#059 - Oscars 2011

So, though in the past I've done nothing but horribly in Oscar predictions, I figured I'd give it another run down this year. Of course, things that you think ARE going to win aren't necessarily the ones you'd LIKE to win.

So, here we go:

--

Original Screenplay

Nominees: Another Year; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech

I'd prefer: Inception. Simply put, it was my favorite movie, and I think the story it's based on is fantastic. It's incredibly complex, but it works. I know lots of people couldn't get a grip on the dream switching and the layers, but I got it without issue. Here's a movie that juggles four and five layers of action with characters playing themselves and other characters and more than anything the tension of the story leaps out at you. Unfortunately, it's handicapped by being labeled "the dream movie" just as The Dark Knight was labeled "the Batman movie". It's much more than "the dream movie". The dreams are the premise, the real story is about the deepest human fears and emotions.

I think: The Kids are All Right. I liked this movie a lot. I thought it was really clever and funny. And after reading some lofty issues about the historical accuracy of The King's Speech (which I feel will win it's fair share of awards), I think the Academy will end up defaulting to the one movie that nobody can really lodge a complaint with.

--

Adapted Screenplay

Nominees: 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: The Social Network. Yes, Sorkin was very Sorkin with his dialogue. But it was an endless barrage, there was talking, there was talking on top of talking, and this movie owed more to its script than any other movie this year.

I think: The Social Network. This one almost seems TOO easy.

--

Animated Feature

Nominees: How to Train Your Dragon; The Illusionist; Toy Story 3

I'd prefer: Toy Story 3. Come on.

I think: Toy Story 3. I don't know why I even bothered writing this out.

--

Supporting Actress

Nominees: Amy Adams; Helena Bonham Carter; Melissa Leo; Hailee Steinfeld; Jacki Weaver

I'd prefer: Hailee Steinfeld. She gets the benefit of being young in the Oscars. She really was the LEAD actress in her film, she was in almost every scene. But as they usually do, they peg younger actors into the "Supporting" category to both celebrate them and give them a chance at winning. She was terrific. It's almost hard to believe she's NOT the hard-nosed, razor sharp lady she portrayed in the movie--which is again the benefit of being young and unknown. You don't already have her pegged as "Oh that's Amy Adams--I know her."

I think: Melissa Leo. She's very deserving. Adams I think got more pub initially, but slowly Leo has gotten the recognition she warranted with her performance. She just disappeared into the character, it was both fantastic and ridiculous, the early 90s Boston outfits and accents. She needs to thank her costume director and makeup artist if she wins.

--

Supporting Actor

Nominees: Christian Bale; John Hawkes; Jeremy Renner; Mark Ruffalo; Geoffrey Rush

I'd prefer: Christian Bale. I think big name actors are all fighting with themselves to be declared the "most dedicated" in the field, but how could you argue with Bale. I mean look at him in this movie. His mannerisms are insanely idiosyncratic. And when you see the post-feature snippet with the real life characters, you can tell he studied Dicky Ecklund's every move until he got it perfect. I'm quite sure Geoffrey Rush was fantastic in The King's Speech (I have it queued up to watch soon), but I doubt anyone could be as superb as Bale.

I think: Toss up. This is almost pegged to the Lead Actor winner. I think if Firth wins lead, there's a better chance for Bale. If he doesn't, I feel like they have to give it to Rush, since ONE of the two main actors in that movie has to win. But my gut is telling me Bale. And he deserves it.

--

Lead Actress

Nominees: Annette Bening; Nicole Kidman; Jennifer Lawrence; Natalie Portman; Michelle Williams

I'd prefer: Hard to say. Haven't seen Rabbit Hole or Winter's Bone, and while I feel like Jennifer Lawrence is a good story and kind of an underdog here, I think I'd have to say Portman. Unlike most people, I wasn't absolutely blown away by her role in Black Swan, but it was an INTENSE movie and she brought it to almost every scene. And you can forgive her for overacting because of the nature of ballet competition--she nearly killed herself just to get to the top, it takes a lot out of you.

I think: Portman. Good for her. I think Michelle Williams did a really fantastic job, but Ryan Gosling really carried that movie for me. Portman was the backbone of Black Swan.

--

Lead Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem; Jeff Bridges; Jesse Eisenberg; Colin Firth; James Franco

I'd prefer: Holy crap. What a selection. It's kind of sad that Jesse Eisenberg, as key as he was, has basically 0% chance of winning. And I just saw Biutiful and Javier Bardem was GREAT, yet I think he has absolutely 0% chance of winning as well. I loved Franco, and how could you argue against someone who occupied the screen the whole film, yet still turned in a truly fantastic movie. I know from all the pub that Colin Firth was great, but I haven't seen it quite yet. I think the one actor I want to win this award MOST is actually not even nominated--Ryan Gosling from Blue Valentine. I think he was dynamic and disappeared more into his character than some of the other actors, whose characters had quirks they could always default to. Gosling was just a complete person, with strengths and faults and ups and downs. It's really a shame he's not even nominated. Gosling, Franco, Bardem, in that order.

I think: Firth. Would be weird to see Franco win since he's hosting, and the unending parade of "best actor" props for Firth suggests it's going to be his year.

--

Director

Nominees: Darren Aronofsky; David O. Russell; Tom Hooper; David Fincher; Joel and Ethan Coen

I'd prefer: Christopher Nolan, of course. Oh wait, he's not even nominated. It just makes me feel awful to see that. He got overlooked for The Prestige, for The Dark Knight--both of which were absolutely mind-blowing movies for me--and now he doesn't even get a NOMINATION for Inception. It's his baby. He's been working on it for 15 years, and even admitted that one of the reasons he took the job of Batman was to gain enough experience on a mega-concept movie to get Inception right. And get it right he did. I don't think any director had as much influence over his final product than Nolan. He's the best in the business. And yes, that includes the Hall of Fame worthy Coen Brothers.

I think: Aronofsky. Good for him, too. I don't think this was his strongest film, really. In fact, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler were all better, in my opinion. But sometimes you put in your time making terrific movies and eventually the Oscars recognize you for something even if it's not your best work (see Joel and Ethan Coen, Denzel Washington).

--

Picture

Nominees: Black Swan; The Fighter; Inception; The Kids are All Right; The King's Speech; 127 Hours; The Social Network; Toy Story 3; True Grit; Winter's Bone

I'd prefer: Inception. End of story. The best movie that I saw this year. However, there's as much of a chance that anyone actually reads this post as there is of Inception winning.

I think: The Social Network. Though the Academy does like British movies, The Social Network has the buzz and the "now" factor to get the job done this year. Unfortunately I think that's part of the reason why it's not going to last with people. I just feel like, more and more often, we look back a few years later and say, "Mmm, they just missed it. The right movie was there, but they picked the movie that had more buzz." Don't get me wrong. The Social Network was really good. But I just didn't think it was THAT good.

