While watching a documentary last night on Operation Valkyrie and the attempt to assassinate Adolph Hitler, an interviewee stated July 20, 1944, as one of the top 10 dates in German history in the 20th century. It got me to thinking what the same criteria would result in for American history. Some are very obvious, but others I think are more subtle in their lasting effects on our current society.
The following are a list of 10 dates I believe to be monumental in our history set between January 1, 1901 and December 31, 2000. The list is in chronological order as I didn’t want to try and rank them in ascending order of consequence.
September 25, 1926: Henry Ford employs the 40-hour workweek
Though certainly not a saint and the reasons for doing so were self-serving, Henry Ford’s decision to go to an eight-hour, five-day a week work schedule revolutionized America’s labor force. The idea of working six days is hardly fathomable today and instead is seen as going far above and beyond the call of duty. This date also serves as a symbol of Ford’s other influences on the working class such as paying double the standard wage a decade earlier and implementing the assembly line, which began in 1908.
October 29, 1929: Black Tuesday
If there is any singular date in American history that defined a century, this would likely be it for the twentieth. The Wall Street Crash of 1929, also known as the Great Crash, began a decade-long Great Depression in America, leading to an unemployment rate of 25 percent by 1933, rapid rise in crime, mass migrations, and realization of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Not a single person could avoid feeling the effects of Black Tuesday and many were never able to fully recover from the financial ruin the country had suffered.
December 7, 1941: “A date which will live in infamy.”
As Roosevelt put it, “the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” Said attack sent America headlong into World War II, which had already been going on for two years among European and Asian countries. The attack on Pearl Harbor represents several important dates throughout the timeline of the Second World War, including D-day’s June 6, 1944, but what brought the war to a monstrous conclusion has its own spot on this list.
August 6/August 9, 1945: Dropping Little Boy and Fat Man
Although the conclusion of World War II was officially brought about by the Japanese Emperor’s declaration of surrender on August 12, it was the setting off of two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki a week prior that signifies the end of the war. It is estimated that approximately 240,000 casualties were reported following the bombings. The decision to use atomic weapons on Japan was obviously not universally accepted and it has been debated ad nauseum as to whether President Harry Truman was justified in doing so. The effects of nuclear armament would create a Mexican standoff for centuries to come between America and the U.S.S.R.
December 1, 1955: Rosa Parks takes a stand by staying seated
Her defiant act against a ridiculous command to give up her seat to a white passenger because she was black wasn’t the first of its kind, but it was a symbol of the ongoing African-American Civil Rights Movement that sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. There are plenty of moments from this period of our history I could have chosen, including Martin Luther King’s August 28, 1963 “I have a dream speech,” the desegregation of the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963, or King’s assassination on April 4, 1968, but Rosa Parks rebelliousness and the resulting boycott gave the Civil Rights Movement its initial victory and made King a standout leader of the cause.
November 22, 1963: Kennedy assassination
Not being born until 1980, I’ve never understood the fascination America had with the Kennedy family. The president's record as a leader was a bit underwhelming, but he was able to quell the Cuban missile crisis and he had a charisma that exuded security giving the American people a spirit of idealism. The allure of Camelot and a stable family life was rocked when Lee Harvey Oswald shot two bullets into the president while traveling through Dealey Plaza in Dallas. It is said people can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard of the assassination, some even crying, losing their appetites, or suffering nausea.
February 9, 1964: The British are coming!
Some might think I’m over-estimating the influence the Beatles had in America on rock and roll music, but when Nielsen ratings show that 45 percent of televisions in the United States were tuned in to the band’s performance on The Ed Sullivan Show it is safe to assume that a large portion of the country were interested in the new sound. Beatlemania paved an international path for other UK bands like The Rolling Stones, The Animals, The Kinks, The Who, and countless others from the same era of music up to today’s hit musical acts.
July 20, 1969: “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Neil Armstrong’s message to earthlings was the culmination of a mission by President Kennedy to win a peaceful, but intense, space race between the United States and Soviet Union, hard work among the nation’s top scientists and aviators, and a national dream that mankind would travel above the heavens and explore outer space. It was a good feeling to be American because of NASA’s accomplishment and it made science fiction a reality. Everything going on in the country from the Vietnam War to the debate over free love could be forgotten for a moment and national pride reigned.
August 15-18, 1969: Woodstock/Vietnam War
The Woodstock Festival that featured such acts as Jimi Hendrix, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Who, The Band, and Janis Joplin isn’t here simply because of what it was, but more because of the time period it represents. With the Vietnam War lasting nearly a full two decades and numerous monumental historic events taking place during that time period, including the Tet offensive on January 31, 1968, the June 17, 1972, Watergate scandal, or Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974, the Woodstock Festival encapsulates the varied mindsets Americans had at the time. These attitudes included the idea of peace, love, and rock and roll, fighting the man, and disapproval of the war. The concert became a symbol of the decade.
November 9, 1989: A city divided no more
As Woodstock was a symbol of an entire decade, the Berlin Wall was a symbol of an undefined war between capitalism and communism. Once the wall began construction in 1961, for nearly three decades the city of Berlin was split in two and it remained that way until after peaceful demonstrations beginning in September 1989 and mass departures by East German refugees the Socialist Unity Party of Germany declared the checkpoints along the Wall open for private travel. The fall of the Berlin Wall represented the downfall and end to communism for Eastern Germany and surrounding countries. Although not the complete end of communism and not an event that directly involved the United States, it was a major moment in American history nonetheless.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Friday, March 04, 2011
Work-related Newsie Item
Some possible good news came my way today. While speaking with my boss about a friend’s upcoming wedding we veered to the topic of giving me some additional responsibilities regarding our company’s newsletter. Apparently the human resources department has been too busy to work on the newsletter, titled Factual Rumors, for the past three months. With my background in journalism and the underwriting department’s quick turnaround cycle creating plenty of spare time for me, it seemed logical to take over the newsletter.
It isn’t finalized yet, but my boss is looking into the idea. This would be a good springboard for me to continue working in a journalism capacity in case I ever am able to get back in the writing world. Since my resume has nothing regarding writing, editing, or other journalistic characteristics on it since 2009, this will be a great opportunity for me. I have gotten a lot more excited about the prospect of writing the company newsletter after thinking about it for a couple of hours. But again, it is not a done deal.
It isn’t finalized yet, but my boss is looking into the idea. This would be a good springboard for me to continue working in a journalism capacity in case I ever am able to get back in the writing world. Since my resume has nothing regarding writing, editing, or other journalistic characteristics on it since 2009, this will be a great opportunity for me. I have gotten a lot more excited about the prospect of writing the company newsletter after thinking about it for a couple of hours. But again, it is not a done deal.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Reviewing The Town
From now on, I will lower my expectations going into every movie I see, no matter how promising and exciting a trailer looks. I will fight the urge to let my adrenaline start pumping and put a hold on my imagination running wild with a movie’s potential because, ultimately, after 100 years of moviemaking Hollywood has few new and electrifying ideas to offer the general public. Sure, technology occasionally progresses enough to provide us a new outlet, like Avatar did with 3D or The Matrix with bullet time photography, but in general it is the same plots being regurgitated with new actors for a new generation of viewers. That’s not to say movies with rehashed plots and predictable outcomes can’t be enjoyable. Take this year’s Academy Award nominated film The Fighter. The acting in that movie is so stupendous that I could look past the fact that yet another boxing movie had been made.
I state all of this because I watched Ben Affleck’s The Town last night and was underwhelmed at the final product. The story seemed very reminiscent of Michael Mann’s 1995 crime thriller Heat. The acting ranged from average to pretty good. The accents of the Bostonian characters seemed too preposterous to be believed for anyone who hasn’t resided in Charlestown. It doesn’t matter if they were so authentic one couldn’t recognize who was really from the area, like Affleck, and who wasn’t, like Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively, at times it seemed like a Saturday Night Live sketch was going on and the joke was the over-the-top accents. The characterization of supporting characters was weak and the relationship between Affleck and Renner’s parts was never really fleshed out fully.
Overall, it just wasn’t the heist/crime/relationship drama I was expecting and only one scene really had me tense up wondering what was going to happen next. This is not to say Affleck didn’t do a serviceable job both in front of and behind the camera. It just never seemed like his creation, instead picking and choosing moments and ideas from previous movies and intertwining them into a new creation. Had I been given a little more insight into Renner’s psyche, some more scenes showing the relationship between Affleck and Renner, and a smidgen more enlightenment on the work the FBI was doing to hunt the bad guys it might have been a more complete film. I realize the movie was more about the relationship between a bank robber and the unknowing hostage he begins to date after the crime, but you still need some additional plotlines to help flesh out the movie more.
On a scale of 10, The Town gets a 6, putting it on par with movies like The Departed, Ocean’s Thirteen, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The Town is slightly above average, worth watching once.
I state all of this because I watched Ben Affleck’s The Town last night and was underwhelmed at the final product. The story seemed very reminiscent of Michael Mann’s 1995 crime thriller Heat. The acting ranged from average to pretty good. The accents of the Bostonian characters seemed too preposterous to be believed for anyone who hasn’t resided in Charlestown. It doesn’t matter if they were so authentic one couldn’t recognize who was really from the area, like Affleck, and who wasn’t, like Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively, at times it seemed like a Saturday Night Live sketch was going on and the joke was the over-the-top accents. The characterization of supporting characters was weak and the relationship between Affleck and Renner’s parts was never really fleshed out fully.
Overall, it just wasn’t the heist/crime/relationship drama I was expecting and only one scene really had me tense up wondering what was going to happen next. This is not to say Affleck didn’t do a serviceable job both in front of and behind the camera. It just never seemed like his creation, instead picking and choosing moments and ideas from previous movies and intertwining them into a new creation. Had I been given a little more insight into Renner’s psyche, some more scenes showing the relationship between Affleck and Renner, and a smidgen more enlightenment on the work the FBI was doing to hunt the bad guys it might have been a more complete film. I realize the movie was more about the relationship between a bank robber and the unknowing hostage he begins to date after the crime, but you still need some additional plotlines to help flesh out the movie more.
On a scale of 10, The Town gets a 6, putting it on par with movies like The Departed, Ocean’s Thirteen, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The Town is slightly above average, worth watching once.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Reaction To 83rd Academy Awards
The Internet is abuzz today about the hosting job, who wore what, and winners and losers at the Academy Awards last night.
If you didn’t already know, The King’s Speech won for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Actor (Colin Firth). Inception also took home four wins, but they were in the less popular categories of Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. The Social Network came in third with three awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, and Best Film Editing.
I’ll agree with the consensus that the hosts, nominee James Franco and Anne Hathaway, were not near the quality of past comedians such as Bob Hope, Billy Crystal, or even Steve Martin, but at least Hathaway tried. It seemed Franco was high the entire time and had little interest in the gig. That is not to say there weren’t a few good lines throughout the night, but mostly the ceremony was a forgettable one. It was especially not helpful that no acceptance speech was memorable, minus Melissa Leo’s, but that was because of the naughty word dropped in the middle.
What I will not agree with is that The King’s Speech was the best movie of the year. I found Firth’s acting to be stellar and the movie was well made as a historical drama, but I felt there were multiple other films in the Best Picture category that should have deserved the Oscar over The King’s Speech.
Amongst my family and friends I came in first for the guessing game we play each year. I tied an all-time self best with 18 correct selections out of 24 categories, missing Best Picture (I picked The Social Network), Best Director (again, The Social Network), Best Cinematography (True Grit), Best Costume Design (The King’s Speech), Best Animated Short Film (Day & Night), and Best Live Action Short Film (Na Wewe).
Since I had The Social Network winning the Best Picture category, obviously that was one of the films I thought was more deserving than The King’s Speech. Another was The Fighter. The overall performances were better in The Fighter than The King’s Speech. I also would have accepted Black Swan or Toy Story 3 over the eventual winner.
Although I liked nearly ever nominated movie more than The King’s Speech, I knew it had a good chance of winning Best Picture. Yet, I still feel it was fifth best as far as moviemaking goes. The following are lists of how the Academy should have ranked the movies if more than just the winner was announced and showing my personal favorites regarding watchability and enjoyment.
Academy criterion:
The Social Network
The Fighter
Black Swan
Toy Story 3
The King’s Speech
Inception
True Grit
127 Hours
Winter’s Bone
The Kids Are All Right
Personal Favorites:
Inception
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
The Fighter
Black Swan
True Grit
Winter’s Bone
127 Hours
The King’s Speech
The Kids Are All Right
If you didn’t already know, The King’s Speech won for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Actor (Colin Firth). Inception also took home four wins, but they were in the less popular categories of Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Editing, and Best Sound Mixing. The Social Network came in third with three awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, and Best Film Editing.
I’ll agree with the consensus that the hosts, nominee James Franco and Anne Hathaway, were not near the quality of past comedians such as Bob Hope, Billy Crystal, or even Steve Martin, but at least Hathaway tried. It seemed Franco was high the entire time and had little interest in the gig. That is not to say there weren’t a few good lines throughout the night, but mostly the ceremony was a forgettable one. It was especially not helpful that no acceptance speech was memorable, minus Melissa Leo’s, but that was because of the naughty word dropped in the middle.
What I will not agree with is that The King’s Speech was the best movie of the year. I found Firth’s acting to be stellar and the movie was well made as a historical drama, but I felt there were multiple other films in the Best Picture category that should have deserved the Oscar over The King’s Speech.
Amongst my family and friends I came in first for the guessing game we play each year. I tied an all-time self best with 18 correct selections out of 24 categories, missing Best Picture (I picked The Social Network), Best Director (again, The Social Network), Best Cinematography (True Grit), Best Costume Design (The King’s Speech), Best Animated Short Film (Day & Night), and Best Live Action Short Film (Na Wewe).
