same subject.

Many have made the comparison of Barack Obama to Chauncey Gardner from Being There; an empty vessel into which people pour their own hopes and dreams. I see him more as Kevin Fogerty, the Boston city councilman unseated by Woody Boyd on "Cheers." If you haven't seen it, Frasier becomes annoyed because Councilman Fogerty does nothing but spout platitudes, and the rest of the "Cheers" gang (who, as has been noted, were not a real gang) eats them up:

Fogerty: Kevin Fogerty, city council. I hope I have your vote on election day.

Frasier: And why exactly should I vote for you, Mr. Fogerty?

Fogerty: Well, because I'm a hard worker, and I take a stand.

Frasier: On what, exactly?

Fogerty: The issues of the day.

Frasier: What are?

Fogerty: The things that concern you and your family... the most.

Then...

Fogerty: Maybe we need someone to blame. Maybe if we pick some faceless person at city hall to be responsible for all our problems then we won't have to accept any responsibility at all. Well, people, I say now is the time to start looking in the mirror. Because... if this thing is going to work, we are all going to have to make it work. The way a bunch of people made something work at Lexington and Concord. You may remember it. It's called... America!

(everyone applauds, and then Fogerty leaves)

Frasier: But he didn't say anything! Thank you, people, for proving my point. The voters of Boston are sheep.

Woody: Wow, I thought that was just a Hanover thing.

So far I find Barack Obama to be honest, decent, sincere, and devoid of ideas. Maybe he'll impress me yet, but, if I were a Democrat, I might worry that, at some point between now and election day, the passion of Obama supporters -- which at this point is tantamount to religious fervor -- will subside in a big way. That can happen, and it can happen fast. Ask Howard Dean.

(of course, as a Republican, I worry that it won't subside quite soon enough)

2007 Movies

2008-02-14T12:26:00.000-08:00

So, even with the kid, and the having less money to throw around because of the kid, and the having less time to see movies because of the kid, I've managed to see 27 movies that are eligible for the 2007 Academy Awards (as taken from this list). Here now, from the 27th to the best:

27. The First 45 Minutes of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

I can only evaluate the first 45 minutes of Sweeney Todd, because I only saw the first 45 minutes of Sweeney Todd. From the second I first realized I hated the movie, I gave it about 35 more minutes to change my mind. It didn't. I have never before walked out of the theater during a movie and stayed out for good, but, Tim Burton finally did it.

And it's not because it's a musical; I love musicals. I see all the musicals. I'm thrilled that, after several years, the movie musical is back. It's just that Sweeney Todd (or, the first 45 minutes of Sweeney Todd) happened to have been the worst 45 minutes of any movie I've ever seen. And I'm not the kind of person who says something like that lightly; I've made a similar claim only once before in my life.

I like musicals, but I wouldn't say I "know" musicals. Therefore, I can't speak with any authority about Stephen Sondheim, but I can say that I found the music in the first 45 minutes of Sweeney Todd to be nothing but atonal, droning noise, and that everything from the staging to the subject matter turned me off completely. I can't imagine ever seeing a movie I enjoy less. The bar has been set low, friends.

As I was walking out of the theater ("fleeing" is probably a better description), I realized something (and my wife -- who liked Sweeney Todd -- brought up the same thing the day after we saw the movie): I hate Tim Burton. Not personally; I just hate his movies. Or his more recent movies, anyway. I IMDb'ed him, in fact, just to check the "I Hate Tim Burton" theory out, and, yep... everything movie he's directed since Ed Wood I either haven't seen or really, really hated.

Mars Attacks!... hated it.

Sleepy Hollow... thought it was lame and boring.

Planet of the Apes... Tim Burton may as well have just slapped Charlton Heston around in front of Heston's kids. This movie was unforgivable. And I'm not even a big Planet of the Apes person.

Big Fish... everyone else loved it, and I thought it was a ridiculous, completely pointless waste of time.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory... I almost walked out, but I was there with someone else and we were on the campus of USC (it was some special screening featuring a Q/A with the screenwriter afterwards) so it wasn't like I could just go to a bar, like after I walked out of Sweeney Todd.

Corpse Bride... didn't see it; have no plans ever to see it.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street... worst movie I've ever seen.

So, I can't hardly blame the first 45 minutes of Sweeney Todd, I guess. And Tim Burton might be a good guy, but, he makes some shitty movies. And people have the nerve to give Michael Bay crap.

26. August Rush

My wife picked this one. She thought the trailer looked good. I thought the trailer featured Robin Williams sporting goofy facial hair and a cowboy hat (which is basically the movie trailer version of the biohazard symbol). The thing was, the opening scene -- which married a rock band performance with an orchestra playing classical music -- was really, really good. I thought, "okay, we'll push through that Robin Williams stuff on through to the other side."

But, nope. Almost any other year, this movie would be on the bottom of the list. Thank your lucky stars for Tim Burton, August Rush.

25. Spider-Man 3

I didn't actually hate this movie all that much, but, it's still the third worst 2007 movie I saw. I don't see as many movies as I used to, and, as such, I don't see a movie unless I decide I'm likely to enjoy it (or, as in the case of August Rush, if my wife -- who doesn't pick out that many specific movies that she wants me to go see with her -- picks out a specific movie that she wants me to go see with her).