Good luck to all the nominees.

#058 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

Director: Banksy (ostensibly)

Writer: Nobody (apparently)

Runtime: 87 min

One of the most awe-inspiring traits an artist can have is self-awareness. Too often you see artists and celebrities engrossed in themselves and consumed by their universe-altering lives that they lose the perspective that they used to have, you know, before they were Masters of the Galaxy. But I'm starting to think that, maybe, with the deluge of critique available on the internet, and the instantly available public reaction thanks to the social networking phenomenon--perhaps artistic self-awareness is reaching the tipping point. Instead of having the rare moment when a big time star can have a laugh at himself, the marketplace is somewhat flooded with either genuine or microwave-ready versions of levity where we're all supposed to go, "See! He has a sense of humor about himself!" The most obvious example of this is Tom Cruise's Les Grossman cameo from Tropic Thunder (and subsequently the MTV Movie Awards), or alternatively, Joaquin Phoenix's mockumentary I'm Still Here when we're supposed to believe that he's just kidding about being a wacko.

The problem with all of this--if there is a problem--is that you can't separate what has been cooked up by a publicist and what is coming from an artist's own true self-awareness. I mean, I tend to think that Cruise's embrace of the Grossman thing is tightly tied to the public's positive reaction; but how aware is he that part of the reason that people think it's funny is because he's Tom Cruise, someone who is seemingly going off the deep end and is always wearing a made-for-tv facade. Jack Black in that role would not have raised eyebrows, because, well, that's Jack Black and that's what he does.

Exit Through the Gift Shop ends up hitting on this very same concept, albeit in a way that I'm not 100% sure of. Either Thierry Guetta, the main character of the film and eventual street art phenomenon Mr. Brainwash, is a real person who has all the traits others claim him to have throughout the film, or he's a real person who was molded and prodded to be the "artist" he becomes by the puppetmaster Banksy. Either way, the movie starts out with what I find to be a rather fascinating authentic documentary about street artists (ones that already exist and are successful) that ends up being hijacked in the end by this ballooning figure of Mr. Brainwash who clouds the art world skies and borders on over-saturating the market. Mr. Brainwash is ridiculous, and unabashedly so, seemingly without any respect of the fact that his success is not due to his own skill, but rather to the overwhelming hype machine created in part by Banksy. At one point in the movie, Banksy claims to have not foreseen the effect that his promotion of MBW would have, but I can only imagine that his very HOPE was to crash through the ceiling of notoriety.

In fact, I partially believe that Banksy shaped Guetta into MBW so he could gauge the impact an artist with relatively no skill could have as long as he followed an established plan of promotion--first covertly, then overtly. According to the film, that impact was monumental. He wasn't overnight going to become the hallowed critical success that Banksy himself was, but MBW ended up being a bit of a smash hit. His art show opening was visited by thousands of people and he ended up selling over a million dollars worth of art. Not quite Banksy numbers, but very impressive. Only, in the end, I have to believe that this sort of hurt Banksy.

Elitism goes hand in hand with art. I think it's one of the main reasons why people enjoy dissecting artists and their work--to vault themselves into some level of elitism. It's why students on college networks share their music libraries. "Oh yeah, John's library is good--but have you seen Derek's?!" It's why people like to discuss their favorite movies and what they thought of the latest big-budget trash. If your favorite movie is Forrest Gump or Pirates of the Caribbean, well then good for you. Now, if your favorite movie is The 400 Blows or Yojimbo, well then, now we're talking! Picking out chic from shit is an essential tool for any would-be snob. But gallery art is probably the MOST difficult medium to work with when doing your elitist sorting. There are no off-key singers, there are no one-liners that fall flat on their face. Stuff that looks kind of weird to you can suddenly be amazing as long as you overhear the right person giving it praise. It's a tough field to follow, especially modern art, where you can't just get by with a collection of names. I personally feel that you have to be honest with yourself and just stick with whatever you like. I know I've been to galleries in the past and have heard people gushing over certain pieces that I wasn't too fond of, and there's an urge to over-analyze it, to convince yourself that you're wrong and someone else is right--but I really do think that the things you like are going to come right out and sock you in the face, so don't worry about looking too hard.

However, I have to admit that by the end of Exit, I started to resent MBW and his success. I practiced the elitism just the way it always happens. And I think that's kind of the reaction they're hoping you have. It feels a little bit like the self-aware (Banksy) having fun with the un-aware (Guetta): "Hey, this movie is so successful, and look at you, you're a big hit!" whilst snickering behind the scenes at his lack of skill and certain-to-be fleeting fame. He even did a spectacular job of selecting headphone-wearing teenagers to give MBW props in the interview portions, in contrast to the articulate adults who posited that MBW's work was heavy-handed and cliche, ripping off those who came before him. But, someone paid money for his pieces. Lots of someones. And lots of money. So I'm curious about how that made Banksy feel, along with Shepard Fairley, and Space Invader. Were they proud of themselves for "building" this budding star? For manipulating the social consciousness enough to make him appear legit? Or did they feel a little bit kicked in the stomach? Their work, which they had hoped would capture the attention of the global community, was being lumped beside the work of a guy with less artistic talent, but more grandiose intentions. After all, I think at the core, what artists want is for their work to be appreciated. Otherwise they would just keep all their paintings inside a locked closet and never show them to anyone. Street artists are performers. When you walk the streets, you're blasted with material left and right, some of which might LOOK like art, some of which might not. Only the best stands out. And I think that's what they want, is to stand out. Is making MBW relevant their way of laughing at the public? Or is it their way of truly accepting the reality that art doesn't have a set of requirements, that you can be good one minute and not the next (or vice versa), and that many of the people in the world simply like art that they're told they should like? I know I'm going to offend a lot of people, but I had a similar reaction to MBW as I did to the novel The Kite Runner. It felt like it was all hype. When I read The Kite Runner, I couldn't help but think, "Here's a guy, who's not really a writer, who badly wants to tell this melodramatic story. And it's got a perfect summer blockbuster story, and it happens to be about a place and culture that is very mainstream." So it's built up as this EVENT, this book that everyone is reading, and you need to read it because your neighbor has read it, because it talks about all this stuff that you don't know about, and can you believe the Middle East is like this? And now, here's MBW, taking this underground world of street art, where you know almost nothing about the players, and pumping it mainstream, plastering it on television and periodicals. And people readily absorb it, because the hype machine is telling them to.