Since I had The Social Network winning the Best Picture category, obviously that was one of the films I thought was more deserving than The King’s Speech. Another was The Fighter. The overall performances were better in The Fighter than The King’s Speech. I also would have accepted Black Swan or Toy Story 3 over the eventual winner.
Although I liked nearly ever nominated movie more than The King’s Speech, I knew it had a good chance of winning Best Picture. Yet, I still feel it was fifth best as far as moviemaking goes. The following are lists of how the Academy should have ranked the movies if more than just the winner was announced and showing my personal favorites regarding watchability and enjoyment.
Academy criterion:
The Social Network
The Fighter
Black Swan
Toy Story 3
The King’s Speech
Inception
True Grit
127 Hours
Winter’s Bone
The Kids Are All Right
Personal Favorites:
Inception
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
The Fighter
Black Swan
True Grit
Winter’s Bone
127 Hours
The King’s Speech
The Kids Are All Right
Friday, February 25, 2011
Correlation Between Oscars Best Film/Director
The 82nd Annual Academy Awards are only two days away and I am complete Oscar mode. While prepping for tomorrow’s movie marathon, where I will see the final nominees up for Best Picture this year, I was wondering in the 81-year history of the awards how many Best Picture winners didn’t correspond with its filmmaker in the Best Director category. As of last year’s ceremony honoring the best movies made in 2009, there have been 21 mismatches when it came to the best picture and best director winners, which is to say that slightly more than 25 percent of ceremonies end with the unmatched Best Picture/Director combination. While the first few years it was quite normal for the Best Director to not see the movie he helmed win the most coveted Best Picture Oscar, since about the fourteenth annual event on it has become quite sporadic.
The most disappointing example of this phenomenon was in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan didn’t win Best Picture, despite being the superior film to Shakespeare in Love, although Steven Spielberg was named Best Director of the year. Another shocking case was in 1972 when Francis Ford Coppola didn’t win Best Director for The Godfather, my favorite film of all time. However, the Academy made up for that oversight two years later with the sequel.
Below is a list of the years in which the winning director didn’t see his film win the top prize.
1928 (1st Annual Academy Awards Ceremony):
Picture – Wings (William A. Wellman)
Director – Frank Borzage (Seventh Heaven)
Note: Frank Borzage was the winner for Best Director of a dramatic film; Lewis Milestone won Best Director of a comedy for Two Arabian Knights; this was the only year the Academy separated the director awards into genres.
1929 (2nd):
Picture – The Broadway Melody (Harry Beaumont)
Director – Frank Lloyd (The Divine Lady)
1931 (4th):
Picture – Cimarron (Wesley Ruggles)
Director – Norman Taurog (Skippy)
1932 (5th):
Picture – Grand Hotel (Edmund Goulding)
Director – Frank Borzage (Bad Girl)
Note: Edmund Goulding was not up for a Best Director nomination.
1936 (9th):
Picture – Mutiny on the Bounty (Frank Lloyd)
Director – John Ford (The Informer)
1937 (10th):
Picture – The Great Ziegfeld (Robert Z. Leonard)
Director – Frank Capra (Mr. Deeds Goes to Town)
Note: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was not up for a Best Picture nomination.
1938 (11th):
Picture – The Life of Emile Zola (William Dieterle)
Director – Leo McCarey (The Awful Truth)
Note: The Awful Truth was not up for a Best Picture nomination.
1940 (13th):
Picture – Rebecca (Alfred Hitchcock)
Director – John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath)
1948 (21st):
Picture – Hamlet (Laurence Olivier)
Director – John Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
1949 (22nd):
Picture – All the King’s Men (Robert Rossen)
Director – Joseph L. Mankiewicz (A Letter to Three Wives)
1951 (24th):
Picture – An American in Paris (Vincente Minnelli)
Director – George Stevens (A Place in the Sun)
1952 (25th):
Picture – The Greatest Show on Earth (Cecil B. DeMille)
Director – John Ford (The Quiet Man)
1956 (29th):
Picture – Around the World in 80 Days (Michael Anderson)
Director – George Stevens (Giant)
1967 (40th):
Picture – In the Heat of the Night (Norman Jewison)
Director – Mike Nichols (The Graduate)
1972 (45th):
Picture – The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)
Director – Bob Fosse (Cabaret)
1981 (54th):
Picture – Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson)
Director – Warren Beatty (Reds)
1989 (62nd):
Picture – Driving Miss Daisy (Bruce Beresford)
Director – Oliver Stone (Born on the Fourth of July)
Note: Bruce Beresford not up for Best Director nomination.
1998 (71st):
Picture – Shakespeare in Love (John Madden)
Director – Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan)
2000 (73rd):
Picture – Gladiator (Ridley Scott)
Director – Steven Soderbergh (Traffic)
2002 (75th):
Picture – Chicago (Rob Marshall)
Director – Roman Polanski (The Pianist)
2005 (78th):
Picture – Crash (Paul Haggis)
Director – Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
The most disappointing example of this phenomenon was in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan didn’t win Best Picture, despite being the superior film to Shakespeare in Love, although Steven Spielberg was named Best Director of the year. Another shocking case was in 1972 when Francis Ford Coppola didn’t win Best Director for The Godfather, my favorite film of all time. However, the Academy made up for that oversight two years later with the sequel.
Below is a list of the years in which the winning director didn’t see his film win the top prize.
1928 (1st Annual Academy Awards Ceremony):
Picture – Wings (William A. Wellman)
Director – Frank Borzage (Seventh Heaven)
Note: Frank Borzage was the winner for Best Director of a dramatic film; Lewis Milestone won Best Director of a comedy for Two Arabian Knights; this was the only year the Academy separated the director awards into genres.
1929 (2nd):
Picture – The Broadway Melody (Harry Beaumont)
Director – Frank Lloyd (The Divine Lady)
1931 (4th):
Picture – Cimarron (Wesley Ruggles)
Director – Norman Taurog (Skippy)
1932 (5th):
Picture – Grand Hotel (Edmund Goulding)
Director – Frank Borzage (Bad Girl)
Note: Edmund Goulding was not up for a Best Director nomination.
1936 (9th):
Picture – Mutiny on the Bounty (Frank Lloyd)
Director – John Ford (The Informer)
1937 (10th):
Picture – The Great Ziegfeld (Robert Z. Leonard)
Director – Frank Capra (Mr. Deeds Goes to Town)
Note: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was not up for a Best Picture nomination.
1938 (11th):
Picture – The Life of Emile Zola (William Dieterle)
Director – Leo McCarey (The Awful Truth)
Note: The Awful Truth was not up for a Best Picture nomination.
1940 (13th):
Picture – Rebecca (Alfred Hitchcock)
Director – John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath)
1948 (21st):
Picture – Hamlet (Laurence Olivier)
Director – John Huston (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre)
1949 (22nd):
Picture – All the King’s Men (Robert Rossen)
Director – Joseph L. Mankiewicz (A Letter to Three Wives)
1951 (24th):
Picture – An American in Paris (Vincente Minnelli)
Director – George Stevens (A Place in the Sun)
1952 (25th):
Picture – The Greatest Show on Earth (Cecil B. DeMille)
Director – John Ford (The Quiet Man)
1956 (29th):
Picture – Around the World in 80 Days (Michael Anderson)
Director – George Stevens (Giant)
1967 (40th):
Picture – In the Heat of the Night (Norman Jewison)
Director – Mike Nichols (The Graduate)
1972 (45th):
Picture – The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola)
Director – Bob Fosse (Cabaret)
1981 (54th):
Picture – Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson)
Director – Warren Beatty (Reds)
1989 (62nd):
Picture – Driving Miss Daisy (Bruce Beresford)
Director – Oliver Stone (Born on the Fourth of July)
Note: Bruce Beresford not up for Best Director nomination.
1998 (71st):
Picture – Shakespeare in Love (John Madden)
Director – Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan)
2000 (73rd):
Picture – Gladiator (Ridley Scott)
Director – Steven Soderbergh (Traffic)
2002 (75th):
Picture – Chicago (Rob Marshall)
Director – Roman Polanski (The Pianist)
2005 (78th):
Picture – Crash (Paul Haggis)
Director – Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Top 10 Scariest Movies
Recently watching Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In and its American remake Let Me In and thoroughly enjoying both, I was curious what my favorite horror movies were. Going off of my IMDb ratings for the myriad of scary movies I’ve seen in years past, I was able to narrow things down to a list of the best ten movies to get your blood pumping.
While most of these films would sit solely in the horror genre, some cross over into other fields like science fiction or suspense. However, the entries below are my favorite examples of movies that get viewers holding tight to one another, covering their eyes in order to not see the pain and gore coming next, or even leaving a bathroom light on or double-checking a closet for monsters after the final credits have rolled. Some of the movies are the best in producing screams during the film and others have lasting effects from childhood that still haunt our dreams.
It should be noted that the title is a little misleading. While most of these movies received high marks because of the literal fright experienced from the footage onscreen, a few were simply well-made, landmark movies that replaces cheap thrills and bloodcurdling violence with quote-worthy dialogue, iconic villains, unforgettable scenes, and award-worthy performances. They aren’t on the list because they will have you crawling to your parents’ bed at night for comfort, but they are superbly done films that will have you on the edge of your seat.
Next to each title I have listed the IMDb rating for the film from myself first and then the general consensus rating.
Honorable Mention:
Some great horror movies that just didn’t quite make the list were The Innocents (8/8), Friday the 13th (8/6.3), and Misery (8/7.8).
Henry James’s novella The Turn of the Screw was superbly formatted for cinemas in 1961 as The Innocents with Deborah Kerr as governess Miss Giddens, who watches over two small children at a country estate in England. It is a splendid psychological thriller as you never are sure whether the events in the movie are actually happening or if Giddens is mad.
Although the series is a punchline now and has spawned countless copycats that have made a farce of the horror genre, the original Friday the 13th is quite chilling for a first-time viewer.
What makes Misery so great is Kathy Bates’s performance. As psychotic nurse Annie Wilkes, Bates alone is worth watching over and over again, making the rest of the film futile as all the viewer wants is more scenes with Wilkes in it.
10. Halloween (9/7.9)
Like Friday the 13th, the Halloween series, including the Rob Zombie revamp, is not worth the material it’s filmed on, minus the first in each group. After more than three decades and 10 films, the sight of an immortal, knife-wielding maniac wearing a painted William Shatner mask doesn’t get the thrills like it did in 1978. Popularizing the slasher film, John Carpenter made a “scream queen” out of then-unknown Jamie Lee Curtis, the daughter of a famous actress who stars in another movie on this list. The characteristics of this film that made it so unsettling were the lack of motive for the killer, Michael Myers never uttering a word of dialogue, the first-person camera shots to represent the killer’s point of view, and the moody soundtrack. Halloween started a new trend of moviemaking that was followed by popular hits like the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Child’s Play series, and not so great slasher movies such as Prom Night, My Bloody Valentine, Sleepaway Camp, and countless others.
9. The Birds (9/7.9)
Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 suspense movie The Birds is loosely based on the book by the same name from Daphne du Maurier. Certainly not loaded with heart-stopping thrills and gore, The Birds is more of a thriller that has the viewer questioning the “what ifs?” What if birds decided to turn on us and attack? What if a town was suddenly turned upside down by the natural inhabitants that humans tend to so easily forget they coexist with? What if there was no foreseeable end to the madness our former feathered friends would bring down upon us? It is not the movie itself that is horrifying, but the impression it leaves behind that has us curious as to whether the animals we take for granted as friendly really are as safe to domesticate as we think they are.
8. Se7en (9/8.7)
Psychological manhunt films that have police detectives chasing after a themed serial killer are normally cheesy and the payoff is a bit of a letdown. However, the Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey starring, David Fincher directing film is outstanding. The seven the title is making reference to is the deadly sins: lust, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, pride, and gluttony. Despite some overacting at the end of the film, each bizarre crime scene trumps the previous one in terms of the horrors and pain each victim must have suffered at the hands of his or her killer. As the aftermath of each sin is realized and police learn more about the man they are chasing, we start to realize this John Doe character is the greatest psychopath movie audiences have seen since Norman Bates with possibly the most twisted criminal mind ever.
7. 28 Days Later (9/7.6)
Combining the two elements of zombies running fast and a virus infecting its host, which had been used before in zombie movies but never together, Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later is a frightening tale of life in a lifeless world. By 2003, zombie movies were played out and unoriginal in every way. But Boyle put the focus back on what George Romero’s original Night of the Living Dead had done so well, and that was the relationship between people during a living-dead catastrophe. Instead of trying to come up with interesting zombie deaths and mutilations that hadn’t been seen before, Boyle’s story centered around three survivors who link up with a military unit and the broken system an apocalyptic world creates.
6. Night of the Living Dead (9/8)
Let’s just get this out of the way right now: Night of the Living Dead is a terrible movie. There. I said it. If you’ve actually seen the 1968 independently made movie from George Romero and you objectively reviewed it you would have the same outlook as I do. The acting is beyond lame. The zombies are dumb, slow-moving, and generally not that scary. The makeup is poorly done. It is a B-movie like so many bad science fiction films before it, but the thing that made this B-movie stand out among the others was the characterization. It is hard to use that word characterization in a zombie movie, but if you can get past the stiff performances and shoddy dialogue and take a look at the subtext of what is taking place in the film between zombie attacks then the viewer will see that this film is an allegory for the fears and bigotry that was going on at the time. Since the original became such a hit, every director, including Romero himself, has used the allegory excuse to try and make their zombie movie stand out, but nothing has ever beat the original.