Well, the faults of Spider-Man 3 have, I'm sure, been discussed elsewhere on the internet, so there's no need to go into that here. This was, though, it should be noted, one of several movies I saw with my daughter, who only learned to walk at the end of May and had a very reliable naptime throughout the spring and early summer. Combine that with the fact that my wife works Sundays and the proximity to our apartment of a theater that charges $5.00 for a Sunday matinee, and I saw more movies in 2007 than I'm likely to see in any of the next 20 years.

24. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

I thought this one had a couple of big laughs (and I thought that this was particularly awesome), but I suspected going in that a spoof of musical biopics couldn't really sustain itself for 90 minutes and I turned out to be right. Plus, a review I glanced at said that "you won't expect the penis," so I totally expected the penis. I still laughed at it, though.

The music was really good, particularly the title song, and I think Oscar should be ashamed of itself that nothing from Walk Hard got nominated for Best Song.

And I would most definitely see an entire movie about the Beatles if Paul Rudd played John, Jack Black played Paul, Justin Long played George and Jason Schwartzman played Ringo.

23. Evan Almighty

I thought my daughter might enjoy all the animals. She didn't really seem to. Evan Almighty wasn't quite as bad as they said, but, it wasn't that great.

22. Music and Lyrics

This movie was exactly as good as it possibly could have been; i.e., it was the 22nd best of the 27 movies I saw this year.

21. Reno 911!: Miami

A little disappointing; it turns out that "Reno 911!" is best in 22-minute doses. But any movie where Paul Rudd, Patton Oswalt and The Rock all show up can't possibly be completely irredeemable.

20. Live Free or Die Hard

Meh.

19. 3:10 to Yuma

I'm not entirely sure I thought any movie this year failed to live up to its potential as much as 3:10 to Yuma. It had a lot of good parts, but, there were some plot moments that were so, so silly (what did they think was going to happen to that guy in the stagecoach, for Christ's sake?) the movie gets bumped down to #19. I think Christian Bale was miscast as Russell Crowe's adversary (Bale's a fantastic actor, but I think it's asking a lot for a man of his age, handsomeness and birthplace to play "world-weary American"). There are certainly worse movies, though, and this one is worth seeing for the performance of Ben Foster (whom I've known was a great, great talent for a while now) alone. Not sure why he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

18. The Simpsons Movie

"The Simpsons" isn't quite what it was (just one man's opinion), but they pulled off the movie admirably well, and it holds up impressively on repeat viewings (my brother and sister-in-law had Netflixed it over Christmas, and when we were staying with them my daughter insisted on watching it several times. I didn't get sick of it, which is a pretty high compliment for any movie, really).

17. Disburbia

Pretty standard stuff, done relatively well. Not much else need be said about Disturbia.

16. No Country For Old Men

Oh, dear. I'm going to get in trouble with all my film school friends. I generally love the Coen Brothers' stuff, but, every once in a while they'll put out something that I just don't get (like The Man Who Wasn't There). I was hanging in there with No Country for most of the movie, then the weird ending happened and, I'm afraid to say, pretty much ruined it. Plus, I didn't find Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh to be as fascinating as everybody else seems to have. I didn't really find him to be fascinating at all, to be honest.

The movie is masterfully made, from a technical standpoint, and the performances are all spot-on. Those are parts of a good movie; it's like, a guy could be able to run fast and shoot with incredible accuracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll make a successful NBA player.

Besides, even star Josh Brolin himself acknowledged the films shortcomings, saying in an acceptance speech at the SAG awards that "we did a freaky little movie, whether you liked the ending or not." So even he pretty much knows.

I realize everyone else loved this movie, or at least has decided not to talk about how weird and dumb the ending is. Sorry. I don't quite get it.

15. I Am Legend

It must be noted that I'm a complete wuss when it comes to scary movies, but, I Am Legend scared the crap out of me. It was well done, but, it was pretty standard post-apocalyptic, deserted-city fare (and it's funny that that's enough of a genre now that said genre can contain "standard fare").

One really cool thing, though, was when Will Smith is walking through a deserted Times Square, which in the world of the movie was essentially frozen in time at some point a few years from now, you see a giant movie poster that's just the Batman logo surrounding the Superman logo, and then, like, a date (probably July 4th, but I don't remember for sure). That was awesome.

14. Knocked Up

A little disappointing, maybe, but, after The 40-Year-Old Virgin and after how much I loved Knocked Up's trailer, it probably couldn't help but be a little disappointing.

13. Superbad

Pretty amusing; about one notch more amusing than Knocked Up.

12. Once

This was mostly just a long music video about an Irish singer-songwriter and his extremely chaste dalliance with a Czech immigrant. They make beautiful music together, and that's about it. But it was a lovely little movie. What stays with me the most, though, is the fact that, in America, the movie was rated "R," because, although there is not a hint of a whiff or violence or sex or any related themes, the characters say "fuck" a lot.