If I were Banksy, I would be disappointed. Maybe he finds enjoyment that his little pet project has become popular enough to open a second show in New York (meaning he's already succeeded in LA and NYC). But I think I would have hoped that he would pop up for a minute, have everyone go, "Hey, look what's happening here!", and then dissolve into nothing. Because artists do want their work to be appreciated--which Banksy's no doubt is--but appreciated fairly. If something is simply better than what they've done, they want to address it and accept it. And, in the same breath, they don't want to be categorized alongside inferior artists. That is why many actors and writers so easily reference older artists and commend their work, yet are hesitant to compare themselves to contemporaries. Being a working artist means you're still in the race, you can't look to your left and say, "Well I just can't beat that person." The legends have already finished the race, we already know the winners and losers--rather, we know the winners, the losers we generally forget. It feels a little bit like Banksy was saying, "I'm sick of being called a vandal with a spray can--so I'm going to show you the difference between what I do and what a guy with a spray can does." That distinction is what drives you to go from hobbyist to artist. That distinction changes your work from whitewash predecessor to million-dollar auction item.

And this is where you really have to question what Banksy is in it for? Is he really just making art for art's sake? Is he playing around with the public, playing around with the critics? Or somewhere inside, does he WANT to have the fans and recognition that he has, and would he be worse off without them? I've seen other people go down the route of "I really don't care what anyone has to say", and it's rather off-putting. When the Coen Brothers (whom I love as filmmakers) won the Academy Award for Best Picture for No Country For Old Men, they acted as if they couldn't be bothered. Like they hadn't just achieved something. Like winning the award now was belittling to them since they had already made so many fantastic films. I think they're brilliant, but I wasn't a fan of this reaction at all. Everyone knows the Academy makes ridiculous selections and perhaps the Coen Brothers should have won earlier awards, but Oscars or no Oscars, their movie was beloved by many, many people, myself included, and I kind of just wanted them to acknowledge the fact that they had REALLY made an impression on lots of people. Poking fun at critics or audiences is one thing--artists should always do that, lest the audiences THEMSELVES begin to grow big heads--but I think having the distinction of worldwide appreciation is one of the clearest signs that, "Dude, you've done it." Banksy wasn't nearly this supercilious, but he did toe the line between thick skinned and aloof. For what it's worth, Guetta/MBW cleared WANTED to be loved. He wanted to be a brand, instead of pretending like he didn't care and hoping it would happen anyway.

It was truly a fascinating movie, and brought to mind way, way more concepts than were presented plainly. I'm probably overthinking it, engaged in an inner battle between the part of me that accepts that I'm a fan, and the part of me that desires to be an artist. But I think the movie turned at the end; when MBW became an icon, Exit Through the Gift Shop went from being an interesting movie about the world of street artists, introducing you to wonderful characters you never would have known about, to being a commentary on artists and social manipulation. If you've read this far, know that I suggest that you see it, and that I hope you will find it enjoyable. This long, long writeup of mine is less about the movie itself and more the outlet I needed to discuss some concepts that I had been thinking about.

#057 - The Vince Young Problem

I want to clarify a couple of things up front:

1) I'm not black. (Or Asian or Latin or Native American or biracial or Jewish or Muslim or any of the many, many cultural backgrounds that are prejudiced against much more than white Christian Americans.)

2) I believe there are PLENTY of people that still exist in this world and, yes, in this country, that have racist tendencies, or are just blatantly bigoted. It's a fact, and I wish it wasn't, but god only knows when that fact is going to change. I just hope the number decreases steadily through time.

3) I do not believe I know what it feels like to be prejudiced against because of my ethnicity. And I'm not claiming to.

I just got done reading an article on ESPN.com from Jemele Hill, who I think is a good writer, not that I agree with 100% of the things she says, but she usually comes up with pretty solid topics, albeit sometimes controversially. Here's a link to the article in question. (Likewise, here's a column by Jason Whitlock about LeBron playing the race card.)(And here is an article written by a blogger who seems to appropriately balance the argument in a thoughtful way.) Hill seems to sort of take this waffling stance on the treatment of black quarterbacks--that yes, the ones in question (Donovan McNabb, Jason Campbell, Vince Young) have at times underperformed, most notably Young, but that also their treatment has not been 100% on the up-and-up, going so far as to say that Jeff Fisher doesn't trust VY, and his mistrust has fed into a sour environment for the two.

On top of that, I read a comment in a chat with Bill Simmons yesterday from someone saying: "Funny how you'll blame Vince Young for the issues in Nashville but not acknowledge his career success and Jeff Fisher's lack of it..." What? Jeff Fisher's lack of career success? First of all, he's a head coach in the NFL, and he's the longest-tenured one at that. Something about that SCREAMS "career success" to me. Secondly, he's won 25 more games as a head coach than he's lost. Third, if you think Vince Young has succeeded in the NFL without help from his HEAD COACH, you're just insane. And as far as Fisher's mistrust of Young leading to the sour environment goes, that's a chicken-and-egg argument basically claiming that the chicken made the egg and it's a done deal. I'm a big sports fan. I read stuff from all over, it doesn't have to be my home team. And I read stuff from all sorts of sources--journalists, bloggers, stat people, beat reporters, former players. The bottom line on Vince Young seems to be that he's a pretty talented guy who just doesn't seem to have "gotten it" yet in the NFL. It could be that he was just so dominant in college that he never developed the proper work ethic. He could roll out there on the field and simply walk through teams (as he did on the BCS-winning touchdown run). To make it in the NFL, you need a little bit more than that. Donovan McNabb "got it" and I don't think you'll read anything from anyone claiming otherwise. He works his ass off, he studies up, he showed Michael Vick the difference between putting up stats and winning games (and look how Vick has taken that to heart). He's gotten it for sure--and maybe part of that is because he was criticized so early. Eagles fans wanted Ricky Williams (they were unaware of how insane he was) but Andy Reid went with McNabb because he thought it was an opportunity they couldn't pass up. McNabb came from Syracuse and knew he'd have to prove himself. Young came from Texas and a national championship and thought, "What the heck--I thought I already proved myself?" Some people are just wired differently.

The criticisms on the field that I've seen time and time again of Young don't seem that insane to me. He struggles with accuracy and making quick decisions (these were, for a long time, criticisms of Eli Manning), but he's a hell of a downfield passer and throws a pretty deep ball on top of all the playmaking ability with his legs. I don't know how to say it other than those comments seem pretty dead-on. Now, the flip side of it is, he's had a tough time dealing with team management issues. He doesn't seem to be able to handle getting benched, apparently he's missed a bunch of team meetings, and the bottom line is that you can't really have that from your quarterback--or any of the key players on the team. He disrespected Fisher to his face, perhaps as a result of his feeling that Fisher must have a grudge against him dating back to last season, when Fisher stuck with Kerry Collins through an 0-6 start. Here's a thought: YOU bench your starting quarterback after a 13-3 season. Go ahead, see how easy it is. Was six games too many? Should Fisher have pulled the plug sooner? (By the way, here's the six teams Collins lost to in that stretch: @ Pittsburgh, Houston, @ NY Jets, @ Jacksonville, Indianapolis, @ New England.) If Fisher has a mistrust of Young, perhaps it's because of Young. Not because of his skin color. To make the claim that Fisher doesn't trust a black quarterback is to EGREGIOUSLY overlook the fact that Fisher tabbed Steve McNair as his starting quarterback for the better part of TEN SEASONS, and McNair to this day is the best Titan in team history (Tennessee, not Houston). It seems irresponsible, or lazy, to suggest that the issues in the Titans' clubhouse are related to race. At least, if that were the case, it would mean that Fisher is weirdly selective about who he is racially biased against, choosing only those who seem to openly disrespect him.

