It appears that if you are planning on buying a ticket into space with Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic you're probably going to have to get yourself to New Mexico first. Although flights will first leave from the Californian Mojave Desert, they will, once the spaceport is finished, depart just north of Las Cruces, NM. Once I have $200,000 to throw around, I'll be on the flight...
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Spaceport, New Mexico
It appears that if you are planning on buying a ticket into space with Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic you're probably going to have to get yourself to New Mexico first. Although flights will first leave from the Californian Mojave Desert, they will, once the spaceport is finished, depart just north of Las Cruces, NM. Once I have $200,000 to throw around, I'll be on the flight...
All I want for Christmas...
Are you wondering what to get me? Well, wonder no more! Just go to Excitations.com and pick out the Skipper for a year. $3310 a little to much? Well how about the DC United experience for $1400. Still too much? Well I'ld surely invite you if you got me the Private Yacht Cruise on the Potomac for $1250.
Okay so in all honesty, Excitations is a pretty good idea if you don't know what to get for someone. Most gifts are expensive, some are a little lame ($65 Photo Safari), some are WAYoverpriced ($70 paintball and $60 rock climbing) but some are priced right ($75 segway tour, $250 skydiving). Plus I think they give you a nice wrapped box which explains the gift.
Okay so in all honesty, Excitations is a pretty good idea if you don't know what to get for someone. Most gifts are expensive, some are a little lame ($65 Photo Safari), some are WAYoverpriced ($70 paintball and $60 rock climbing) but some are priced right ($75 segway tour, $250 skydiving). Plus I think they give you a nice wrapped box which explains the gift.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Redskins 6-6 and still done, my pick review and more.
This past week I went 11-5. (Although my pigheaded/reverse karma choice of picking against the Skins cost me a much more repectable 12-4) My season record is now 50-24, not bad but I fell like I should have done better.
In fact here is where I went wrong with my misses:
Green Bay losses to Chicago. I've never been a big Brett Favre fan, but I still believed in his Soldier Field winning streak. The Bears defense is good, but I still stand by my list of simply AWFUL offenses they have played.
Denver losses to Kansas City. I still believe in Denver, and it helps that Mike Shanahan seems to understand Jake Plummer, considering he doesn't exactly trust him when the game is on the line.
Pittsburgh losses to Cincinnati. I coped out last and picked an easy game (Skins vs. Rams) as the "bite me in the butt" pick. I should have gone with this one. Remember how I reiterated my feelings from the beginning of the season: that the Steelers aren't that good? Well Cincinnati still might not be experience enough for the rest of the league, but they are good enough against a Steelers team who just might not make it into the playoffs.
New Orleans losses to Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay barely beats a team that I am now (way too late) making the Saints a "dog." Tampa should show their true colors in the next few weeks though... but they'll probably still get one of the wild cards.
St. Louis losses to Washington. Going into the 4th quarter this past Sunday, the Redskins led a sorry St. Louis Rams, 10-7. Surprisingly, they decided to keep the lead this time and actually add to it, making the final score 24-9.
Finally here is why this win is good, but not exactly all that good:
Towards the end of every season, your team will fit into one of 3 categories: playoff teams, playoff miss teams and bad teams. (each category has it's own subcategories, but for this explanation, these will do.) Right now the Redskins are looking like a playoff miss team. Normally this wouldn't be very good because that would mean a pick in the 20s. But since the Redskins traded away their 2006 first round pick, it doesn't matter. So this year, I can truly root for them to win, so the pick (now owned by the Denver Broncos) will be later in the first round.
If they still owned the pick I would have rooted for their losing streak to continue in hopes of getting an earlier first round pick. This "rooting against" your team so they get a higher draft pick is one of the weirder parts of being a sports fan. (I made a mention of it in an earlier post and Bill Simmons write about it in his picks for week 13.) They even name the race for last place after the likely #1 pick, using terms like this year's Reggie Bush Sweepstakes and 1996's Peyton Manning Bowl featuring the NY Giants vs. NY Jets (although Manning stayed another year at Tennessee and ended up going to the Colts in 98).
Some might argue that you should never root against your team, and there is a point to that belief. Great teams can be built with a little luck and good front office decisions, the Patriots being the poster child for this. But consistantly picking in the mid teens to upper 20s doesn't leave much to look forward to.
Just ask the Buffalo Bills, Tennessee Titans, Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings, Seattle Seahawks, Philadelphia Eagles, and Pittsburgh Steelers. Each one of these teams have spent the past 10 years, barely missing the playoffs or making them only to be beaten by a better team. Some have had bad years, but not consistently. (The Eagles and Steelers have gone the farthest but have had the same results as the rest.)
I think there is something to be said about how the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls (Patriots, Buccaneers, Ravens/Browns, and Rams) have all come from being consistently bad teams to Super Bowl champions. You have to go back to 1999's Denver Broncos to see a team that won after years of being good.
So finally, having said all that, even though the Skins don't have a first round pick next year, I see them continuing this "okay/good" team rut. And that is just not good, because they'll need something drastic to get over that hump.
In fact here is where I went wrong with my misses:
Green Bay losses to Chicago. I've never been a big Brett Favre fan, but I still believed in his Soldier Field winning streak. The Bears defense is good, but I still stand by my list of simply AWFUL offenses they have played.
Denver losses to Kansas City. I still believe in Denver, and it helps that Mike Shanahan seems to understand Jake Plummer, considering he doesn't exactly trust him when the game is on the line.
Pittsburgh losses to Cincinnati. I coped out last and picked an easy game (Skins vs. Rams) as the "bite me in the butt" pick. I should have gone with this one. Remember how I reiterated my feelings from the beginning of the season: that the Steelers aren't that good? Well Cincinnati still might not be experience enough for the rest of the league, but they are good enough against a Steelers team who just might not make it into the playoffs.
New Orleans losses to Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay barely beats a team that I am now (way too late) making the Saints a "dog." Tampa should show their true colors in the next few weeks though... but they'll probably still get one of the wild cards.
St. Louis losses to Washington. Going into the 4th quarter this past Sunday, the Redskins led a sorry St. Louis Rams, 10-7. Surprisingly, they decided to keep the lead this time and actually add to it, making the final score 24-9.
Finally here is why this win is good, but not exactly all that good:
Towards the end of every season, your team will fit into one of 3 categories: playoff teams, playoff miss teams and bad teams. (each category has it's own subcategories, but for this explanation, these will do.) Right now the Redskins are looking like a playoff miss team. Normally this wouldn't be very good because that would mean a pick in the 20s. But since the Redskins traded away their 2006 first round pick, it doesn't matter. So this year, I can truly root for them to win, so the pick (now owned by the Denver Broncos) will be later in the first round.
If they still owned the pick I would have rooted for their losing streak to continue in hopes of getting an earlier first round pick. This "rooting against" your team so they get a higher draft pick is one of the weirder parts of being a sports fan. (I made a mention of it in an earlier post and Bill Simmons write about it in his picks for week 13.) They even name the race for last place after the likely #1 pick, using terms like this year's Reggie Bush Sweepstakes and 1996's Peyton Manning Bowl featuring the NY Giants vs. NY Jets (although Manning stayed another year at Tennessee and ended up going to the Colts in 98).
Some might argue that you should never root against your team, and there is a point to that belief. Great teams can be built with a little luck and good front office decisions, the Patriots being the poster child for this. But consistantly picking in the mid teens to upper 20s doesn't leave much to look forward to.
Just ask the Buffalo Bills, Tennessee Titans, Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings, Seattle Seahawks, Philadelphia Eagles, and Pittsburgh Steelers. Each one of these teams have spent the past 10 years, barely missing the playoffs or making them only to be beaten by a better team. Some have had bad years, but not consistently. (The Eagles and Steelers have gone the farthest but have had the same results as the rest.)
I think there is something to be said about how the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls (Patriots, Buccaneers, Ravens/Browns, and Rams) have all come from being consistently bad teams to Super Bowl champions. You have to go back to 1999's Denver Broncos to see a team that won after years of being good.
So finally, having said all that, even though the Skins don't have a first round pick next year, I see them continuing this "okay/good" team rut. And that is just not good, because they'll need something drastic to get over that hump.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
thoughts for the day...
- You're probably familiar with my interest in cryptozoology as well as exctinct and endangered species. So this story piqued my interest: A previously unknown mammal was photographed in Borneo recently.
- Remember the "you're getting a dell!" guy? Remember how everyone wanted to kill him? Well, I officially want to stab the guy who does the tv commerical for a game called "Riff." The guy dresses up and acts like different music genres (even dressing like Robert Palmer's famous actress video). Apparently it's some sort of music trivia dvd game... and there is not a chance I am buying it.
- There are two houses in my neighborhood I don't like. One puts moth balls in their yard and the other has these "no dogs, no children" pesticide signs which are WAY too old to be valid. The moth balls do nothing to deter my dog from sniffing up the area, and the signs would only keep a responsible pet owner (and their pet) away. But a responsible pet owner already picks up after their dog, so it's pretty useless. I wish my dog would pee or drop a deuce on their lawns, but he's already gone by that time...
Saturday, December 03, 2005
New England Aquarium Penguin Story Redux
Remember the penguin story that was from a friend of a friend? Back when I wrote of it, I mentioned how it reeked of an urban legend. I even looked around and found no mention of it, even on Snopes.com. So I repeated it.
Well, eventually the aquarium got wind of the story and decided to comment. So here it is fully debunked at the Boston Globe.
Well, eventually the aquarium got wind of the story and decided to comment. So here it is fully debunked at the Boston Globe.
NFL Week 13 Picks
Remember how I commented awhile back how Taylor Jacobs looked slow? Well obviously I don't follow the Redskins that much because I didn't remember that he had gotten hurt earlier this year. The Post has an article about how he has potential but he keeps getting hurt. In it he says that he's not entirely healed... so I'll blame that for his performance in the Oakland game. Anyways, I'm still going through with my threat of picking against the Redskins for the rest of the year.
This week the "against the Skins" pick definitely looks bad. (In fact, I'm making it my "bite me in the butt" pick. I sort of have two of these this week.) The Skins are going against a rookie QB (from Harvard) who brought the Rams back from certain defeat against the Texans last week. The Redskins have just one loss to a team with less than 7 wins this season (Oakland). The Rams have two and they're doozies... 49ers and Cardinals.
The only thing the Rams have going for them is that they are playing in St. Louis. (But, their last home game was a loss to the Cardinals.) No matter though, I am sure the Redskins will find a way to keep this game close and maybe even win it. Then all the coaches will talk about how "this is a first step", and "they keep fighting", and "they need not look past Arizona." Ugh... I can't wait.
Anyways... on to this week's picks!
Arizona OVER at San Francisco - So I have a picking theory, that I'll expound on in another post, where you pick "dogs" for the season. My season top dogs are San Francisco and Houston.
at Baltimore OVER Houston - Since you could just reread the previous pick, I'll use this space to mention that Baltimore and Arizona are secondary dogs. These games are gonna be FUN!
at Carolina OVER Atlanta - I always say that "I hate to keep going with favorites.." but there is usually a good reason why teams are favored. In this case I agree. Carolina has laid two eggs the past two weeks and won one. I only see one reason why Atlanta should beat Carolina... Michael Vick. BTW I think any game in which I pick against Michael Vick should automatically be a "bite me in the butt" pick.
Green Bay OVER at Chicago - 21st, 25th, 26th, 27th, 17th, 32nd, 23rd, and 22nd. That is the offensive ranking of Chicago's last 8 opponents. Look at their weak schedule, so trust me they're doomed for a repeat of their 2001-02 season. Plus Brett Favre is about 113-0 at Soldier Field.
Denver OVER at Kansas City - I'm beginning to believe in Denver, even though Jake Plummer is the QB and they got lucky against the Redskins or better put, the Redskins sent back the gift wrapped victory the Broncos handed them at Mile High.
at Indianapolis OVER Tennessee - I would only pick against Indy if it were away and on grass. They only have 2 more away games, Seattle and Jacksonville, and Seattle has FieldTurf. We'll see next week if I've got the mettle to pick the Jaguars next week.
Jacksonville OVER at Cleveland - This game has trap written all over it. Cleveland has it in them to beat the Jaguars, it just depends on if the Jaguars have it in them to stay in this game, and not next weeks game.
at Miami OVER Buffalo - I'm going with Miami with Nick Saban (who I'm not down on yet) at home over Buffalo who has yet to win on the road.
Minnesota OVER at Detroit - Remember how a few weeks ago I said if Minnesota beat Green Bay at Lambeau, I would pick them to win the NFC North? Well I checked Chicago's schedule and I'm catiously optimistic. After this weekend, I'm making the call.
at New England OVER NY Jets - Betting wise, I'ld take the 10 pt underdog Jets to beat the spread.
at NY Giants OVER Dallas - Eli plays well at home and Dallas doesn't seem to run the ball well enough to win on the road... In fact, aside from the Philly debacle, they haven't won on the road since September... at San Francisco!
at Pittsburgh OVER Cincinnati - Remember how at the beginning of this season, I said I didn't like Pittsburgh's offense? Well, they are currently ranked #24 (#26 passing) and I don't think it's because Ben Roethlisberger has been hurt. Anyways, I'm only picking the Steelers because they're at home and because the Bengals are too young.
at San Diego OVER Oakland - The two teams that recently beat the Redskins so I can say this with confidence: Oakland stinks and San Diego doesn't. But trust me, that doesn't say much about San Diego. (And it says even less about the Skins.)
at New Orleans OVER Tampa Bay - Remember how Tampa Bay sucks? Well, the Saints have been doing remarkably well all things considered... They've only been blown out once (at Lambeau Field 52-3). The Bucs will probably make it a close game though.
at St. Louis OVER Washington - Every so often, I think to myself: Why torture myself watching the Skins... So this is my revenge of sorts.
Seattle at OVER Philadelphia - Kinda looks like Philly over Seattle is the glamour upset pick for NFL picks around the country. And just because the Seahawks couldn't put the Giants away. But, I am not picking a team who's only victory on the road came because Kansas City shut it down after going up big in the first quarter. BTW, check out who "fueled" the Eagles comeback against the Chiefs with 11 catches for 171 yards and a TD. None other than Señor TO.
This week the "against the Skins" pick definitely looks bad. (In fact, I'm making it my "bite me in the butt" pick. I sort of have two of these this week.) The Skins are going against a rookie QB (from Harvard) who brought the Rams back from certain defeat against the Texans last week. The Redskins have just one loss to a team with less than 7 wins this season (Oakland). The Rams have two and they're doozies... 49ers and Cardinals.
The only thing the Rams have going for them is that they are playing in St. Louis. (But, their last home game was a loss to the Cardinals.) No matter though, I am sure the Redskins will find a way to keep this game close and maybe even win it. Then all the coaches will talk about how "this is a first step", and "they keep fighting", and "they need not look past Arizona." Ugh... I can't wait.
Anyways... on to this week's picks!
Arizona OVER at San Francisco - So I have a picking theory, that I'll expound on in another post, where you pick "dogs" for the season. My season top dogs are San Francisco and Houston.
at Baltimore OVER Houston - Since you could just reread the previous pick, I'll use this space to mention that Baltimore and Arizona are secondary dogs. These games are gonna be FUN!
at Carolina OVER Atlanta - I always say that "I hate to keep going with favorites.." but there is usually a good reason why teams are favored. In this case I agree. Carolina has laid two eggs the past two weeks and won one. I only see one reason why Atlanta should beat Carolina... Michael Vick. BTW I think any game in which I pick against Michael Vick should automatically be a "bite me in the butt" pick.
Green Bay OVER at Chicago - 21st, 25th, 26th, 27th, 17th, 32nd, 23rd, and 22nd. That is the offensive ranking of Chicago's last 8 opponents. Look at their weak schedule, so trust me they're doomed for a repeat of their 2001-02 season. Plus Brett Favre is about 113-0 at Soldier Field.
Denver OVER at Kansas City - I'm beginning to believe in Denver, even though Jake Plummer is the QB and they got lucky against the Redskins or better put, the Redskins sent back the gift wrapped victory the Broncos handed them at Mile High.
at Indianapolis OVER Tennessee - I would only pick against Indy if it were away and on grass. They only have 2 more away games, Seattle and Jacksonville, and Seattle has FieldTurf. We'll see next week if I've got the mettle to pick the Jaguars next week.
Jacksonville OVER at Cleveland - This game has trap written all over it. Cleveland has it in them to beat the Jaguars, it just depends on if the Jaguars have it in them to stay in this game, and not next weeks game.
at Miami OVER Buffalo - I'm going with Miami with Nick Saban (who I'm not down on yet) at home over Buffalo who has yet to win on the road.