Now, I almost always advocate erring on the side of caution from a "Think of the children!" standpoint, but, really. Saying "fuck?" And not even in the context of having sex, but, like, saying "fuck you, batteries" to some dead batteries? According to the ratings board, that should really stop a 15-year-old from seeing this perfectly nice little movie? Really? I know there's a standard "You Can Only Say 'Fuck' Once in a PG-13 Movie" rule, but, come on. Parents want to glace at a rating to know whether, by and large, a movie is appropriate for a certain age; what could possibly be wrong with rating it "PG-13: tons and tons of harmless f-bombs"?

Wake up, people! It's things like this -- one of the tiny few ideological nuts that the blind squirrels in the blue states happen to be right about -- that make it possible for people to keep talking themselves into voting for Democrats. We just look stupid!

Geez.

11. I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry

I would assume (and maybe even hope, if I'm being honest) that mine is the only 2007 movie list on which I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry appears five spots ahead of No Country For Old Men. I don't care; it's my list, and I tend to like Adam Sandler movies more than most people do. And this was a good movie.

10. Hot Fuzz

Ah, the Top Ten.

Hot Fuzz was Simon Pegg's less-regarded follow-up to Shaun of the Dead, but don't overlook it. Overlooking less-regarded follow-ups can be disastrous, as can be testified to by those poor souls who initially overlooked the Coen brothers' less-regarded follow-up to Fargo or, God forbid, overlooked Stanley Tucci's less-regarded follow-up to Big Night.

Right from the start, Hot Fuzz brings the awesome. Simon Pegg's character is a London cop, but he's too good. He sort of embarrasses all the other officers, so they ship him off to a town in the country that's sleepy, quiet and crime-free (or is it????). The scene where Pegg learns his of his fate is just delightful; he's told about it by his supervisor... Martin Freeman! Then, in comes Martin Freeman's supervisor... Steve Coogan! Then, in comes Steve Coogan's supervisor... Bill Nighy! It's a parade of increasingly older awesome British guys!

Anyway, it's good. Check it out.

9. The Bourne Ultimatum

This was my least favorite "Bourne" movie, but, to use a phrase I coined a while ago, that amounts to praising with faint damnation. I'm not sure The Bourne Supremacy can be topped (at least in "Bourne" terms), but The Bourne Ultimatum was certainly an impressive addition to the "Bourne" library.

"Bourne."

8. There Will Be Blood

This movie was beautifully made and Daniel Day-Lewis's performance was one of the best in recent history (I can only come up with Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry when I try to think of performances from the last ten or fifteen years that are in Day-Lewis's league), but There Will Be Blood was all literary and stuff, and I don't get as much out of those kinds of movies as I used to be able to convince myself I did. There are probably plenty of places to get a substantive discussion about this film, so I won't bother. I will say that I thought it was bizarre that Paul Dano's performance as Eli Sunday (and, in once scene, Eli's twin brother Paul) was ignored during awards season. He pretty much blew me away.

I'll also say -- with a minor (very minor, so don't even worry) spoiler -- that someone, somewhere, should really get a hold of the "Simpsons" episode where Mr. Burns's slant-drilling company taps the Elementary School's oil well, and then marry some footage of Burns with Day-Lewis's dialogue from There Will Be Blood's final scene. The "I drink your milkshake" scene. This needs to happen.

7. Eastern Promises

So, it turns out, I'm really, really attracted to movies where ordinary people with ordinary lives are thrust into situations of crime and danger. The last two David Cronenberg/Viggo Mortensen collaborations -- Eastern Promises and A History of Violence -- have dealt with this subject matter. I think it started with A Simple Plan, which remains one of my all-time favorite movies.

Actually, now that I think of it, it started with If Looks Could Kill, in which a 26-year-old Richard Grieco plays a high-school student with the same name as an international super-spy. Intrigue and hilarity ensue. If you haven't seen this movie, you must. Preferably with a group of friends, and preferably drunk or high. But you must. Here's an example of what you can expect:

Grieco is in a tuxedo in some European casino, because he's somehow posing as the (recently murdered) international superspy with whom he coincidentally shares a name. Some super-hot chick sits down across the gaming table from him.

SUPER-HOT CHICK: Bon soir ["bone-SWAR," as in "good evening"], monsieur Corbin.

GRIECO: Boner! Uh... soir.

You've got to see it.

6. Shooter

This movie rules. It's just Mark Wahlberg shooting the crap out of people.

5. Hairspray

See? I like good musicals. Also, allow me to announce that yet a third performance from the movies on this list was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination: John Travolta! He's excellent as the mom. Everyone in this movie is excellent; it's a fantastic cast in a fantastic movie with fantastic songs.

4.Ratatoullie

It's probably downright scandalous that Ratatoullie is this as low as #4 on my list, but, I just couldn't put it any higher, as much as I loved it.

Remember how I said that I like movies about ordinary people with ordinary lives who are thrust into situations of crime and danger? I also like movies about people who are passionate about something. Which is a vague category, I know; the best example I can think of is Sideways, if that gives you some idea what I'm talking about. Ratatoullie is certainly one of these movies; you can really appreciate the main character's passion for food, as well as the obstacles in the way of him reaching his dream (mainly, the fact that he's a rat).

3. Bridge to Terabithia

I knew this book, and I was sad to see the commercials for this movie when they were on early last year, because they made it look like a less-than-faithful adaptation. Then I saw "Ebert & Roeper" guest critic Kevin Smith talk about how the commercials weren't accurate, and it was a good movie. Then, I ended up seeing Bridge to Terabithia on a plane.