5. The Shining (9/8.5)
Jack Nicholson’s axe-wielding chase through a hedge maze. A downpour of blood emptying out of an elevator. Jack’s “Here’s Johnny” introduction in the broken door. Ghost twins eerily standing in the middle of a hotel hallway. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. Redrum! This movie is chock-full of great moments. Slowly watching Jack’s descent into madness and the supernatural occurrences throughout the hotel hypnotically entrances the viewer. The film is open to a number of interpretations as to what is actually the cause and outcome of the film, but one shouldn’t worry too much about this and instead enjoy what is in front of them, that being some of the most bizarre happenings ever captured onscreen and a batty performance from Nicholson.
4. Psycho (10/8.7)
Another Hitchcock entry, this movie starts out as a standard dramatic film about a woman, played by Jamie Lee Curtis’s mother Janet Leigh, who steals money from her place of employment and hits the road for her boyfriend’s place. It isn’t until midway through the movie that we realize what is being viewed is a horror thriller film about a motel-running nutcase with unresolved mommy issues. The shower scene alone is worthy of getting Psycho on any top ten list when talking about suspense and horror. The soundtrack also is quite famous today, even among listeners who have not ever seen the film. Psycho also benefits from being one of the first movies to be made after the lifting of the Production Code, popularly known as the Hays Code, which allowed for scenes like the opening one with unmarried people sharing a bed giving the movie an authentic feel about it. Tame by today’s standards of horror moviemaking where gore and mutilation is substituted for substance and suspense, Psycho is considered one of Hitchcock’s best films he ever made.
3. Jaws (10/8.3)
Like Hitchcock’s The Birds, this film is terrifying because of the what if factor. I never once thought about what was out in the ocean when swimming at the beach as a kid until after seeing Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. Like so many other great horror and suspense movies, the music is what sets the chilling mood whenever the shark comes around for a bite to eat. One of the great benefits to this movie, which was unintended on Spielberg’s part, was not seeing what the antagonist looked like for most of the movie. Robert Shaw delivered one of the greatest characters ever for cinema and Spielberg crafted a sensational picture that left audience members afraid to go into the water.
2. Alien (10/8.5)
So effective was Jaws in 1975 that Ridley Scott pitched his 1979 science fiction horror film as “Jaws in space.” Trapped in the confines of a space craft as a monstrous extraterrestrial life form terrorizes the crew, Alien delivered on every level as a great science fiction, horror, suspense, and/or action movie. Like nothing audiences had ever seen before, the alien that the film’s title is speaking of is a lizard-like creature with a blade-tipped tail and elongated, cylindrical skull with secondary jaw that acts as a tongue. As if the appearance of the alien weren’t terrifying enough, the beast also has acidic blood running through its veins that eats through metal and nearly all other substances. Alien appeals to all types of audiences, ranging from the slow-paced thriller types to gore-fest enthusiasts.
1. The Exorcist (10/8.1)
Maybe it’s my religious beliefs, maybe it’s that I’m a big weenie when it comes to the horror genre, but The Exorcist is by far the most unsettling movie I’ve ever seen. The dreadful acts a demon does while possessing a 12-year-old girl have upset me so much I’ve only been able to watch the movie once. In conjunction with the disturbing premise and tremendous execution of the film itself, urban legends of mishaps on the set, some of which are claimed to be true and others were surely popularized to help promote the film, make this movie seem as if it is in fact cursed by the devil himself. An appalling shocker that should be viewed, even if once is the only number of times you can take it, The Exorcist is the greatest horror movie to ever be seen in theaters.
While most of these films would sit solely in the horror genre, some cross over into other fields like science fiction or suspense. However, the entries below are my favorite examples of movies that get viewers holding tight to one another, covering their eyes in order to not see the pain and gore coming next, or even leaving a bathroom light on or double-checking a closet for monsters after the final credits have rolled. Some of the movies are the best in producing screams during the film and others have lasting effects from childhood that still haunt our dreams.
It should be noted that the title is a little misleading. While most of these movies received high marks because of the literal fright experienced from the footage onscreen, a few were simply well-made, landmark movies that replaces cheap thrills and bloodcurdling violence with quote-worthy dialogue, iconic villains, unforgettable scenes, and award-worthy performances. They aren’t on the list because they will have you crawling to your parents’ bed at night for comfort, but they are superbly done films that will have you on the edge of your seat.
Next to each title I have listed the IMDb rating for the film from myself first and then the general consensus rating.
Honorable Mention:
Some great horror movies that just didn’t quite make the list were The Innocents (8/8), Friday the 13th (8/6.3), and Misery (8/7.8).
Henry James’s novella The Turn of the Screw was superbly formatted for cinemas in 1961 as The Innocents with Deborah Kerr as governess Miss Giddens, who watches over two small children at a country estate in England. It is a splendid psychological thriller as you never are sure whether the events in the movie are actually happening or if Giddens is mad.
Although the series is a punchline now and has spawned countless copycats that have made a farce of the horror genre, the original Friday the 13th is quite chilling for a first-time viewer.
What makes Misery so great is Kathy Bates’s performance. As psychotic nurse Annie Wilkes, Bates alone is worth watching over and over again, making the rest of the film futile as all the viewer wants is more scenes with Wilkes in it.
10. Halloween (9/7.9)
Like Friday the 13th, the Halloween series, including the Rob Zombie revamp, is not worth the material it’s filmed on, minus the first in each group. After more than three decades and 10 films, the sight of an immortal, knife-wielding maniac wearing a painted William Shatner mask doesn’t get the thrills like it did in 1978. Popularizing the slasher film, John Carpenter made a “scream queen” out of then-unknown Jamie Lee Curtis, the daughter of a famous actress who stars in another movie on this list. The characteristics of this film that made it so unsettling were the lack of motive for the killer, Michael Myers never uttering a word of dialogue, the first-person camera shots to represent the killer’s point of view, and the moody soundtrack. Halloween started a new trend of moviemaking that was followed by popular hits like the Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Child’s Play series, and not so great slasher movies such as Prom Night, My Bloody Valentine, Sleepaway Camp, and countless others.
9. The Birds (9/7.9)
Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 suspense movie The Birds is loosely based on the book by the same name from Daphne du Maurier. Certainly not loaded with heart-stopping thrills and gore, The Birds is more of a thriller that has the viewer questioning the “what ifs?” What if birds decided to turn on us and attack? What if a town was suddenly turned upside down by the natural inhabitants that humans tend to so easily forget they coexist with? What if there was no foreseeable end to the madness our former feathered friends would bring down upon us? It is not the movie itself that is horrifying, but the impression it leaves behind that has us curious as to whether the animals we take for granted as friendly really are as safe to domesticate as we think they are.
8. Se7en (9/8.7)
Psychological manhunt films that have police detectives chasing after a themed serial killer are normally cheesy and the payoff is a bit of a letdown. However, the Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey starring, David Fincher directing film is outstanding. The seven the title is making reference to is the deadly sins: lust, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, pride, and gluttony. Despite some overacting at the end of the film, each bizarre crime scene trumps the previous one in terms of the horrors and pain each victim must have suffered at the hands of his or her killer. As the aftermath of each sin is realized and police learn more about the man they are chasing, we start to realize this John Doe character is the greatest psychopath movie audiences have seen since Norman Bates with possibly the most twisted criminal mind ever.
7. 28 Days Later (9/7.6)
Combining the two elements of zombies running fast and a virus infecting its host, which had been used before in zombie movies but never together, Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later is a frightening tale of life in a lifeless world. By 2003, zombie movies were played out and unoriginal in every way. But Boyle put the focus back on what George Romero’s original Night of the Living Dead had done so well, and that was the relationship between people during a living-dead catastrophe. Instead of trying to come up with interesting zombie deaths and mutilations that hadn’t been seen before, Boyle’s story centered around three survivors who link up with a military unit and the broken system an apocalyptic world creates.
6. Night of the Living Dead (9/8)
Let’s just get this out of the way right now: Night of the Living Dead is a terrible movie. There. I said it. If you’ve actually seen the 1968 independently made movie from George Romero and you objectively reviewed it you would have the same outlook as I do. The acting is beyond lame. The zombies are dumb, slow-moving, and generally not that scary. The makeup is poorly done. It is a B-movie like so many bad science fiction films before it, but the thing that made this B-movie stand out among the others was the characterization. It is hard to use that word characterization in a zombie movie, but if you can get past the stiff performances and shoddy dialogue and take a look at the subtext of what is taking place in the film between zombie attacks then the viewer will see that this film is an allegory for the fears and bigotry that was going on at the time. Since the original became such a hit, every director, including Romero himself, has used the allegory excuse to try and make their zombie movie stand out, but nothing has ever beat the original.
5. The Shining (9/8.5)
Jack Nicholson’s axe-wielding chase through a hedge maze. A downpour of blood emptying out of an elevator. Jack’s “Here’s Johnny” introduction in the broken door. Ghost twins eerily standing in the middle of a hotel hallway. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. Redrum! This movie is chock-full of great moments. Slowly watching Jack’s descent into madness and the supernatural occurrences throughout the hotel hypnotically entrances the viewer. The film is open to a number of interpretations as to what is actually the cause and outcome of the film, but one shouldn’t worry too much about this and instead enjoy what is in front of them, that being some of the most bizarre happenings ever captured onscreen and a batty performance from Nicholson.
4. Psycho (10/8.7)
Another Hitchcock entry, this movie starts out as a standard dramatic film about a woman, played by Jamie Lee Curtis’s mother Janet Leigh, who steals money from her place of employment and hits the road for her boyfriend’s place. It isn’t until midway through the movie that we realize what is being viewed is a horror thriller film about a motel-running nutcase with unresolved mommy issues. The shower scene alone is worthy of getting Psycho on any top ten list when talking about suspense and horror. The soundtrack also is quite famous today, even among listeners who have not ever seen the film. Psycho also benefits from being one of the first movies to be made after the lifting of the Production Code, popularly known as the Hays Code, which allowed for scenes like the opening one with unmarried people sharing a bed giving the movie an authentic feel about it. Tame by today’s standards of horror moviemaking where gore and mutilation is substituted for substance and suspense, Psycho is considered one of Hitchcock’s best films he ever made.
3. Jaws (10/8.3)
Like Hitchcock’s The Birds, this film is terrifying because of the what if factor. I never once thought about what was out in the ocean when swimming at the beach as a kid until after seeing Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. Like so many other great horror and suspense movies, the music is what sets the chilling mood whenever the shark comes around for a bite to eat. One of the great benefits to this movie, which was unintended on Spielberg’s part, was not seeing what the antagonist looked like for most of the movie. Robert Shaw delivered one of the greatest characters ever for cinema and Spielberg crafted a sensational picture that left audience members afraid to go into the water.
2. Alien (10/8.5)
So effective was Jaws in 1975 that Ridley Scott pitched his 1979 science fiction horror film as “Jaws in space.” Trapped in the confines of a space craft as a monstrous extraterrestrial life form terrorizes the crew, Alien delivered on every level as a great science fiction, horror, suspense, and/or action movie. Like nothing audiences had ever seen before, the alien that the film’s title is speaking of is a lizard-like creature with a blade-tipped tail and elongated, cylindrical skull with secondary jaw that acts as a tongue. As if the appearance of the alien weren’t terrifying enough, the beast also has acidic blood running through its veins that eats through metal and nearly all other substances. Alien appeals to all types of audiences, ranging from the slow-paced thriller types to gore-fest enthusiasts.
1. The Exorcist (10/8.1)
Maybe it’s my religious beliefs, maybe it’s that I’m a big weenie when it comes to the horror genre, but The Exorcist is by far the most unsettling movie I’ve ever seen. The dreadful acts a demon does while possessing a 12-year-old girl have upset me so much I’ve only been able to watch the movie once. In conjunction with the disturbing premise and tremendous execution of the film itself, urban legends of mishaps on the set, some of which are claimed to be true and others were surely popularized to help promote the film, make this movie seem as if it is in fact cursed by the devil himself. An appalling shocker that should be viewed, even if once is the only number of times you can take it, The Exorcist is the greatest horror movie to ever be seen in theaters.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Really Colin? Really?!
I don’t listen to Colin Cowherd very much. Any listening that does take place in the Herd is normally for the few minutes during a commercial break on 1310 The Ticket’s BAD Radio program during my lunch break. Since I don’t hear much of what Cowherd says I haven’t a real opinion on whether he knows what he is talking about, but my general opinion of his show is that his opinions come across as though they are supreme and anyone who disagrees is a lesser-thinking being.
During Monday's show following Super Bowl XLV Cowherd made a statement I felt pretty sure was ludicrous and after some research I have come to the decision that Cowherd’s argument, while not completely preposterous, is null.
The argument in question is that in the NFL, defenses win championships. Cowherd’s claim is he thinks that is the way things may have been in the past, but in today’s league it is all about elite quarterbacks. His wording was something similar to, “If you gave me a choice between a great defense and a great quarterback I will take the quarterback 100 times out of 100.”
While I’m one who lives under the defense wins championships mentality, I have not ever ruled out that having a great quarterback is also important to winning Lombardi Trophies. In fact, I personally think a team has to have elite, great, and better than good players in every single position to be a championship-caliber team. So where does history stand on the quarterback vs. defense argument. Let’s take a look.
I have researched all quarterbacks, offenses, and defenses since the 2000 season. I figure going back all the way to the Packers and Steelers of the 60s and 70s wouldn’t be completely fair, as Cowherd pointed out the league has changed and is now a passer-friendly game. So looking at the two teams who played in every Big Game since Baltimore and New York battled one another in 2001, here is a breakdown of the regular season statistics for every AFC and NFC championship teams. I have included the rating for each quarterback and yards gained and given up and points scored and allowed by the offensive and defensive units.
2000 Season:
QB:
Trent Dilfer (Baltimore Ravens) – Only starting eight regular season games Dilfer was ranked the 20th best quarterback in the league with a rating of 76.6.
Kerry Collins (New York Giants) – Ranked 12th among quarterbacks with an 83.1 rating.
