Yesterday I learned that I have officially narrowed my sports fanaticism to no longer include the NFL. I'm the guy that sat through the 1963 title game by myself in 5 degree weather. I'm not sure what is happening?
People seem to have forgotten that this was the second time the Bears have been to the Super Bowl in 41 years. Within minutes the rational and irrational talk radio guys were all over Grossman. He was not very good, but it is not as if the Bears have a history of great QB's--not since Luckman?--or even good offenses. Talk radio in Chicago survives by Bears QB controversies and opinion. So I think a lot of the opinions that make it on radio are orchestrated. As always, the people who talk are blaming Grossman or Ron Rivera, the defensive coordinator. Coaches and QB's.
Hey, sometimes you lose.
Manning may not have been godlike but he did throw for lots of yards in the rain. He did not score in the red zone or the final would have been 48-17, but the Bears were supposed to be a great defensive team and the rain should have helped them. So, I think Manning did a nice job. And I'm glad he got a Super Bowl win. Not necessarily against the Bears, but I was tired of nitwits questioning his ability because he had no "Ring". (The 'ring' thing has also worn me out.) The same thing was said of Jordan until the Bulls won.
I think that one thing that has to be looked at is the length of the game. There are so many commercials that the first quarter took over an hour. Halftime of 40 minutes. How in the world, in a game of emotion, do you keep up your emotion when every 2 minutes there is a four minute break? How do you stay focused? Guys work their entire careers to be in a Super Bowl and the NFL would seem to want ideal conditions? As always, it is about the money and not the athletes. To me, it is not even a true football test. Two weeks off. The press. Length of game-commercials. This is not about the Bears but about what I think has happened to the NFL. They are the Republican party of leagues.
But, the Bears are not that good. They were almost beaten this season by many average and below average teams. Ron Turner is the coordinator and he is OK. Their offense is not that good. Grossman and the Bears were up and down for the last 8 weeks. They were down Sunday. But in their defense, they were down by 5 and marching in the fourth quarter when Grossman threw the interception. That kid who picked it was from Hubbard High School in Chi. So, that also gives you a picture of how bad the NFL has become. Colts up by 5 after outgaining the Bears 4 to 1 but could not get a TD in the red zone. This is the "Super" Bowl? How about Hester watching himself on the video as he ran? Now that's focus.
Coach, I don't know how you kept doing it all those years.
Do I sound old???
Oketo
Monday, February 5, 2007
da Bears: Inside Football
OK, short and sweet:
Coach
- Bears offense is very, very, vanilla. When you have two weeks to prepare for a team that plays exactly the same defense as you do, wouldn't it be prudent to actually put in plays that are designed to defeat what is called a cover 2 look?
- The right guard for the Bears is awful and is not an NFL player, not close.
- The defense, which was on the field all night was OK and then they started missing tackles when they got tired. The Bear corners cannot cover and they tackled very poorly all night.
- You have played cover 2 all year long and your deep safety decides to run with the TE leaving his deep zone uncovered for the Colts first TD. This was the biggest play of the game because Manning was on the ropes then.
- The Bears, except for special teams were out-coached big time the whole night. Did you see how frustrated Urlacher was when they just kept hanging back and not attacking? Reminded me of Ohio State vs. Florida. Does anyone watch game film?
- I swear to both of you that my backup QB is never gonna botch 3 snaps in one game, never. Grossman is not a big time QB and because Lovie wouldn't give Griese more snaps in the regular season he couldn't play him, I guess.
Now, everyone is gonna say that hey, they made it all the way to the Super Bowl. Yeah, in a weak conference with a weak schedule. The loss of Brown the safety and Harris was really huge, they never recovered from those guys being gone for the season. It's OK to lose but Jesus, have a plan that makes sense.
- One other thing, name me an offense that is real productive that doesn't execute from shotgun. Having trouble? That's cause there aren't any. QB has 1 to 1 1/2 seconds more to read blitz and when it's wet it's more.