Without giving too much away, it's a sad story, and, for whatever reason, maybe because I'm getting more emotional as I get older or maybe because I have a daughter now, this movie absolutely destroyed me. I technically didn't even see the whole thing, because I had to keep taking my headphones off because I didn't want to sit there sobbing, disturbing the other passengers. This adaptation of Bridge to Terabithia is an absolute treasure, and I'm a little surprised you haven't heard more about it. I think you might, as the years go on.

2. Juno

I always talk about how every year, a small British (although not necessarily always British) comedy (although not necessarily always a comedy) sneaks into the Best Picture category and really doesn't deserve to be there. These movies are usually a product of some fleeting buzz that evaporates about two weeks after the Oscars, and these movies usually disappear without a trace from the public consciousness shortly thereafter. Movies like Little Miss Sunshine, Finding Neverland, Gosford Park (seriously, does anybody, anywhere, remember Gosford Park?), Chocolat...

Well, this year things are different, in that I happen to love the small comedy that sneaked into the Best Picture category. I haven't seen Michael Clayton or Atonement, and I have no plans to see them, but I've seen the other three nominees, and, if I had a Best Picture vote, I'd be voting enthusiastically for Juno. Absolutely delightful in every way, perfectly cast, perfectly written (even though I'm sure I'm as tired of hearing about "Diablo Cody" as you are), perfectly directed... it's not easy to make this sort of movie successfully, and it's almost impossible to do it as well as these people did. Virtually every little touch, every little moment, rings true. Well done, Juno.

1. Dan in Real Life

And, as good as Juno was, Dan in Real Life was juuuuuust an eensy bit better. I don't know why it came and went so quickly, but, as far as romantic comedies go, it's difficult to imagine a better one. This movie should have launched Steve Carrel past Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell, it should have been nominated for Oscars, it should have made $100 million. I don't know why it didn't.

I'll tell you something: my wife and I went to see Dan in Real Life at a theater that featured assigned seating -- you buy your ticket and pick out your seats before you even go into the theater. We get in there, and we notice that we're sitting next to three floppy-haired, mid-teenage skater douchebags. I was obviously crestfallen; we don't get to go to movies together that often anymore, and these kids were clearly going to ruin it. Why on earth were they even here? Why would these three come to see Dan in Real Life?

Well, they loved it. They didn't made a peep during the emotional stuff, they laughed their butts off during the funny parts... they behaved like model citizens. That's how good Dan in Real Life is.

This piece is really long and I'm sick of writing it, so just go here and read this person's review; that's pretty much what I think about Dan in Real Life. It's a rare treat of a movie.

NFL 2007 Wrap-up

2008-02-06T10:54:00.000-08:00

Super Bowl: 0-1

Playoffs Overall: 5-6

Turns out the Patriots were kind of soft, and more lucky than good (though they were obviously very good; you don't go 16-0 in the regular season unless you're very good).

Oh, well; thanks for taking the "Most Disappointing Loss in NFL History" title away from the 1998 Vikings.

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

[n/a]

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

Personally, I don't think it would matter of the Patriots' opponent on Sunday was the '85 Bears; they're going to win huge, and it's not going to be close.

Anyway, hopefully I'll be able to keep posting at least a couple of times a week even though football season is over; I've got a couple of ideas kicking around, and, of course, there will certainly be an Oscar picks column in a few weeks. So keep checking back.

NFL 2007 - Super Bowl XLII (for reals)

2008-02-01T21:02:00.000-08:00

Giants @ PATRIOTS -12

It seems as though an appreciable number of people are picking the Giants to win the Super Bowl. Not a majority, certainly, and thank God for that; if we ever get to the point where more than 50% of our populace is backing a 10-6 #5 seed from a demonstrably inferior Conference over an undefeated juggernaut, I say that when we just roll over and let al-Qaeda have its way with us, because -- and I'm not even sure how, but I'm sure nonetheless -- they will have been proven right.

The Patriots are going to win, and they're going to win big. We've been here before, if you're remember. And, by "here," I'm referring to a place where, based on a couple of playoff games, people talk themselves into thinking the Giants can hang with a far superior team in the Super Bowl (now, some people will feebly point as evidence to the Week 17 game in which the Giants hung with the far superior Patriots. "Pish tosh, I say to those people"). What happened back then? Let's reminisce:

It was January, 2001. A recently inaugurated George W. Bush prepared to usher in a second consecutive decade of togetherness, bipartisanship, economic prosperity and international peace. Super Bowl halftime performer Britney Spears was maturing into an entertainer poised to take the world by storm with grace, maturity and her upcoming film Crossroads (which -- I just checked -- was written by "Grey's Anatomy" creator Shonda Rimes. So... checkmate, people who like "Grey's Anatomy"). And the New York Giants, fresh off of a 41-0 drubbing of the Minnesota Vikings in the NFC title game, came into Super Bowl XXXV against the Baltimore Ravens as an underdog but a relatively popular upset pick.

What happened? The Giants went out and lost 34-7, with their only points coming on a third-quarter kickoff return (the ensuing kickoff of which was returned by the Ravens for a touchdown of their own).