Minnesota OVER at Detroit - Remember how a few weeks ago I said if Minnesota beat Green Bay at Lambeau, I would pick them to win the NFC North? Well I checked Chicago's schedule and I'm catiously optimistic. After this weekend, I'm making the call.
at New England OVER NY Jets - Betting wise, I'ld take the 10 pt underdog Jets to beat the spread.
at NY Giants OVER Dallas - Eli plays well at home and Dallas doesn't seem to run the ball well enough to win on the road... In fact, aside from the Philly debacle, they haven't won on the road since September... at San Francisco!
at Pittsburgh OVER Cincinnati - Remember how at the beginning of this season, I said I didn't like Pittsburgh's offense? Well, they are currently ranked #24 (#26 passing) and I don't think it's because Ben Roethlisberger has been hurt. Anyways, I'm only picking the Steelers because they're at home and because the Bengals are too young.
at San Diego OVER Oakland - The two teams that recently beat the Redskins so I can say this with confidence: Oakland stinks and San Diego doesn't. But trust me, that doesn't say much about San Diego. (And it says even less about the Skins.)
at New Orleans OVER Tampa Bay - Remember how Tampa Bay sucks? Well, the Saints have been doing remarkably well all things considered... They've only been blown out once (at Lambeau Field 52-3). The Bucs will probably make it a close game though.
at St. Louis OVER Washington - Every so often, I think to myself: Why torture myself watching the Skins... So this is my revenge of sorts.
Seattle at OVER Philadelphia - Kinda looks like Philly over Seattle is the glamour upset pick for NFL picks around the country. And just because the Seahawks couldn't put the Giants away. But, I am not picking a team who's only victory on the road came because Kansas City shut it down after going up big in the first quarter. BTW, check out who "fueled" the Eagles comeback against the Chiefs with 11 catches for 171 yards and a TD. None other than Señor TO.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Redskins 5-6, still done and the rest of the NFL
The Redskins continue their slide and have in essence (if not mathematically, yet) killed their chances of making the playoffs. I take solace from the fact that the Skins don't have a #1 pick in next years draft (because of this year's Jason Campbell pick/trade) so the better the Redskins do, the worse the #1 pick they would have had is. I also take solace in going 12-4 (and 12-2 on the weekend)... man, I'm regretting those "go against my instinct" picks on Thanksgiving. I am now 39-19 on my picks.
I've got to gloat because I only missed two games this weekend: Philly beating Green Bay and Miami beating Oakland. I thought Green Bay was pretty consistant this year in winning against okay teams away and losing at home. (BTW, I've been an idiot for awhile, because the Packers won at Lambeau on week 5. It's their only win at home though.) The Miami/Oakland game is my upset of the week... granted Oakland stunk it up against the Skins, but not bad enough to see this one coming.
The games I got lucky in were the overtime games: San Diego over Washington and Seattle over NY Giants. Obviously those overtime games could have gone either way. But, Eli Manning impressed me this weekend, even though Seattle is in the bottom third in passing defense. I still think his offensive line, Tiki Barber and his defense have ALOT to do in making him look good, but this weekend he undoubtedly played very well.
I was pretty proud to have called the St. Louis/Houston game as my "bite me in the butt" pick, because it almost did. Houston was up by 21 points when some rookie QB named Ryan Fitzpatrick decided to throw for 3 TD in a comeback OT win. I bet St. Louis is all in a tizzy about this kid... but I of course would like to wait to make a judgment.
Finally, remember how I said the Jags will beat the Colts... well Byron Leftwich broke a bone in his ankle and will not play against the Colts in two weeks. So, we'll have to wait and see how the Jags will play without him to see if I can still call that loss to the Colts.
I've got to gloat because I only missed two games this weekend: Philly beating Green Bay and Miami beating Oakland. I thought Green Bay was pretty consistant this year in winning against okay teams away and losing at home. (BTW, I've been an idiot for awhile, because the Packers won at Lambeau on week 5. It's their only win at home though.) The Miami/Oakland game is my upset of the week... granted Oakland stunk it up against the Skins, but not bad enough to see this one coming.
The games I got lucky in were the overtime games: San Diego over Washington and Seattle over NY Giants. Obviously those overtime games could have gone either way. But, Eli Manning impressed me this weekend, even though Seattle is in the bottom third in passing defense. I still think his offensive line, Tiki Barber and his defense have ALOT to do in making him look good, but this weekend he undoubtedly played very well.
I was pretty proud to have called the St. Louis/Houston game as my "bite me in the butt" pick, because it almost did. Houston was up by 21 points when some rookie QB named Ryan Fitzpatrick decided to throw for 3 TD in a comeback OT win. I bet St. Louis is all in a tizzy about this kid... but I of course would like to wait to make a judgment.
Finally, remember how I said the Jags will beat the Colts... well Byron Leftwich broke a bone in his ankle and will not play against the Colts in two weeks. So, we'll have to wait and see how the Jags will play without him to see if I can still call that loss to the Colts.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
NFL Week 12 Picks
Last week, on some last minute picks, I went a terrible 9-7 (bringing me to 27-15). But, I am proud of a few of the points I made: the Bengals being inexperienced (Carson Palmer's interception late), the Saints covering the spread against the Pats, and the Pittsburgh over Baltimore pick biting my butt (hey, I was right: Baltimore didn't do well... they just did better than Pittsburgh). And I'm still standing by some other thoughts that still need more time to pan out: Atlanta being better than they've been playing (although this weeks game helps), the Bears doing well because of their schedule (and I'm picking them this week), and not trusting Jake Plummer. Finally, in all fairness, here are the points that now sound bad: picking the Eagles against the 7 pt. spread (they lost by 10), and calling St. Louis a not so good team (they suck!).
So then earlier this week (probably still stinging from my 9-7 score) I went against my better judgement and posted a 0-2 record on Thanksgiving. I practically explained why you should go with Atlanta and Denver and then picked Detroit and Dallas... pretty stupid, I know. Anyways, no more being clever... I'm just making picks from now on.
My grandfather used to pick horses. He studied as much as he could and would pick his 1-3 or 1-4. Something that stood out to me was that he often would draw a figure over a horses stats (it looked like a nose and pair of glasses) which he called "ojos." Literally "eyes", but to him it meant that this was a horse you should keep an eye on. So much so that sometimes these rather ordinary horses, would make it into his pick. And usually, but not always, they would place or show. So in light of the "biting me in the butt" comment, I am starting my "bite me in the butt" pick. It will be a sort of "ojos" pick. A pick that I am worried about enough to make it stick out. We'll see how well I do.
The Picks:
Carolina OVER at Buffalo - Carolina went out and laid an egg (in the form of a single field goal) against the Bears. They'll do better against the Bills
at Cincinnati OVER Baltimore - Folks up in B-more should be excited about the win last week... because they aren't beating the Bengals
Jacksonville OVER at Arizona - Have I told you that I like the Jaguars?
at Kansas City OVER New England - New England finally won two games in a row, I don't see them going 3 weeks, even though its against this schizo Chiefs team. Maybe i feel this because it's in Arrowhead...
at Minnesota OVER Cleveland - I hate to keep going with the favorites, but even though Minnesota is now among the schizos, Cleveland only wins at home.
New Orleans OVER at NY Jets - New Orleans keeps losing and is no longer a schizo team, and is just a bad team, it's just that the Jets are worse.
at Oakland OVER Miami - Another really bad team against a not as bad team.
Green Bay OVER at Philadelphia - Philly is a 4 1/2 pt favorite... huh?
San Diego OVER at Washington - Even with Marty, I still like San Diego. So it sucks that Marty the Schott will come back and beat his old team. Wait a sec, a former Redskins head coach comes back and beats his old team? hmmm sounds familiar.
at Seattle OVER NY Giants - This is the first in a line of games in which Eli Manning better do well to prove me wrong. I'll say this much, if NY wins it'll be because of their defense.
St. Louis OVER at Houston - Houston was a 13 pt underdog against Indy a few weeks ago, and they couldn't even beat that. (This is "my bite me in the butt" pick of the week)
Chicago OVER at Tampa Bay - I'll call this the battle of the worst 7 win teams. I don't like the Bears because they have NO offense. Plus, the Bears defense is being excessively praised even though they haven't played a single good offense since their loss to the Bengals back in September. No matter though because Tampa Bay is just... not good.
at Tennessee OVER San Francisco - There are two teams who need no thinking about Houston and San Fran... Even though Tennessee sucks they aren't in that list quite yet. We'll see after this week.
at Indianapolis OVER Pittsburgh - Indy is an 8 1/2 pt favorite... wow! But considering what I think about Pittsburgh, if I were picking against the spread I might still take Indy.
So then earlier this week (probably still stinging from my 9-7 score) I went against my better judgement and posted a 0-2 record on Thanksgiving. I practically explained why you should go with Atlanta and Denver and then picked Detroit and Dallas... pretty stupid, I know. Anyways, no more being clever... I'm just making picks from now on.
My grandfather used to pick horses. He studied as much as he could and would pick his 1-3 or 1-4. Something that stood out to me was that he often would draw a figure over a horses stats (it looked like a nose and pair of glasses) which he called "ojos." Literally "eyes", but to him it meant that this was a horse you should keep an eye on. So much so that sometimes these rather ordinary horses, would make it into his pick. And usually, but not always, they would place or show. So in light of the "biting me in the butt" comment, I am starting my "bite me in the butt" pick. It will be a sort of "ojos" pick. A pick that I am worried about enough to make it stick out. We'll see how well I do.
The Picks:
Carolina OVER at Buffalo - Carolina went out and laid an egg (in the form of a single field goal) against the Bears. They'll do better against the Bills
at Cincinnati OVER Baltimore - Folks up in B-more should be excited about the win last week... because they aren't beating the Bengals
Jacksonville OVER at Arizona - Have I told you that I like the Jaguars?
at Kansas City OVER New England - New England finally won two games in a row, I don't see them going 3 weeks, even though its against this schizo Chiefs team. Maybe i feel this because it's in Arrowhead...
at Minnesota OVER Cleveland - I hate to keep going with the favorites, but even though Minnesota is now among the schizos, Cleveland only wins at home.
New Orleans OVER at NY Jets - New Orleans keeps losing and is no longer a schizo team, and is just a bad team, it's just that the Jets are worse.
at Oakland OVER Miami - Another really bad team against a not as bad team.
Green Bay OVER at Philadelphia - Philly is a 4 1/2 pt favorite... huh?
San Diego OVER at Washington - Even with Marty, I still like San Diego. So it sucks that Marty the Schott will come back and beat his old team. Wait a sec, a former Redskins head coach comes back and beats his old team? hmmm sounds familiar.
at Seattle OVER NY Giants - This is the first in a line of games in which Eli Manning better do well to prove me wrong. I'll say this much, if NY wins it'll be because of their defense.
St. Louis OVER at Houston - Houston was a 13 pt underdog against Indy a few weeks ago, and they couldn't even beat that. (This is "my bite me in the butt" pick of the week)
Chicago OVER at Tampa Bay - I'll call this the battle of the worst 7 win teams. I don't like the Bears because they have NO offense. Plus, the Bears defense is being excessively praised even though they haven't played a single good offense since their loss to the Bengals back in September. No matter though because Tampa Bay is just... not good.
at Tennessee OVER San Francisco - There are two teams who need no thinking about Houston and San Fran... Even though Tennessee sucks they aren't in that list quite yet. We'll see after this week.
at Indianapolis OVER Pittsburgh - Indy is an 8 1/2 pt favorite... wow! But considering what I think about Pittsburgh, if I were picking against the spread I might still take Indy.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
The New England Aquarium Imaginary Penguin Story
So I don't really like spreading rumors but this one is funny and I'm not too far removed from it. I'll just say it is a friend of a friend's cousin, that this happened too. It is from memory so it's going to sound a lot like I made it up, but I did not make this story up. Someone else along the line might have made it up, but I promise I have not. (Doesn't every urban legend start like that?)
A couple and their young boy visit the New England Aquarium in Boston for the first time a few weeks ago. They go, they have fun and eventually they head home. Once they get home the kid tells their parent that he wants to take a bath and go play with his new pet penguin. The parents were amused that the trip had gotten the boy's imagination going, but more importantly they were happy to have him take the initiative to bathe. So they let the boy run to the bathroom, and start to make dinner. Pretty soon they start hearing a lot of splashing and noise coming from the bathroom, so they go check up on him. When they get there they find the boy with a real live penguin in the bathtub. Apparently the kid had somehow gotten the penguin and snuck him out in his backpack. The kid and the bird get checked out (they might have even been quarantined), and that's the last I have heard of it.
I've looked it up in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, but I found anything about a kid taking a penguin from the aquarium... so that makes me skeptical. But then again I wonder if this is the sort of story the aquarium wants to keep quiet considering how apparently easy it is to steal a penguin.
A couple and their young boy visit the New England Aquarium in Boston for the first time a few weeks ago. They go, they have fun and eventually they head home. Once they get home the kid tells their parent that he wants to take a bath and go play with his new pet penguin. The parents were amused that the trip had gotten the boy's imagination going, but more importantly they were happy to have him take the initiative to bathe. So they let the boy run to the bathroom, and start to make dinner. Pretty soon they start hearing a lot of splashing and noise coming from the bathroom, so they go check up on him. When they get there they find the boy with a real live penguin in the bathtub. Apparently the kid had somehow gotten the penguin and snuck him out in his backpack. The kid and the bird get checked out (they might have even been quarantined), and that's the last I have heard of it.
I've looked it up in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, but I found anything about a kid taking a penguin from the aquarium... so that makes me skeptical. But then again I wonder if this is the sort of story the aquarium wants to keep quiet considering how apparently easy it is to steal a penguin.
Thursday NFL Picks
Last week when I made my last minute (sunday morning) picks I went about 4-38. And this week since there are turkey day games, I'm once again making last minute picks... so I'm only picking two games today, and I'll pick the rest tomorrow or saturday.
So this week my first thoughts were: to pick against Detroit (because they seem to like to lose on Thanksgiving) and with Denver (since they seem to be pretty good this season, at least thats what others think). BUT here are my picks:
at Detroit OVER Atlanta - So I believe I have picked Atlanta two weeks in a row and they've failed me both times. I'm picking against them once again... just watch this is the week they'll turn it around and beat Detroit on a day Detroit hasn't been very good the past few years. Michael Vick will throw for 325 yards, run for a TD and throw two. Anyways, I don't like picking this game because, aside from highlights, I haven't seen either team play since about week 1 or 2.
at Dallas OVER Denver - Denver is everyones favorite team behind the Colts, but Dallas seems to win on Thanksgiving. So I'm going with Dallas because I think they are a good team with a good coach. I don't think Mike Shanahan is all that good of a coach (John Elway and Terrell Davis got him that Super Bowl) and I'm waiting for Jake Plummer to throw 3 interceptions... it HAS to happen.
So this week my first thoughts were: to pick against Detroit (because they seem to like to lose on Thanksgiving) and with Denver (since they seem to be pretty good this season, at least thats what others think). BUT here are my picks:
at Detroit OVER Atlanta - So I believe I have picked Atlanta two weeks in a row and they've failed me both times. I'm picking against them once again... just watch this is the week they'll turn it around and beat Detroit on a day Detroit hasn't been very good the past few years. Michael Vick will throw for 325 yards, run for a TD and throw two. Anyways, I don't like picking this game because, aside from highlights, I haven't seen either team play since about week 1 or 2.
at Dallas OVER Denver - Denver is everyones favorite team behind the Colts, but Dallas seems to win on Thanksgiving. So I'm going with Dallas because I think they are a good team with a good coach. I don't think Mike Shanahan is all that good of a coach (John Elway and Terrell Davis got him that Super Bowl) and I'm waiting for Jake Plummer to throw 3 interceptions... it HAS to happen.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Redskins are 5-5 and are Done!
The Redskins are officially horrible, and it's because teams have figured them out. This week, there is no blaming the referees because the Lamont Jordan call was the right call. He was ruled down by contact, and there was no evidence to contrary. The only thing I saw was the ground causing the "fumble" as Jordan went to stretch it out. Anyways, the Skins got a few "home" calls, like the weak pass interference call on the Randy Moss TD. And of course the turnovers are problem.
But the bigger problem is the team as a whole. As Bill Simmons points out all you need to do to stop the Redskins offense is stack the line against the run and double team Santana Moss. Once Santana was double teamed that left Taylor Jacobs (who looks stunningly slow) and James Thrash (who couldn't even make it in pre-T.O. Philly) in single coverage, and neither could do anything on Sunday. Opposing offenses then just need to go for long passes, because the Redskins WILL give up at least one 25+ yard TD or pass into the Red Zone. They'll also give up a long run for a first down (and sometimes TD) right when it counts.
When you get down to it though, the Redskins deserve this. Like the Nationals this past season, they got used to winning close games at the beginning of the season, and now it's biting them in the butt. They won games early that they could have lost and now have lost games they could have won. They deserve 5-5.
But I guess what irks me is the fact that Norval Eugene Turner was able to do this against Joe Gibbs' Redskins. Maybe Gibbs was too busy following his NASCAR team win the Nextel Cup. Maybe they should rename the club level at FedEx the Norv Turner Club Level for a day... ugh. It sickens me to think about him. The only thing that give me solace is the fact that he really hasn't changed much. He still plays games closely and can oddly win on the road (I'm pretty sure he had a good road record with the Skins). I sorta feel sorry for the Raiders... Anyways, we'll move on.
I've decided that no matter what, I'm going against the Redskins for the rest of the season with my picks. I'ld rather they win than me win, so if they're going to lose, I might as well win. We'll call it the "sore loser" rule.
As for my picks... wow! I got SKUNKED! I'll write about that later though... for now I'm going to gnash my teeth in my sleep over my beloved Skins!