Offense:
Baltimore – Under the leadership of two quarterbacks, the Ravens were in the middle of the pack offensively at 16th in yards gained and 14th in scoring.
New York Giants –Ranked 13th in yards gained and 15th in scoring.
Defense:
Baltimore – Considered by some to be the greatest defensive unit ever in football, this group was ranked second in yards allowed and 1st in points given up.
New York Giants – A solid group, ranking fifth in both yards and points allowed.
Summary:
It is no secret the Ravens defense won them the Lombardi Trophy and nobody denies that. Dilfer, who took over for a benched Tony Banks midway through the season, was no elite quarterback. Like Kerry Collins, the quarterbacks who led the Ravens and Giants were just good enough to get wins with the defenses doing the brunt of the work to hold opposing offenses to the bare minimum in points. This season certainly was one in favor of the “defenses wins championships” motto.
2001 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Not the starter at the beginning of the season but taking over for an injured Drew Bledsoe in week 2, Brady's 86.5 passer rating ranked him sixth among the leagues quarterbacks.
Kurt Warner (St. Louis Rams) – Was the highest ranked quarterback with a 101.4 rating for the regular season.
Offense:
New England – The Patriots struggled to get yards, ranking 19th in the league, but were able to put points on the board, ranking sixth overall.
St. Louis – The Greatest Show on Turf had their way with defenses, as they ranked first in yards gained and scoring.
Defense:
New England – Like the offense’s divergence in yards and scoring, the Patriot defense was mediocre in stopping teams from going up and down the field, ranking 24th in yards allowed, but were able to keep teams out of the end zone, ranking sixth in points allowed.
St. Louis – The Rams defense didn’t slack off despite knowing their offensive counterparts would have no problem scoring enough to win games, as the defensive unit was ranked third in yards allowed and seventh in points allowed.
Summary:
It is certainly clear that from the regular season’s stats St. Louis was the better team with the best quarterback, the best offense, and the better defense. New England had what would become an elite quarterback, but its offense and defense had some warts. I would say that this season likely goes to the quarterbacks, but the defenses certainly weren’t slumming it.
2002 Season:
QB:
Brad Johnson (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) – As a Cowboys fan who saw what a decrepit figure this guy was late in his career, it amazes me he was ranked the third best quarterback in the league at one time, with a 92.9 rating.
Rich Gannon (Oakland Raiders) – Doing slightly better than his Super Bowl rival, Gannon had a 97.3 regular season passerrating, putting him at second in the league.
Offense:
Tampa Bay – Despite having the third best quarterback in the league, moving the ball and scoring was difficult for the Buccaneers, ranking 24th in yards gained and 18th in scoring.
Oakland – It is odd to see the Raiders successful in the new millennium, but during this season they had a prolific offense ranking first in yards and second in scoring.
Defense:
Tampa Bay – This unit was the personification of great, ranking first in yards and points allowed.
Oakland – The defensive side of the ball for the Raiders wasn't quite as stellar as the offense, but they were able to rank 11th in yards allowed and sixth in points allowed.
Summary:
For the eventual champion Buccaneers, this is a case of having an elite squad on one side of the ball and a legitimately productive quarterback under center. Both units worked hand-in-hand to become the best team in the NFL. The Raiders mostly profited from their offense and Gannon as quarterback, but the defense was nothing to slough off. This season would go down as a tie for both the quarterback and the defense being essential to winning a championship.
2003 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Barely cracking the top ten, Brady finished with an 85.9 passer rating.
Jake Delhomme (Carolina Panthers) – With an 80.6 passer rating, Delhomme finished the regular season as the 14th best quarterback in the league.
Offense:
New England – Both of the conference champion teams were in the middle of the pack by the end of the regular season, with the Patriots ranked 17th in yards gained and 12th in scoring.
Carolina – The Panthers were slightly more consistent and mediocre than the Patriots, ranking 16th in yards gained and 15th in scoring.
Defense:
New England – Brady didn’t have to throw 50 touchdowns during the regular season, a feat he would accomplish later in his career, as the defensive unit was mighty good, ranking seventh in yards gained against them and allowing the fewest points per game in the league.
Carolina – The Panthers defense was functional, making it in the top third of the league in yards allowed at eighth and points allowed at 10th.
Summary:
Having Brady would lead one to assume the team’s offense was a powerhouse juggernaut, but he, along with Delhomme, were not the best passers the league had to offer and the offenses suffered for it. However, the defenses were better than average and if a winner had to be decided I would say this season goes to the defenses. While they certainly weren’t elite, they had to be better than the team they were up against since the offenses were so run of the mill.
2004 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Another season, another top ten finish for Brady, who ranked ninth among quarterbacks with a 92.6 passer rating.
Donovan McNabb (Philadelphia Eagles) – Prior to the very public T.O. break-up, McNabb was able to have a superstar season in 2004, ending up with a 104.7 rating that was good enough for being fourth best in the NFL.
Offense:
New England – Brady helped improve the offense from the prior season, finishing the regular season as the seventh best in yards gained and fourth best in scoring.
Philadelphia – Although the better passer according to the QB rating system, McNabb and the Eagles offense ranked lower than the Patriots, at ninth in yards and eighth in scoring.
Defense:
New England – Opposed to what the team’s offense did, the defense took a slight dip in productivity from the prior season finishing the year out as ninth best in yards allowed and tied for second place in points allowed.
Philadelphia – The Eagles were the team the Patriots tied for second in points allowed and they were slightly worse off in yards against, finishing 10th.
Summary:
Top ten finishes in every category, this season will go down as a tie for quarterback and defense.
2005 Season:
QB:
Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – A controversial figure on and off the field, Roethlisberger quickly established himself as one of the premier quarterbacks in the league, finishing his second regular season as the third best quarterback with a 98.6 rating.
Matt Hasselbeck (Seattle Seahawks) – Coming within four-tenths of a point of Roethlisberger’s passer rating at 98.2, Hasselbeck ranked as the fourth best in the league.
Offense:
Pittsburgh – The Steelers offense generated under Roethlisberger’s leadership couldn’t quite match his individual statistics around the league as the unit was 15th in yards gained and ninth in scoring.
Seattle – The Seahawks offense was best in the league in 2005, ranking second in yards and first in scoring.
Defense:
Pittsburgh – Ultimately known for a smash-mouth defense, this Steelers unit did not disappoint, ranking fourth in yards allowed and tied for third in points allowed.
Seattle – Not being able to keep up with the team’s offense, the defensive side of the ball was 16th in yards and seventh in points allowed.
Summary:
On the surface this looks like a winner for the quarterbacks, both being in the top five for the season and generating good-to-great offenses, but if you look at the statistical line for Super Bowl XL you will see the winning quarterback played terribly. Roethlisberger went 9 for 21, threw for 123 yards total, had two interceptions and one rush touchdown. For a Super Bowl-winning performance that is dreadful and the team ultimately won because the Steelers defense was able to contain the Seahawks offense and prevent a lot of points from being scored. By doing that the Steelers scored three times and ultimately won the game. By Colin’s pretext, Hasselbeck and Roethlisberger should have been the deciding factors in the championship game because they were elite quarterbacks that year, but ultimately the Steelers defense held the Seahawks superior offense to 10 points and that was the difference in the two teams. I would have to say defense won the Lombardi Trophy that year, not elite quarterbacking.
2006 Season:
QB:
Peyton Manning (Indianapolis Colts) – Manning was the best quarterback the league had to offer, finishing with a 101 rating.
Rex Grossman (Chicago Bears) – A Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde season for Grossman resulted in the quarterback ranking 24th among passers with a season rating of 73.9.
Offense:
Indianapolis – Manning was an essential part in leading the offense to be the third best team in gaining yards and tied the Bears for second in scoring.
Chicago – Despite Grossman’s rollercoaster ride of a season and the 15th ranked offense in yards gained, the Bears found enough ways to score that they were tied with the Colts at second.
Defense:
Indianapolis – Like so many of Manning’s teams, the defense played poor all season long, ranking 21st in yards allowed and 23rd in points scored against.
Chicago – Holding themselves to a very high standard, the Bears finished fifth in yards against and third in points allowed.
Summary:
Like the previous year’s Big Game, it came down to an elite quarterback against a superb defense and this year the quarterback came out on top. Therefore the quarterback will get the vote this time. I have to be fair.
2007 Season:
QB:
Eli Manning (New York Giants) – If you recall anything from this season it is likely the helmet catch Manning, who ranked 25th among quarterbacks with a regular season passer rating of 73.9, threw to David Tyree during the winning drive in the Super Bowl.
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – If you recall anything from this season it is likely Brady, the best quarterback in the league with a 117.2 rating, going for perfect and falling short because of a helmet catch in the Super Bowl.
Offense:
New York Giants – Not surprising since Manning was middling, the offense was middling and ranked 16th in yards gained and 14th in scoring.
New England – Setting a record for touchdown passes, Brady torched defenses, sometimes running up scores on opponents, and had the best ranked offense in numerous categories, including yards and scoring.
Defense:
New York Giants – Considering the weak offense, one would think the defense is what helped win this team a championship, however, the best it could do was come in at seventh in yards allowed and 17th in points against.
New England – Despite not really needing to do too much since Brady's offense was decimating opponents, the defense was still able to come in at fourth in yards and points against, which could have been a result of teams getting behind early and becoming one-dimensional in order to play catch-up.
Summary:
Possibly one of the most favored teams to win a championship in sports history, nobody truly gave the Giants a chance to win against the Patriots, despite a close game the two teams had played in the final week of the regular season. Statistically the Patriots were the better team and had a championship been won it would have been because of quarterback Brady. Since the Giants won the game and had neither a great quarterback nor defense to do it with, I can’t honestly grade this season. I am going to have to say the championship was won because of fate, destiny, God’s will, or whatever you wish to call it. Neither side gets the vote.
2008 Season:
QB:Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – One of two down years for Roethlisberger, 2008 saw him as the 24th best quarterback in the regular season with an 80.1 passer rating.
Kurt Warner (Arizona Cardinals) – Continuing his Cinderella story of grocery store stocker to NFL quarterback star, Warner had a 96.9 passer rating, good enough to be the third best quarterback in the league.
Offense:
Pittsburgh – With a quarterback playing poorly, it is no surprise the offense didn’t generate much to be proud of, resulting in being 22nd in yards and 20th in scoring.
Arizona – Polar opposite to the Steelers, Warner and the Cardinals offense went on the attack and finished fourth in yards gained and tied for third in scoring.
Defense:
Pittsburgh – Coming through for Big Ben, the stereotypical Steelers defense ranked first in both yards allowed and points against.
Arizona – Again differing as much as possible to the Steelers, the Cardinals defensive unit ranked 19th in yards allowed and 28th in points allowed.
Summary:
Even though the defense nearly gave the game up in the fourth quarter and Roethlisberger was Superman-like during the winning drive to victory, I still have to give the defense credit for this year’s championship. Had it not been for the defense the Steelers wouldn’t have even been in the Big Game and had the chance for the come-from-behind win. While the Cardinals offense was instrumental in getting to the championship game, it was the lack of a great defense that prevented them from holding on for the win.
2009 Season:
QB:
Drew Brees (New Orleans Saints) – Not quite Brady in ’07, but certainly was a logistical nightmare for opposing defenses, Brees was the highest rated quarterback in the league with a 109.6 passer rating.
Peyton Manning (Indianapolis Colts) – Another solid season for Manning, who was sixth best with a 99.9 passer rating for the regular season.
Offense:
New Orleans – Having the best quarterback, it is no surprise the team had the best executed offense being first in yards and scoring.
Indianapolis – Not shabby in their own right, the Colts finished the regular season at ninth in yards gained and seventh in scoring.
Defense:
New Orleans – Not exactly feeding off the offenses’ talent and electricity, the Saints defense ranked 25th in yards allowed and 20th in points against.
Indianapolis – About par for the Manning-led Colts, the ordinary defense finished at 18th in yards allowed and eighth in points allowed.
Summary:
There is no question this is a quarterback wins championships year. No debating that.
2010 Season:
QB:
Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay Packers) – Answering the question of whether he is the real deal, Rodgers was the third best passer in the league with a 101.2 rating.
Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – Missing four games didn’t mess with Roethlisberger’s feel for the game or his connection with receivers and he finished as the fifth best quarterback, with a 97 passer rating.
Offense:
Green Bay – Despite losing a starting running back and tight end, the offense remained in the playoff hunt and finished at a respectable ninth in yards gained and 10th in points scored.
Pittsburgh – Including the four games without Roethlisberger, where the Steelers ran out quarterbacks Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch, the offense ranked 14th in yards and 12th in scoring.
Defense:
Green Bay – If the loss of some offensive starters due to injury was tough to bear, the defensive injury hit list was soul crushing, but the team kept fighting and ultimately ranked fifth in yards given up and second in points allowed.
Pittsburgh – Not surprising the defensive unit ended the regular season as the second best in yards allowed and first in points scored against.
Summary:
After putting up outstanding numbers in 2010 and an MVP performance in Super Bowl XLV, Rodgers now has a little bit of a reason to be the cockiest player in the NFL. Yet, he was not the sole reason for bringing a fourth Lombardi Trophy to Green Bay. The defense certainly deserves some credit and ultimately the vote for who won the championship in 2010 is going to go to both.
After hours of exhaustive research and typing it has been determined that you need both a great defense and quarterback (in essence, the offense) to be a championship contender and winner. Sometimes a quarterback can overcome the failings of an entire unit, and other times it is the opposite. From 2000 to 2010, there were four votes for the defense alone winning championships, three for the quarterback alone, three for it taking both, and one no vote being tallied.
While it is close and having an elite quarterback or elite defense is going to give you a good chance at making a championship run, I would rather have 11 guys who will carry my team than one. Should the quarterback go down for a long period of time there is little hope of salvaging the season, but if you lose one defensive player, no matter how great they are, the other 10 can step up to make up the difference.