Now, I know that these Giants aren't those Giants. In fact, the outcome of Super Bowl XXXV has little or nothing to do with the outcome of Super Bowl XLII. Still, it reminds us that talking ourselves into backing a Super Bowl underdog against a far superior team (which your fair columnist did back in his college days with the Atlanta Falcons) is something of which we must beware.

And speaking parenthetically of the Atlanta Falcons' lone trip to the Super Bowl, it should be noted that teams on which a player gets himself arrested or goes completely nuts during Super Bowl week are 0-3, and, well... that's not good news for the Giants.

Apparently, Adrian Awasom was on injured reserve and wasn't going to suit up for the game even if he hadn't gotten popped for DUI on Friday morning, so this might not affect the Giants like the Bengals, Falcons and Raiders (all of whose incidents involved key players) were affected by their Super Bowl week shenanigans (hey, my spell checker knows "shenanigans." Cool). But then, neither the Bengals, Falcons or Raiders were facing the 2007 New England Patriots.

Personally, I don't think it would matter of the Patriots' opponent on Sunday was the '85 Bears; they're going to win huge, and it's not going to be close.

NFL 2007 - Super Bowl XLII

2008-02-01T16:43:00.001-08:00

In case I prove too lazy to write a full Super Bowl column tonight or tomorrow:

Giants @ PATRIOTS -12

It's not going to be close.

Hopefully I'll be back in a few hours with something more substantial. If not, not.

Conference Championship Games Wrap-up

2008-01-21T20:09:00.000-08:00

Man, I hate the Packers. I hate them so, so much. The one game -- the one game! -- in the entire history of the Green Bay Packers franchise that this Vikings fan actually wants them to win, because it would lead to the coolest Super Bowl ever, and they go out and stink up the joint.

Oh, well. At least Brett Favre proved to anyone who was actually watching that he doesn't belong in the top tier when it comes to ranking the best NFL quarterbacks of the recent era. Yes, he won a Super Bowl. So did Trent Dilfer. And I know he's set a lot of records, but, you probably would too if you played for six hundred years. He's a fine quarterback; I'm not saying he's not. But he proved he doesn't belong up there with the likes of Elway, Marino, Montana, Manning or Brady. Those guys could usually be counted on not to kill their own teams quite so often.

So at least there was that.

Conference Championship Games: 0-2

Playoffs Overall: 5-5

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

I'm wary about getting too excited about a Patriots-Packers Super Bowl before Sunday's games; like Cubs-Red Sox World Series we were so cruelly teased with in 2003, it seems far too good to actually happen.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

But then you look at these matchups, and you can't help it.

Remember; I'll be back at some point this week with something, even though there's no NFL this weekend. That's right: there's no NFL this weekend. Please, try to remain calm.

NFL 2007 - Conference Championship Games

2008-01-17T17:04:00.000-08:00

Here's the thing: Patriots-Packers II (don't forget XXXI) would be the most anticipated Super Bowl in history, and probably the most widely watched television event in years. It would feature the only two current NFL quarterbacks that my wife might have a chance of actually identifying [I realize it might seem weird that I don't think she could identify Peyton Manning, but, a) his commercials -- of which there are thousands -- pretty much just run during sports shows, which she would never watch, and b) for a woman who seems pop-culturally literate and lives and works in the Los Angeles area, she can really surprise you. Like last week, when she had no idea who Michael Bay was. Am I a jerk for being stunned by that?]. It would, in the minds of a lot of sports fans, pit good vs. evil. It would cast one of the nation's most beloved, accomplished athletes as a scrappy underdog going up against the kind of soulless, win-at-all-costs operation that makes your over-the-top, slick-haired, ozone-polluting, toxic-waste-dumping '80s action movie villain look like some sort of Care Bear. And not the grumpy one, even; the one with like a rainbow on its chest.

I can't really even think of an event in sports history that compares; some have brought up the 1980 USA-USSR Olympic hockey semifinal game, which is somewhat apt because the Packers (Brett Favre aside) are a young, likeable, relatively inexperienced bunch going up against a joyless, cyborg-like group of win-bots who don't give a damn about you or your family. The Patriots may as well come out with C.C.C.P. on their jerseys.

(That would be the angle, anyway. I personally like the Patriots even though I imagine Bill Belichick is a jerk, and as a true Vikings fan I can't possibly root for the Packers. At least, not admittedly)

But that's what has the potential to be so dangerous this week: Patriots-Packers is almost too good to actually happen. Stuff like that doesn't happen in real life, right?

I mean, if you were making a movie about a fictional quarterback, you'd have him go to a small Southern college and excel, go to a Southern team but never get to play, and then get sent to Wisconsin (brr!). He'd win a Super Bowl right away, and everything would be gravy.

But then, things would take a turn. He'd lose the Super Bowl the next year to an older, better quarterback, all the while fighting a losing battle against pills, booze and partying. His wife would finally tell him, "It's me or the lifestyle, honey." A kindly old veteran whom our young quarterback helped win that long-awaited Super Bowl title would help him get right with his family and with his God. Our quarterback would turn things around in his personal life, starting charities and becoming a pillar of the community, growing into a national hero.