But the bigger problem is the team as a whole. As Bill Simmons points out all you need to do to stop the Redskins offense is stack the line against the run and double team Santana Moss. Once Santana was double teamed that left Taylor Jacobs (who looks stunningly slow) and James Thrash (who couldn't even make it in pre-T.O. Philly) in single coverage, and neither could do anything on Sunday. Opposing offenses then just need to go for long passes, because the Redskins WILL give up at least one 25+ yard TD or pass into the Red Zone. They'll also give up a long run for a first down (and sometimes TD) right when it counts.
When you get down to it though, the Redskins deserve this. Like the Nationals this past season, they got used to winning close games at the beginning of the season, and now it's biting them in the butt. They won games early that they could have lost and now have lost games they could have won. They deserve 5-5.
But I guess what irks me is the fact that Norval Eugene Turner was able to do this against Joe Gibbs' Redskins. Maybe Gibbs was too busy following his NASCAR team win the Nextel Cup. Maybe they should rename the club level at FedEx the Norv Turner Club Level for a day... ugh. It sickens me to think about him. The only thing that give me solace is the fact that he really hasn't changed much. He still plays games closely and can oddly win on the road (I'm pretty sure he had a good road record with the Skins). I sorta feel sorry for the Raiders... Anyways, we'll move on.
I've decided that no matter what, I'm going against the Redskins for the rest of the season with my picks. I'ld rather they win than me win, so if they're going to lose, I might as well win. We'll call it the "sore loser" rule.
As for my picks... wow! I got SKUNKED! I'll write about that later though... for now I'm going to gnash my teeth in my sleep over my beloved Skins!
NFL Week 11 Picks
So I have a pedestrian 18-8 (although it should be 20-8) record for the past two weeks. Not outstanding but at least I'm not at 500 (like Chris Berman). I copied all the games this time (instead of doing them one by one) so that I'm sure to pick all 14 games. I'm making these picks early on Sunday morning so two things... they are really quick picks (i'm doing em fast) and that gives me an "out" if I go 6-8. My quick thought is that alot of these games are really toss ups, not exactly close games, but toss ups at first sight. Which makes me think that if I spent some time thinking about it, I should do better... but that doesn't mean I would... so anyways.... here goes:
at Atlanta OVER Tampa Bay - Atlanta is better than last week, and Tampa Bay is worse than last week.
Carolina OVER at Chicago - Chicago's record is due to their schedule, I don't think they are as good as people seem to think.
Miami OVER at Cleveland - I still don't like Miami, but I like them better than Cleveland.
at Dallas OVER Detroit - Dallas got lucky last week so this reeks of a trap game, but I can't bring myself to pick Detroit on the road.
at Denver OVER NY Jets - I like Denver but I just don't trust Jake Plummer... but I trust him against whoever is QBing for the Jets.
Indianapolis OVER at Cincinnati - Indy has to lose at some point this year and this is certainly a candidate for that. But the Bengals are just to inexperience to pick... even at home.
Jacksonville OVER at Tennessee - The Jaguars are the team I think will beat Indy... and I'm saying that because there really is nothing to say about this game.
Kansas City OVER at Houston - Trent Green threw interceptions as if the Chiefs got points for them last week, ruining my KC over Buffalo pick. He could do the same thing this week and still beat the Texans.
at New England OVER New Orleans - I'm picking the Patriots because the Saints are so unstable but I REALLY want to pick New Orleans and I would if I were picking against the 9 1/2 point spread.
at NY Giants OVER Philadelphia - Another game where I REALLY want to pick the underdog (Philly). Again I would pick them against the 7 point spread.
Pittsburgh OVER at Baltimore - Baltimore should have taken advantage of the game that was close in Pittsburgh. I don't see them doing as well... even at home. (This pick is the one I'm thinking is biting me in the rear, btw)
at San Diego OVER Buffalo - A good team against a bad one... what else can I say.
Seattle OVER at San Francisco - Ibid. (can I use that for picks? in other words same things goes here as for the last pick.)
at St. Louis OVER Arizona - A not so good team at home against a bad team... I'll go with the the not so good team.
at Washington OVER Oakland - Norval Eugene Turner has no business winning at FedEx Field since he couldn't even do it consistenly as the Redskins head coach. BUT let me say this, If this were in Oakland I would pick Oakland.
at Green Bay OVER Minnesota - Here are two teams that seem to currently be better than their records. So I'm going with the home team. So I'll try this again: I see the Packers finally win their first game in Lambeau this season. (BUT, if Minnesota wins, I'm picking them to win the NFC North... Yeah I might regret that. I'm going to check Chicago's remaining schedule to see if that makes sense.)
at Atlanta OVER Tampa Bay - Atlanta is better than last week, and Tampa Bay is worse than last week.
Carolina OVER at Chicago - Chicago's record is due to their schedule, I don't think they are as good as people seem to think.
Miami OVER at Cleveland - I still don't like Miami, but I like them better than Cleveland.
at Dallas OVER Detroit - Dallas got lucky last week so this reeks of a trap game, but I can't bring myself to pick Detroit on the road.
at Denver OVER NY Jets - I like Denver but I just don't trust Jake Plummer... but I trust him against whoever is QBing for the Jets.
Indianapolis OVER at Cincinnati - Indy has to lose at some point this year and this is certainly a candidate for that. But the Bengals are just to inexperience to pick... even at home.
Jacksonville OVER at Tennessee - The Jaguars are the team I think will beat Indy... and I'm saying that because there really is nothing to say about this game.
Kansas City OVER at Houston - Trent Green threw interceptions as if the Chiefs got points for them last week, ruining my KC over Buffalo pick. He could do the same thing this week and still beat the Texans.
at New England OVER New Orleans - I'm picking the Patriots because the Saints are so unstable but I REALLY want to pick New Orleans and I would if I were picking against the 9 1/2 point spread.
at NY Giants OVER Philadelphia - Another game where I REALLY want to pick the underdog (Philly). Again I would pick them against the 7 point spread.
Pittsburgh OVER at Baltimore - Baltimore should have taken advantage of the game that was close in Pittsburgh. I don't see them doing as well... even at home. (This pick is the one I'm thinking is biting me in the rear, btw)
at San Diego OVER Buffalo - A good team against a bad one... what else can I say.
Seattle OVER at San Francisco - Ibid. (can I use that for picks? in other words same things goes here as for the last pick.)
at St. Louis OVER Arizona - A not so good team at home against a bad team... I'll go with the the not so good team.
at Washington OVER Oakland - Norval Eugene Turner has no business winning at FedEx Field since he couldn't even do it consistenly as the Redskins head coach. BUT let me say this, If this were in Oakland I would pick Oakland.
at Green Bay OVER Minnesota - Here are two teams that seem to currently be better than their records. So I'm going with the home team. So I'll try this again: I see the Packers finally win their first game in Lambeau this season. (BUT, if Minnesota wins, I'm picking them to win the NFC North... Yeah I might regret that. I'm going to check Chicago's remaining schedule to see if that makes sense.)
Friday, November 18, 2005
Intelligent Design
It would be refreshing to see a religious group say that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in the science room. It, therefore, is probably most refreshing to see a Roman Catholic Church official say that Intelligent Design is not science.
The rather sad thing is that the religious right (which, and I probably don't need to point this out, has way too much control over the Republican party) doesn't exactly respect the Catholic Church. (Which is understandable since these are the same Christian fundamentalists who feel the Catholic church has repressed them since forever.) But somehow I get the feeling these people (Pat Robertson, et al.) will dismiss this as the Vatican not being in touch with the "Lord's will."
The part they apparantly fail to remember (and or see) is that the Vatican has already gone through this. The Vatican has a history of fighting science and they realize there is no reason to. Science will never prove or disprove God. The only thing that will be disproved is your own integrity for claiming things of and about God that you have no business claiming.
I have an issue with the article though. It states that "Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order." In the context of this article, it makes it seem as if the Pontiff supports "Intelligent Design" as presented by its supporters. Personally I would like to ready his comments to make my own conclusion as to what he meant.
The religious right in this country will continue to try and place "Intelligent Design" in science class, and I truly respect Vatican officials for at least saying things against it. The Vatican has fought this war, so now it's time for another large religious group (which coincidentally has a good amount of control over government) to fight this war of explaining creation with a literal interpretation of the Bible. How about we start at Joshua 10:12, where it implies that the Sun moves around the Earth. "Intelligent Design" supporters could even ask the Vatican for its notes about this same subject back when it fought Galileo about this around 400 years ago.
The rather sad thing is that the religious right (which, and I probably don't need to point this out, has way too much control over the Republican party) doesn't exactly respect the Catholic Church. (Which is understandable since these are the same Christian fundamentalists who feel the Catholic church has repressed them since forever.) But somehow I get the feeling these people (Pat Robertson, et al.) will dismiss this as the Vatican not being in touch with the "Lord's will."
The part they apparantly fail to remember (and or see) is that the Vatican has already gone through this. The Vatican has a history of fighting science and they realize there is no reason to. Science will never prove or disprove God. The only thing that will be disproved is your own integrity for claiming things of and about God that you have no business claiming.
I have an issue with the article though. It states that "Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order." In the context of this article, it makes it seem as if the Pontiff supports "Intelligent Design" as presented by its supporters. Personally I would like to ready his comments to make my own conclusion as to what he meant.
The religious right in this country will continue to try and place "Intelligent Design" in science class, and I truly respect Vatican officials for at least saying things against it. The Vatican has fought this war, so now it's time for another large religious group (which coincidentally has a good amount of control over government) to fight this war of explaining creation with a literal interpretation of the Bible. How about we start at Joshua 10:12, where it implies that the Sun moves around the Earth. "Intelligent Design" supporters could even ask the Vatican for its notes about this same subject back when it fought Galileo about this around 400 years ago.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Redskins at 5-4, should be 6-3 but so what.
I was ready to write a long post about how the Redskins got screwed by the refs and how Mike Alstott's elbow (the one with the football) had CLEARLY not broken the plane, but I've decided to leave a mention to that bad call to just this paragraph. (I think, the media should make a bigger deal of it... I'm looking at you Mike Wilbon. Wilbon seems to just compare the Alstott call to the Betts call. Well hindsight is hindsight, but I'm pretty sure if the Betts TD is called back the Skins offense gets on the field and has a chance to score a TD. If Alstott doesn't make it, there is no second chance for the Bucs. Basically though, the Bucs got lucky and the Redskins otherwise gave them the game. You can't seriously tell me the Bucs are looking better than the Skins for the rest of the season can you? Unless the Bucs plan on being handed games for the rest of the season. So much more could be said but when it comes down to it the Redskins need to click in the next two games.
And since I hate meaningless cliches, I'll explain what I mean by click. Two things need to happen: first and foremost the defense needs to improve and second the turnover ratio need to get better. The Skins have been sunk by turnovers all season. 3 of their losses, including Sunday's, can be, at least partially, attributed to offensive (or special team) turnovers and a lack of recovered turnovers. The biggest problem, I believe, is their defensive system, which I'm assuming isn't up for tweaking. I see two problems with Gregg Williams' system: First, the system doesn't use it's players strengths... making it easy to replace a player, but also reducing great players to regular players. And second, when one player fails it is susceptible to big plays... to use a computing term: there is no redundancy.
And since Williams' system is so praised, I don't think things will changes. I just hope that, like the LaVar Arrington issue, I am wrong. (Remember, I had thought that since Williams' system could works just as well with LaVar as it would with any other linebacker, Williams wouldn't use LaVar since LaVar hadn't "learned to be a pro" yet. Whatever that meant.)
In the end though, this season will come down to the next two games. It's over with the learning period of the season. Like the 2000 Ravens, 2000 Giants, 2001 Patriots, and 2002 Raiders (all teams that had their last meaningful loss around week 9 or 10, and then made the Super Bowl) this is when the Skins need to start a winning streak that leads into the playoffs. Now is the time to win out.
Finally, I would like to comment on something that happened a couple of years ago: In order to save money, Redskins Radio, replaced Frank Herzog with Larry Michaels. Back then, I was pretty disappointed because I hated hearing the Fox announcers who without fail would include one of two former Cowboys as announcers for Redskins games: Troy Aikman or Daryl Johnston. Aikman was bearable, but Johnston was, and still is, shamefully biased against the Skins. Anyways, thats a story for another day: the point here is that I would mute the TV and listen to Sonny, Sam and Frank. But when Frank left, I was sorely disappointed by Larry Michaels' play calling. He didn't have an interesting TD call (btw, is/was there a better hometown TD call than Frank's "Touchdown, Washington Redskins!" and whoever does the Chiefs' call of "Touchdown, KAN-SAS CITY!") So I stopped listening, and tried to ignore Johnston's lame commentary.
It didn't bother me that much mainly, I could still watch the game and just shut out the commentary. But this week I couldn't watch the game and was forced to listen to most of the game on WJFK (I only watched the 4th Quarter). I was seconds away from gouging my ears out because Larry Michaels has gotten worse! He takes FOREVER to describe things. I can tell what has happened from the crowd noise before he finishes his call. It seems like he wastes time on being exact (Larry, I really don't care if you call a run "about 4 yards" and its really is only a 3 yard because I get the idea that the fella didn't just run 15 yards) Im not looking for accuracy as much as speed. I'll get over being off by one or two yards on a first or second down run. I seriously heard something along the lines of this: "Brunell rolling to his left... (1 sec pause) has a man open... (1 sec pause, Tampa Bay crowd quiets down, 2 sec pause) Robert Royal makes the 8 reception and is tackled" Um, gee, Larry thanks for the update! I'ld be faster if he wrote it down, blogged it and had someone else read it over the radio. I even heard Sonny announcing that the Skins got a first down because... well I guess Larry thinks it's more important to tell me exactly how many yards, or who tackled him than if the Skins have a first down.
Anyways, needless to say, its been a frustrating day in football.
And since I hate meaningless cliches, I'll explain what I mean by click. Two things need to happen: first and foremost the defense needs to improve and second the turnover ratio need to get better. The Skins have been sunk by turnovers all season. 3 of their losses, including Sunday's, can be, at least partially, attributed to offensive (or special team) turnovers and a lack of recovered turnovers. The biggest problem, I believe, is their defensive system, which I'm assuming isn't up for tweaking. I see two problems with Gregg Williams' system: First, the system doesn't use it's players strengths... making it easy to replace a player, but also reducing great players to regular players. And second, when one player fails it is susceptible to big plays... to use a computing term: there is no redundancy.
And since Williams' system is so praised, I don't think things will changes. I just hope that, like the LaVar Arrington issue, I am wrong. (Remember, I had thought that since Williams' system could works just as well with LaVar as it would with any other linebacker, Williams wouldn't use LaVar since LaVar hadn't "learned to be a pro" yet. Whatever that meant.)
In the end though, this season will come down to the next two games. It's over with the learning period of the season. Like the 2000 Ravens, 2000 Giants, 2001 Patriots, and 2002 Raiders (all teams that had their last meaningful loss around week 9 or 10, and then made the Super Bowl) this is when the Skins need to start a winning streak that leads into the playoffs. Now is the time to win out.
Finally, I would like to comment on something that happened a couple of years ago: In order to save money, Redskins Radio, replaced Frank Herzog with Larry Michaels. Back then, I was pretty disappointed because I hated hearing the Fox announcers who without fail would include one of two former Cowboys as announcers for Redskins games: Troy Aikman or Daryl Johnston. Aikman was bearable, but Johnston was, and still is, shamefully biased against the Skins. Anyways, thats a story for another day: the point here is that I would mute the TV and listen to Sonny, Sam and Frank. But when Frank left, I was sorely disappointed by Larry Michaels' play calling. He didn't have an interesting TD call (btw, is/was there a better hometown TD call than Frank's "Touchdown, Washington Redskins!" and whoever does the Chiefs' call of "Touchdown, KAN-SAS CITY!") So I stopped listening, and tried to ignore Johnston's lame commentary.
It didn't bother me that much mainly, I could still watch the game and just shut out the commentary. But this week I couldn't watch the game and was forced to listen to most of the game on WJFK (I only watched the 4th Quarter). I was seconds away from gouging my ears out because Larry Michaels has gotten worse! He takes FOREVER to describe things. I can tell what has happened from the crowd noise before he finishes his call. It seems like he wastes time on being exact (Larry, I really don't care if you call a run "about 4 yards" and its really is only a 3 yard because I get the idea that the fella didn't just run 15 yards) Im not looking for accuracy as much as speed. I'll get over being off by one or two yards on a first or second down run. I seriously heard something along the lines of this: "Brunell rolling to his left... (1 sec pause) has a man open... (1 sec pause, Tampa Bay crowd quiets down, 2 sec pause) Robert Royal makes the 8 reception and is tackled" Um, gee, Larry thanks for the update! I'ld be faster if he wrote it down, blogged it and had someone else read it over the radio. I even heard Sonny announcing that the Skins got a first down because... well I guess Larry thinks it's more important to tell me exactly how many yards, or who tackled him than if the Skins have a first down.
Anyways, needless to say, its been a frustrating day in football.