Like many of the opinions Cowherd spews on his program that sound as if they are fact, the idea that defenses don’t win championships and elite quarterbacks do is not the end all, say all. Sometimes one man can lead a team to ultimate victory, but in general you need every single guy on the team playing to their full potential.
During Monday's show following Super Bowl XLV Cowherd made a statement I felt pretty sure was ludicrous and after some research I have come to the decision that Cowherd’s argument, while not completely preposterous, is null.
The argument in question is that in the NFL, defenses win championships. Cowherd’s claim is he thinks that is the way things may have been in the past, but in today’s league it is all about elite quarterbacks. His wording was something similar to, “If you gave me a choice between a great defense and a great quarterback I will take the quarterback 100 times out of 100.”
While I’m one who lives under the defense wins championships mentality, I have not ever ruled out that having a great quarterback is also important to winning Lombardi Trophies. In fact, I personally think a team has to have elite, great, and better than good players in every single position to be a championship-caliber team. So where does history stand on the quarterback vs. defense argument. Let’s take a look.
I have researched all quarterbacks, offenses, and defenses since the 2000 season. I figure going back all the way to the Packers and Steelers of the 60s and 70s wouldn’t be completely fair, as Cowherd pointed out the league has changed and is now a passer-friendly game. So looking at the two teams who played in every Big Game since Baltimore and New York battled one another in 2001, here is a breakdown of the regular season statistics for every AFC and NFC championship teams. I have included the rating for each quarterback and yards gained and given up and points scored and allowed by the offensive and defensive units.
2000 Season:
QB:
Trent Dilfer (Baltimore Ravens) – Only starting eight regular season games Dilfer was ranked the 20th best quarterback in the league with a rating of 76.6.
Kerry Collins (New York Giants) – Ranked 12th among quarterbacks with an 83.1 rating.
Offense:
Baltimore – Under the leadership of two quarterbacks, the Ravens were in the middle of the pack offensively at 16th in yards gained and 14th in scoring.
New York Giants –Ranked 13th in yards gained and 15th in scoring.
Defense:
Baltimore – Considered by some to be the greatest defensive unit ever in football, this group was ranked second in yards allowed and 1st in points given up.
New York Giants – A solid group, ranking fifth in both yards and points allowed.
Summary:
It is no secret the Ravens defense won them the Lombardi Trophy and nobody denies that. Dilfer, who took over for a benched Tony Banks midway through the season, was no elite quarterback. Like Kerry Collins, the quarterbacks who led the Ravens and Giants were just good enough to get wins with the defenses doing the brunt of the work to hold opposing offenses to the bare minimum in points. This season certainly was one in favor of the “defenses wins championships” motto.
2001 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Not the starter at the beginning of the season but taking over for an injured Drew Bledsoe in week 2, Brady's 86.5 passer rating ranked him sixth among the leagues quarterbacks.
Kurt Warner (St. Louis Rams) – Was the highest ranked quarterback with a 101.4 rating for the regular season.
Offense:
New England – The Patriots struggled to get yards, ranking 19th in the league, but were able to put points on the board, ranking sixth overall.
St. Louis – The Greatest Show on Turf had their way with defenses, as they ranked first in yards gained and scoring.
Defense:
New England – Like the offense’s divergence in yards and scoring, the Patriot defense was mediocre in stopping teams from going up and down the field, ranking 24th in yards allowed, but were able to keep teams out of the end zone, ranking sixth in points allowed.
St. Louis – The Rams defense didn’t slack off despite knowing their offensive counterparts would have no problem scoring enough to win games, as the defensive unit was ranked third in yards allowed and seventh in points allowed.
Summary:
It is certainly clear that from the regular season’s stats St. Louis was the better team with the best quarterback, the best offense, and the better defense. New England had what would become an elite quarterback, but its offense and defense had some warts. I would say that this season likely goes to the quarterbacks, but the defenses certainly weren’t slumming it.
2002 Season:
QB:
Brad Johnson (Tampa Bay Buccaneers) – As a Cowboys fan who saw what a decrepit figure this guy was late in his career, it amazes me he was ranked the third best quarterback in the league at one time, with a 92.9 rating.
Rich Gannon (Oakland Raiders) – Doing slightly better than his Super Bowl rival, Gannon had a 97.3 regular season passerrating, putting him at second in the league.
Offense:
Tampa Bay – Despite having the third best quarterback in the league, moving the ball and scoring was difficult for the Buccaneers, ranking 24th in yards gained and 18th in scoring.
Oakland – It is odd to see the Raiders successful in the new millennium, but during this season they had a prolific offense ranking first in yards and second in scoring.
Defense:
Tampa Bay – This unit was the personification of great, ranking first in yards and points allowed.
Oakland – The defensive side of the ball for the Raiders wasn't quite as stellar as the offense, but they were able to rank 11th in yards allowed and sixth in points allowed.
Summary:
For the eventual champion Buccaneers, this is a case of having an elite squad on one side of the ball and a legitimately productive quarterback under center. Both units worked hand-in-hand to become the best team in the NFL. The Raiders mostly profited from their offense and Gannon as quarterback, but the defense was nothing to slough off. This season would go down as a tie for both the quarterback and the defense being essential to winning a championship.
2003 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Barely cracking the top ten, Brady finished with an 85.9 passer rating.
Jake Delhomme (Carolina Panthers) – With an 80.6 passer rating, Delhomme finished the regular season as the 14th best quarterback in the league.
Offense:
New England – Both of the conference champion teams were in the middle of the pack by the end of the regular season, with the Patriots ranked 17th in yards gained and 12th in scoring.
Carolina – The Panthers were slightly more consistent and mediocre than the Patriots, ranking 16th in yards gained and 15th in scoring.
Defense:
New England – Brady didn’t have to throw 50 touchdowns during the regular season, a feat he would accomplish later in his career, as the defensive unit was mighty good, ranking seventh in yards gained against them and allowing the fewest points per game in the league.
Carolina – The Panthers defense was functional, making it in the top third of the league in yards allowed at eighth and points allowed at 10th.
Summary:
Having Brady would lead one to assume the team’s offense was a powerhouse juggernaut, but he, along with Delhomme, were not the best passers the league had to offer and the offenses suffered for it. However, the defenses were better than average and if a winner had to be decided I would say this season goes to the defenses. While they certainly weren’t elite, they had to be better than the team they were up against since the offenses were so run of the mill.
2004 Season:
QB:
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – Another season, another top ten finish for Brady, who ranked ninth among quarterbacks with a 92.6 passer rating.
Donovan McNabb (Philadelphia Eagles) – Prior to the very public T.O. break-up, McNabb was able to have a superstar season in 2004, ending up with a 104.7 rating that was good enough for being fourth best in the NFL.
Offense:
New England – Brady helped improve the offense from the prior season, finishing the regular season as the seventh best in yards gained and fourth best in scoring.
Philadelphia – Although the better passer according to the QB rating system, McNabb and the Eagles offense ranked lower than the Patriots, at ninth in yards and eighth in scoring.
Defense:
New England – Opposed to what the team’s offense did, the defense took a slight dip in productivity from the prior season finishing the year out as ninth best in yards allowed and tied for second place in points allowed.
Philadelphia – The Eagles were the team the Patriots tied for second in points allowed and they were slightly worse off in yards against, finishing 10th.
Summary:
Top ten finishes in every category, this season will go down as a tie for quarterback and defense.
2005 Season:
QB:
Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – A controversial figure on and off the field, Roethlisberger quickly established himself as one of the premier quarterbacks in the league, finishing his second regular season as the third best quarterback with a 98.6 rating.
Matt Hasselbeck (Seattle Seahawks) – Coming within four-tenths of a point of Roethlisberger’s passer rating at 98.2, Hasselbeck ranked as the fourth best in the league.
Offense:
Pittsburgh – The Steelers offense generated under Roethlisberger’s leadership couldn’t quite match his individual statistics around the league as the unit was 15th in yards gained and ninth in scoring.
Seattle – The Seahawks offense was best in the league in 2005, ranking second in yards and first in scoring.
Defense:
Pittsburgh – Ultimately known for a smash-mouth defense, this Steelers unit did not disappoint, ranking fourth in yards allowed and tied for third in points allowed.
Seattle – Not being able to keep up with the team’s offense, the defensive side of the ball was 16th in yards and seventh in points allowed.
Summary:
On the surface this looks like a winner for the quarterbacks, both being in the top five for the season and generating good-to-great offenses, but if you look at the statistical line for Super Bowl XL you will see the winning quarterback played terribly. Roethlisberger went 9 for 21, threw for 123 yards total, had two interceptions and one rush touchdown. For a Super Bowl-winning performance that is dreadful and the team ultimately won because the Steelers defense was able to contain the Seahawks offense and prevent a lot of points from being scored. By doing that the Steelers scored three times and ultimately won the game. By Colin’s pretext, Hasselbeck and Roethlisberger should have been the deciding factors in the championship game because they were elite quarterbacks that year, but ultimately the Steelers defense held the Seahawks superior offense to 10 points and that was the difference in the two teams. I would have to say defense won the Lombardi Trophy that year, not elite quarterbacking.
2006 Season:
QB:
Peyton Manning (Indianapolis Colts) – Manning was the best quarterback the league had to offer, finishing with a 101 rating.
Rex Grossman (Chicago Bears) – A Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde season for Grossman resulted in the quarterback ranking 24th among passers with a season rating of 73.9.
Offense:
Indianapolis – Manning was an essential part in leading the offense to be the third best team in gaining yards and tied the Bears for second in scoring.
Chicago – Despite Grossman’s rollercoaster ride of a season and the 15th ranked offense in yards gained, the Bears found enough ways to score that they were tied with the Colts at second.
Defense:
Indianapolis – Like so many of Manning’s teams, the defense played poor all season long, ranking 21st in yards allowed and 23rd in points scored against.
Chicago – Holding themselves to a very high standard, the Bears finished fifth in yards against and third in points allowed.
Summary:
Like the previous year’s Big Game, it came down to an elite quarterback against a superb defense and this year the quarterback came out on top. Therefore the quarterback will get the vote this time. I have to be fair.
2007 Season:
QB:
Eli Manning (New York Giants) – If you recall anything from this season it is likely the helmet catch Manning, who ranked 25th among quarterbacks with a regular season passer rating of 73.9, threw to David Tyree during the winning drive in the Super Bowl.
Tom Brady (New England Patriots) – If you recall anything from this season it is likely Brady, the best quarterback in the league with a 117.2 rating, going for perfect and falling short because of a helmet catch in the Super Bowl.
Offense:
New York Giants – Not surprising since Manning was middling, the offense was middling and ranked 16th in yards gained and 14th in scoring.
New England – Setting a record for touchdown passes, Brady torched defenses, sometimes running up scores on opponents, and had the best ranked offense in numerous categories, including yards and scoring.
Defense:
New York Giants – Considering the weak offense, one would think the defense is what helped win this team a championship, however, the best it could do was come in at seventh in yards allowed and 17th in points against.
New England – Despite not really needing to do too much since Brady's offense was decimating opponents, the defense was still able to come in at fourth in yards and points against, which could have been a result of teams getting behind early and becoming one-dimensional in order to play catch-up.
Summary:
Possibly one of the most favored teams to win a championship in sports history, nobody truly gave the Giants a chance to win against the Patriots, despite a close game the two teams had played in the final week of the regular season. Statistically the Patriots were the better team and had a championship been won it would have been because of quarterback Brady. Since the Giants won the game and had neither a great quarterback nor defense to do it with, I can’t honestly grade this season. I am going to have to say the championship was won because of fate, destiny, God’s will, or whatever you wish to call it. Neither side gets the vote.
2008 Season:
QB:Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – One of two down years for Roethlisberger, 2008 saw him as the 24th best quarterback in the regular season with an 80.1 passer rating.
Kurt Warner (Arizona Cardinals) – Continuing his Cinderella story of grocery store stocker to NFL quarterback star, Warner had a 96.9 passer rating, good enough to be the third best quarterback in the league.
Offense:
Pittsburgh – With a quarterback playing poorly, it is no surprise the offense didn’t generate much to be proud of, resulting in being 22nd in yards and 20th in scoring.
Arizona – Polar opposite to the Steelers, Warner and the Cardinals offense went on the attack and finished fourth in yards gained and tied for third in scoring.
Defense:
Pittsburgh – Coming through for Big Ben, the stereotypical Steelers defense ranked first in both yards allowed and points against.
Arizona – Again differing as much as possible to the Steelers, the Cardinals defensive unit ranked 19th in yards allowed and 28th in points allowed.
Summary:
Even though the defense nearly gave the game up in the fourth quarter and Roethlisberger was Superman-like during the winning drive to victory, I still have to give the defense credit for this year’s championship. Had it not been for the defense the Steelers wouldn’t have even been in the Big Game and had the chance for the come-from-behind win. While the Cardinals offense was instrumental in getting to the championship game, it was the lack of a great defense that prevented them from holding on for the win.
2009 Season:
QB:
Drew Brees (New Orleans Saints) – Not quite Brady in ’07, but certainly was a logistical nightmare for opposing defenses, Brees was the highest rated quarterback in the league with a 109.6 passer rating.
Peyton Manning (Indianapolis Colts) – Another solid season for Manning, who was sixth best with a 99.9 passer rating for the regular season.
Offense:
New Orleans – Having the best quarterback, it is no surprise the team had the best executed offense being first in yards and scoring.
Indianapolis – Not shabby in their own right, the Colts finished the regular season at ninth in yards gained and seventh in scoring.
Defense:
New Orleans – Not exactly feeding off the offenses’ talent and electricity, the Saints defense ranked 25th in yards allowed and 20th in points against.