I'm not going to sit here and say that there aren't people out there who probably don't trust Young as a quarterback because he's black. It's a shitty reality of this world. But what I am thinking is that those people are fans (or "fans") in some regard, onlookers, and not the men pulling the strings behind the curtain. Could it be writers? Perhaps. But from what I've seen, analysts' critiques of Vince have been pretty fair. He's found himself on his fair share of Greatest College Players Ever lists, and I think few people doubt that his Rose Bowl game against USC ranks as one of the all-time top performances in the sport. But his wild success in college masked a problem that seems to be coming out in the pros--he can't handle failure very well. And I mean even small failures, in game, not being able to stand boos, or being injured and missing games. Somehow, critics have turned Fisher's action of not sending Young back into the game into him "not trusting" Young. "If Brett Favre was hurt like that, would a coach stop him from going back in?" Probably not. But Brett Favre is a hall of fame quarterback who has played hurt many, many times and played successfully. Vince Young, in his short career, has occasionally had injuries that linger and recur. If Fisher sends him back out there and Vince is injured more severely on the next play, wouldn't that suggest that Fisher "doesn't care what happens to him"? It seems like he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Apparently trying to protect your franchise quarterback from injury gets you nowhere these days.

I've been trying to think of ways to address the Jason Campbell problem this whole time, but I don't think I can come up with anything. Campbell has been a solid quarterback in the NFL. Solid, but unspectacular. The Redskins decided they didn't want him anymore, so they dealt him. Certainly it had everything to do with race, since they replaced him with--oh, that's right, a black quarterback. And the Raiders are probably biased against Campbell too, since they've never--oh, that's right, they tried every way they could to get JaMarcus Russell to succeed after drafting him #1 overall. The Raiders never bet the house on Campbell. They traded for him because it was an opportunity to acquire a solid NFL quarterback at a reasonable price, and they certainly didn't have their mind made up as to who would be starting for them. They don't have the luxury of a Peyton Manning or even a Sam Bradford--someone who they know they're going to stick with. But I've paid a decent amount of attention to this team for the last few years, and in my honest opinion, Bruce Gradkowski is the best quarterback they have, and have had for the last couple seasons. He's not awesome, but I think he's fiery and aggressive and makes plays. He's probably not that much better than Campbell, but right now this team has a poor pass offense, period, regardless of who is behind center.

And it's no secret that I love McNabb. I've written about it extensively, and I will openly admit it to anyone. He was my favorite player during his whole run as an Eagle, and honestly, I probably wouldn't BE an Eagles fan if it weren't for him. I don't understand Mike Shanahan's move at the end of the Lions game. Simply put. It didn't make sense, I was angry, I thought he took a winnable game and threw it in the garbage, and followed up by making a bunch of weird excuses that didn't make sense. But what does that have to do with him not liking him for his race? There's no way that Shanahan simply mistrusts Donovan as a black quarterback. Rick Reilly, who has recently written a lot of garbage, pointed out a lot of counter-arguments in a recent column.

Surely, McNabb was at the center of the Rush Limbaugh firestorm. But Rush is an idiot and spouts a lot of baloney and white people will tell you that. He likes being edgy. McNabb handled the ordeal with a lot of class. And, just like Young, McNabb definitely has his doubters out there, and some of them probably simply doubt him because of his race. But what position of power are those people in? Are they running the team? Are they writing the national columns? Are they on television in front of millions? I don't believe they are. ESPN saw to it that Limbaugh wasn't anymore. People out there are going to hate other people for whatever reason they want. You can't stop that from happening. Does that mean that there's a culture brewing in the NFL that signals mistrust of black quarterbacks? I don't think so. Wins bring dollars, and dollars make owners happy. Happy owners make happy coaches and happy players. That's the bottom line, literally, and I think you can see that from the Vick story that's been going on. As much as people hated him for what he did and as scummy a guy he was, he's winning games and lighting the field up, and the team has to stick with him--AND fans are loving it. McNabb brought a lot of wins to Philadelphia and a lot of people love him for it. But he also never brought that ONE particular win and a lot of people are upset about it. What are you going to do? Remember when Peyton Manning was the guy who could never win "the big one" before he finally did? It happens. Nobody doubted that Peyton was a good quarterback. He just was the guy you'd always bet against in the playoffs. The Eagles got rid of them because of a certain team philosophy that suggests not holding onto assets until they're worthless. It sucks. Did McNabb have more productivity in him? For sure. But so did Brian Dawkins when he was let go. So did Brian Westbrook. So did Sheldon Brown. The management of the team just has a philosophy to keep the wheels churning and bring in new talent. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. Now the Eagles are 7-3 and everyone's favorite to win the NFC. You can argue that it was rude of them to trade McNabb when they did, but you can't argue that they didn't have winning football games at the top of their priorities when they did. Fans may delude themselves into thinking that winning one season is all that matters. They'd trade in ten winning seasons for one Super Bowl and nine winless years. But that's just what I said--delusion. It's not good business, it's not good management, it's not good for team spirit. You try to win as many games for as long a time as you can. Andy Reid decided it was time to cut ties with Donovan, when he could still get decent value for him, and Reid did him a favor by trading him to a team with money that was still capable of competing.

As much as I love McNabb, the comments that he made that Hill attributes to him in her article seem a little misguided. For one, they were made in 2007, which is a weirdly long time ago when referencing players like Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer. In 2007, Carson Palmer was a very promising young quarterback with a couple excellent seasons under his belt and the Bengals seemed to be turning this around. If he wasn't criticized at that time, it was because the Bengals had been so purely awful for so long that to see them succeed was joyous for everyone involved. And I once again don't understand the short term memory that people have regarding Manning. He was trounced routinely for not being able to win the big one, despite being statistically a tremendous quarterback and winning a lot of games in the regular season. Then he finally won one, and after that point, has continued to lead winning seasons and play lights-out. If he is criticized rarely, it is because he is one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history. But that doesn't mean he was never criticized.