But our movie isn't over. Our hero's father passes away, as does the beloved veteran who helped our man turn his life around. His Mississippi hometown is flattened by a hurricane, he has a couple of sub-par years on the playing field and he starts to wonder if maybe this part of his life hasn't passed him by.

Nope, he decides. I'm coming back for another year. And then what happens? His team starts winning. And winning. And winning. They get all the way to the Super Bowl, one last hurrah for our hero, but there's one more problem. Their opponents are none other than an undefeated juggernaut -- winners of three of the last six Super Bowls -- who happened to have been caught cheating at the beginning of the season and laughed it off on the way to 18 straight wins.

At this point, any fan of sports movies would have to say, "Come on. That's stretching it a little. Do they have to be undefeated and have been caught cheating that same year? That seems unlikely, if not impossibly convenient for this storyline."

That's why I'm wary about getting too excited about a Patriots-Packers Super Bowl before Sunday's games; like Cubs-Red Sox World Series we were so cruelly teased with in 2003, it seems far too good to actually happen.

But then you look at these matchups, and you can't help it.

Giants @ PACKERS -7

My little "movie of Brett Favre's life" bit from before leaves one thing out: he should be facing the Cowboys in Dallas, where he's never won in his career, then moving on to play the undefeated juggernaut in the Super Bowl. That would be a better storyline than the "who cares" Giants coming into Lambeau and getting pasted. The Giants vaunted pass rush -- like the Seahawks vaunted pass rush before it -- could have a little trouble gaining traction on the frozen tundra (Sunday's Green Bay forecast calls for a high temperature of 4, with flurries), and, let's not forget, the Packers' offensive line has received one or two vaunts of its own. They pushed Seattle around and ran all over them, and they should do the same to New York.

Meanwhile, the Giants put together 57 yards of offense in the second half last week on a nice warm artificial surface in Dallas in a game that I'm still not convinced they actually won.

And finally, I don't think the Giants can count on Brett Favre being as distracted this week as Cowboys QB Tony Romo was last week. A thorough study has revealed that this is the most attractive Favre groupie in all of Wisconsin.

Chargers @ PATRIOTS -14

The Chargers have the Colts' number. Nobody has the Patriots' number. No chance they lose this game, and it's probably not close.

The Super Bowl is two weeks after the conference title games, but, I'll be sure to put something up next week, too. In the middle of what promises to be the best Super Bowl hype ever!

Divisional Playoffs Wrap-up

2008-01-14T16:02:00.000-08:00

Divisional Playoffs: 1-3

Playoffs Overall: 5-3

Bleh. Everyone else picked the Giants, and I thought all the favorites would cover (or, at the very least, the Giants wouldn't be the underdog that beat the spread), so I'd be 3-1 and everybody else would be 2-2. Instead, everybody's 2-2 and I'm 1-3. Oh, well. Next week everybody's going 2-0 (Packers and Patriots, not to spoil the column).

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

The Packers should really just roll.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

Yes, San Diego did beat the Colts at home back in November when Peyton Manning threw six interceptions, Darren Sproles gave the Chargers two kick returns for touchdowns, Adam Vinatieri missed a clutch field goal and key players Marvin Harrison, Anthony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark and Tony Ugoh were injured and couldn't play for Indianapolis. If all that stuff happens again, the Chargers might have a chance. If not, probably not.

NFL 2007 - Divisional Playoffs

2008-01-11T16:08:00.000-08:00

Seahawks @ PACKERS -8.5

As I was watching the Seahawks surrender a 13-point lead to the Redskins in the fourth quarter of last week's game, I thought to myself, "You know, maybe I shouldn't have picked a team with a lousy offense to cover the spread in a playoff game." Luckily, the Redskins don't happen to be all that good, and the Seahawks went in to win rather comfortably.

This week, I'm pretty sure it'll catch up with them. Everybody and his dog is looking forward to the "Can Brett Favre Finally Win in Dallas?" storyline next weekend, and the Seahawks certainly won't be the ones to spoil that. The Packers should really just roll.

And, since I can't think of anything else to say about this game, I'll talk about something an announcer said last week that I thought was pretty silly. Some team -- I forget which; why don't we say for the sake of argument that it was the Redskins, even though it probably wasn't -- was about to score a touchdown after having scored a touchdown a few minutes ago. As they were getting ready to run a play, the announcer said something about how the Redskins are about to have scored "14 unanswered points."

Is that really a thing? Isn't that just one team scoring a touchdown, and then the same team scoring one more touchdown before the opposing team happens to tally any intervening points? It's not that big of a deal. "35 unanswered points," sure. "24 unanswered points," I'll give you. "17 unanswered points," maybe. But 14? Wouldn't you have to assume that almost half of the touchdowns scored in the NFL are scored by the team that last scored points?

And declaring those 14 Redskins points (seven of which were hypothetical; remember, the Redskins were merely about to score) to be "unanswered" was a little bit unfair. I mean, the extra point goes through the uprights, and immediately the Seahawks are blamed for not "answering?" The Redskins haven't even kicked off to them yet; when were they supposed to have "answered" that second touchdown? During one of those Coors Light commercials?

And if you're going to go that far, aren't all points, in all sports, basically "unanswered?" For at least a little while? "A nice shot by Kobe Bryant to start the ballgame, and the Lakers have now scored two unanswered points."