- Oh, something else, speed rushers like the Bears DE's are not effective when it's raining. Number 95 for the Bears stinks as does #31.
At least the team that won is easy to like, not the same as New England or Dallas.
This sounds really conceited but I swear I could have put together a game plan that would have been 10X more effective than the one they had, awful.
Coach
Best Picture Ever?
This purports to be a class picture from a Chicago Public School. Who knows? Doesn't really matter.The main point is true: the really great do stand alone (or sit, as the case may be...)
diderot
Et Tu, Colin?
Four years ago today, that's the phrase that kept ringing in my head. Colin Powell--the heroic face of the armed forces--sat in the United Nations and laid out the case for invading Iraq. From across the political spectrum, support rang out. It didn't matter that the specifics might have seemed a bit spotty...more than a little cherry-picked. This was Powell. He was a man of trust. A man of integrity.
And he, too, was duped by these people.
So, Powell paid the price--forced from public life, stripped of his reputation.
But what about all the pundits and publishers and columnists and anchor-folk who couldn't jump up and down fast enough to proclaim him right?
What have they paid? Why are they still in front of the cameras...when Powell isn't?
diderot
And he, too, was duped by these people.
So, Powell paid the price--forced from public life, stripped of his reputation.
But what about all the pundits and publishers and columnists and anchor-folk who couldn't jump up and down fast enough to proclaim him right?
What have they paid? Why are they still in front of the cameras...when Powell isn't?
diderot
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Super Bowl Post Mortem
Once upon a time two of the three guys from Chicago were walking down a dark street late on a Saturday night. We were about 13. One of our Dads was walking some distance behind us. A group of kids a little older than us was walking the opposite direction on the other side of the street. Something was said. Something was replied. Then a taunt. Then a threat.
Then the Dad walked up right behind us, knocked us both on the heads, and told us to shut up and keep walking. When we got to the car, he said, "I don't care how tough you think you are. Remember this--there is always someone in the world tougher".
That's the lesson the Bears learned.
Life goes on.
diderot
p.s. Answer to the previous Trivia question. The Bear players in the picture, are, from left to right, quarterbacks George Blanda, Ed Brown and Zeke Bratkowski. Blanda is the most famous, largely for playing competitively until he was 48 years old. There were people tougher than him--but not many.
Then the Dad walked up right behind us, knocked us both on the heads, and told us to shut up and keep walking. When we got to the car, he said, "I don't care how tough you think you are. Remember this--there is always someone in the world tougher".
That's the lesson the Bears learned.
Life goes on.
diderot
p.s. Answer to the previous Trivia question. The Bear players in the picture, are, from left to right, quarterbacks George Blanda, Ed Brown and Zeke Bratkowski. Blanda is the most famous, largely for playing competitively until he was 48 years old. There were people tougher than him--but not many.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Brett Is Back
I don't care what happens in the Super Bowl. Brett Favre back on the frozen tundra is the most important NFL news of the weekend.
diderot
diderot
Obama: One 'Clean' Cat
Let's get this straight. When Biden called Obama 'clean', it had nothing to do with personal hygiene. Biden is a political animal on the cellular level--the Democrats' John McCain. Without media exposure, he would expire.
What he was saying is that, in his visceral view, Obama is the first black presidential candidate who is politically 'clean'--i.e., they haven't got anything personal to use against him--yet. Like when the movie suspect is frisked and no weapon is found--he's 'clean'.
Al Sharpton had Tawana Brawley. Carol Mosely Braun had her campaign contribution scandals. Shirley Chisholm once stunned her contemporaries by voting for Hale Boggs instead of John Conyers as House Majority Leader. Jesse Jackson had financial improprieties at Operation Push (never made public).
But when it was misconstrued, and it was time to apologize, Biden could hardly come out and explain the context of his adjective, could he? "What I was really trying to say is that all those other black candidates were 'dirty', see?..."
diderot
What he was saying is that, in his visceral view, Obama is the first black presidential candidate who is politically 'clean'--i.e., they haven't got anything personal to use against him--yet. Like when the movie suspect is frisked and no weapon is found--he's 'clean'.