Nobody (except the Clippers) beat the Wiz
So, I'll admit, I was notably silent when the Wizards lost at home to the LA Clippers. In their previous games they had taken leads in the second half, or protected a lead like a good team does. So it was disappointing to see them take a 3 point lead into the 4th quarter only to lose by 5. So I decided to hold off commenting when they WALLOPED Seattle on Friday night, 137-96. But now it's kind of hard to hold back when they just beat the defending NBA champion Spurs, 110-95. This is a Spurs team that should cruise into the NBA Finals after having a 70+ win seasons. Gilbert Arenas went and put 43 points on em!
So I'm stating the obvious, but as Gilbert Arenas goes, so go the Wizards. In every game he is the leading scorer the Wizards have won. The same thing holds true for Tim Duncan and the Spurs... needless to say Duncan scored a paltry 11 pts, putting him behind even backup point guard Nick Van Exel (who, BTW, I had no clue was playing for the Spurs). What surprises me about Arenas is that I pegged him for a Reggie Miller type. An all around good player, who was missing something. A fan favorite, an all star, but not an MJ, Shaq, Duncan, or Kobe. Not one of those players that wins you an NBA championship in this era. But now I am seeing that potential in him and I'm digging it because he has quality players around him. I just hope that potential becomes reality.
So I'm stating the obvious, but as Gilbert Arenas goes, so go the Wizards. In every game he is the leading scorer the Wizards have won. The same thing holds true for Tim Duncan and the Spurs... needless to say Duncan scored a paltry 11 pts, putting him behind even backup point guard Nick Van Exel (who, BTW, I had no clue was playing for the Spurs). What surprises me about Arenas is that I pegged him for a Reggie Miller type. An all around good player, who was missing something. A fan favorite, an all star, but not an MJ, Shaq, Duncan, or Kobe. Not one of those players that wins you an NBA championship in this era. But now I am seeing that potential in him and I'm digging it because he has quality players around him. I just hope that potential becomes reality.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Week 10 NFL Picks
Once again this week, I pretty much agree with ESPN's Week 10 NFL Ranking. But, what is scary though is that I agree more with Peter King's ranking than I do with Dr. Z's ranking. I'm going to take my temperature now.
Anyways, since last week I went 11-3 on my NFL picks, I've decided to do it again. And since not over analyzing things by just doing quick picks, I'll do that again. Well, to be specific I will only use two things. My astounding knowledge and instincts (ie. My brain) and this Week 10 schedule from Yahoo. The schedule shows home, away, favorites and spread. (BTW, I probably shouldn't be looking at the favorites considering last week it in part got me to pick the Packers to beat the Steelers.)
Anyways... off to my picks:
Atlanta over Green Bay. A few years ago I remember the Falcons going into Green Bay and breaking their long playoff home game winning streak. I guess the point is the Packers really haven't improved since, Michael Vick seems healthy and they're playing in Atlanta. (What scares me: Green Bay seems to win away this season and if Vick doesn't play, I'd go with the Pack.)
Kansas City over Buffalo. I just don't like Buffalo's QB whoever it is. nuff said. (What scares me: Just that Buffalo is favored... why is there no love for the Chiefs?)
Carolina over NY Jets. Once again I don't like the Jets QB, whoever they decide to play. (What scares me: nothing really.)
Denver over Oakland. I'm going with the Broncos mainly because of my old rule, don't ever trust Norv. (What scares me: Oakland at home... I'm pretty sure Denver doesn't do well there.)
Detroit over Arizona. Pretty evenly matched game so I'm going with the home team. (What scares me: It's evenly matched. Maybe If i were going against the spread, 4 points, I'ld go with the Cardinals.)
Indianapolis over Houston. But I might go with Houston if I were picking against the 17.5 points (WOW!) spread. (What scares me: A let down from last weeks win against the Patriots... just kidding!)
Jacksonville over Baltimore. Like I said last week, I like the Jaguars... but I also like the Ravens, just not on the road with Anthony Wright at QB. (What scares me: Nothing really, especially since this is in Jacksonville.)
New England over Miami. New England will continue their "lose one, win one" trend. (What scares me: I think the Patriots are going to tank at some point this season, just not this week... right?)
NY Giants over Minnesota. If this game were played at Minnesota, I might have gone with the Vikings. (What scares me: The Vikings on the road... so in other words I'ld even pick the Giants against the 10 point spread.)
Pittsburgh over Cleveland. Does this really need to be explained. The Steelers don't lose to bad teams, the Browns lose to everyone, etc. (What scares me: The Browns... I'm glad I'm not from Cleveland.)
Washington over Tampa Bay. I stopped trusting the Bucs back when they lost their QB and their Cadillac broke down. (What scares me: The fact that I keep using the Cadillac gimmick when talking about the Bucs.)
Dallas over Philadelphia. Lemme see: the Eagles are at home, but they still don't have a running game, just gave up on their only real passing threat, and Donovan McNabb would have been shot months ago if he were a horse. So why are the Eagles favored? (What scares me: Two things. The Eagles got spanked last time they played the Cowboys and the Cowboys secondary loves giving up passing yards. Remember that the Eagles can't run? Well that sorta works out well for the Eagles doesn't it?)
Finally, if I haven't mentioned it before I'll state it now. I hate Chris Berman. His nicknames were cool... back when I was 10. Actually, that's a lie, I didn't like them back then either. His alter ego NFL picking "Swami" gets old especially since he only picks like 6 games. What is even crazier is that even though he hand picks 6 games, he sucks. Like this week he goes and misses them ALL! Another thing I don't like is that he doesn't hide who he roots for very well. I'm pretty sure he's a Giants fan. He's got that Peter King-ness to him. More on this later...
Anyways, since last week I went 11-3 on my NFL picks, I've decided to do it again. And since not over analyzing things by just doing quick picks, I'll do that again. Well, to be specific I will only use two things. My astounding knowledge and instincts (ie. My brain) and this Week 10 schedule from Yahoo. The schedule shows home, away, favorites and spread. (BTW, I probably shouldn't be looking at the favorites considering last week it in part got me to pick the Packers to beat the Steelers.)
Anyways... off to my picks:
Atlanta over Green Bay. A few years ago I remember the Falcons going into Green Bay and breaking their long playoff home game winning streak. I guess the point is the Packers really haven't improved since, Michael Vick seems healthy and they're playing in Atlanta. (What scares me: Green Bay seems to win away this season and if Vick doesn't play, I'd go with the Pack.)
Kansas City over Buffalo. I just don't like Buffalo's QB whoever it is. nuff said. (What scares me: Just that Buffalo is favored... why is there no love for the Chiefs?)
Carolina over NY Jets. Once again I don't like the Jets QB, whoever they decide to play. (What scares me: nothing really.)
Denver over Oakland. I'm going with the Broncos mainly because of my old rule, don't ever trust Norv. (What scares me: Oakland at home... I'm pretty sure Denver doesn't do well there.)
Detroit over Arizona. Pretty evenly matched game so I'm going with the home team. (What scares me: It's evenly matched. Maybe If i were going against the spread, 4 points, I'ld go with the Cardinals.)
Indianapolis over Houston. But I might go with Houston if I were picking against the 17.5 points (WOW!) spread. (What scares me: A let down from last weeks win against the Patriots... just kidding!)
Jacksonville over Baltimore. Like I said last week, I like the Jaguars... but I also like the Ravens, just not on the road with Anthony Wright at QB. (What scares me: Nothing really, especially since this is in Jacksonville.)
New England over Miami. New England will continue their "lose one, win one" trend. (What scares me: I think the Patriots are going to tank at some point this season, just not this week... right?)
NY Giants over Minnesota. If this game were played at Minnesota, I might have gone with the Vikings. (What scares me: The Vikings on the road... so in other words I'ld even pick the Giants against the 10 point spread.)
Pittsburgh over Cleveland. Does this really need to be explained. The Steelers don't lose to bad teams, the Browns lose to everyone, etc. (What scares me: The Browns... I'm glad I'm not from Cleveland.)
Washington over Tampa Bay. I stopped trusting the Bucs back when they lost their QB and their Cadillac broke down. (What scares me: The fact that I keep using the Cadillac gimmick when talking about the Bucs.)
Dallas over Philadelphia. Lemme see: the Eagles are at home, but they still don't have a running game, just gave up on their only real passing threat, and Donovan McNabb would have been shot months ago if he were a horse. So why are the Eagles favored? (What scares me: Two things. The Eagles got spanked last time they played the Cowboys and the Cowboys secondary loves giving up passing yards. Remember that the Eagles can't run? Well that sorta works out well for the Eagles doesn't it?)
Finally, if I haven't mentioned it before I'll state it now. I hate Chris Berman. His nicknames were cool... back when I was 10. Actually, that's a lie, I didn't like them back then either. His alter ego NFL picking "Swami" gets old especially since he only picks like 6 games. What is even crazier is that even though he hand picks 6 games, he sucks. Like this week he goes and misses them ALL! Another thing I don't like is that he doesn't hide who he roots for very well. I'm pretty sure he's a Giants fan. He's got that Peter King-ness to him. More on this later...
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
20 Questions
So I recently decided to get the portable version of 20Q, the 20 Questions game. It's 10 bucks, and definitely worth it. It surprised me with how good it is at figuring out what I think of. It does miss but it's pretty cool when it hits. Hits come on simple things (an orange) and slightly harder things (stop sign). It initially missed "mango" guessing "pear", but 4 or 5 questions later it got it right. I've tried Santa Claus twice, but it has guessed "Mickey Mouse" and "Planet".
You can play it online at 20q.net. The cool thing is that you can try it in other languages too!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Virginia and New Jersey Governor Races
I wanted to comment earlier on the deluge of negative ads put out by Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore. But I wanted to wait. I want to see if being so amazingly negative would work. I am happy to say that apparently it doesn't. Tim Kaine will be Virginia's next Governor.
Now to be honest, I only the cursory points of Tim Kaine's and Jerry Kilgore's political beliefs but I am glad that Jerry Kilgore lost. I thought Kilgore's ads were horrendous. In one ad Kilgore stated (not just suggested) that Kaine would not apply Virginia's death penalty on Adolf Hitler. (Side note: strangely there was someone jumping on a trampoline while these malicious "facts" where displayed about Kaine) Do I even need to explain how crude and misleading that is? Sheesh, Kilgore almost had me believing that Willie Horton himself would be my next door neighbor if Kaine were elected... and I live in DC!
I, also, was very dissapointed in what I heard of Kilgore's concession speech. I like hearing concession speeches, because the losing politician tended to seem humble and uses the platform to encourage passion in working for the city/state/country and to encourage unity. But Kilgore seemed defiant after congratulating Kaine. He spoke of losing the battle, but not losing the war. To me, calling the larger scene a war, seems not only tactless, but stubborn and improvident. If he was speaking of not losing the war of "Republican values," did he not know that the same voters who said no to him said yes to Republican Bill Bolling as Lt. Governor? Unless Kaine and Bolling HATE each other, I see no reason for a "war." In fact, I see more of a reason to encourage Democrats and Republicans to work together. I know it sounds naive, but starting a new government by calling it a war just seems wrong.
Anyways, I hope Tim Kaine's victory means two things: First and foremost, that Virginia voters thought Kaine was the better candidate and secondly that Virginia voters were saying attack ads are NOT the way to win. (Please take not of that second point, fella who was interviewed at Kilgore headquarters saying that you don't understand politics if you don't understand the negative ads. Sir, I would say that you are the one who doesn't understand that most voters don't appreciate it when practically ALL your tv and radio ads are negative.)
Finally, I know nothing about the New Jersey race... so I only can say this: I hope New Jersey voters didn't vote Democratic because of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the corruption in the Republican Party. Virginia voters, on the other hand, were practically invited to show such dissastisfaction, because of Bush's campaign appearance for Kilgore. (BTW, am I the only one who thought that move was pretty daft? Really all Bush would do is lose you those votes who are among the 60%+ that think Bush is doing a bad job.) I just hope New Jersey voters didn't forsake a candidate simply because of his or her political affiliation.
Now to be honest, I only the cursory points of Tim Kaine's and Jerry Kilgore's political beliefs but I am glad that Jerry Kilgore lost. I thought Kilgore's ads were horrendous. In one ad Kilgore stated (not just suggested) that Kaine would not apply Virginia's death penalty on Adolf Hitler. (Side note: strangely there was someone jumping on a trampoline while these malicious "facts" where displayed about Kaine) Do I even need to explain how crude and misleading that is? Sheesh, Kilgore almost had me believing that Willie Horton himself would be my next door neighbor if Kaine were elected... and I live in DC!
I, also, was very dissapointed in what I heard of Kilgore's concession speech. I like hearing concession speeches, because the losing politician tended to seem humble and uses the platform to encourage passion in working for the city/state/country and to encourage unity. But Kilgore seemed defiant after congratulating Kaine. He spoke of losing the battle, but not losing the war. To me, calling the larger scene a war, seems not only tactless, but stubborn and improvident. If he was speaking of not losing the war of "Republican values," did he not know that the same voters who said no to him said yes to Republican Bill Bolling as Lt. Governor? Unless Kaine and Bolling HATE each other, I see no reason for a "war." In fact, I see more of a reason to encourage Democrats and Republicans to work together. I know it sounds naive, but starting a new government by calling it a war just seems wrong.
Anyways, I hope Tim Kaine's victory means two things: First and foremost, that Virginia voters thought Kaine was the better candidate and secondly that Virginia voters were saying attack ads are NOT the way to win. (Please take not of that second point, fella who was interviewed at Kilgore headquarters saying that you don't understand politics if you don't understand the negative ads. Sir, I would say that you are the one who doesn't understand that most voters don't appreciate it when practically ALL your tv and radio ads are negative.)
Finally, I know nothing about the New Jersey race... so I only can say this: I hope New Jersey voters didn't vote Democratic because of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the corruption in the Republican Party. Virginia voters, on the other hand, were practically invited to show such dissastisfaction, because of Bush's campaign appearance for Kilgore. (BTW, am I the only one who thought that move was pretty daft? Really all Bush would do is lose you those votes who are among the 60%+ that think Bush is doing a bad job.) I just hope New Jersey voters didn't forsake a candidate simply because of his or her political affiliation.
Monday, November 07, 2005
My new favorite show: Next
So I really understand the idea of Love/Hate because I love and hate the mtv show Next. First, click the link if you don't know how the show works. Second, I'll explain why I hate it: because it's childish, the people are shallow, and its just a car crash of a show. Finally, why I love it:
So, last week I thought the show hit an all time high when a quasi-cross dressing fella named Matthew was a dater on the show. Our friend Matthew wasn't only strangely dressed but he actually called himself "Matthew Fashion." To the contestant's credit, he actually didn't "next" Mr. Fashion at first sight. Since the contestant was a "division one" college basketball player the date involved playing basketball. Needless to say little Matty wasn't very good, and running around in an interesting dress-like outfit probably didn't help. He got nexted. (Side note: if the contestant was really a division one basketball player, he must be having a hard time if he still plays, considering he just admitted to being gay on MTV.)
Anyways you're probably asking yourself, is that it? Is this worthy of a posting. And I say to you "Nay Nay!" What I watched about 10 minutes ago is. This was THE MOMENT in Next history. I don't see how they top this, although I wasn't sure how they would top "Matthew Fashion", but this one certainly did the trick.
So this guy who openly admits he is picky, "nexts" the first 2 girls the second they get off the RV. The third girl, last a bit until he finds out that she has piercings "down there." Okay I can sort of see that, so we move on to the fourth girl. She seems nice, eats shellfish even though she doesn't like it, and even obliges the guy when he starts asking about the final girl. The girl gets a little too truthful and the guy nexts her to meet the finally dater. So on comes our WINNER, the fifth and final dater. As she is getting of the RV she tells us and the other daters that she needs to go to the bathroom. She arrives at the date, and it seems like she was able to make it to the bathroom and starts talking to the guy. The guy asks what kind of guy she likes and out of nowhere, and I'm not kidding, she pees herself. They show the floor beneath her and there is a puddle of... well you know. Then they go to pants and you see a big wet spot where there should be one. She sits there sheepishly, as the guy notices and yells "Next!" As she gets up, they show you her chair, freshly soiled. I sat there STUNNED.
Needless to say, you need to catch this episode and the Matthew Fashion one too... just amazingly frightening television from the folks over at MTV.
So, last week I thought the show hit an all time high when a quasi-cross dressing fella named Matthew was a dater on the show. Our friend Matthew wasn't only strangely dressed but he actually called himself "Matthew Fashion." To the contestant's credit, he actually didn't "next" Mr. Fashion at first sight. Since the contestant was a "division one" college basketball player the date involved playing basketball. Needless to say little Matty wasn't very good, and running around in an interesting dress-like outfit probably didn't help. He got nexted. (Side note: if the contestant was really a division one basketball player, he must be having a hard time if he still plays, considering he just admitted to being gay on MTV.)
Anyways you're probably asking yourself, is that it? Is this worthy of a posting. And I say to you "Nay Nay!" What I watched about 10 minutes ago is. This was THE MOMENT in Next history. I don't see how they top this, although I wasn't sure how they would top "Matthew Fashion", but this one certainly did the trick.