Indianapolis – About par for the Manning-led Colts, the ordinary defense finished at 18th in yards allowed and eighth in points allowed.
Summary:
There is no question this is a quarterback wins championships year. No debating that.
2010 Season:
QB:
Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay Packers) – Answering the question of whether he is the real deal, Rodgers was the third best passer in the league with a 101.2 rating.
Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) – Missing four games didn’t mess with Roethlisberger’s feel for the game or his connection with receivers and he finished as the fifth best quarterback, with a 97 passer rating.
Offense:
Green Bay – Despite losing a starting running back and tight end, the offense remained in the playoff hunt and finished at a respectable ninth in yards gained and 10th in points scored.
Pittsburgh – Including the four games without Roethlisberger, where the Steelers ran out quarterbacks Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch, the offense ranked 14th in yards and 12th in scoring.
Defense:
Green Bay – If the loss of some offensive starters due to injury was tough to bear, the defensive injury hit list was soul crushing, but the team kept fighting and ultimately ranked fifth in yards given up and second in points allowed.
Pittsburgh – Not surprising the defensive unit ended the regular season as the second best in yards allowed and first in points scored against.
Summary:
After putting up outstanding numbers in 2010 and an MVP performance in Super Bowl XLV, Rodgers now has a little bit of a reason to be the cockiest player in the NFL. Yet, he was not the sole reason for bringing a fourth Lombardi Trophy to Green Bay. The defense certainly deserves some credit and ultimately the vote for who won the championship in 2010 is going to go to both.
After hours of exhaustive research and typing it has been determined that you need both a great defense and quarterback (in essence, the offense) to be a championship contender and winner. Sometimes a quarterback can overcome the failings of an entire unit, and other times it is the opposite. From 2000 to 2010, there were four votes for the defense alone winning championships, three for the quarterback alone, three for it taking both, and one no vote being tallied.
While it is close and having an elite quarterback or elite defense is going to give you a good chance at making a championship run, I would rather have 11 guys who will carry my team than one. Should the quarterback go down for a long period of time there is little hope of salvaging the season, but if you lose one defensive player, no matter how great they are, the other 10 can step up to make up the difference.
Like many of the opinions Cowherd spews on his program that sound as if they are fact, the idea that defenses don’t win championships and elite quarterbacks do is not the end all, say all. Sometimes one man can lead a team to ultimate victory, but in general you need every single guy on the team playing to their full potential.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Cavs Make History, Really Are That Bad
The Dallas Mavericks helped the Cleveland Cavaliers become an answer to a future Trivial Pursuit question in that the Lebron-less Cavs have lost 25 straight games, setting an NBA record. The funny thing is the team broke its own record of 24 games, set in 1982.
Following the loss, Mavs Guard Jason Terry, likely trying to be kind and soften the blow to Cavaliers’ fans, stated the team’s record wasn’t a reflection of how bad they really are. He backed up his claim with the fact that the Mavericks had several chances to put the game away but the Cavs refused to go away, ultimately losing by only three points.
While the Cavs have been competitive the last four games, keeping the final score within seven points or less, the last 36 games show nothing but failure for Ohio’s NBA fans.
Starting the season off, the Cavaliers went 7-9 proving that without Lebron James they were an average team. However, since that time they have had only one win and their losses range from close finishes to complete meltdowns. The following is a breakdown of the past 36 games.
Feb. 7 – at Dallas – L – 99-96
Feb. 5 – Portland – L – 111-105
Feb. 4 – at Memphis – L – 112-105
Feb. 2 – Indiana – L – 117-112
Jan. 31 – at Miami – L – 117-90
Jan. 30 – at Orland – L – 103-87
Jan. 28 – Denver – L – 117-103
Jan. 25 – at Boston – L – 112-95
Jan. 24 – at New Jersey – L – 103-101
Jan. 22 – at Chicago – L – 92-79
Jan. 21 – Milwaukee – L 102-88
Jan. 19 – Phoenix – L – 106-98
Jan. 15 – at Denver – L – 127-99
Jan. 14 – at Utah – L – 121-99
Jan. 11 – at LA Lakers – L – 112-57
Jan. 9 – at Phoenix – L – 108-100
Jan. 7 – at Golden State – L – 116-98
Jan. 5 – Toronto – L – 120-105
Jan. 2 – Dallas – L – 104-95
Jan. 1 – at Chicago – L – 100-91
Dec. 29 – at Charlotte – L – 101-92
Dec. 28 – Orlando – L – 110-95
Dec. 26 – Minnesota – L – 98-97
Dec. 22 – at Atlanta – L – 98-84
Dec. 20 – Utah – L – 101-90
Dec. 18 – New York – W – 109-102
Dec. 17 – at Indiana – L – 108-99
Dec. 15 – at Miami – L – 101-95
Dec. 12 – at Oklahoma City – L – 106-77
Dec. 11 – at Houston – L – 110-95
Dec. 8 – Chicago – L – 88-83
Dec. 7 – at Philadelphia – L – 117-97
Dec. 5 – at Detroit – L – 102-92
Dec. 4 – at Minnesota – L – 129-95
Dec. 2 – Miami – L – 118-90
Nov. 30 – Boston – L – 106-87
Among those 36 games, the Cavaliers won only one and scored 100 points or more in eight. Of the 35 losses, they finished within 10 points in 16 games, and among those only five games ended with the Cavs losing by five points or less. Of the other 19 losses that saw a point differential of 11 or more, the worst loss was by 55 points to the Lakers on Jan. 11. Another seven games were lost by 20 points or more.
The Cleveland Cavaliers are just not being competitive and I truly feel sorry for that team now that Lebron has left. Truly it should be the fans we feel sorry for, who are being spared to death not only by the Cavs, who have only been to the NBA Finals once in their entire history where they were swept in four games by the San Antonio Spurs, but by every sports franchise the city has to offer. Since 1964, when the Cleveland Browns won an NFL Championship, a title has never been achieved in any major sporting arena.
Following the loss, Mavs Guard Jason Terry, likely trying to be kind and soften the blow to Cavaliers’ fans, stated the team’s record wasn’t a reflection of how bad they really are. He backed up his claim with the fact that the Mavericks had several chances to put the game away but the Cavs refused to go away, ultimately losing by only three points.
While the Cavs have been competitive the last four games, keeping the final score within seven points or less, the last 36 games show nothing but failure for Ohio’s NBA fans.
Starting the season off, the Cavaliers went 7-9 proving that without Lebron James they were an average team. However, since that time they have had only one win and their losses range from close finishes to complete meltdowns. The following is a breakdown of the past 36 games.
Feb. 7 – at Dallas – L – 99-96
Feb. 5 – Portland – L – 111-105
Feb. 4 – at Memphis – L – 112-105
Feb. 2 – Indiana – L – 117-112
Jan. 31 – at Miami – L – 117-90
Jan. 30 – at Orland – L – 103-87
Jan. 28 – Denver – L – 117-103
Jan. 25 – at Boston – L – 112-95
Jan. 24 – at New Jersey – L – 103-101
Jan. 22 – at Chicago – L – 92-79
Jan. 21 – Milwaukee – L 102-88
Jan. 19 – Phoenix – L – 106-98
Jan. 15 – at Denver – L – 127-99
Jan. 14 – at Utah – L – 121-99
Jan. 11 – at LA Lakers – L – 112-57
Jan. 9 – at Phoenix – L – 108-100
Jan. 7 – at Golden State – L – 116-98
Jan. 5 – Toronto – L – 120-105
Jan. 2 – Dallas – L – 104-95
Jan. 1 – at Chicago – L – 100-91
Dec. 29 – at Charlotte – L – 101-92
Dec. 28 – Orlando – L – 110-95
Dec. 26 – Minnesota – L – 98-97
Dec. 22 – at Atlanta – L – 98-84
Dec. 20 – Utah – L – 101-90
Dec. 18 – New York – W – 109-102
Dec. 17 – at Indiana – L – 108-99
Dec. 15 – at Miami – L – 101-95
Dec. 12 – at Oklahoma City – L – 106-77
Dec. 11 – at Houston – L – 110-95
Dec. 8 – Chicago – L – 88-83
Dec. 7 – at Philadelphia – L – 117-97
Dec. 5 – at Detroit – L – 102-92
Dec. 4 – at Minnesota – L – 129-95
Dec. 2 – Miami – L – 118-90
Nov. 30 – Boston – L – 106-87
Among those 36 games, the Cavaliers won only one and scored 100 points or more in eight. Of the 35 losses, they finished within 10 points in 16 games, and among those only five games ended with the Cavs losing by five points or less. Of the other 19 losses that saw a point differential of 11 or more, the worst loss was by 55 points to the Lakers on Jan. 11. Another seven games were lost by 20 points or more.
The Cleveland Cavaliers are just not being competitive and I truly feel sorry for that team now that Lebron has left. Truly it should be the fans we feel sorry for, who are being spared to death not only by the Cavs, who have only been to the NBA Finals once in their entire history where they were swept in four games by the San Antonio Spurs, but by every sports franchise the city has to offer. Since 1964, when the Cleveland Browns won an NFL Championship, a title has never been achieved in any major sporting arena.
Friday, January 28, 2011
I Watch Too Many Movies
During the month between the announcement of Academy Award nominations and the ceremony, I get a little too focused on the Oscars. What that means for you is a lot of Academy Award and movie posts for the next few weeks.
As I have seen every motion picture the Academy Awards have ever bestowed the Best Picture title to, I was curious to know how many of the nominees I’ve seen. Including the winners and other nominees from the previous 82 ceremonies beginning in 1928, there have been a total of 475 movies nominated for the Best Picture category. Of that group I have watched at least once, and in some cases too many to count like The Godfather series, Star Wars or Casablanca, a grand total of 272. That equates to more than half of the nominees. The exact percentage would be a shade over 57 percent.
That is not bad. Following this year’s Best Picture Showcase event I will be taking part in I will have seen nearly 58 percent of the nominees and that number is constantly rising as I continue to watch new movies weekly. In my Netflix queue right now I have an additional four nominated films to watch that were put there prior to the idea of this post.
Maybe someday I will shoot to see every movie ever nominated for Best Picture, but that is a mighty big task to take on.
As I have seen every motion picture the Academy Awards have ever bestowed the Best Picture title to, I was curious to know how many of the nominees I’ve seen. Including the winners and other nominees from the previous 82 ceremonies beginning in 1928, there have been a total of 475 movies nominated for the Best Picture category. Of that group I have watched at least once, and in some cases too many to count like The Godfather series, Star Wars or Casablanca, a grand total of 272. That equates to more than half of the nominees. The exact percentage would be a shade over 57 percent.
That is not bad. Following this year’s Best Picture Showcase event I will be taking part in I will have seen nearly 58 percent of the nominees and that number is constantly rising as I continue to watch new movies weekly. In my Netflix queue right now I have an additional four nominated films to watch that were put there prior to the idea of this post.
Maybe someday I will shoot to see every movie ever nominated for Best Picture, but that is a mighty big task to take on.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Oscar Nominations Revealed
When it was announced a couple years ago that the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would be expanding their Oscar nominations for the Best Picture category from five to 10 films, I had mixed feelings about it. The knee-jerk reaction was it incorporated too many movies and the field no longer consisted of the cream of the crop, but at the same time it was nice to see a throwback to the beginnings of the Academy Awards when a lot of nominations was the norm at each Oscar ceremony. Beginning with the 5th Academy Awards, the Best Picture category allowed eight movies or more to be nominated and it wasn’t until the 17th Academy Awards that it went back to five nominees, like the second, third, and fourth year ceremonies had been. The inaugural ceremony only included three nominees for Outstanding Picture or Production and three nominees for Unique and Artistic Production. Those were combined the following year to become Best Picture.
After two years of seeing what it is like to have 10 movies nominated for the Best Picture category I have to say I completely support it, and my reasons are twofold. The first, and foremost, reason is it brings to the attention of moviegoers films that normally have been critically praised but publicly overlooked. Take for example last year’s nominees. Obviously everyone had heard of Avatar, The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, Inglourious Basterds, Up, and Up in the Air. But the less popular films that would not have been as well publicized had it not been for the nomination included District 9, An Education, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, and A Serious Man. I like that less popular films come to the forefront of everyone’s minds once the nominations are announced and those movies get some extra buzz, even if there is a miniscule chance they are going to win the award.
The second reason for liking the increase in nominations is it allows me the chance to see more movies at the special screenings prior to the ceremony where certain theaters show all of the Best Picture nominees. With 10 movies nominated, the theaters break the event up into two days and show five movies each day. Last year I was only able to get to one day of the event and I saw for the first time The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, An Education, and Up in the Air. I also watched Inglourious Basterds, but that was a repeat for me.
This year’s nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone. I have already seen Inception (twice), The Social Network, and Toy Story 3 (own it on DVD), but watching these movies again will not be a bore. I had every interest in seeing Black Swan and True Grit when they were first released, but by the time I would have gotten around to seeing them I decided I could just wait until this special screening since I was confident they would be included in the list of 10. Others of the 10 I am looking forward to watching include The Fighter, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, and Winter’s Bone. The only one I am sort of dreading is The Kids Are All Right, but I did not want to see Atonement a few years ago when my wife and I did this and that turned out to definitely be worth the two hours.
I am saddened a bit that The Town got no love from the Academy for any sort of nomination in any category of significance. I was hoping that would be among the 10 nominees since I had missed out on its initial release.
It is interesting to speculate what would have been left out had the nominees been limited to five. My guess is Inception, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, and Winter’s Bone would certainly not have made it and the fifth nomination would have been between The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right.
We’ll find out the winners on February 27, so until then enjoy the movies.