Al Sharpton had Tawana Brawley. Carol Mosely Braun had her campaign contribution scandals. Shirley Chisholm once stunned her contemporaries by voting for Hale Boggs instead of John Conyers as House Majority Leader. Jesse Jackson had financial improprieties at Operation Push (never made public).
But when it was misconstrued, and it was time to apologize, Biden could hardly come out and explain the context of his adjective, could he? "What I was really trying to say is that all those other black candidates were 'dirty', see?..."
diderot
Big Oil
There was a lot of tut-tutting this week with the news that Exxon Mobil established a new corporate record with yearly profits just shy of $40 billion. (By comparison, if you think you're the smartest duck on the pond because you bought Google 18 months ago, understand that Exxon Mobil makes more profit in a single quarter than Google makes revenue in an entire year). To serve its obligation of 'objectivity', CNN interviewed an oil industry analyst from Oppenheimer who said that this is really a non-story, since EM 'returns' more than that $40 billion to shareholders.
Aye, there's the rub. It's all fair because the money you pay at the gas pump (or their industrial customers pay for lubricants, etc.) is more than offset by what's realized in stock value and/or dividends by shareholders.
Which brings us to what I contend is the central shift in U.S. economics over the last two decades. Any profitable business has three central choices of where to 'spend' is earnings. First, they can pass along the 'savings' to its customers, in the form of lower prices (or even R and D, which should result in future lower prices). Presumably a competitive advantage--at least lower pricing used to work for WalMart.
Second, the money can go to its own employees--better wages, continued health care, a company pension, maybe even a better annual picnic, etc.
And finally--and these days, most decisively--you pay out to the shareholders. Shareholder value is king. In the end, it's the shareholders who really matter.
Now, cynical you might say that happy shareholders make for wealthy CEOs. You might point out that Lee Raymond, Exxon's last CEO, made $51 million his final full year on the job, and then left with a retirement bundle worth another $400 million. But remember, you said it, not me. His shareholders would counter that Lee was worth every penny, since the share price during his 12 years in the big chair rose 500 percent.
Virtuous circle, no?
The coincidental counterpoint to this festive occasion was the the official U.S. response to a global scientific conclusion announced in Paris this week that it is humans, after all, who are responsible for global warming. Aha! (OK, they said ' 90% likely'. Since they also noted that 11 of the 12 warmest years ever recorded all happened in the last 12 years, I'm sticking with my full 'aha!').
Coach Bush then sent his Energy Secretary, Samual Bodman, up to the plate. Bodman calmly explained that this really isn't so pertinent to those of us in America, since we are only 'a small contributor' to the problem of greenhouse gases. (OK, we represent 5% of the world's population but spew 25% of the greenhouse gases, but who's counting?) Furthermore, to do anything about it would risk damaging our economy! Yikes! And on this score, you have to give the devil his due. In a previous life, he was head of Fidelity Investments, and probably met Lee Raymond personally! So he knows from economics.
But to put a final ribbon on this package, let's revisit another Bodman gem from the early days in his current gig as Exxon shill...I'm sorry, I meant Energy Secretary. When asked by reporters why America shouldn't aggressively attack global warming in the form of the relatively logical step of setting a higher standard for average auto fuel economy, Bodman responded, "...do we put our citizens at risk by having lighter vehicles, less safe vehicles..." manufactured in Detroit?
I agree. The world would be a much safer place if everyone drove an Escalade with those really fly rims. And rather than being fatally T-boned by one of those bad boys, wouldn't you rather be toasted to death sunbathing in Duluth in the middle of February? Or suddenly find yourself submerged beneath a thirty foot wall of water in Orange County?
But let's not be so fatalistic. At least share prices keep rising...
diderot
Aye, there's the rub. It's all fair because the money you pay at the gas pump (or their industrial customers pay for lubricants, etc.) is more than offset by what's realized in stock value and/or dividends by shareholders.