Let's calm down a little bit with the "unanswered," is what I'm saying.

Jaguars @ PATRIOTS -13

Much like Lloyd Bridges' character in Airplane! picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue, the Jaguars picked the wrong season to be the dangerous Wild Card team that nobody wants to play. That sort of thing might work in a weird year when the Colts choke away a big playoff game, somebody else is nice enough to knock off the defending champs so you don't have to play them, and the other conference really has nothing to offer in the way of opponents (I'm looking at you, 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers); but it's not going to fly when you have to go up against the best football team in the history of the world (which is how this year's Patriots -- unless they don't win the Super Bowl -- absolutely must be regarded).

It's difficult for me to imagine how excited the Patriots are going to be to get the playoffs started. And this Jaguars team, for all the talk about how dangerous they are, gave up 19 fourth-quarter points to a somewhat shaky Steelers offense last week and very easily could have blown the game. Something tells me the Patriots might not let them off that easy.

Besides, even those who say that they can't stand the Patriots, that they're cheaters, that they're sick of them winning all the time... don't they all actually want to see Colts/Patriots and Cowboys/Packers in the conference title games next Sunday? Wouldn't those be the most highly anticipated conference title games ever? Undefeated Patriots vs. Defending Champion Colts! Brett Favre vs. His One Remaining Hurdle (remember: the year the Packers won the Super Bowl, the upstart Carolina Panthers were nice enough to knock the Cowboys out of the playoffs so Green Bay didn't have to play them)!

Can't Seahawks, Jaguars, Chargers and Giants fans even agree that it couldn't get any better than that?

Chargers @ COLTS -9

As I watched the Chargers trailing 6-0 to Tennessee at halftime of last week's game, I thought to myself, "You know, maybe I shouldn't have picked a team with a lousy offense to cover the spread in a playoff game." Luckily, the Titans don't happen to be all that good, and the Chargers went in to win rather comfortably.

Yes, San Diego did beat the Colts at home back in November when Peyton Manning threw six interceptions, Darren Sproles gave the Chargers two kick returns for touchdowns, Adam Vinatieri missed a clutch field goal and key players Marvin Harrison, Anthony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark and Tony Ugoh were injured and couldn't play for Indianapolis. If all that stuff happens again, the Chargers might have a chance. If not, probably not.

And the Colts, let's not forget, are the defending Super Bowl champions. I know, it's weird! You'd assume it was the Patriots, wouldn't you?

The Colts, though, could really be the Malcolm in the Middle of this year's playoffs. By which I mean you could very well spend almost no time thinking about them, and then, when you finally do stumble across them, you say to yourself, "Man, this Colts team is really good! And why am I surprised that they're this good? I knew all along they were this good, I just sort of forgot! Also, the chick who plays the oldest brother's wife is hot!"

(I guess that last part doesn't apply that much to the Colts. Or, maybe it does. Cooper Manning is probably married to a good-looking woman)

Giants @ JESSICA SIMPSON'S BOYFRIEND'S TEAM -7.5

Really, people. The Cowboys are still the Cowboys. The Giants are still the Giants. Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin are still Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin. Don't be worried about Tony Romo not being ready for the game because he spent a few days in Mexico with Jessica Simpson. I think he'll be fine. In fact, I think he'll be particularly relaxed and ready to focus like a laser beam on the task at hand.

I mean, on the list of things that are going to relax a guy, I have to figure a weekend in Mexico with Jessica Simpson would probably be somewhere near the top. That should even be an expression. "A weekend in Mexico with Jessica Simpson" could replace "a day at the beach."

"Hey, Bob. How was the meeting with the new clients? I hear they can be pretty demanding."

"No, not at all. In fact, it was a weekend in Mexico with Jessica Simpson."

or...

"Oh, yeah, honey. I can't wait to go and stay with your vegetarian aunt and her four kids." [roll of the eyes] "It's gonna be a regular weekend in Mexico with Jessica Simpson."

or...

"Man, I hear you had to pull an all-nighter? How was it?"

"Well, it was no weekend in Mexico with Jessica Simpson, I can tell you that."

And so on.

Anyway. It seems like the Giants are the trendy pick this week, which worries me for the Giants' sake. I don't tend to like the trendy pick, because the trendy pick's opponent has access to various television shows and publications that spend all week trumpeting the trendy pick, and whatever tiny chance exists that the favorite might have taken the trendy pick lightly gets thrown out the window when the favorite realizes that quite a few people expect them to lose to the trendy pick.

Eli Manning and Tom Coughlin are going to go into Dallas and stick with the Cowboys in the playoffs? People realize that's what they're picking when the pick the Giants to beat this point spread, right?

Madness.

What Norm is Thankful For

2008-01-08T23:53:00.000-08:00

He's been out of the spotlight for a little while, but it's important to remind ourselves once in a while that not only is Norm Macdonald the funniest human being on the planet, he's the funniest human being on the planet by an order of magnitude.

Listen to this clip from November (it's on YouTube but it's audio only) of Norm on Dennis Miller's radio show, reading a list of what he's thankful for this Thanksgiving. Do it quick, before YouTube makes them take it down.