Finally, towards the end of the article, Hill points out that a lot of people suggested Vick move to another position other than quarterback when he returned from prison. Certainly this was because he was a black quarterback, and not because he missed TWO YEARS in prison. The fact that Vick even returned to football at all was a nod to his superior athletic talents. People suggested that he come back in a different role because he threw away his career by being a criminal, because few teams were knocking down his door to come back and be a starting quarterback (which he wanted), and because they thought he could be useful immediately by playing a wildcat or splitback. Suggesting that those comments were motivated by race would be to act blind to the facts: he missed a huge portion of time in prison, potentially irreversibly affecting his timing and rhythm; teams in the league had moved on and worked with new quarterbacks; he was an amazingly effective runner in Atlanta but not as effective passing; making him your starting quarterback would have been handing the keys to someone fresh off of a federal felony conviction who was teetering on the edge of Roger Goodell's death list. It was a very specific case, one that most analysts had absolutely no history dealing with. So they attacked it specifically. And if simply suggesting he moves positions is a strictly "black quaterback" thing, then I would present to you the following: Tim Tebow, Matt Jones, Julian Edelman, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch. Quarterbacks are suggested to change positions all the time, based on their skill sets. It's not restricted to black quarterbacks only.

I know that there is a lot of pressure on black quarterbacks to succeed. But there's a lot of pressure on everyone in the NFL to succeed--white, black, everything in between. And I acknowledge that, as they say, "haters gonna hate," but to take these issues that are popping up with some of the NFL's talent and suggest that they are racially motivated seems a little bit narrow-sighted to me. Anyone associated with the NFL knows that it's impossible to overstate the contributions made by black players--at all positions.

#056 - Day of the Dead: AFC Edition

So, in regards to the previous post, I just want to clarify that the classifications I listed aren't necessarily "Alive or Dead in the Playoff Race". Of course, especially in a playoff race like the NFC's (notably the NFC West), teams are still going to be technically alive even with poor records, like Minnesota at 2-5 or San Francisco at 2-6. What I mean from "Alive, Dead, or In Limbo" is the play of the teams. What do they give you on a week to week basis? Do they have any hope at turning their season around? Some teams I just feel are more of a threat any given week (the Rams) than others (the Seahawks).

So let's continue, this time with the AFC:

VIVO

New England Patriots -- Well, yeah, it's simple, they have the best record in football. Period. Amazingly, after years and years of teams taking undefeated streaks into late November, including two last year, this year we have NONE, and there's only even ONE team with a single loss, thanks to the Saints and Packers last week. This Patriots team is one of the biggest smoke and mirror jobs Belichick has ever pulled off. I mean where is their headlining talent? Brady, Welker, Mayo, ...? They have continued to be "Team Turnover"--as in player turnover, not keeping the old vets around any longer than they need to, shipping them off for draft picks before they bust out. And it's clearly working. If you take away a second half offensive meltdown in New York, they're undefeated, and against some stiff competition. How can they perform the remainder of the season? Well, I think they're a good regular season team (note: that's a backhanded compliment, they allow 55 more yards per game than they produce). So looking at their schedule, I'll give them 12-4. Prediction: 12-4, AFC East title.

New York Jets -- Everybody's bandwagon favorite. Unfortunately, they laid a stinker against the Packers, and after the bye week--which makes me think Rex Ryan isn't going to turn into one of those Bill Belichick / Andy Reid "Unbeatable After the Bye" types. They have offensive problems, for sure. And if anyone ever slowed down Tomlinson, watch out. But the biggest surprise is the pass defense. They loaded up their guns with two more clips--Cromartie and first round pick Kyle Wilson--but have not improved against the pass at all, giving up 60 more yards in the air per game than last year and already allowing more touchdowns (10 to 8). They improved against the run, however, a filthy-low 2 touchdowns the whole season. It just makes you feel sort of sorry for the defense, that they could hold the Packers out of the end zone and yet still come away with a loss. Luckily, they have games against Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Buffalo still remaining. Prediction: 11-5, Wild Card.

Miami Dolphins -- Look, they've lost to the Patriots, Jets, and Steelers (on a bogus call that I'm still mad about). And now they have to play the Ravens this week. Tough schedule much? So having a 4-3 record is nothing to sneeze at. There are very very few teams who could play those opponents as well as road games in Green Bay (OT Win), Cincinnati (Win), and Minnesota (Win) and come out with the record they have. I like what they do. They play tough defense. Maybe they're not the shutdown team the Jets might be, but you don't get easy touchdowns against Miami, unless you're the Patriots and the entire special teams unit just falls apart. And they obviously play well on the road, an amazing 4-0 on the season. But things have to improve at home. And their stars (Brandon Marshall, Ronnie Brown, and Ricky Williams) have got to start playing better and earning their paychecks. The unheralded guys on the team can't keep holding them afloat. But if all you need is your big-name guys to step it up to go from dark horse to legitimate contender, I'd say you're doing something right. Prediction: 9-7.

Baltimore Ravens -- It upsets me that they lost that overtime game in New England, but the Ravens have already won two of the toughest road tests a team could face--at Pittsburgh and at the Jets. Now, their second half schedule doesn't get any easier for them, save matchups with the Panthers and Browns. But at the beginning of the season I liked them to be the best team in the league, and I still think they're very capable of that. They just need to run a lot of red zone offense with Flacco. I think he struggles. He's got a cannon arm and really likes to unfurl it, but his short-range touch leaves a bit to be desired (sounds like another #5 I'm familiar with). And I think it hurts them in the red zone. He's got a big target now in Anquan Boldin, who seems to be disappearing and reappearing throughout their games. He needs to show up on every play. Don't underestimate the importance of having Ed Reed back. This guy is a twice-in-a-lifetime type playmaker. Prediction: 11-5, in the hunt for the AFC North.

Pittsburgh Steelers -- I'm frustrated with the Steelers this year. I think they outperformed themselves with victories early in the season without Roethlisberger or Polamalu, and now they are left with a bunch of winnable games. But look at who they've beaten this year: Atlanta (in Pitt), Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Miami, Tennessee. Good, not great. They lost their two toughest tests, against Baltimore and New Orleans. I'd prefer to give them a few more games against top opponents before anointing them as many of the talking heads are wont to do. Prediction: 11-5, also in that same hunt.

Indianapolis Colts -- Look, this team has flaws. It's not alarming. It's the truth. They've been gashed by the run. They gave up tons of points to Houston and Jacksonville in losses. But let's be serious about something: there's no way in hell Peyton Manning doesn't win MVP this year. How about losing your budding receiver, Austin Collie? No big deal. What about Dallas Clark for the season? Eh, whatever. Bob Sanders? Melvin Bullitt? Joseph Addai? Donald Brown? How many huge injuries do the Colts have to endure before they're forced to play guys both ways? More than anybody else, this is a one-man team. It's kind of sad, but it's true. You take Peyton out of this lineup and they'd collapse faster than a Jenga tower. That's why he was named NFL Network's 8th best player OF ALL TIME. And that's also why they can take these beatings and keep on ticking, week in and week out. Prediction: 12-4, no road playoff games at 8-8 teams this year.