So this guy who openly admits he is picky, "nexts" the first 2 girls the second they get off the RV. The third girl, last a bit until he finds out that she has piercings "down there." Okay I can sort of see that, so we move on to the fourth girl. She seems nice, eats shellfish even though she doesn't like it, and even obliges the guy when he starts asking about the final girl. The girl gets a little too truthful and the guy nexts her to meet the finally dater. So on comes our WINNER, the fifth and final dater. As she is getting of the RV she tells us and the other daters that she needs to go to the bathroom. She arrives at the date, and it seems like she was able to make it to the bathroom and starts talking to the guy. The guy asks what kind of guy she likes and out of nowhere, and I'm not kidding, she pees herself. They show the floor beneath her and there is a puddle of... well you know. Then they go to pants and you see a big wet spot where there should be one. She sits there sheepishly, as the guy notices and yells "Next!" As she gets up, they show you her chair, freshly soiled. I sat there STUNNED.
Needless to say, you need to catch this episode and the Matthew Fashion one too... just amazingly frightening television from the folks over at MTV.
Redskins 4-3, I am 10-3
So I went 10-3 on my picks and I can explain the three I got wrong. First, I stupidly picked Green Bay over Pittsburgh. I called it my upset special even though I described my "reasoning" as RETARDED. Second, I picked Tennessee over Cleveland. As I stated, I didn't really think about this one because both teams are horrible, so thats some what of an excuse. Third, I picked Tampa Bay over Carolina, and for that I blame myself. I thought these teams were evenly matched but it seems they are teams headed in different directions. I didn't see them play but I no longer think Tampa Bay is for real.
Now on to the Skins victory over the Eagles. My first thoughts are that, although a win is a win, I am disappointed. The Redskins came out flat in the first quarter and in general this win should have been much easier. The Eagles are not the Seahawks, Broncos, and Chiefs but the Skins played them all the same. Hopefully, these are just "cobwebs" from last week and from a 7 game losing streak the Skins had against the Eagles.
First, the Redskins defense had no business allowing a touchdown to this terrible Eagles offense. I am finally believing Donovan McNabb's transformation into a real throwing QB (which only truly started last season) but without a running game, no one should be getting that many passing yards. But the way the defense has been playing It should come as a surprise to NO ONE that the Eagles lone touchdown was on a long yardage play. Is it me or does Gregg Williams' defense breakdown amazingly easy when one person misses an assignment or tackle? Oh and can we do some tackling drills?
Second, the fumbles (by Cooley and Thrash) that the Redskins were lucky to recover, bother me. I guess those plays make up for the fumbles the Redskins caused but failed to recover against the Broncos and Chiefs.
Third, the running game needs some help. The past two defenses have figured them out, so can we draw up a few new plays here?
The things I like?
Special teams, except for punt returns (including the James Thrash fumble) and punt coverage inside the 20. Mark Brunell, is money throwing and running.
Finally, though, it has to be noted that even when the Redskins didn't play their best, they pulled it out in the end. And that is most certainly worth something. It is that quality that has won 3 Super Bowls for the New England Patriots. The only problem I see is that the same could be said about the Redskins back when they started 3-0. The Redskins then tanked their next two games. Hopefully this time they have learned their lesson and can pull out games against teams they should beat like the Buccaneers and Raiders.
Now on to the Skins victory over the Eagles. My first thoughts are that, although a win is a win, I am disappointed. The Redskins came out flat in the first quarter and in general this win should have been much easier. The Eagles are not the Seahawks, Broncos, and Chiefs but the Skins played them all the same. Hopefully, these are just "cobwebs" from last week and from a 7 game losing streak the Skins had against the Eagles.
First, the Redskins defense had no business allowing a touchdown to this terrible Eagles offense. I am finally believing Donovan McNabb's transformation into a real throwing QB (which only truly started last season) but without a running game, no one should be getting that many passing yards. But the way the defense has been playing It should come as a surprise to NO ONE that the Eagles lone touchdown was on a long yardage play. Is it me or does Gregg Williams' defense breakdown amazingly easy when one person misses an assignment or tackle? Oh and can we do some tackling drills?
Second, the fumbles (by Cooley and Thrash) that the Redskins were lucky to recover, bother me. I guess those plays make up for the fumbles the Redskins caused but failed to recover against the Broncos and Chiefs.
Third, the running game needs some help. The past two defenses have figured them out, so can we draw up a few new plays here?
The things I like?
Special teams, except for punt returns (including the James Thrash fumble) and punt coverage inside the 20. Mark Brunell, is money throwing and running.
Finally, though, it has to be noted that even when the Redskins didn't play their best, they pulled it out in the end. And that is most certainly worth something. It is that quality that has won 3 Super Bowls for the New England Patriots. The only problem I see is that the same could be said about the Redskins back when they started 3-0. The Redskins then tanked their next two games. Hopefully this time they have learned their lesson and can pull out games against teams they should beat like the Buccaneers and Raiders.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Two Signs of the End and Nobody beats the Wiz
So here are my two "signs that the world is ending" of the day:
1. I was parking outside my apartment this evening and the Pizza Hut Delivery dude pulled up in front of me. His Toyota Corolla was adorned not only with the large plastic light-up Pizza Hut sign, but a set of four spinner wheel covers. The little fellas were spinning like crazy down low.
2. Then I come in and read about pirates (real ones that don't go "argh!") attacking a cruise ship of the coast of Somalia. Pirates? Really? Can't we come up with a new name for pirates, like sea bandits or ocean wrongdoers? Well, sea bandits still sounds as bad as pirates, but you know what I'm getting at.
So if thats true that would sucks because the Wizards just beat the Orlando Magic, 87-79. They are off to a 3-0 start, and Comcast SportsNet tells me it's their best start since 1978, which is back when they made it to consecutive NBA Finals, winning one in 1978.
1. I was parking outside my apartment this evening and the Pizza Hut Delivery dude pulled up in front of me. His Toyota Corolla was adorned not only with the large plastic light-up Pizza Hut sign, but a set of four spinner wheel covers. The little fellas were spinning like crazy down low.
2. Then I come in and read about pirates (real ones that don't go "argh!") attacking a cruise ship of the coast of Somalia. Pirates? Really? Can't we come up with a new name for pirates, like sea bandits or ocean wrongdoers? Well, sea bandits still sounds as bad as pirates, but you know what I'm getting at.
So if thats true that would sucks because the Wizards just beat the Orlando Magic, 87-79. They are off to a 3-0 start, and Comcast SportsNet tells me it's their best start since 1978, which is back when they made it to consecutive NBA Finals, winning one in 1978.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Wizards at 2-0 and Jarhead
That's more like it! The Wizards beat the Knicks 86-75 at Madison Square Garden tonight. Now the Knicks, like the Toronto Raptors, aren't really supposed to do much this season, but I will happily take the win mainly because the Wizards had a terrible tendency of losing at the Garden. In fact last season, the Wizards ended their regular season with a loss in New York versus a Knicks team that had been assured of watching the playoffs from home a long time before that game. Plus, the whole world apparently wanted to see Larry Brown's debut at the Garden, so this meant a lot. (And yes there is a certain amount of sarcasm and smugness in that last sentence.)
I particularly liked the fact that the Wizarads got out to big lead (19 pts), gave up the lead (Knicks went up 1), but came back to win by 11. The Wizards of the past few years used to go up on teams early, only to lose it in the second half. So coming back from a bad third quarter to win, on the road (in New York), in a tough situation (Brown's home debut) definitely impresses me.
Alas, I didn't watch the game because I was watching Jarhead tonight.
My quick thoughts: First, it reminded me of Full Metal Jacket, especially the boot camp/drill instructor scenes. It is a pretty good movie, certainly better than the other two Persian Gulf War movies I spoke of earlier (Three Kings and Courage Under Fire), but I'll hold off on calling it great since I feel compelled to compare it to another Sam Mendes movie, American Beauty.
I think the acting is what his holding me back. Jamie Foxx did a better job than I expected as he didn't do a Denzel Washington impersonation for the entire movie. I've liked Jake Gyllenhaal ever since I saw him in The Good Girl, but I think he could have done better. For most of the movie his character was missing depth, there was just a monotony which I don't believe was intentional. Peter Sarsgaard did a good job. In fact Sarsgaard could very easily get on my "best young American actors" list, but he seems to have been typecast, at least in the roles I have seen him in. I get the feeling he is very much in real life like he is in his movie roles. Maybe he needs a starring role in a big movie, or a Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men role. (And, yes, I am probably in the minority in thinking Tom Cruise is, or at least was once, a good actor.)
I particularly liked the fact that the Wizarads got out to big lead (19 pts), gave up the lead (Knicks went up 1), but came back to win by 11. The Wizards of the past few years used to go up on teams early, only to lose it in the second half. So coming back from a bad third quarter to win, on the road (in New York), in a tough situation (Brown's home debut) definitely impresses me.
Alas, I didn't watch the game because I was watching Jarhead tonight.
My quick thoughts: First, it reminded me of Full Metal Jacket, especially the boot camp/drill instructor scenes. It is a pretty good movie, certainly better than the other two Persian Gulf War movies I spoke of earlier (Three Kings and Courage Under Fire), but I'll hold off on calling it great since I feel compelled to compare it to another Sam Mendes movie, American Beauty.
I think the acting is what his holding me back. Jamie Foxx did a better job than I expected as he didn't do a Denzel Washington impersonation for the entire movie. I've liked Jake Gyllenhaal ever since I saw him in The Good Girl, but I think he could have done better. For most of the movie his character was missing depth, there was just a monotony which I don't believe was intentional. Peter Sarsgaard did a good job. In fact Sarsgaard could very easily get on my "best young American actors" list, but he seems to have been typecast, at least in the roles I have seen him in. I get the feeling he is very much in real life like he is in his movie roles. Maybe he needs a starring role in a big movie, or a Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men role. (And, yes, I am probably in the minority in thinking Tom Cruise is, or at least was once, a good actor.)
Thursday, November 03, 2005
NFL Top 15 and Picks
Two quick things first:
1. I would just like to point out that Michael Wilbon stated, in not such direct terms, what I said Sunday night. The Redskins came out flat (in some part due to their blowout win against the 49ers), and that things were not helped by the death of Wellington Mara. And I know, it's kind of sad of me to point that out.
2. The Wizards won their season opener up in Toronto, 99-96. Now I know that "a win is a win" especially away, but Toronto isn't exactly going to surprise anyone this year. Heck, I only know 3 players in Toronto: Jalen Rose, Chris Bosh and Charlie Villaneuva... all good guys but thats all they got. I'm just wondering if Larry Hughes could have helped keep Toronto under 90 points. Ahhh, forget it! I keep forgetting that Cleveland overpaid him, and the Wizards are better off not spending so much money to keep a team together that got swept by the Miami Heat last year. Anyways, I shouldn't complain considering it is the first game of the season and I barely watched about 5 minutes of the game.
Now on to the rest of the NFL.
So partly because of laziness and partly because I actually agreed with ESPN's week 8 NFL Power Ranking, last week I did not do my own ranking. And yes, in case you are wondering, I look at other rankings to see if any point is made about a team that I have missed. Alot of the time it helps. Sometimes, though, I find things that I think are just plain dumb. For instance, in ESPN's week 9 NFL Power Ranking apparently the Giants have the most explosive offense, even though they are 13th in total offense (1st in scoring though). I guess it doesn't matter that their supposedly weak defense has recovered 22 turnovers for the offense, making scoring much easier. Trust me, the Giants are scoring points because of those turnovers. I'll go with San Diego, Indianapolis or Cincinnati as more "explosive" thank you.
Anyways, my thoughts from last week on the teams still stand. So this week I am again forgoing the ranking and instead I am making my "Quick Picks." That is I am making picks without analyzing things, I am just going with my gut feeling:
Atlanta OVER Miami - Two words: Marcus Vick. Miami is better than 3-4 but I don't believe in Nick Saban.
Tampa Bay OVER Carolina - Pretty well matched up... so Tampa Bay at home after a bad time in San Fran. Plus Carolina just won 4 against some bad teams.
Chicago OVER New Orleans - I have no clue where they are playing and you just can't trust the Saints.
Cincinnati OVER Baltimore - Baltimore might not be able to get over barely losing to Pittsburgh.
Tennessee OVER Cleveland - I don't even want to think about this game so I'm going with the road team who is also the underdog.
Minnesota OVER Detroit - Another suckfest, I'm going wiith Minnesota because I like the crazy Vikings at home
Jacksonville OVER Houston - I refuse to go with the Texans
Kansas City OVER Oakland - I like Oakland, but not away, not in Arrowhead, and not Norv
NY Giants OVER San Francisco - I refuse to go with the Niners unless they are playing the Texans
Green Bay OVER Pittsburgh - This is my upset special of the week, since all those betting book guys have em, I think I want one too. I'll even add one of those crazy quotes that sounds plausible even though they are RETARDED: "The Packers finally pick up their first win in Lambeau this year" BTW this is probably the worst pick of em all.
San Diego OVER NY Jets - Even though I almost feel certain this will be a close game and the Chargers will find a way to lose.
Seattle OVER Arizona - Seattle is a good team, Arizona is not.
Washington OVER Philadelphia - Read my post from this past sunday for an explanation.
Indianapolis OVER New England - Looking forward to this game, and I think this is the Colts over the hump game.
So finally remember these are my Quick Picks, which means all of these picks are hunches. I'll probably read more about each team later and think "why did I ever make that pick?"
1. I would just like to point out that Michael Wilbon stated, in not such direct terms, what I said Sunday night. The Redskins came out flat (in some part due to their blowout win against the 49ers), and that things were not helped by the death of Wellington Mara. And I know, it's kind of sad of me to point that out.
2. The Wizards won their season opener up in Toronto, 99-96. Now I know that "a win is a win" especially away, but Toronto isn't exactly going to surprise anyone this year. Heck, I only know 3 players in Toronto: Jalen Rose, Chris Bosh and Charlie Villaneuva... all good guys but thats all they got. I'm just wondering if Larry Hughes could have helped keep Toronto under 90 points. Ahhh, forget it! I keep forgetting that Cleveland overpaid him, and the Wizards are better off not spending so much money to keep a team together that got swept by the Miami Heat last year. Anyways, I shouldn't complain considering it is the first game of the season and I barely watched about 5 minutes of the game.
Now on to the rest of the NFL.
So partly because of laziness and partly because I actually agreed with ESPN's week 8 NFL Power Ranking, last week I did not do my own ranking. And yes, in case you are wondering, I look at other rankings to see if any point is made about a team that I have missed. Alot of the time it helps. Sometimes, though, I find things that I think are just plain dumb. For instance, in ESPN's week 9 NFL Power Ranking apparently the Giants have the most explosive offense, even though they are 13th in total offense (1st in scoring though). I guess it doesn't matter that their supposedly weak defense has recovered 22 turnovers for the offense, making scoring much easier. Trust me, the Giants are scoring points because of those turnovers. I'll go with San Diego, Indianapolis or Cincinnati as more "explosive" thank you.
Anyways, my thoughts from last week on the teams still stand. So this week I am again forgoing the ranking and instead I am making my "Quick Picks." That is I am making picks without analyzing things, I am just going with my gut feeling:
Atlanta OVER Miami - Two words: Marcus Vick. Miami is better than 3-4 but I don't believe in Nick Saban.
Tampa Bay OVER Carolina - Pretty well matched up... so Tampa Bay at home after a bad time in San Fran. Plus Carolina just won 4 against some bad teams.
Chicago OVER New Orleans - I have no clue where they are playing and you just can't trust the Saints.
Cincinnati OVER Baltimore - Baltimore might not be able to get over barely losing to Pittsburgh.
Tennessee OVER Cleveland - I don't even want to think about this game so I'm going with the road team who is also the underdog.
Minnesota OVER Detroit - Another suckfest, I'm going wiith Minnesota because I like the crazy Vikings at home
Jacksonville OVER Houston - I refuse to go with the Texans
Kansas City OVER Oakland - I like Oakland, but not away, not in Arrowhead, and not Norv
NY Giants OVER San Francisco - I refuse to go with the Niners unless they are playing the Texans
Green Bay OVER Pittsburgh - This is my upset special of the week, since all those betting book guys have em, I think I want one too. I'll even add one of those crazy quotes that sounds plausible even though they are RETARDED: "The Packers finally pick up their first win in Lambeau this year" BTW this is probably the worst pick of em all.
San Diego OVER NY Jets - Even though I almost feel certain this will be a close game and the Chargers will find a way to lose.
Seattle OVER Arizona - Seattle is a good team, Arizona is not.
Washington OVER Philadelphia - Read my post from this past sunday for an explanation.
Indianapolis OVER New England - Looking forward to this game, and I think this is the Colts over the hump game.
So finally remember these are my Quick Picks, which means all of these picks are hunches. I'll probably read more about each team later and think "why did I ever make that pick?"
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Gang starts crumbling and J. C. Watts almost gets it.
I find it very telling that a Republican member of the Gang of 14, Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), doesn't understand why Samuel Alito's confirmation would be filibustered. I thought the Gang was supposed to be moderates with open eyes and ears, who would hold off judgement until the time was right. Certainly Gang of 14 member, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), understood this when he said "it's way too early to talk about extraordinary circumstances."