Which brings us to what I contend is the central shift in U.S. economics over the last two decades. Any profitable business has three central choices of where to 'spend' is earnings. First, they can pass along the 'savings' to its customers, in the form of lower prices (or even R and D, which should result in future lower prices). Presumably a competitive advantage--at least lower pricing used to work for WalMart.
Second, the money can go to its own employees--better wages, continued health care, a company pension, maybe even a better annual picnic, etc.
And finally--and these days, most decisively--you pay out to the shareholders. Shareholder value is king. In the end, it's the shareholders who really matter.
Now, cynical you might say that happy shareholders make for wealthy CEOs. You might point out that Lee Raymond, Exxon's last CEO, made $51 million his final full year on the job, and then left with a retirement bundle worth another $400 million. But remember, you said it, not me. His shareholders would counter that Lee was worth every penny, since the share price during his 12 years in the big chair rose 500 percent.
Virtuous circle, no?
The coincidental counterpoint to this festive occasion was the the official U.S. response to a global scientific conclusion announced in Paris this week that it is humans, after all, who are responsible for global warming. Aha! (OK, they said ' 90% likely'. Since they also noted that 11 of the 12 warmest years ever recorded all happened in the last 12 years, I'm sticking with my full 'aha!').
Coach Bush then sent his Energy Secretary, Samual Bodman, up to the plate. Bodman calmly explained that this really isn't so pertinent to those of us in America, since we are only 'a small contributor' to the problem of greenhouse gases. (OK, we represent 5% of the world's population but spew 25% of the greenhouse gases, but who's counting?) Furthermore, to do anything about it would risk damaging our economy! Yikes! And on this score, you have to give the devil his due. In a previous life, he was head of Fidelity Investments, and probably met Lee Raymond personally! So he knows from economics.
But to put a final ribbon on this package, let's revisit another Bodman gem from the early days in his current gig as Exxon shill...I'm sorry, I meant Energy Secretary. When asked by reporters why America shouldn't aggressively attack global warming in the form of the relatively logical step of setting a higher standard for average auto fuel economy, Bodman responded, "...do we put our citizens at risk by having lighter vehicles, less safe vehicles..." manufactured in Detroit?
I agree. The world would be a much safer place if everyone drove an Escalade with those really fly rims. And rather than being fatally T-boned by one of those bad boys, wouldn't you rather be toasted to death sunbathing in Duluth in the middle of February? Or suddenly find yourself submerged beneath a thirty foot wall of water in Orange County?
But let's not be so fatalistic. At least share prices keep rising...
diderot
Friday, February 2, 2007
Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled...
I wonder what it's like to be a 21-year-old sports fan in Chicago these days. Surely you wouldn't remember it firsthand, but the year you were born, the Bears won the Super Bowl. (Obviously you've heard a little bit about that season--after all, if someone dropped a nuclear bomb on Michigan Avenue this week, the headlines would still be talking about Rex Grossman's mental state).
And in the lifetime of this young fan, there have been seven other world championships bestowed on the city's teams--six by the Bulls, and one the year before last to the White Sox. That makes eight world championships in the lifetime of someone just now legally able to buy his first Old Style.
Let me tell you how it once was. Before I left Chicago, I spent more than 25 years watching the city's main teams--collectively, that's more than 100 pro seasons--and what did I get for it? Two stinkin' championships--the Blackhawks in 1961, and the Bears two years later. And if memory serves correctly, neither one of those games was televised.
Now, you could call this coincidence, but consider that in my time in my current town, Seattle, there has been nary a championship to speak of. We had a baseball team a few years back that set a record by winning 116 games in a single regular season--and didn't even make it to the World Series. Yes, one of those Bulls championships was at the expense of Seattle--the Sonics at least made it to the finals. And the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl last year...where they promptly folded.