Tennesse Titans -- Talk about a team that's doing it with defense. Yeah, they're no Steelers or Jets, but here's a team that creates havoc when you play them. Turnovers, touchdowns, sacks, punt returns, the whole deal. They are making the most of their opportunities and are keeping the team ahead while the offense and Chris Johnson "struggle" (721 yards and 8 touchdowns is suddenly a bad season). I'm just worried that they've hit their high water mark. They're giving up more yards than they're producing, and have already created 19 turnovers. Plus they have four games against the Texans and Colts in the second half, as well as a matchup with the Ravens. And who knows what kind of impact Randy Moss will have on the team. I think he's best utilized as a decoy on this team, but you know he gets upset when he's used in that manner. Prediction: 9-7, unfortunate in this year's AFC.

Kansas City Chiefs -- What a turnaround by these guys. I really don't even like to admit it, considering I've been so down on them all year. I just didn't buy that they suddenly got it. But they have it, alright. Yeah, they haven't beaten a lot of good teams if you take away their opening week victory over the Chargers, but the good news for them is their schedule doesn't get that much tougher from here on out. No more games against the Colts, at least. I think they're primed for a bit of a fall-off, but you can't deny that they have a lot of young talent and are clearly the front runners in the AFC West right now. Prediction: 10-6, right in the thick of it.

Oakland Raiders -- Yeah I said it. Any time a team wins back to back games 92-17, you're going to get your props. And they're a hideous missed 32 yard field goal from Janikowski away from being 5-3 right now. And they have a 3-2 record in games when Darren McFadden has not been injured. I think their defense is better than people give them credit for, and if they can beat the Chiefs this weekend in what has become an enormous matchup for the two teams, watch out for them. Prediction: 7-9. Alright, so I'm not that in love with them. But I like what they're doing.

San Diego Chargers -- I begrudgingly put them here just because I think we've all seen this before from them. Struggle struggle struggle, then suddenly boom they explode and win a mediocre AFC West with a Week 17 blowout of Denver. This year though, they have a bit more competition. I think they'll come back from this because of their video games numbers on offense and defense--426 yards per game offensively, 260 yards per game allowed defensively. That's insane. Maybe if they stop getting punts blocked and stop laying the ball on the ground after receptions, they won't lose as many boneheaded games as they have. A road game at Indianapolis might be the only one standing in the way of a perfect rest of the season. Prediction: 9-7. Might be, I said.

PURGATORIO

Houston Texans -- They've been outscored this year by 27 points. They have the league's worst passing defense. They have to play the Chargers, Jets, Ravens, Eagles, and Titans (twice) before the season is out. Don't look now, but they could be headed for a real disappointment, especially after that huge opening week win against the Colts and a 4-2 start to the season. They need to do something defensively to prove that they have it together, and DeMeco Ryans's injury and Brian Cushing's sub-par post-steroids play are only making it worse. A round of applause for Arian Foster, he's been a wrecking ball this year. But the Texans should be learning by now that offense can't win you every game. Prediction: 8-8.

Cleveland Browns -- I hated this team more than any when the season started. Why? Because they were starting Jake Delhomme. I mean, seriously. Why would you do that? But you know what? They've played hard. And Seneca Wallace and Colt McCoy have done what Jake hasn't done for two years--given their team a chance to win. Nobody else in the league has played Kansas City, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Tampa Bay. All of those teams have 5 wins. That's insane. And they still have New England, the Jets, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh to go. Yeah, they're not going to win a lot of games. And yeah, their win over the Saints was a bit of a miracle. But I'm suddenly on the Browns bandwagon. Colt McCoy's my man. Prediction: 5-11. But things are looking up!

MUERTO

Buffalo Bills -- Sigh. I really wanted to give them a Purgatorio. I did. But I just can't. Not when they're 0-7 and hands down the worst team in the league. I love what ol' Seamus Fitzpatrick has done with this offense. This guy will take whatever shot you want to give him and pop right back up in your face. He's a little bull dog. And Roscoe Parrish and Steve Johnson have been revelations at receiver. They still have a few winnable games left on their schedule, so let's give three cheers for the Toronto Bills this weekend! Prediction: 2-14.

Cincinnati Bengals -- Whatever. They've been in every game they've played, and they have potential. But I used to like this team with Carson Palmer at the helm. Now they're just trotting out a retread team and focusing more on their reality shows. I think their window has passed. Prediction: 6-10.

Jacksonville Jaguars -- What makes me interested in this 4-4 team? That they've been outscored by 61 points this year? That they're 28th in passing defense and 22nd in rushing defense? That if you take away the Indy win, they've beaten teams that are 2-6, 0-7, and 1-6? I'm not buying what the Jaguars are selling. (And it seems nobody is, ZING! That's an empty stadium joke!) Prediction: 7-9. Or something.

Denver Broncos -- The fans want Tebow. Give them Tebow. They're getting outrushed by 87 yards per game. It can't hurt. Also, I'm running out of steam. Prediction: 5-11.

#055 - Day of the Dead: NFC Edition

Week 8 is over, which means we can officially start to eliminate some teams from contention--even if some of them are not mathematically eliminated. Coincidentally, November 2nd is Dia de los Muertos in Mexico, and also Election Day in the good old US and A. What does election day have to do with it? Well, just like in American politics, the race for the NFC West is between a bunch of good-for-nothings that just like to take your money without giving any real effort to earn it. And also, just like in American politics, SOMEBODY has to win. Gulp.

Let's break the NFC and AFC races into three categories: Vivo (Alive), Muerto (Dead), y Purgatorio (Somewhere in between--just like that hip new Matt Damon movie! Which looks totally weird and stuff!)

NFC

VIVO

The New York Football Giants -- everyone was proclaiming them to be the beast of the least after their second half dismantling of the Cowboys, which almost turned into an epic collapse against the Cowboys, which turned into a not-so-impressive victory over the Cowboys thanks to David Garrard and the Jags this weekend. But before we crown them champs, let's look at this: so far this year they've beaten the Cowboys (1-6), the Lions (2-5), the Texans (4-2), the Bears (in the Jay Cutler Walking Zombie game), and the Panthers (1-6). In between they got hammered by the Colts and the Titans. Luckily for them, they only play one game against the AFC the rest of the year (home vs. Jacksonville), but they do have to play four games against the Redskins and Eagles, which are always tough, and road dates in Seattle and Green Bay. They could go 5-4 the rest of the way to finish 10-6 and an almost stone cold lock on a playoff spot, but then again, we've seen them fall off the cliff before (5-0 to start last year, finished 8-8; 11-1 to start 2008, finished 12-4 and lost first playoff game). Prediction: 9-7, still good enough to secure a playoff spot.