I have vented in the past as to how corrupt I believe the Republican party has become in the past few years, so I haven't been too surprised by the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and former Vice President Chief of Staff Scooter Libby or the SEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. So I find it refreshing that Republican would admit that the Republican party has become arrogant.
J.C. Watts (former Republican Representative from Oklahoma) wrote in his column for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that "... sadly, what they say about absolute power is coming to reality in the 2005 GOP Washington. Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop."
The sad thing is that even though he sees the arrogance, he ignores the corruption. His defense of Republicans is to tritely claim they the lesser of two evils. Watts goes on to say that in spite of the arrogance, "Republicans have a real chance to rebound simply because our Democrat friends just don't get it." He rehashes the old "Democrats want to tax you" argument apparently oblivious to the fact that Bush keeps spending money. Don't get me wrong, I believe Bush is doing the right thing in spending money for hurricane relief and health care, but bills have to get paid somehow. It is very deceptive of Watts to deride tax hikes when money is being spent and even Republicans in Congress are curious as to where the money is going to come from. Taxes and programs have already been cut, what exactly is Watts's plan?
Watts then finishes with a flurry of rhetoric stating "I believe we can still be the party of change, and we can lead." Well not to state the obvious but, It's kind of hard to be "the party of change" when you are in charge of everything. Democrats know this well considering they held the White House and both chambers of Congress in the 90s, right when J.C. Watts and the Republican Party took control of Congress.
I have vented in the past as to how corrupt I believe the Republican party has become in the past few years, so I haven't been too surprised by the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and former Vice President Chief of Staff Scooter Libby or the SEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. So I find it refreshing that Republican would admit that the Republican party has become arrogant.
J.C. Watts (former Republican Representative from Oklahoma) wrote in his column for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that "... sadly, what they say about absolute power is coming to reality in the 2005 GOP Washington. Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop."
The sad thing is that even though he sees the arrogance, he ignores the corruption. His defense of Republicans is to tritely claim they the lesser of two evils. Watts goes on to say that in spite of the arrogance, "Republicans have a real chance to rebound simply because our Democrat friends just don't get it." He rehashes the old "Democrats want to tax you" argument apparently oblivious to the fact that Bush keeps spending money. Don't get me wrong, I believe Bush is doing the right thing in spending money for hurricane relief and health care, but bills have to get paid somehow. It is very deceptive of Watts to deride tax hikes when money is being spent and even Republicans in Congress are curious as to where the money is going to come from. Taxes and programs have already been cut, what exactly is Watts's plan?
Watts then finishes with a flurry of rhetoric stating "I believe we can still be the party of change, and we can lead." Well not to state the obvious but, It's kind of hard to be "the party of change" when you are in charge of everything. Democrats know this well considering they held the White House and both chambers of Congress in the 90s, right when J.C. Watts and the Republican Party took control of Congress.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Redskins: 4-3, so what?
It might sound like sour grapes, but I entirely believe what I am about to say: The Redskins got beat by the ghost of a dead football team owner. The game went as if it were scripted by Wellington Mara himself. And if you don't believe me, just wait until next week when the Redskins play the Eagles. If I were a betting man I would go with the Redskins and I will be ready to eat crow if I am wrong.
Every possible aspect of this game went against the Redskins: offense wasn't working, constant turnovers, defense continued to allow multiple long runs, missed tackles, questionable calls, every penalty going against them, etc. The Redskins just never had a chance: when the Redskins weren't missing a turnover (Eli Manning's fumble), they were turning the ball over, or they were being called for encroachment when it could habe been a false start penalty. In any case, as long as this acts as some sort of cleansing (ie. the Giants exposing the Redskins weaknesses), I'll take it as long as the Redskins do something about it. Remember, I didn't expect them to win this game. In my guess of 11-5 or 10-6, I figured most of their losses would come earlier in the season in weeks 2 (at Dallas), 5 (at Denver), 6 (at Kansas City), and 8 (at NYG). (The sixth loss being in week 17 at Philly) I still expect them to "hold home" and win out their home games. Doing that and beating those teams they should away, should still have them in the playoffs.
Finally, when it comes to the Giants, even though Eli Manning over and underthrowing receivers it didn't make a difference (btw, I still don't see what is so outstanding about him). And, it won't make a difference for the next two weeks considering they'll be playing the 49ers and Vikings next. And Eli can work out any problems in that time. Unlike others (Bill Simmons, for one) I'll wait to pass judgement on Eli after he has played the tough run of Philly, at Seattle, Dallas, at Philly, Kansas City, and at the Redskins.
Every possible aspect of this game went against the Redskins: offense wasn't working, constant turnovers, defense continued to allow multiple long runs, missed tackles, questionable calls, every penalty going against them, etc. The Redskins just never had a chance: when the Redskins weren't missing a turnover (Eli Manning's fumble), they were turning the ball over, or they were being called for encroachment when it could habe been a false start penalty. In any case, as long as this acts as some sort of cleansing (ie. the Giants exposing the Redskins weaknesses), I'll take it as long as the Redskins do something about it. Remember, I didn't expect them to win this game. In my guess of 11-5 or 10-6, I figured most of their losses would come earlier in the season in weeks 2 (at Dallas), 5 (at Denver), 6 (at Kansas City), and 8 (at NYG). (The sixth loss being in week 17 at Philly) I still expect them to "hold home" and win out their home games. Doing that and beating those teams they should away, should still have them in the playoffs.
Finally, when it comes to the Giants, even though Eli Manning over and underthrowing receivers it didn't make a difference (btw, I still don't see what is so outstanding about him). And, it won't make a difference for the next two weeks considering they'll be playing the 49ers and Vikings next. And Eli can work out any problems in that time. Unlike others (Bill Simmons, for one) I'll wait to pass judgement on Eli after he has played the tough run of Philly, at Seattle, Dallas, at Philly, Kansas City, and at the Redskins.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Movies: The Weather Man, Jarhead and Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World
I'll probably be going to see The Weather Man this weekend. I guess I really like Nicolas Cage, even though everytime I have seen him interviewed this week he has scared the crap out of me. He looks like a South American drug lord, with his wispy mustache and dyed black hair.
Next week I will certainly be seeing Sam Mendes's Jarhead. As I said a few weeks ago, I have been looking forward to this movie for awhile now. Mendes is probably my favorite director of the past few years... it's between him and M. Night Shyamalan. And although Shyamalan directs a movie about every 2 years, Mendes has about a 3 year gap between his movies. (Although his next directed movie is supposed to come out next year, Sweeney Todd)
My quick thoughts before I see the movie are these: First, I am still not convinced about Jamie Foxx as serious actor. I thought he was excellent in Collateral, but in his Oscar winning performance in Ray, i thought he played Ray Charles too caricature-ish. And in the previews for Jarhead, it looks like he is going to play this character as an imitation of Denzel Washington. The point when he says "hoo-rah" is SPOT ON Denzel. Second, I wasn't feeling Kanye West's "Jesus Walks" for the music in the trailer, but thats really nitpicking. Third, I am interesting in seeing another Gulf War (Desert Storm) movie, since the other two I can think of were both good, but not outstanding, films. (Three Kings and Courage under Fire)
Finally, I'm certainly looking forward to Albert Brooks's new movie Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World. I am a huge fan of Brooks, in particular Lost in America, Defending your Life and The Muse. I get the feeling Brooks would have made a great Seinfeld like TV show.
Next week I will certainly be seeing Sam Mendes's Jarhead. As I said a few weeks ago, I have been looking forward to this movie for awhile now. Mendes is probably my favorite director of the past few years... it's between him and M. Night Shyamalan. And although Shyamalan directs a movie about every 2 years, Mendes has about a 3 year gap between his movies. (Although his next directed movie is supposed to come out next year, Sweeney Todd)
My quick thoughts before I see the movie are these: First, I am still not convinced about Jamie Foxx as serious actor. I thought he was excellent in Collateral, but in his Oscar winning performance in Ray, i thought he played Ray Charles too caricature-ish. And in the previews for Jarhead, it looks like he is going to play this character as an imitation of Denzel Washington. The point when he says "hoo-rah" is SPOT ON Denzel. Second, I wasn't feeling Kanye West's "Jesus Walks" for the music in the trailer, but thats really nitpicking. Third, I am interesting in seeing another Gulf War (Desert Storm) movie, since the other two I can think of were both good, but not outstanding, films. (Three Kings and Courage under Fire)
Finally, I'm certainly looking forward to Albert Brooks's new movie Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World. I am a huge fan of Brooks, in particular Lost in America, Defending your Life and The Muse. I get the feeling Brooks would have made a great Seinfeld like TV show.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
The Best No Pull Harness: Front leash harness
Edit: I have written an update for this post, if want to see it just click here now.
This post will probably be boring if you don't have a dog, and even if you do it might be boring anyways. So don't say I didn't warn you.
First my quick thoughts about having a dog:
1. you quickly find out where all the trash cans in your neighborhood are (near the metrobus stops) so you can throw the poo bags away.
2. it's kinda of awkward talking to someone while your dog is trying to mount their dog.
Anyways the main point of this post is about dogs pulling, and solutions to the problem. There are a bunch of techniques which don't require hardware, but this post will be about leashes, harnesses and collars designed to keep a dog from pulling.
If you haven't guessed already, Gilligan is a puller. Sometimes he's content walking next to me, but some times he puts his nose to the ground and pulls. So I looked around for a solution and found that most pet stores carry two kinds of non-choke solutions: halter collars (Sporn, etc.) and head harnesses (Gentle Leader, Halti, etc.).
Halter collars, are collars that have cables/straps that look alot like a backpack's straps look on people. The leash is connected to these straps, so when the dog pulls, it pulls their legs back instead of their collar. If they pull left, it pulls back on their left shoulder. If they pull right, it pulls back on their right shoulder. Sounds good in theory but in action it's a "leg choke harness." The biggest problems people have with them is that the straps can pull so hard that it can cut off circulation to the legs and/or it can chafe the area. To me it's not much better than a choke collar, so I wasn't trying it on Gilligan.
The first thing I tried was a Halti head harness. A head harness is basically a collar with an attached muzzle cover which controls a dog by controlling it's head. Many dogs, including Gilligan, HATE it. They spend most of the time shaking their heads back and forth. It's pretty easy to understand why since not too many animals are keen on having things wrapped around their mouths and having their head controlled.
Finally I read about "front leash" or "front lead" harnesses. Unlike a regular harness (which clips to a spot behind the dogs neck), these harnesses are leashed in the front, right at a dog's chest. There seems to be a good amount of positive feed back about them, but since they are relatively new they are hard to find. I have been able to find 3 makers. A guy named Wayne Hightower makes one, a company named Softouch Concepts makes the Sense-ation Harness and the Sense-ible Harness, and the folks who make the Gentle Leader Headcollar, (Premier), make the Easy Walk Harness. Premier is the only company that is carried in most pet stores (including Petsmart and Petco), but most stores don't carry the Easy Walk. Fortunately the Petco in Tyson Corner had it.
So I tried it on Gilligan, and it worked immediately and perfectly. The harness works because of two reasons. First, a dog CANNOT pull from the back because it connects in the front, so it will always pull from a side. Second, the harness in essence "pushes" instead of pulls on the dog's shoulders. That is to say when the dog pulls left, it pushes the left shoulder to the right, and vice versa. It is a much nicer contraption because it doesn't squeeze sensitive areas, it forces the shoulders to move away from where they are pulling towards.
Needless to say, I have ordered one (it is about 13 dollars cheaper from Amazon) and am eagerly awaiting it. So if you, or someone you know, need a gentle device to keep a dog from pulling, definitely look into these "front leash" harnesses.
Edit (12/06/06): I have written a new post in essence updating and expanding on information found in this post.
This post will probably be boring if you don't have a dog, and even if you do it might be boring anyways. So don't say I didn't warn you.
First my quick thoughts about having a dog:
1. you quickly find out where all the trash cans in your neighborhood are (near the metrobus stops) so you can throw the poo bags away.
2. it's kinda of awkward talking to someone while your dog is trying to mount their dog.
Anyways the main point of this post is about dogs pulling, and solutions to the problem. There are a bunch of techniques which don't require hardware, but this post will be about leashes, harnesses and collars designed to keep a dog from pulling.
If you haven't guessed already, Gilligan is a puller. Sometimes he's content walking next to me, but some times he puts his nose to the ground and pulls. So I looked around for a solution and found that most pet stores carry two kinds of non-choke solutions: halter collars (Sporn, etc.) and head harnesses (Gentle Leader, Halti, etc.).
Halter collars, are collars that have cables/straps that look alot like a backpack's straps look on people. The leash is connected to these straps, so when the dog pulls, it pulls their legs back instead of their collar. If they pull left, it pulls back on their left shoulder. If they pull right, it pulls back on their right shoulder. Sounds good in theory but in action it's a "leg choke harness." The biggest problems people have with them is that the straps can pull so hard that it can cut off circulation to the legs and/or it can chafe the area. To me it's not much better than a choke collar, so I wasn't trying it on Gilligan.
The first thing I tried was a Halti head harness. A head harness is basically a collar with an attached muzzle cover which controls a dog by controlling it's head. Many dogs, including Gilligan, HATE it. They spend most of the time shaking their heads back and forth. It's pretty easy to understand why since not too many animals are keen on having things wrapped around their mouths and having their head controlled.
Finally I read about "front leash" or "front lead" harnesses. Unlike a regular harness (which clips to a spot behind the dogs neck), these harnesses are leashed in the front, right at a dog's chest. There seems to be a good amount of positive feed back about them, but since they are relatively new they are hard to find. I have been able to find 3 makers. A guy named Wayne Hightower makes one, a company named Softouch Concepts makes the Sense-ation Harness and the Sense-ible Harness, and the folks who make the Gentle Leader Headcollar, (Premier), make the Easy Walk Harness. Premier is the only company that is carried in most pet stores (including Petsmart and Petco), but most stores don't carry the Easy Walk. Fortunately the Petco in Tyson Corner had it.
So I tried it on Gilligan, and it worked immediately and perfectly. The harness works because of two reasons. First, a dog CANNOT pull from the back because it connects in the front, so it will always pull from a side. Second, the harness in essence "pushes" instead of pulls on the dog's shoulders. That is to say when the dog pulls left, it pushes the left shoulder to the right, and vice versa. It is a much nicer contraption because it doesn't squeeze sensitive areas, it forces the shoulders to move away from where they are pulling towards.
Needless to say, I have ordered one (it is about 13 dollars cheaper from Amazon) and am eagerly awaiting it. So if you, or someone you know, need a gentle device to keep a dog from pulling, definitely look into these "front leash" harnesses.
Edit (12/06/06): I have written a new post in essence updating and expanding on information found in this post.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Redskins and the NFL top 15
I'm changing it up a bit this week. I'm putting my Redskins comments and NFL top 15 (which isn't this week... I'll explain later) in the same post.
I was going to write (like Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser did) that the 49ers are terrible. I was going to say that overpraising the Redskins win against the 49ers would be foolish. But I won't harp on those points. I'll just restate the obvious: this is exactly what they needed going into a tough stretch of the schedule. This is a good start... but it's just that, a start.
I found it interesting that in a post game interview, Gregg Williams made it sound like LaVar Arrington wasn't moving in practice as if he were 100% over the knee problems. It sounded like he was implying that his injury/surgery was the reason for not playing him. Not exactly buying it, but as long as he plays him now, I'm good.
Now on to my thoughts. You should know by now that I love complaining about Peter King and his top 15. He has two big problems. First, he overreacts to the past weekends happenings (for instance the Redskins were nowhere on his top 15 last week and this week he has them at #7). Second, he gets favorites (Chargers, Patriots, Eagles, Bill Parcells and therefore the Cowboys) and just won't give up on them. (I also want to point out that he is always biased towards his beloved New York Giants) I realize that I also keep teams ranked high that probably don't deserve being ranked so high (Patriots and Eagles) but at least I can say they both played in and won their conference title games last year.
In my ranking of King, we are going to keep him at "on crack." Nothing too crazy from King this week.
This is my quick reason why the NFC South stinks: the top 3 teams in the NFC South (Bucs, Falcons and Panthers) have a combined 14 wins, of which only ONE is against a team with a winning record (Falcons week 1 win against the Eagles).
I am really not happy with my ranking mainly because after the Colts I think its pretty even. In fact aside from a few changes I would make, I think the ESPN's Week 8 Power Ranking is pretty close. So I will just comment on teams #2-15 on their list.
2. Steelers. Only have two wins of note, against San Diego and Cincinnati, but neither is really that notable.
3. Falcons. One man team with just one impressive win in Week 1 against an Eagles team, who in hindsight isn't so great.
4. Broncos. 5 straight wins (bookended by loses), all against good teams, but I still don't trust Mike Shanahan or Jake Plummer.
5. Seahawks. Dangerous team, but probably won't be able to finish an important game when it is close (Remember the Packers overtime playoff game when Seattle won the toss and Matt Hasselbeck said "We want the ball and we're going to score!" only to throw the game winning interception for a touchdown? Yeah, Hasselbeck and Mike Holmgren are still there.)
6. Bucs. No impressive wins, (here comes the cliche) their Cadillac is in the shop and they don't seem to travel well.
7. Eagles. Lost too many players, can't and don't even try to run the ball and have two wins against good teams: one because Kansas City just shut it down after going up 17-0 on them, and this weekend after a lucky run back TD after a blocked field goal.