So, I believe my personal record of local fandom, ranging from abject failure to maybe-next-year, is something not to be dismissed lightly. Should the Bears win on Sunday, and you feel so giddy as to rub still another championship in my face, let me give you warning.
Do not taunt me, or I swear to God, I WILL move back!
diderot
And in the lifetime of this young fan, there have been seven other world championships bestowed on the city's teams--six by the Bulls, and one the year before last to the White Sox. That makes eight world championships in the lifetime of someone just now legally able to buy his first Old Style.
Let me tell you how it once was. Before I left Chicago, I spent more than 25 years watching the city's main teams--collectively, that's more than 100 pro seasons--and what did I get for it? Two stinkin' championships--the Blackhawks in 1961, and the Bears two years later. And if memory serves correctly, neither one of those games was televised.
Now, you could call this coincidence, but consider that in my time in my current town, Seattle, there has been nary a championship to speak of. We had a baseball team a few years back that set a record by winning 116 games in a single regular season--and didn't even make it to the World Series. Yes, one of those Bulls championships was at the expense of Seattle--the Sonics at least made it to the finals. And the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl last year...where they promptly folded.
So, I believe my personal record of local fandom, ranging from abject failure to maybe-next-year, is something not to be dismissed lightly. Should the Bears win on Sunday, and you feel so giddy as to rub still another championship in my face, let me give you warning.
Do not taunt me, or I swear to God, I WILL move back!
diderot
Girls Just Wanna Have...Fame?
When I was a kid, you could identify a truly progressive family by the expectations that were communicated to its daughters. That was a time when what the vast majority of girls wanted out of life was pretty much what was presumed--marriage and motherhood. The avant garde might entertain a career as teacher or nurse...as long as it dovetailed with 'the woman's role'. But the idea of a 'girl' as scientist or policewoman or business executive? Forget it--no way. It was a direct and slippery slope from June Cleaver to Chairman Mao.
There's a research firm in Chicago that's been studying the state of the teen mindset for decades, and to the surprise of no one (I think), things have changed. Parents of daughters might feel proud that girls today feel more in control of their destinies, and see far fewer obstacles preventing them from getting what they want. (The corrollary trend--the purported 'wussifying' of boys--has been widely reported in the media).
But the rub comes in their new-found aspirations. The top goal of teenaged girls today is to become--a celebrity. While the study didn't probe this, I have a feeling that the self-defined state of 'celebrity' in play here is not one won on the basis of intelligence, hard work and social benefit. Instead, it smells just like that vacuous, self-absorbed, achievement-free form of celebrity personified by Paris Hilton. It doens't matter how you wind up on the cover of the tabloids--just do it, baby. We are all American Idols.
And the kicker is this--a full 50% of teen aged girls actually believe they WILL BECOME celebrities.
So, hold your heads up high, Boomer and Gen X parents. We have liberated our daughters from wanting to be something...to wanting to be nothing.
The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.
diderot
There's a research firm in Chicago that's been studying the state of the teen mindset for decades, and to the surprise of no one (I think), things have changed. Parents of daughters might feel proud that girls today feel more in control of their destinies, and see far fewer obstacles preventing them from getting what they want. (The corrollary trend--the purported 'wussifying' of boys--has been widely reported in the media).
But the rub comes in their new-found aspirations. The top goal of teenaged girls today is to become--a celebrity. While the study didn't probe this, I have a feeling that the self-defined state of 'celebrity' in play here is not one won on the basis of intelligence, hard work and social benefit. Instead, it smells just like that vacuous, self-absorbed, achievement-free form of celebrity personified by Paris Hilton. It doens't matter how you wind up on the cover of the tabloids--just do it, baby. We are all American Idols.
And the kicker is this--a full 50% of teen aged girls actually believe they WILL BECOME celebrities.
So, hold your heads up high, Boomer and Gen X parents. We have liberated our daughters from wanting to be something...to wanting to be nothing.
The road to hell truly is paved with good intentions.
diderot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)