Philadelphia Eagles -- Currently 4-3, they have a LOT of tough football games to play the rest of the year, including 2 with the Giants and next week's game against Indy. The good news is, if Michael Vick is on his game, they could beat anyone. The bad news is, sometimes Michael Vick has games where he couldn't hit the broad side of Terry Bradshaw's bald dome. We're young and pretty talented, and the thing that helps that combination is confidence. And right now, coming off of a brutal fourth quarter meltdown against the Titans, I'm worried about confidence. Nate Allen was playing like a star until Kenny Britt burned him deep, and now I'm concerned he's going to overcompensate against a Colts team that destroys defenses on underneath routes. Prediction: With Minnesota and Dallas looking like tumbleweed right now, it's not a stretch to finish the year 5-4 to go 9-7 and hopefully snag an NFC Wild Card.

Green Bay Packers -- At the beginning of the year, I thought they were the class of the NFC. Now, after taking some time to get their legs under them, they have big wins over Minnesota and the Jets in back to back weeks despite lackluster offensive performances. They have a swarming, aggressive defense, and that's a good basement to fall back on when Rodgers is off. Week 12 they play at Atlanta in what could go a long way to determining the NFC top seed, and then two weeks later they play at New England in another brutal matchup. But the rest of their games aren't so daunting. Prediction: 11-5, first round bye.

Atlanta Falcons -- At home, they are dominant. On the road, you have to question their poise. A lot of that falls down on Matt Ryan, and it's one of those things that hopefully he grows out of (you know, like Peyton Manning's "he can't win big games" tag). But if you start to peel away some of their key players, you are left with a team that has some gaping holes. Beyond Roddy White and Tony Gonzalez, what do they have in the passing game? Beyond John Abraham and Curtis Lofton, how strong is their defense? You can attack them at their weaknesses and try to limit their strengths. But their schedule the rest of the way is pretty favorable. Prediction: 12-4, first round bye.

New Orleans Saints -- The defending champs are alive and kicking after a big win against Pittsburgh. They just have seemed out of sync all year and perhaps injuries to the offense and defensive secondary are to blame, but it could just be that they caught the league by storm last year and this year teams studied them up. You expose all of your secrets in a long playoff run and if teams were careful enough to watch they could have picked up on a lot of tendencies. That doesn't mean the Saints are an open book. They remain a tough team to beat, even with their slow start, and if they ever start clicking like they did last year, watch out. Like Atlanta, they have a pretty favorable schedule the rest of the way, if you take out back to back road games against the Falcons and Ravens weeks 15 and 16. Prediction: 10-6, wild card.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- You have to give them credit for the way they've played so far. They got steamrolled by the Steelers and the Saints, but have taken care of business in all their other games, including a wild comeback against St. Louis last week. Josh Freeman gives them a chance to win, and that's about as good as it gets with a second-year quarterback. Unfortunately for them, it looks like their team has a lot of young, unproven, low-ceiling talent that has to get by on playing hard and making the most of their opportunities. You might say, "Why is that bad?" It's only bad because instead of saying that they're primed to dominate in the coming seasons, I feel like it's more likely that they're primed to return to mediocrity, a bunch of 7 and 8 win seasons in the future. This year, though, they're a bit of a darling, especially in the NFC. Will it last? Unlikely. Tough games against Atlanta (twice), Baltimore, Washington, Detroit, San Fran, and New Orleans. Prediction: 7-9.

St. Louis -- They're tough. End of story. I'm not a Sam Bradford fan, I didn't get the hype surrounding him, I didn't see what separated him from Colt McCoy and all the other quarterbacks out there. But he's getting the job done. Steven Jackson remains the league's best underutilized running back. Teams crowd the box to stop him and Bradford has been making them pay, at least so far. But the offense is not the story with St. Louis. They're about average. Their defense this year has completely revamped--if you take out their blowout Detroit loss, they have not given up more than 17 points all season. Last year they allowed 25 points or more TEN TIMES. Kudos to Steve Spagnuolo. They have two games remaining against San Francisco, including next week, which will be season-defining games for both teams. Prediction: 8-8, your 2010 NFC West champs.

Detroit -- What? How could I put Detroit at 2-5 in the "Alive" category? Well, it's not always about record, people. This team plays HARD. They're a tough out. Just ask anyone. Ask St. Louis how it felt. Ask Philadelphia how scared out of their minds they were when Detroit got the ball back down 3. Ask Green Bay why they couldn't put them away. Ask Washington how it felt to blow their lead this week. Ask Chicago how it felt to escape with that heaven-sent victory. They have two advantages that no team can stop: Megatron and Suh. Calvin Johnson gives them the league's single scariest receiving threat. He can go get it in double-, triple-, quadruple-coverage. And Jahvid Best has been pretty explosive out of the backfield, at least posing a threat of the run game (despite limited results in recent weeks). And Suh is the real deal. I'm sure Gerald McCoy is fantastic, but looking back, I think you have to question the draft gurus who ranked McCoy ahead of him. 6.5 sacks on the year and a fumble recovery for a touchdown this past week. Those are Joey Porter numbers, but Suh is an interior lineman. Detroit has a tough, tough schedule the rest of the way (Green Bay, New England, the Jets, Miami), but that doesn't mean that any of those teams WANTS to play them. Prediction: 5-11. But it's not always about records.

PURGATORIO

Seattle Seahawks -- Yeah, they're leading their division. And yes, they are ahead of the Rams, who I just put in the "Vivo" category. But what's going on with this team? They lost on the road at the Rams 20-3 and on the road at Oakland 33-3. Seriously. And no, it's not 2002. These Rams and these Raiders were a combined 6-26 last year! While being outscored by 443 points! Seattle is a tough team at home, but is that going to really cut it? If you're just a cadaver on the road, you have to win EVERY home game to make it count. Can they win every home game? I don't think so, but they do have a chance to turn it around. Prediction: 7-9. Carroll is back for next year.

Chicago Bears -- Remember when they were lighting the world on fire? Well, even then I had serious doubts about the team. I just don't see how they are any different now from last year. Mike Martz is regarded in some austere manner in the NFL, but when was he last successful? Turmoil in San Fran. Turmoil in Detroit. He was the king of kings when he had Kurt Warner at the helm, but I think Kurt Warner proved in Arizona that it probably had a lot more to do with KURT WARNER than Mike Martz. Jay Cutler is super talented. I think. But you know how some guys just have to "get it"? He's not "getting it" right now. Instead, he's getting hit. Offensive line troubles are one of the worst omens a team can experience. Two of their wins came from Calvin Johnson's bizarre decision to smash the football into the turf and Green Bay's atrocious fumble in the fourth quarter. They're obviously reeling right now and I'm not positive they ever had it together to begin with. Now's their chance to prove me wrong. Prediction: 7-9.