After two years of seeing what it is like to have 10 movies nominated for the Best Picture category I have to say I completely support it, and my reasons are twofold. The first, and foremost, reason is it brings to the attention of moviegoers films that normally have been critically praised but publicly overlooked. Take for example last year’s nominees. Obviously everyone had heard of Avatar, The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, Inglourious Basterds, Up, and Up in the Air. But the less popular films that would not have been as well publicized had it not been for the nomination included District 9, An Education, Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire, and A Serious Man. I like that less popular films come to the forefront of everyone’s minds once the nominations are announced and those movies get some extra buzz, even if there is a miniscule chance they are going to win the award.
The second reason for liking the increase in nominations is it allows me the chance to see more movies at the special screenings prior to the ceremony where certain theaters show all of the Best Picture nominees. With 10 movies nominated, the theaters break the event up into two days and show five movies each day. Last year I was only able to get to one day of the event and I saw for the first time The Hurt Locker, The Blind Side, An Education, and Up in the Air. I also watched Inglourious Basterds, but that was a repeat for me.
This year’s nominees are Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, and Winter’s Bone. I have already seen Inception (twice), The Social Network, and Toy Story 3 (own it on DVD), but watching these movies again will not be a bore. I had every interest in seeing Black Swan and True Grit when they were first released, but by the time I would have gotten around to seeing them I decided I could just wait until this special screening since I was confident they would be included in the list of 10. Others of the 10 I am looking forward to watching include The Fighter, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, and Winter’s Bone. The only one I am sort of dreading is The Kids Are All Right, but I did not want to see Atonement a few years ago when my wife and I did this and that turned out to definitely be worth the two hours.
I am saddened a bit that The Town got no love from the Academy for any sort of nomination in any category of significance. I was hoping that would be among the 10 nominees since I had missed out on its initial release.
It is interesting to speculate what would have been left out had the nominees been limited to five. My guess is Inception, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, and Winter’s Bone would certainly not have made it and the fifth nomination would have been between The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right.
We’ll find out the winners on February 27, so until then enjoy the movies.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A Defense For Tony Romo (Not That It Should Be Needed)
Following a heated debate at Thanksgiving and then a repeat performance a week ago with my cousin about the merits of Tony Romo vs. Jon Kitna, I decided to embark on some statistical research regarding both Cowboy quarterbacks.
I will preface this post by publicly declaring my undying fandom for Romo. I appreciate Kitna and think he was the second-best back-up quarterback in 2010, behind Michael Vick who really shouldn’t count but did technically start the season as second string. Obviously my bias for Romo is what has fueled this rant. Yet being the ex-journalist I am, I have gone into this with some objectivity and wanted to find out the true stats of each quarterback for the 2010 season.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this post, I want to prelude once more with some background information on each player. Romo only played five full games and part of a sixth. Kitna played the other portion of Romo’s sixth game, eight full games, and half of a game in week 16. It should also be noted that all of Romo’s statistics were attained under Wade Phillips, whereas Kitna played under both Phillips and interim coach Jason Garrett, which I think everyone can agree should be considered when comparing these two quarterbacks.
Beginning with Romo’s seasonal stats, after six games he finished the year with 1,605 passing yards, 11 touchdowns, and seven interceptions. He went 148 for 213, resulting in a 69.5 completion percentage and averaging 7.5 yards per pass attempt. He was sacked seven times and rushed for 38 yards, gaining 6.3 yards per rush. Romo had a QB rating of 94.9.
In the ten games Kitna was a part of, he passed for 2,365 yards, 16 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions. His completion percentage at the end of the season was 65.7, completing 209 of 318 passes and averaging 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Kitna was sacked 21 times, rushed for 147 yards, attained 4.7 yards per rush attempt, and rushed for one touchdown. His passer rating for the season was 88.9.
In every statistic that is averaged out for the season Romo was the favorite and where Kitna’s numbers were higher it was mostly due to playing more games than Romo and being involved in an offense that had more spark under interim coach Garrett. To get an idea of how much more effective the offense was under Garrett than Wade Phillips, who each coached eight games apiece, Garrett got the team to score an average of 29.125 points per contest while Phillips scoring average was 20.125. One might argue that Garrett was the same guying leading the offense under both regimes, but it was clear to see that the team had given up under Wade Phillips and Garrett sparked a renewed fire inside of them once Phillips had been fired.
To take things a step further and look at two individual games from each quarterback under Wade Phillips, it is clear that on Romo’s worst days he was still a better option than Kitna. Regarding the only two games Kitna started for Phillips in weeks eight and nine, the team lost both games to Jacksonville and Green Bay by 18 and 38 points respectively. Against Jacksonville, Kitna three for 379 yards, went 34 for 49, had 12 rushing yards and was sacked only once. However, hit touchdown to interception ratio is what led to the 18-point thumping by Jacksonville, as he threw only one touchdown and four picks. In Green Bay he improved slightly in one area and faltered drastically in others. His touchdown/interception ration decreased to 1:2, but he only threw 19 completions on 30 attempts, amassed a measly 183 passing yards and was sacked four times.
Of the five full games Romo played, his worst two games were against Washington in week 1 and Minnesota in week 6. The team lost by a total of nine points combined. In Washington, Romo threw for 282 yards, with 31 completions on 47 attempts. He had one passing touchdown, no interceptions, and was sacked once. In Minnesota, he went 24 for 32 with 220 passing yards, 31 rushing yards, three touchdown throws and two picks.
Like my cousin, many Romo haters are going to dismiss the numbers in this article and either state that “stats are for losers” or claim that Romo should be benched over Kitna because of the way he wears his cap backwards. It is useless to argue with such people because until Romo wins three championships for the Dallas Cowboys he will never get his due.
I will preface this post by publicly declaring my undying fandom for Romo. I appreciate Kitna and think he was the second-best back-up quarterback in 2010, behind Michael Vick who really shouldn’t count but did technically start the season as second string. Obviously my bias for Romo is what has fueled this rant. Yet being the ex-journalist I am, I have gone into this with some objectivity and wanted to find out the true stats of each quarterback for the 2010 season.
Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this post, I want to prelude once more with some background information on each player. Romo only played five full games and part of a sixth. Kitna played the other portion of Romo’s sixth game, eight full games, and half of a game in week 16. It should also be noted that all of Romo’s statistics were attained under Wade Phillips, whereas Kitna played under both Phillips and interim coach Jason Garrett, which I think everyone can agree should be considered when comparing these two quarterbacks.
Beginning with Romo’s seasonal stats, after six games he finished the year with 1,605 passing yards, 11 touchdowns, and seven interceptions. He went 148 for 213, resulting in a 69.5 completion percentage and averaging 7.5 yards per pass attempt. He was sacked seven times and rushed for 38 yards, gaining 6.3 yards per rush. Romo had a QB rating of 94.9.
In the ten games Kitna was a part of, he passed for 2,365 yards, 16 touchdowns, and 12 interceptions. His completion percentage at the end of the season was 65.7, completing 209 of 318 passes and averaging 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Kitna was sacked 21 times, rushed for 147 yards, attained 4.7 yards per rush attempt, and rushed for one touchdown. His passer rating for the season was 88.9.
In every statistic that is averaged out for the season Romo was the favorite and where Kitna’s numbers were higher it was mostly due to playing more games than Romo and being involved in an offense that had more spark under interim coach Garrett. To get an idea of how much more effective the offense was under Garrett than Wade Phillips, who each coached eight games apiece, Garrett got the team to score an average of 29.125 points per contest while Phillips scoring average was 20.125. One might argue that Garrett was the same guying leading the offense under both regimes, but it was clear to see that the team had given up under Wade Phillips and Garrett sparked a renewed fire inside of them once Phillips had been fired.
To take things a step further and look at two individual games from each quarterback under Wade Phillips, it is clear that on Romo’s worst days he was still a better option than Kitna. Regarding the only two games Kitna started for Phillips in weeks eight and nine, the team lost both games to Jacksonville and Green Bay by 18 and 38 points respectively. Against Jacksonville, Kitna three for 379 yards, went 34 for 49, had 12 rushing yards and was sacked only once. However, hit touchdown to interception ratio is what led to the 18-point thumping by Jacksonville, as he threw only one touchdown and four picks. In Green Bay he improved slightly in one area and faltered drastically in others. His touchdown/interception ration decreased to 1:2, but he only threw 19 completions on 30 attempts, amassed a measly 183 passing yards and was sacked four times.
Of the five full games Romo played, his worst two games were against Washington in week 1 and Minnesota in week 6. The team lost by a total of nine points combined. In Washington, Romo threw for 282 yards, with 31 completions on 47 attempts. He had one passing touchdown, no interceptions, and was sacked once. In Minnesota, he went 24 for 32 with 220 passing yards, 31 rushing yards, three touchdown throws and two picks.
Like my cousin, many Romo haters are going to dismiss the numbers in this article and either state that “stats are for losers” or claim that Romo should be benched over Kitna because of the way he wears his cap backwards. It is useless to argue with such people because until Romo wins three championships for the Dallas Cowboys he will never get his due.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Digital Killed The Everything Star
What’s wrong with the right now?
My wife and friends are constantly getting on me for not progressing with technology and embracing the “next thing.” I don’t understand why I can’t keep what is available now and hang on to it for longer than a couple of years.
Take CDs of the 90s for example. They are smaller than records of the 70s, easier to manage than cassette tapes of the 80s, but people are abandoning it for digital music on iPods. I am fine with the iPod. My wife has one and I think it is great that you can listen to thousands of songs at random while doing literally anything in the world, from mowing the lawn and driving a car to sitting in your living room or cooking in the kitchen. That is great. But why do we have to turn our back on the previous source of technology? Why can’t I hang on to CDs and everything that entails, which includes browsing for them in music stores and holding the liner notes in my hand as I read about who the band is that made this album.
An argument I’ve heard against the CD is it takes up too much space. I have four folders full of CDs in my car for different genres of music and those cases take up less space than my daughter’s toys that are strewn across the backseat of the car. The same argument is made about DVDs and books that are on our shelves at home. Having movies and literature on our laptops is the future. Well I like having a bookshelf full of books. I enjoy standing in front of my DVD collection, wondering what movie I want to pick out.
I just don’t get why we have to be so attached to our computers for everything we do. My wife’s relentless reading of Facebook status updates and comments in the car drives me bonkers. How about you look out the window at the world going on around you instead of burying yourself in a digital world that is all about self-promotion and egotism? Amassing a small colony of Twitter followers and Facebook friends is the newest form of status symbol, like wearing Abercrombie & Fitch was in the new millennium or being a fat socialite in the early 18th century.
While I may seem to be against technology, that is not completely true. I am all for finding ways to make life easier, but having an electronic book is not easier. It is a parallel move from holding paper on your couch to holding a machine on your couch. That doesn’t improve our lifestyle in any way, so why do away with books.
What I really want is for the world around me to continue progressing with technology while preserving the older forms of things so that I can keep my CDs, books, DVDs and other stuff for more than five years at a time before upgrading to the next “latest and greatest thing.”
Oh, and I also don’t want 3D televisions to succeed. I think 3D is a stupid gimmick that should have died with disco music and Jim Morrison.
My wife and friends are constantly getting on me for not progressing with technology and embracing the “next thing.” I don’t understand why I can’t keep what is available now and hang on to it for longer than a couple of years.
Take CDs of the 90s for example. They are smaller than records of the 70s, easier to manage than cassette tapes of the 80s, but people are abandoning it for digital music on iPods. I am fine with the iPod. My wife has one and I think it is great that you can listen to thousands of songs at random while doing literally anything in the world, from mowing the lawn and driving a car to sitting in your living room or cooking in the kitchen. That is great. But why do we have to turn our back on the previous source of technology? Why can’t I hang on to CDs and everything that entails, which includes browsing for them in music stores and holding the liner notes in my hand as I read about who the band is that made this album.
An argument I’ve heard against the CD is it takes up too much space. I have four folders full of CDs in my car for different genres of music and those cases take up less space than my daughter’s toys that are strewn across the backseat of the car. The same argument is made about DVDs and books that are on our shelves at home. Having movies and literature on our laptops is the future. Well I like having a bookshelf full of books. I enjoy standing in front of my DVD collection, wondering what movie I want to pick out.
I just don’t get why we have to be so attached to our computers for everything we do. My wife’s relentless reading of Facebook status updates and comments in the car drives me bonkers. How about you look out the window at the world going on around you instead of burying yourself in a digital world that is all about self-promotion and egotism? Amassing a small colony of Twitter followers and Facebook friends is the newest form of status symbol, like wearing Abercrombie & Fitch was in the new millennium or being a fat socialite in the early 18th century.
While I may seem to be against technology, that is not completely true. I am all for finding ways to make life easier, but having an electronic book is not easier. It is a parallel move from holding paper on your couch to holding a machine on your couch. That doesn’t improve our lifestyle in any way, so why do away with books.
What I really want is for the world around me to continue progressing with technology while preserving the older forms of things so that I can keep my CDs, books, DVDs and other stuff for more than five years at a time before upgrading to the next “latest and greatest thing.”
Oh, and I also don’t want 3D televisions to succeed. I think 3D is a stupid gimmick that should have died with disco music and Jim Morrison.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thank You Nessa Roo
Since leaving the newspaper in 2009 I haven't done much writing. Outside of the occasional post on here or on my other blog about poker, my writings have been nonexistent. I have some ideas that I start an outline on or think up an entire plot in my head, but when it comes time to put those thoughts down on paper I lose steam.
Normally I tell myself that nobody is going to like what I am writing about or it isn't going to be good enough to get published. However, after reading a fellow blogger's post that revealed an excerpt from a book she had started last summer I decided I shouldn't care what others are going to think about my writings. I would be writing for myself. If I were to author a dozen books and none of them got published, then that is okay. At least I found an outlet for my ideas. Those ideas don't have to be critiqued and approved by the masses.