8. Jaguars. A team I like, that lost just 3-10 at Indianapolis in week 2. I am looking forward to their Dec. 11 rematch against the Colts in Jacskonsville.
9. Bengals. In a game they should have shown some mettle they reverted to their old selves against the Steelers. Plus as has been stated before, their record has alot to do with their weak schedule.
10. Giants. Only win of note was this past week's 4th quarter comeback against Denver. Like I said before their defense needs to be more consistent, then I'll believe.
11. Patriots. Still an interesting team because they can still beat teams with their jersey, if you know what I mean. Besides, I am not so sold on Tom Brady, because I believe they'ld have the same record with his backup. He's only been sacked 7 times this year. To me he is in the second tier of QBs behind the likes of Peyton Manning and Michael Vick.
12. Chargers. I wrote of their schizo tendancy last week. They are 3-4! How could you possibly rank them before the 4-2 Panthers, Redskins and Chiefs.
13. Panthers. They don't have a running game and their defense has only held one team (Patriots) under 20 points. No running game and a defense that doesnt scare anyone, isn't exactly a Super Bowl contender. Honestly does anyone on that team scare you?
14. Redskins. You know how I feel about them... their impressive wins were close calls, hopefully this weeks win changes things.
15. Chiefs. One win of note, against the Redskins, which was delivered on plate to them by a 3 to 0 turnover ratio (one for a TD) and a Redskins defense that broke (Priest Holmes's 60 yard TD) when it was trying to just bending. In other words ranked just about right.
I was going to write (like Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser did) that the 49ers are terrible. I was going to say that overpraising the Redskins win against the 49ers would be foolish. But I won't harp on those points. I'll just restate the obvious: this is exactly what they needed going into a tough stretch of the schedule. This is a good start... but it's just that, a start.
I found it interesting that in a post game interview, Gregg Williams made it sound like LaVar Arrington wasn't moving in practice as if he were 100% over the knee problems. It sounded like he was implying that his injury/surgery was the reason for not playing him. Not exactly buying it, but as long as he plays him now, I'm good.
Now on to my thoughts. You should know by now that I love complaining about Peter King and his top 15. He has two big problems. First, he overreacts to the past weekends happenings (for instance the Redskins were nowhere on his top 15 last week and this week he has them at #7). Second, he gets favorites (Chargers, Patriots, Eagles, Bill Parcells and therefore the Cowboys) and just won't give up on them. (I also want to point out that he is always biased towards his beloved New York Giants) I realize that I also keep teams ranked high that probably don't deserve being ranked so high (Patriots and Eagles) but at least I can say they both played in and won their conference title games last year.
In my ranking of King, we are going to keep him at "on crack." Nothing too crazy from King this week.
This is my quick reason why the NFC South stinks: the top 3 teams in the NFC South (Bucs, Falcons and Panthers) have a combined 14 wins, of which only ONE is against a team with a winning record (Falcons week 1 win against the Eagles).
I am really not happy with my ranking mainly because after the Colts I think its pretty even. In fact aside from a few changes I would make, I think the ESPN's Week 8 Power Ranking is pretty close. So I will just comment on teams #2-15 on their list.
2. Steelers. Only have two wins of note, against San Diego and Cincinnati, but neither is really that notable.
3. Falcons. One man team with just one impressive win in Week 1 against an Eagles team, who in hindsight isn't so great.
4. Broncos. 5 straight wins (bookended by loses), all against good teams, but I still don't trust Mike Shanahan or Jake Plummer.
5. Seahawks. Dangerous team, but probably won't be able to finish an important game when it is close (Remember the Packers overtime playoff game when Seattle won the toss and Matt Hasselbeck said "We want the ball and we're going to score!" only to throw the game winning interception for a touchdown? Yeah, Hasselbeck and Mike Holmgren are still there.)
6. Bucs. No impressive wins, (here comes the cliche) their Cadillac is in the shop and they don't seem to travel well.
7. Eagles. Lost too many players, can't and don't even try to run the ball and have two wins against good teams: one because Kansas City just shut it down after going up 17-0 on them, and this weekend after a lucky run back TD after a blocked field goal.
8. Jaguars. A team I like, that lost just 3-10 at Indianapolis in week 2. I am looking forward to their Dec. 11 rematch against the Colts in Jacskonsville.
9. Bengals. In a game they should have shown some mettle they reverted to their old selves against the Steelers. Plus as has been stated before, their record has alot to do with their weak schedule.
10. Giants. Only win of note was this past week's 4th quarter comeback against Denver. Like I said before their defense needs to be more consistent, then I'll believe.
11. Patriots. Still an interesting team because they can still beat teams with their jersey, if you know what I mean. Besides, I am not so sold on Tom Brady, because I believe they'ld have the same record with his backup. He's only been sacked 7 times this year. To me he is in the second tier of QBs behind the likes of Peyton Manning and Michael Vick.
12. Chargers. I wrote of their schizo tendancy last week. They are 3-4! How could you possibly rank them before the 4-2 Panthers, Redskins and Chiefs.
13. Panthers. They don't have a running game and their defense has only held one team (Patriots) under 20 points. No running game and a defense that doesnt scare anyone, isn't exactly a Super Bowl contender. Honestly does anyone on that team scare you?
14. Redskins. You know how I feel about them... their impressive wins were close calls, hopefully this weeks win changes things.
15. Chiefs. One win of note, against the Redskins, which was delivered on plate to them by a 3 to 0 turnover ratio (one for a TD) and a Redskins defense that broke (Priest Holmes's 60 yard TD) when it was trying to just bending. In other words ranked just about right.
Monday, October 24, 2005
San Fran in Jello
So, I'm not so keen on copying links you can find pretty much anywhere else but if I really really like it I will. And I really like these pictures of San Francisco in Jello by Elizabeth Hickok. I liked the pics of Postcard Row, the Painted Ladies or whatever they want to call them, from Alamo Square. (via Fark)
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Panda Cub and the NFL Top 15
In case you missed it, earlier this week the National Zoo named the new panda Tai Shan. And guess what... that was the name I was in favor of back when they announced the names. So thats a plus for me.
Now on to this crazy thing called the NFL.
So last week when Peter King put Dallas at #8, I immediately thought two things: King is officially insane, and how high could he put them if they beat Giants team that hasn't beaten anyone of note. Well the 'Boys won and King drops them 2 spots to 10. I am stunned and King has been downgraded to "on crack." Oh and his excuse to for putting San Diego at #2, "He really likes them." Well La-de-freaking-da! Apparently being a schizo team, gets you much love from King.
What do I call a schizo team? Well simply, it's an otherwise good team that has a leader (like a coach or QB) or situation (the New Orleans Saints) which can lose a game for you. Which means they can win big or lose to a bad team at anytime. The Chargers have coach Marty, who doesn't really seem to care when he loses or wins, as long as he thinks his system is working. (Kinda reminds me of Gregg Willams and his former Buffalo Bills team) It also works the other way around when a good team has lost so many players that they could still beat anyone, but they could still lose big... like the Patriots. Schizo teams usually don't get very far because winning 3 games in a row against good teams (like in the playoffs and Super Bowl) is obviously not easy.
BTW, as much as the NFL East was described as being "back" I just don't see it. There is more parity, but does that count as being "back." The Eagles are worse than last years team. The Cowboys are so suspect on both sides of the field it's not even funny. The "defensive star" of their team, Roy Williams, gets beat WAY to many times on long passing plays. Sure he can hit hard and cause fumbles, but I'm pretty sure hes worth at least a TD per game for the opposing offense. Put it this way, if Gregg Williams had Roy Williams on his defense, Roy would be riding the bench along with LaVar. The Giants and Redskins are the only teams that are actually intriguing. The Giants offense makes me think of the Redskins defense... they seem good but it seems that when it matters (normally when their counterparts mess up) they aren't there.
There wasn't much shuffling to do this week since I was pretty satisfied with the ranking. I was just dumb for putting the Steelers so high considering I haven't believed in them all year, and I'm droppinig Tampa Bay because they just lost their QB, and after their bye and game against the 49ers, their schedule is getting hard. The Redskins didn't make it because they just don't deserve it... Read here as to why. Trust me I want to get them back in there, but the only way that is happening is if the defense actually does something besides the "bend but don't break, but let the other team win anyways" scheme and the offense scores more than 30 points OR numbers 10-15 just start stinking.
Finally on to the top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Denver Broncos
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Atlanta Falcons
5. Tampa Bay Bucs
6. Philadelphia Eagles
7. Jacksonville Jaguars
8. New England Patriots
9. Pittsburgh Steelers
10. Kansas City Chiefs
11. Seattle Seahawks
12. San Diego Chargers
13. Carolina Panthers
14. Dallas Cowboys
15. New York Giants
Now on to this crazy thing called the NFL.
So last week when Peter King put Dallas at #8, I immediately thought two things: King is officially insane, and how high could he put them if they beat Giants team that hasn't beaten anyone of note. Well the 'Boys won and King drops them 2 spots to 10. I am stunned and King has been downgraded to "on crack." Oh and his excuse to for putting San Diego at #2, "He really likes them." Well La-de-freaking-da! Apparently being a schizo team, gets you much love from King.
What do I call a schizo team? Well simply, it's an otherwise good team that has a leader (like a coach or QB) or situation (the New Orleans Saints) which can lose a game for you. Which means they can win big or lose to a bad team at anytime. The Chargers have coach Marty, who doesn't really seem to care when he loses or wins, as long as he thinks his system is working. (Kinda reminds me of Gregg Willams and his former Buffalo Bills team) It also works the other way around when a good team has lost so many players that they could still beat anyone, but they could still lose big... like the Patriots. Schizo teams usually don't get very far because winning 3 games in a row against good teams (like in the playoffs and Super Bowl) is obviously not easy.
BTW, as much as the NFL East was described as being "back" I just don't see it. There is more parity, but does that count as being "back." The Eagles are worse than last years team. The Cowboys are so suspect on both sides of the field it's not even funny. The "defensive star" of their team, Roy Williams, gets beat WAY to many times on long passing plays. Sure he can hit hard and cause fumbles, but I'm pretty sure hes worth at least a TD per game for the opposing offense. Put it this way, if Gregg Williams had Roy Williams on his defense, Roy would be riding the bench along with LaVar. The Giants and Redskins are the only teams that are actually intriguing. The Giants offense makes me think of the Redskins defense... they seem good but it seems that when it matters (normally when their counterparts mess up) they aren't there.
There wasn't much shuffling to do this week since I was pretty satisfied with the ranking. I was just dumb for putting the Steelers so high considering I haven't believed in them all year, and I'm droppinig Tampa Bay because they just lost their QB, and after their bye and game against the 49ers, their schedule is getting hard. The Redskins didn't make it because they just don't deserve it... Read here as to why. Trust me I want to get them back in there, but the only way that is happening is if the defense actually does something besides the "bend but don't break, but let the other team win anyways" scheme and the offense scores more than 30 points OR numbers 10-15 just start stinking.
Finally on to the top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Denver Broncos
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Atlanta Falcons
5. Tampa Bay Bucs
6. Philadelphia Eagles
7. Jacksonville Jaguars
8. New England Patriots
9. Pittsburgh Steelers
10. Kansas City Chiefs
11. Seattle Seahawks
12. San Diego Chargers
13. Carolina Panthers
14. Dallas Cowboys
15. New York Giants
Monday, October 17, 2005
Meet Gilligan
A few weeks ago I bad talked the Washington Humane Society for their de facto "first come, first serve" adoption policy. Although I understand the policy (and in essence agree with it), I was very unhappy about the way it was presented to me.
Well last tuesday we visited the Washington Animal Rescue League. It is an excellent shelter, with a very helpful group of employees and volunteers. Alas, it's going through a remodeling which brought the amount of animals it can hold to a minimum. But we did meet a group of beagles who had spent most of their lives in cages with wire floors in a puppy mill. They seemed to be very kind, extremely shy, not housebroken, and probably in need of more work and patience than we could truly give one of them. Plus, splitting them up seemed just didn't feel right. So we sadly left. With a better understanding of their policy, we headed back to the Washington Humane Society.
Earlier that day I had seen, on their website, a cute 5 month old beagle that had been given up because his owner could no longer take care of him. His name was Dallas. We arrived and found him, by himself chilling in his bed. When you would put your hand in the cage, he would come over, lick you, and then once he realized he couldn't play, go back to his bed. I wanted to meet him. The first thing he did was thoroughly lick my face. He had me the second he calmed down and laid his head on my arm after holding him for a few seconds.
After asking how many applications there were on him (and getting an honest, although not what I was looking for, answer: "We can't say.") we decided to apply and not get our hopes up. Surprisingly, we recieved a call the next day, Wednesday. They wanted to start the process, and we had to wait for a volunteer to conduct a home visit. On Thursday, a very nice lady called and asked when we could conduct the visit... we of course said anytimes, and she said "how about tonight." That night she came over, in the rain, and went over the process and gave us some advice... she ended the interview by saying he could be picked up as soon as possible. Amazingly we recieved a call the next day from the adoption coordinator saying we could pick him that day... and at about 6 pm that evening we left the shelter with our new puppy.
We had thought of three names: Archibald, Optimus Prime and Gilligan (of course Optimus was my idea). Only Gilligan truly fit him. He's mischievous and cute. He's somewhat housebroken and has very little problem with his crate. He even buries his bone.
BTW, that picture is from the shelter but I'll soon be putting up his pictures over on flickr.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Redskins: 3-2, now what?
I am officially fed up with the Redskins, and I blame the coaching staff. This is yet another game in which the Redskins should have won, but the Redskins found a way to lose. Kansas City won this game because of short fields (turnovers) and Redskins penalties at key moments (3rd downs). The once vaunted defensive scheme now does two things: give up no yards or give up long TDs. Not a single turnover in the past FOREVER games. The worst part? Even though their problems are fixable, the coaching staff will most likely do nothing different.
First problem: The offense is turning the ball over too much and (at least for this game) I blame the offensive line. Although they have improved their Red Zone scoring, turnovers will kill any improvement. Second problem: The defense is not causing any turnovers and, frankly, I don't think they scare anyone.
They have two players who can scare you on defense, and one of them spends the game sitting on the bench. Sean Taylor has two or three hits a game which, I'm sure make the ball carrier think twice about his ability to hold on. LaVar Arrington would account for at least another 2. Do the coaches think hard hits don't affect a player. Do they think that Arrington is so undisciplined that he's not worth those hard hits?
I am now officially on the "LaVar Arrington is being screwed" bandwagon. I am on it now because I believe a playmaker like Arrington could have made a difference in the past two games. I thought it was unwise to not play him, but while they were winning there was no reason to change. But now after two consecutive loses... really, why not play him?
But I think the sad part is that next week the defense will play well against a bad 49ers offense, and all will seem fine. Gregg Williams will seem vindicated. The two horrible losses will feel like eons ago. But in truth they will still be the team that lost the last two weeks because of turnovers (and lack of turnovers) and a defense that really doesn't stop anyone when it counts.
First problem: The offense is turning the ball over too much and (at least for this game) I blame the offensive line. Although they have improved their Red Zone scoring, turnovers will kill any improvement. Second problem: The defense is not causing any turnovers and, frankly, I don't think they scare anyone.
They have two players who can scare you on defense, and one of them spends the game sitting on the bench. Sean Taylor has two or three hits a game which, I'm sure make the ball carrier think twice about his ability to hold on. LaVar Arrington would account for at least another 2. Do the coaches think hard hits don't affect a player. Do they think that Arrington is so undisciplined that he's not worth those hard hits?
I am now officially on the "LaVar Arrington is being screwed" bandwagon. I am on it now because I believe a playmaker like Arrington could have made a difference in the past two games. I thought it was unwise to not play him, but while they were winning there was no reason to change. But now after two consecutive loses... really, why not play him?
But I think the sad part is that next week the defense will play well against a bad 49ers offense, and all will seem fine. Gregg Williams will seem vindicated. The two horrible losses will feel like eons ago. But in truth they will still be the team that lost the last two weeks because of turnovers (and lack of turnovers) and a defense that really doesn't stop anyone when it counts.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
I probably won't be going to Germany next year
My beloved national soccer team will not be going to Germany in 2006. Needing a win against Ecuador in Santiago and loses or ties by both Colombia (at Paraguay) and Uruguay (vs. Argentina), La Roja played Ecuador to a scoreless tie tonight. It didn't make much difference because both Columbia and Uruguay won their games, 1-0.
This was the final game of 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifiers and Chile was tied with Colombia for 6th place, one point behind 5th place Uruguay. The 5th place team would earn the right to play Australia for a spot in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. In the end they finished in 7th place, and will watch the World Cup from the same place as I... home.
So let see: the Redskins lost, the Caps either win by 1 or lose by at least 5, and my national team is out of the World Cup. All in all not a great sports week. My only solace is: 1. that, after a weak start, the Terps are winning and 2. the Yankees lost!
Oh and finally: Wow! The Angels got JOBBED! I flipped over to see Mark Buehrle finish the top of the 9th, to probably end up getting a no decision and watching someone else pick up the loss in the 10th or 11th. But oh no! The umps must have had reservations somewhere cause this game was ending in the bottom of the 9th... sorry Angels!