Wild Card Playoffs Wrap-up

2008-01-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

Wild Card Playoffs: 4-0

Playoffs Overall: 4-0

Nice start, huh? You know you had a good round of games when the Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week feature must necessarily come from a game you picked correctly.

The Smartest Thing I Said Last Week:

Sure, last year's Cowboys came into a playoff game in Seattle at 9-7 and would have beaten the Seahawks had Tony Romo not bobbled a snap on a field goal attempt in the 4th quarter. But this year's Redskins are not last year's Cowboys. By definition.

The Seahawks are 7-1 at home this season (the "1" being a weird hiccup against a Saints team that went on to put together a four-game win streak that ended with a 41-24 slaughter of Jacksonville), and I don't see the Redskins coming in and giving them too much of a game.

The Dumbest Thing I Said Last Week:

[I]f any team is due for a playoff win, isn't it the Giants?

[The Chargers were way more due for a playoff win, it turns out]

NFL 2007 - Wild Card Playoffs

2008-01-05T01:41:00.001-08:00

It's Wild Card Weekend in the NFL playoffs, otherwise known as "The Weekend Before the Good Teams Play." The goal, I suppose, is an 11-0 playoff record against the point spread, which, to my knowledge, has only been accomplished once in recorded history (by this guy, two years ago).

Can we do it?

Unlikely, almost to the point of being statistically impossible.

Still, it would be something, wouldn't it?

Redskins @ SEAHAWKS -3.5

It seems like lots of folks are backing the Redskins based on the four-game winning streak they put together to end the season and sneak into the playoffs. The idea is that the team is rallying around teammate Sean Taylor's death and the emotion will carry them deep into the postseason. It might work, but I'd be more comfortable betting against the 9-7 team with the career backup at quarterback and the borderline-senile coach when they're going into what has quietly become one of the NFL's toughest places to play.

Sure, last year's Cowboys came into a playoff game in Seattle at 9-7 and would have beaten the Seahawks had Tony Romo not bobbled a snap on a field goal attempt in the 4th quarter. But this year's Redskins are not last year's Cowboys. By definition.

The Seahawks are 7-1 at home this season (the "1" being a weird hiccup against a Saints team that went on to put together a four-game win streak that ended with a 41-24 slaughter of Jacksonville), and I don't see the Redskins coming in and giving them too much of a game. And, even if there weren't any other reasons to pick Seattle, I can make the pick for old time's sake. I was in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and a decent portion of that weekend's gambling strategy depended on the Seahawks covering the spread against Washington, which they did. Good times.

(of course, another part of that weekend's strategy was to ignore the blackjack tables, where, for some reason, I consistently get clobbered. That part of the strategy, I didn't employ. Bad times)

Jaguars @ STEELERS +2.5

For one thing, I won't be watching this game with Beallsville, PA's own Joe Wright, so the Steelers have a fighting chance. For another thing, it's not as though Week 15's Jaguars-Steelers tilt in Pittsburgh was a Jacksonville blowout (though the nationwide stampede to pick Jacksonville might make you believe otherwise).

Yes, the Steelers are going to be forced to play their third-string left tackle. But apparently he's played before, and played just fine. Plus, you've got Jacksonville running back Fred Taylor offering up bulletin board material, which is just something you don't want to do when Pittsburgh is involved. I've noticed that Pittsburghers will come at you with a vengeance if you diss anything having to do with their fair city. Sienna Miller referred to the city as "Shitsburgh" a couple of years ago, and, when's the last time you heard from Sienna Miller? Yeah. She vanished like a fart in the wind. Fictional weatherman Phil Connors, of Groundhog Day fame, had the audacity to suggest that he was too good to waste his talents at a TV station in the Steel City, and he ended up trapped in a hellish nightmare from which death itself could not rescue him. Lord knows what's in store for Fred Taylor.

At the risk of incurring karmic wrath, though, I've got to point out that such a strong reaction to an insult does bely a little bit of insecurity. Methinks Pittsburgh doth protest too much, is what I'm saying. I mean, when someone rags on L.A., we're like, "Whatever, man. I'm headed outside in shorts in January, on my way to the neighborhood supermarket to buy some cheap, delicious avocados. While there, I'll undoubtedly cross paths with at least five women who are twice as hot as anyone you ever went to high school with. Enjoy your freezing rain!"

GIANTS @ Buccaneers -3

I was all set to pick the Buccaneers, then I noticed that the Giants were 7-1 on the road this year, with a seven-game road winning streak. So there that is. Plus, if any team is due for a playoff win, isn't it the Giants? Do you know what their last playoff win was? Anyone? Bueller? It was the infamous 41-donut, on January 14, 2001. That's right: the Giants last won a playoff game when Bill Clinton was president. Oh, I know plenty of teams are working on longer droughts (most teams, in fact), but, the Giants are a marquee franchise and they make the playoffs almost every year. Seems like they ought to pick up a postseason win once every seven years or so, doesn't it?

That's all I can think to say about this game; it's the most uninteresting playoff game in some time, and whoever wins stands virtually no chance of winning next weekend.

Titans @ CHARGERS -10

Speaking of standing virtually no chance of winning... the Tennessee Titans! I know they almost beat the Chargers in Nashville earlier this year. They won't beat them Sunday.

And, with that, I'm off to bed. It's late.