Should my children or grandchildren someday read any future books I finish then that would be fine, but I am not going write with the idea of becoming the next J.K. Rowling. I simply want to express myself in the best way I know how, and that is through writing.
Normally I tell myself that nobody is going to like what I am writing about or it isn't going to be good enough to get published. However, after reading a fellow blogger's post that revealed an excerpt from a book she had started last summer I decided I shouldn't care what others are going to think about my writings. I would be writing for myself. If I were to author a dozen books and none of them got published, then that is okay. At least I found an outlet for my ideas. Those ideas don't have to be critiqued and approved by the masses.
Should my children or grandchildren someday read any future books I finish then that would be fine, but I am not going write with the idea of becoming the next J.K. Rowling. I simply want to express myself in the best way I know how, and that is through writing.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
New Pixar Rankings
With Emery old enough to watch, and understand, all the Pixar movies I have been watching them a lot lately. At Christmas my 3-year-old daughter got Toy Story 3 and we have already watched it a couple of times. Since viewing the Pixar films I have a new order of the best to the worst, which the worst is still better than most animated movies ever released.
The Incredibles
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
Up
WALL-E
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.
Ratatouille
A Bug's Life
Cars
The Incredibles
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
Up
WALL-E
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 2
Monsters, Inc.
Ratatouille
A Bug's Life
Cars
Friday, January 07, 2011
Can Jason Garrett Succeed As Head Coach And Offensive Coordinator?
After the official announcement yesterday that Jason Garrett would be getting the head coaching job full-time next season (if there is a next season), it has been repeatedly announced that Garrett planned on remaining the offensive coordinator despite the promotion. At first I was in agreement with most sports talk pundits that it was a bad idea to not hire an offensive coordinator as the head coaching position requires a lot of attention and responsibilities. I even did some research to see how many Super Bowl winning teams had a head coach and an offensive coordinator, which is something all the reporters in television, radio, and print had said was the case but I wanted to see for myself. After going as far back as the 1992 Dallas Cowboys I verified that in the past 18 seasons the team that won the Lombardi Trophy had split the jobs of head coach and offensive coordinator between two people.
However, then I started thinking about this season's playoff-bound teams and realized something. The New England Patriots, who many think are a favorite to win it all, don't have either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Now, they have people doing the job of those positions, but not the title. Head Coach Bill Belichick appointed himself defensive coordinator at the start of the season and the team's quarterbacks coach is the offensive play caller.
Now I am not saying Jason Garrett is as great as Belichick in that he can be the team's master and commander as well as call plays while on offense, but what I am saying is that it is possible to do both and achieve a high level of success. I am behind the Jason Garrett hire completely as he showed in the final eight games a fire and passion in the team that was lacking under Wade Phillips, but as for continuing to be the offensive coordinator I will wait on passing judgement until I see how things are rolling in 2011.
However, then I started thinking about this season's playoff-bound teams and realized something. The New England Patriots, who many think are a favorite to win it all, don't have either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Now, they have people doing the job of those positions, but not the title. Head Coach Bill Belichick appointed himself defensive coordinator at the start of the season and the team's quarterbacks coach is the offensive play caller.
Now I am not saying Jason Garrett is as great as Belichick in that he can be the team's master and commander as well as call plays while on offense, but what I am saying is that it is possible to do both and achieve a high level of success. I am behind the Jason Garrett hire completely as he showed in the final eight games a fire and passion in the team that was lacking under Wade Phillips, but as for continuing to be the offensive coordinator I will wait on passing judgement until I see how things are rolling in 2011.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Happy 2011
Hope everyone's 2010 was as spectacular as mine. I wish you all a festive evening and a Happy New Year!
Monday, December 27, 2010
Funny To Me
While watching television this afternoon while my wife and daughter nap, I suddenly found something chuckle-worthy and thought I would throw it up on here for anyone who might stumble along to this site. I am viewing a History Channel program called "The Last Stand of the 300" about the famous battle of Thermopylae made famous a few years ago by the Gerard Butler-starring, Zach Snyder-directed film from the Frank Miller graphic novel. What makes my situation so funny is my flip channel is old episodes of Tom and Jerry.
I go from an educational documentary on a famous battle where 300 Spartans faced off with Xerxes to an animated classic show about a violent stand-off between cat and mouse. I found it funny. I don't know about you.
I go from an educational documentary on a famous battle where 300 Spartans faced off with Xerxes to an animated classic show about a violent stand-off between cat and mouse. I found it funny. I don't know about you.
Friday, December 17, 2010
A Vegas-Style Christmas
I won't exactly be spending Christmas in Las Vegas, but I will be spending the next four days there. I, along with three of my friends, leave for Vegas today and I am getting really antsy about the trip. Ever since last night I haven't been able to sleep and all I am thinking about is our plane leaving for Sin City. It is going to be great. Hopefully I will have some fun stories from our trip to share.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Top Five Christmas Movies
A person’s favorite Christmas movies is an unavoidable talking point at holiday parties every year. Like the weather, local sports teams, “what is new with you,” people who hardly know one another at public social gatherings hit these hot topics because they have only so much they can talk about. When the theme of the party is Christmas, your most liked holiday movies naturally get thrown into the rotation of compulsory questions.
Each year my answers were always the same, but this past summer I watched a Christmas classic that now is in my top five favorites. After going to Grapevine’s Palace Arts Theatre to view Frank Capra’s 1946 classic It’s a Wonderful Life last night, I felt it necessary to throw up my favorite Christmas movies of all time. One reason for the trip to Grapevine last night was because It’s a Wonderful Life is my most beloved of Christmas movies. The superb acting, laugh-out-loud comedy, and heart-tugging drama make this a must watch, whether for Christmas or otherwise. It is just a great film in general. It is amazing that when initially released it was a financial failure. However, thanks to numerous broadcasts at Christmas in the 1970s and 80s it has grown in popularity to become a staple of holiday viewing, right alongside A Christmas Story, which also makes the list.
Coming in second on my favorite holiday-themed films list is the Chevy Chase masterpiece National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. My favorite of the Lampoon Vacation movies is certainly the funniest of all Christmas movies, but Wonderful Life has it beat out as the emotional swings you go through in the James Stewart film is so much more poignant.
My next pick might be a controversial one for the elder generation as it is too new to be considered a classic, but it certainly will reach that status after another 15 years or so. The film I speak of is Elf, the 2003 comedy starring Will Ferrell, James Caan, Zooey Deschanel, Bob Newhart, and Ed Asner. Although the film is chock-full of the slapstick antics of Ferrell, at its core is a sentimental story where family, no matter how nutty they may be, comes first. Elf has given the general public new quotes to exclaim during the holiday season, such as screaming out “I know that guy!” when someone mentions Santa Claus or calling a person a cotton headed ninny muggings as a insult, and it also reminds us that Christmas spirit is magical and contagious.
The fourth best Christmas movie is what was mentioned before that sees a 24-hour marathon on Christmas Day. It is 1983’s A Christmas Story. The memorable moments are too many to count, but some highlights include a kid sticking his tongue to a frozen pole, the Chinese carolers, female leg lampshade, secret society decoder ring, the Queen Mother of Dirty Words, and, of course, the Red Ryder BB gun. Plus, my brother has always looked like Ralphie, so I felt a personal connection to the movie.
We come to the newest member of my Top 5 Christmas Movies list. After a single viewing this past summer, the original 1947-version of Miracle on 34th Street, starring Maureen O’Hara, Natalie Wood, and Edmund Gwenn, has catapulted itself into the top echelon of Christmas movies for me. Like It’s a Wonderful Life, this movie isn’t just a great Christmas movie, but a fine film by itself that can be viewed at any time during the year without the need of the holiday as reason enough. However, unlike It’s a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street was a financial and critical success, winning three Academy Awards for supporting actor and writing and being nominated for Best Picture, but ultimately losing. This season, I suggest picking one of these top five Christmas movies and sharing them with your family. Start a tradition of watching a Christmas movie with your kids every year and choose a new film each season.
Each year my answers were always the same, but this past summer I watched a Christmas classic that now is in my top five favorites. After going to Grapevine’s Palace Arts Theatre to view Frank Capra’s 1946 classic It’s a Wonderful Life last night, I felt it necessary to throw up my favorite Christmas movies of all time. One reason for the trip to Grapevine last night was because It’s a Wonderful Life is my most beloved of Christmas movies. The superb acting, laugh-out-loud comedy, and heart-tugging drama make this a must watch, whether for Christmas or otherwise. It is just a great film in general. It is amazing that when initially released it was a financial failure. However, thanks to numerous broadcasts at Christmas in the 1970s and 80s it has grown in popularity to become a staple of holiday viewing, right alongside A Christmas Story, which also makes the list.
Coming in second on my favorite holiday-themed films list is the Chevy Chase masterpiece National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. My favorite of the Lampoon Vacation movies is certainly the funniest of all Christmas movies, but Wonderful Life has it beat out as the emotional swings you go through in the James Stewart film is so much more poignant.
My next pick might be a controversial one for the elder generation as it is too new to be considered a classic, but it certainly will reach that status after another 15 years or so. The film I speak of is Elf, the 2003 comedy starring Will Ferrell, James Caan, Zooey Deschanel, Bob Newhart, and Ed Asner. Although the film is chock-full of the slapstick antics of Ferrell, at its core is a sentimental story where family, no matter how nutty they may be, comes first. Elf has given the general public new quotes to exclaim during the holiday season, such as screaming out “I know that guy!” when someone mentions Santa Claus or calling a person a cotton headed ninny muggings as a insult, and it also reminds us that Christmas spirit is magical and contagious.
The fourth best Christmas movie is what was mentioned before that sees a 24-hour marathon on Christmas Day. It is 1983’s A Christmas Story. The memorable moments are too many to count, but some highlights include a kid sticking his tongue to a frozen pole, the Chinese carolers, female leg lampshade, secret society decoder ring, the Queen Mother of Dirty Words, and, of course, the Red Ryder BB gun. Plus, my brother has always looked like Ralphie, so I felt a personal connection to the movie.
We come to the newest member of my Top 5 Christmas Movies list. After a single viewing this past summer, the original 1947-version of Miracle on 34th Street, starring Maureen O’Hara, Natalie Wood, and Edmund Gwenn, has catapulted itself into the top echelon of Christmas movies for me. Like It’s a Wonderful Life, this movie isn’t just a great Christmas movie, but a fine film by itself that can be viewed at any time during the year without the need of the holiday as reason enough. However, unlike It’s a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street was a financial and critical success, winning three Academy Awards for supporting actor and writing and being nominated for Best Picture, but ultimately losing. This season, I suggest picking one of these top five Christmas movies and sharing them with your family. Start a tradition of watching a Christmas movie with your kids every year and choose a new film each season.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Super Bowl Loser Curse Is Real
With the Dallas Cowboys set to play a struggling and injury-laden Indianapolis Colts team this weekend, I was curious about the myth of a Super Bowl Hangover, also called a curse, for the losing team of the previous NFL season’s Championship Game. It is a no-brainer that the Colts have problems and are looking for any way possible to get back in the playoffs this year while currently having the same record as the 6-5 Jacksonville Jaguars. Yet, is there really a curse to blame for this. History seems to back that theory up.
As of the end of the 2009 season with 43 Super Bowl losers declared, there have been 14 teams to lose the Big Game and not make the playoffs the next year. However, of the 14 losing teams, nine of those have come in the past 16 years since the salary cap was introduced in 1994. Those teams include 1994 Buffalo Bills (who were coming off their fourth Super Bowl loss in a row), 1999 Atlanta Falcons, 2001 New York Jets, 2002 St. Louis Rams, 2003 Oakland Raiders, 2004 Carolina Panthers, 2005 Philadelphia Eagles, 2007 Chicago Bears, and 2008 New England Patriots. Only the 2008 Patriots team was able to post a winning record the next season at 11-5, and that was even after quarterback Tom Brady suffered a season-ending injury in the first quarter of the first game.
Among the seven teams to lose the Super Bowl one year and manage to make the playoffs the next, none of those teams made it past the divisional round of the post-season.
It seems that should you want to make a bet on whether the loser of the Super Bowl makes an appearance in the playoffs the following year you have a little better than 50-50 on that happening. Find a sucker to take the bet and give yourself some odds. It wouldn’t be hard to do. Say something like, “Come on! This team made the Super Bowl. As long as they bring back the core group then it should be easy for them to make the playoffs.” Take some odds and count the money as it rolls in at the end of the regular season when that team fails to clinch a spot in the tournament.
As of the end of the 2009 season with 43 Super Bowl losers declared, there have been 14 teams to lose the Big Game and not make the playoffs the next year. However, of the 14 losing teams, nine of those have come in the past 16 years since the salary cap was introduced in 1994. Those teams include 1994 Buffalo Bills (who were coming off their fourth Super Bowl loss in a row), 1999 Atlanta Falcons, 2001 New York Jets, 2002 St. Louis Rams, 2003 Oakland Raiders, 2004 Carolina Panthers, 2005 Philadelphia Eagles, 2007 Chicago Bears, and 2008 New England Patriots. Only the 2008 Patriots team was able to post a winning record the next season at 11-5, and that was even after quarterback Tom Brady suffered a season-ending injury in the first quarter of the first game.
Among the seven teams to lose the Super Bowl one year and manage to make the playoffs the next, none of those teams made it past the divisional round of the post-season.
It seems that should you want to make a bet on whether the loser of the Super Bowl makes an appearance in the playoffs the following year you have a little better than 50-50 on that happening. Find a sucker to take the bet and give yourself some odds. It wouldn’t be hard to do. Say something like, “Come on! This team made the Super Bowl. As long as they bring back the core group then it should be easy for them to make the playoffs.” Take some odds and count the money as it rolls in at the end of the regular season when that team fails to clinch a spot in the tournament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)