This was the final game of 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifiers and Chile was tied with Colombia for 6th place, one point behind 5th place Uruguay. The 5th place team would earn the right to play Australia for a spot in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. In the end they finished in 7th place, and will watch the World Cup from the same place as I... home.
So let see: the Redskins lost, the Caps either win by 1 or lose by at least 5, and my national team is out of the World Cup. All in all not a great sports week. My only solace is: 1. that, after a weak start, the Terps are winning and 2. the Yankees lost!
Oh and finally: Wow! The Angels got JOBBED! I flipped over to see Mark Buehrle finish the top of the 9th, to probably end up getting a no decision and watching someone else pick up the loss in the 10th or 11th. But oh no! The umps must have had reservations somewhere cause this game was ending in the bottom of the 9th... sorry Angels!
The Panda Cub has a name!
This past weekend I went to a picnic at the National Zoo and I saw a familiar face. I saw the lady who appears on TV on behalf of the Zoo, and who I've seen in pictures holding the cub. I didn't know at the time but her name is Lisa Stevens and she is an assistant currator.
So of course I had to ask if the name had been chosen. And it has.... but she wasn't telling. All she would tell me was that "it's a good name." She also said that the name will be announced next Monday, October 17th on the Today Show.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
NFL Top 15 (week 6)
I'm not making much of this past week, and that is why the top 15 order didn't change much. Don't get me wrong, there is ALOT to learn from that week. The point is that no team, aside from the Colts, stood out. Every game involving my top 15 (except for the Eagles/Cowboys) was close. Each game could have gone the other way. Having said that here are my thoughts:
1. All this talk about not counting out the Patriots is stupid. The Patriots beat up on the Falcons without Michael Vick. Now I'm quite aware that Vick wouldn't have stopped Tom Brady from racking up all those yards, but Atlanta's defense wasn't exactly stellar to start with. Vick could have easily put more points on the dessimated Patriots defense, or at least not made Vinatieri once again look like Larry Bird. They should call him the Football Jesus in Boston. (BTW, ESPN's Skip Bayless wants to get rid of kickers, and I guess field goals, in the NFL. I'm pretty sure that AT LEAST the Patriots wouldn't be in favor of that, considering they've built their dynasty on kicking field goals. Yeah, great idea there Skippy!)
2. The Eagles loss was not a fluke... more on that a little later.
3. I still have them at 4 and 5, but the Bucs and Bengals are only there because everyone else lost too. I want to see them play good teams later in the season when things get harder.
4. Peter King is officially INSANE. Granted he wrote his top 15 before the MNF game but he has San Diego at #2 and Pittsburgh at #10. They definitely were closer than 8 spots away from each other! (I had SD at #10 and Pittsburgh at #6, last week) Oh and just to show how much he LOVES Bill Parcells he has the Cowboys at #8, and praises their win against the Eagles as a warning shot to the NFC East. Ummmm Pete, the Eagles have all of ONE respectable win and that was at Kansas City, when the Chiefs offense couldn't keep up with the AWFUL Chiefs defense giving up the lead in the second half. Maybe they gave a warning shot to the Division Champ Eagles, but to the NFC East? Please don't be so dramatic, Dallas has lost to Washington and they're playing the Giants this Sunday, so can we hold of the hyperbole for at least one week?
My Top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Denver Broncos
4. Tampa Bay Bucs
5. Cincinnati Bengals
6. Atlanta Falcons
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New England Patriots
9. Redskins
10. New York Giants
11. Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Dallas Cowboys
13. Seattle Seahawks
14. Kansas City Chiefs
15. Carolina Panthers
1. All this talk about not counting out the Patriots is stupid. The Patriots beat up on the Falcons without Michael Vick. Now I'm quite aware that Vick wouldn't have stopped Tom Brady from racking up all those yards, but Atlanta's defense wasn't exactly stellar to start with. Vick could have easily put more points on the dessimated Patriots defense, or at least not made Vinatieri once again look like Larry Bird. They should call him the Football Jesus in Boston. (BTW, ESPN's Skip Bayless wants to get rid of kickers, and I guess field goals, in the NFL. I'm pretty sure that AT LEAST the Patriots wouldn't be in favor of that, considering they've built their dynasty on kicking field goals. Yeah, great idea there Skippy!)
2. The Eagles loss was not a fluke... more on that a little later.
3. I still have them at 4 and 5, but the Bucs and Bengals are only there because everyone else lost too. I want to see them play good teams later in the season when things get harder.
4. Peter King is officially INSANE. Granted he wrote his top 15 before the MNF game but he has San Diego at #2 and Pittsburgh at #10. They definitely were closer than 8 spots away from each other! (I had SD at #10 and Pittsburgh at #6, last week) Oh and just to show how much he LOVES Bill Parcells he has the Cowboys at #8, and praises their win against the Eagles as a warning shot to the NFC East. Ummmm Pete, the Eagles have all of ONE respectable win and that was at Kansas City, when the Chiefs offense couldn't keep up with the AWFUL Chiefs defense giving up the lead in the second half. Maybe they gave a warning shot to the Division Champ Eagles, but to the NFC East? Please don't be so dramatic, Dallas has lost to Washington and they're playing the Giants this Sunday, so can we hold of the hyperbole for at least one week?
My Top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Denver Broncos
4. Tampa Bay Bucs
5. Cincinnati Bengals
6. Atlanta Falcons
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New England Patriots
9. Redskins
10. New York Giants
11. Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Dallas Cowboys
13. Seattle Seahawks
14. Kansas City Chiefs
15. Carolina Panthers
Sunday, October 09, 2005
3 and 1. so what?
I feel the need to comment on the Redskins and on Tuesday I'll write the top 15. First let me say, I am not dropping the Redskins too far.
The Redskins could and should have won that game. A negated touchdown on a TERRIBLE offensive pass interference, two negated field goals, and a "tuck rule" negating a safety. That's 15 points the Redskins didn't get because of bad calls, mistakes and a bad rule. And don't think I'm being too biased because the Broncos got hosed too, like on the defensive pass interference on the 4th down drive at the end. The referees were awful.
My other thoughts on the game:
1. Strangely, this game should at least give the Redskins the respect they deserve, losing by 2 points on the road to a team which most people have in their top 8.
2. Can the Skins defense get a turnover or what!? Come on!
3. The Skins are going into Arrowhead Stadium next week and could just as well drop another game demoralizing them and making the next four games (49ers, Giants, Eagles, and Bucs) very loseable. (And yes, I think even if they beat the 49ers, it doesnt help in playing the next 3 or 4 games)
4. I'm happy because hopefully this loss gives the team a sense of urgency which they don't seem to have until the 4th quarter of games. It's pretty obvious to me that the Skins can stretch out the field pretty well, so when that field gets shorter (in the red zone) options get shut down.
5. I'm not happy because I don't think Denver is all that good of a team. Even though at the beginning of the season I listed this as one of the 5 games they could lose and still go 11-5, the Redskins just beat themselves.
6. The defense is giving up too many big plays, its rediculous. I didn't want to bring it up while they were winning (like everyone else) but exactly why aren't they playing LaVar Arrington? Warrick Holdman missed (or arrived late to) a few important tackles.
7. And I'll post this now before the start of the Bengals vs. Jaguars game..... ESPN.com's Bill Simmons put it well when he described the Bengals early schedule as "Krispy Kreme." I'm thinking they'll lose in Jacksonville tonight.
The Redskins could and should have won that game. A negated touchdown on a TERRIBLE offensive pass interference, two negated field goals, and a "tuck rule" negating a safety. That's 15 points the Redskins didn't get because of bad calls, mistakes and a bad rule. And don't think I'm being too biased because the Broncos got hosed too, like on the defensive pass interference on the 4th down drive at the end. The referees were awful.
My other thoughts on the game:
1. Strangely, this game should at least give the Redskins the respect they deserve, losing by 2 points on the road to a team which most people have in their top 8.
2. Can the Skins defense get a turnover or what!? Come on!
3. The Skins are going into Arrowhead Stadium next week and could just as well drop another game demoralizing them and making the next four games (49ers, Giants, Eagles, and Bucs) very loseable. (And yes, I think even if they beat the 49ers, it doesnt help in playing the next 3 or 4 games)
4. I'm happy because hopefully this loss gives the team a sense of urgency which they don't seem to have until the 4th quarter of games. It's pretty obvious to me that the Skins can stretch out the field pretty well, so when that field gets shorter (in the red zone) options get shut down.
5. I'm not happy because I don't think Denver is all that good of a team. Even though at the beginning of the season I listed this as one of the 5 games they could lose and still go 11-5, the Redskins just beat themselves.
6. The defense is giving up too many big plays, its rediculous. I didn't want to bring it up while they were winning (like everyone else) but exactly why aren't they playing LaVar Arrington? Warrick Holdman missed (or arrived late to) a few important tackles.
7. And I'll post this now before the start of the Bengals vs. Jaguars game..... ESPN.com's Bill Simmons put it well when he described the Bengals early schedule as "Krispy Kreme." I'm thinking they'll lose in Jacksonville tonight.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Python vs. Alligator
So remember back in elementary school when you used to fight over who would win a fight in rediculous matches? You know like a bear vs. a shark (I have always thought the shark wins) or a footlong bee vs. a platypus (remember male platypuses have venomous spurs). Well thanks to the National Park Service, we have definitive proof that Burmese Python vs. Alligator is a tie.
Okay and now my two thoughts about the article.
1. The fact that there is a "growing" population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades sorta freaks me out there a bit.
AND
2. I was watching Animal Planet about a week ago and watched as they found a big snake (anaconda or python, i don't remember which) by smelling it. So it comes as no surprise that they go with the trusty ole beagle to find these invasive pythons from all the other snakes they've got there. I was also happy to find this National Geographic article with pictures of "Python Pete."
Okay and now my two thoughts about the article.
1. The fact that there is a "growing" population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades sorta freaks me out there a bit.
AND
2. I was watching Animal Planet about a week ago and watched as they found a big snake (anaconda or python, i don't remember which) by smelling it. So it comes as no surprise that they go with the trusty ole beagle to find these invasive pythons from all the other snakes they've got there. I was also happy to find this National Geographic article with pictures of "Python Pete."
Thursday, October 06, 2005
NHL Opening Night
My streak of opening day/night games for 2005 continued last night at the MCI Center. I only need to make it to the Wizards' opening night on November 5th and I will have hit the quadfecta of the Nats, Redskins, Capitals, and Wiz.
My thoughts:
1. I don't want to jinx it, but Alexander Ovechkin is... um, I'll say pretty good. First he started with an impressive preseason which included a hat trick. Then in last nights game, after a good if not fruitful first period, he score 2 perfectly timed goals (answering goals from Columbus). What else could you ask from him? Okay so it would have been interesting if not prudent to see him on the penalty kill. Finally, I really think it helps that the rookie spotlight is ENTIRELY on Sidney Crosby, leaving Ovechkin free of that pressure.
2. The new rules make for an interestingly open game. I'm not going to drool over it like all the talking heads have on TV, but I'm definitely not complaining. The offensive zones look huge and I kept thinking the new lines behind the goals were broken sticks on the ice... It is also interesting to see players getting called for hooks and checks which are second nature and which were perfectly fine 2 years ago.
3. I'm gonna need some time getting used to seeing Jeff Friesen wearing Peter Bondra's #12. Amazingly with all the new rules Bondra's new team, Atlanta, was shutout!
4. I realize it's just one game, against the Blue Jackets at that, but I don't think this team is going to be as bad as many people think. There is some serious young talent on the Caps, and if they can do the cliches (play together, avoid stupid mistakes, etc.) I don't see why they can't at least finish second in the Southeast Division.
My thoughts:
1. I don't want to jinx it, but Alexander Ovechkin is... um, I'll say pretty good. First he started with an impressive preseason which included a hat trick. Then in last nights game, after a good if not fruitful first period, he score 2 perfectly timed goals (answering goals from Columbus). What else could you ask from him? Okay so it would have been interesting if not prudent to see him on the penalty kill. Finally, I really think it helps that the rookie spotlight is ENTIRELY on Sidney Crosby, leaving Ovechkin free of that pressure.
2. The new rules make for an interestingly open game. I'm not going to drool over it like all the talking heads have on TV, but I'm definitely not complaining. The offensive zones look huge and I kept thinking the new lines behind the goals were broken sticks on the ice... It is also interesting to see players getting called for hooks and checks which are second nature and which were perfectly fine 2 years ago.
3. I'm gonna need some time getting used to seeing Jeff Friesen wearing Peter Bondra's #12. Amazingly with all the new rules Bondra's new team, Atlanta, was shutout!
4. I realize it's just one game, against the Blue Jackets at that, but I don't think this team is going to be as bad as many people think. There is some serious young talent on the Caps, and if they can do the cliches (play together, avoid stupid mistakes, etc.) I don't see why they can't at least finish second in the Southeast Division.
Monday, October 03, 2005
3-0? So what?
I'm not sure who said it but I first heard Steve Czaban of Comcast SportsNet's Redskins Post Game Live put it best when he said "3-0? So what?"
And thats not exactly a bad thing. It's what the Redskins themselves should be saying for two reasons. One: they have yet to win convincingly this season, and two: it should drive them. At 3-0, no one outside of DC expects them to do well, they see these wins as lucky or as the AP puts it "The fates are truly shining on the Redskins so far this season." And to that they should say "So what?"
This start reminds me of two teams, The New England Patriots of the past 4 years and the 2001 Chicago Bears. Although it seems to be fading this year, in the past 4 years the Patriots just knew how to win. Take a lead, or don't let the other team run away with it, keep it close and win in the end. Which worked for them in the form of 3 Super Bowl titles. And they also remind me of the Bears who went 13-3 in the regular season, by getting lucky and playing a weak schedule. We can only wait and see who they turn out to be.
The things I like:
1. Unlike the past few years, the Redskins are converting 3rd downs.
2. FedEx Field is alive. Leaving on Sunday, fans were chanting "3 and Oh!" and "Undefeated!" It was amazingly loud and thats not even mentioning how loud it was when the Seahawks had the ball during the game.
The things I don't like:
1. The 3rd downs the Redskins are converting are LONG. Which means they aren't doing much on 1st and 2nd... you can't live off of that.
2. The defense allowed the Seahawks to drive down almost the length of the field twice for touchdowns. I know I'm getting spoiled but this is not typical for the Skins defense. And with the offense not exactly running smoothly, that almost cost them the game this week. I just hope it was an off day.
I still don't like Peter King, so I was frightened to find out that I agreed with him when he said that the Lion's final touchdown should not have been reversed against the Bucs. PLUS I think he was pretty fair in his top 15 analysis (The Skins were finally listed at 10), he even thinks, like I do, that the Steelers aren't as good as everyone else thinks.
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Tampa Bay Bucs
3. Philadelphia Eagles
4. Cincinnati Bengals
5. Atlanta Falcons
6. Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Redskins
8. Denver Broncos
9. Miami Dolphins
10. San Diego Chargers
11. New England Patriots
12. New York Giants
13. Jacksonville Jaguars
14. Seattle Seahawks
15. New Orleans Saints
And thats not exactly a bad thing. It's what the Redskins themselves should be saying for two reasons. One: they have yet to win convincingly this season, and two: it should drive them. At 3-0, no one outside of DC expects them to do well, they see these wins as lucky or as the AP puts it "The fates are truly shining on the Redskins so far this season." And to that they should say "So what?"
This start reminds me of two teams, The New England Patriots of the past 4 years and the 2001 Chicago Bears. Although it seems to be fading this year, in the past 4 years the Patriots just knew how to win. Take a lead, or don't let the other team run away with it, keep it close and win in the end. Which worked for them in the form of 3 Super Bowl titles. And they also remind me of the Bears who went 13-3 in the regular season, by getting lucky and playing a weak schedule. We can only wait and see who they turn out to be.
The things I like:
1. Unlike the past few years, the Redskins are converting 3rd downs.
2. FedEx Field is alive. Leaving on Sunday, fans were chanting "3 and Oh!" and "Undefeated!" It was amazingly loud and thats not even mentioning how loud it was when the Seahawks had the ball during the game.
The things I don't like:
1. The 3rd downs the Redskins are converting are LONG. Which means they aren't doing much on 1st and 2nd... you can't live off of that.
2. The defense allowed the Seahawks to drive down almost the length of the field twice for touchdowns. I know I'm getting spoiled but this is not typical for the Skins defense. And with the offense not exactly running smoothly, that almost cost them the game this week. I just hope it was an off day.
I still don't like Peter King, so I was frightened to find out that I agreed with him when he said that the Lion's final touchdown should not have been reversed against the Bucs. PLUS I think he was pretty fair in his top 15 analysis (The Skins were finally listed at 10), he even thinks, like I do, that the Steelers aren't as good as everyone else thinks.
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Tampa Bay Bucs
3. Philadelphia Eagles
4. Cincinnati Bengals
5. Atlanta Falcons
6. Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Redskins
8. Denver Broncos
9. Miami Dolphins
10. San Diego Chargers
11. New England Patriots
12. New York Giants
13. Jacksonville Jaguars
14. Seattle Seahawks
15. New Orleans Saints
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)