Washington Redskins -- It breaks my heart to see all this controversy with Donovan McNabb. I mean what was Shanahan thinking pulling him with 2 minutes left down one score? It just doesn't make sense. They were 4-3 with a chance at 5-3, instead they have left themselves on the outside looking in. If you look at their games this year, they've played (almost) every game tough. Lost to Indy by 3, Houston by 3 (in that gut wrenching overtime game), Detroit thanks to a ridiculous series of plays, beat Philly in a close one, beat Green Bay in OT, beat Chicago thanks to Mr. DeAngelo Hall's 4 INTs. You can pretty much pencil them in for close, grind it out, field goal-laden games. Is that going to get the job done? Probably not. Their schedule from here on out doesn't get any easier. Prediction: 8-8. Better luck next year.

San Francisco -- Yeah, I'm stubbornly holding onto this. While it looks more and more like the Rams will wrest the NFC West championship, I still think San Francisco has a shot. They have executed worse than just about every team in the league this year, but are really only 2 1/2 games back right now to two teams who are playing above their heads. Mike Singletary is a good guy, and I hesitate to offend my few readers, but I just don't think he's right to be a head coach. And Alex Smith needs to get as far away from San Francisco as he can. I think sometimes it just works out for a quarterback. Look at Brady in New England. He just sort of fell into a position with a good team around him and he performed and gained the confidence of his coach. It worked out for him, and he's earned everything he's got. I'm not saying Alex Smith is Brady, but don't you think there's a reason this guy was at the top of everyone's draft board? He's played well at times, but has had more coaches than Elizabeth Taylor has had husbands, and in turn, he's got about as much confidence as any guy whose girlfriend used to date Shiancoe. I hate to say it, but maybe Troy Smith is the answer, at least for now. Who knows? They're going to lose at Green Bay and at San Diego, but their other games look like this: Arizona twice, Tampa Bay, St. Louis twice, and home versus Seattle. Who says they can't win those games? Prediction: 7-9. Good effort, boys.

MUERTO

Dallas Cowboys -- Don't tell me there's a way to recover from 1-6. There just isn't. Not the way they're playing. They had ONE opportunity salvage their season in a wide-open NFC race, at HOME against Jacksonville, a team with a pass defense about as good as yours or mine. As is typical of a team full of veterans, instead of bleeding their hearts out, they dropped a whole bunch of passes that led to interceptions and botched a bunch of other chances to come back--even when the Jags were almost BEGGING them to. Kitna's done a hell of a job for a guy who had to step in cold turkey. He's not clicking right now and I'm not sure he ever will, but Cowboy fans should consider that before they call for his head. I guess that's why Andy Reid says having two quarterbacks is a beautiful thing. Prediction: 5-11.

Arizona Cardinals -- Don't try to sell me on Derek Anderson or Max Hall. Hey, everyone is rooting for Max Hall. Come on, he's a nobody who came stumbling down some mountaintop into a starting quarterback role. But this offense is just miserable right now (more credence to the "yeah, it was Kurt Warner" theory). Could you imagine Terrell Owens in Fitzgerald's shoes? (Roll tape of 2009 Buffalo Bills.) A lot of talent on this team, and I really hope they don't blow it up. Donovan McNabb could very well be available after the season, and as I've said for months and months, I think this is the place he should have gone the whole time. Prediction: 6-10.

Minnesota Vikings -- Brett Favre. Brett Favre. Brett Favre, Brett Favre? Oh, Brett Favre. The Vikings have like 49 terrific players on their roster, and yet, this is where we're at? Why? For a few reasons. One, because Brad Childress has as much conviction as Brad Childress. Two, because Brett Favre turns every team he goes to into his own personal soap opera set, ignoring coaching advice, ignoring playcalling, ignoring preseason, ignoring the other team's cornerbacks, ignoring his own glaring health issues. Just hang it up right now, Brett. You're one of the legends, and I think fans across America would like to keep it that way. Honestly, take a time machine to 4 years ago, and tell sports fans, "Hey, in 2010, everyone is going to hate Tiger Woods, LeBron James, and Brett Favre." Some fans could buy it on the "they got too good it was no fun to cheer for them" angle. But to be where we are now? I just can't believe it. Mostly about Tiger, but Favre has just been on a constant legacy landslide for three years now, and it ain't getting any better. Prediction: 8-8. Yeah, not bad, but that's their best potential outcome.

Carolina Panthers -- I don't think I really even need to elucidate the reasons here. Prediction: 3-13. Instead, I leave you with a video of the best Panthers performance of the season. Cheers.

#054 - The NBA is Back (and Better than Ever?)

It seems like it's been two whole weeks since anyone talked about the NBA, but look at that, before you know it, it's back and consuming headlines and Top Plays highlights. (And new Nike commercials.) Some people are calling it "The Most Anticipated NBA Season Ever", which I guess could be valid, since honestly, most NBA seasons are not really that anticipated (10 of the 16 playoff teams are decided before the season starts, most veterans coast until May, only players in contract seasons really give it their all); however, I think Jordan coming back post-baseball, post-Orlando loss was a little bit more interesting, going back and looking at it.

There's definitely a good bit of manufactured hype going into this season. "Old Big 3 vs. New Big 3", "Kobe vs. Lebron and Wade", "Is Durant the best player in the league?", "Where will Carmelo go?". They're all relatively intriguing stories on their own, but there's something of a media machine that's trying to pump up the NBA right now. Why? Because the NFL owns it. Don't try to defend it, NBA fans. The NFL owns it, plain and simple. And the NCAA tournament owns it. So the NBA has to do something to capture the attention of fans, because right now the product on the floor is as close to ideal as they're going to get. They have the perfect set of heroes and villains, tons of young talent, highly anticipated debuts:

• Lebron in "South Beach" (Fine, Bosh too. His reps made me do it.)
• Blake Griffin, John Wall, and a Sacramento Kings duo that makes grown men poop in their pants
• Post-op Amar'e in NYC
• The first ever legitimate deterrent to draft tanking--contraction! Goodbye, Toronto! (Toronto's response: "Who are you? What is basketball?")
• Kevin Durant's "that's weird, the other 11 guys got gold medals too?" face (Just kidding, Durant is the league's most natural fan favorite. Did you hear the story that he was upset at a magazine for running a photo where he was bigger than his teammates?)

See, the storylines are endless, as you can see by the five I listed above. So it's not like there isn't anything to get excited about, it's just that... it's TOUGH to get excited about it. The start of the NBA season comes right in the middle of the NFL schedule, to the point that even I was like, "Crap, there's NBA games on tonight?" before Tuesday's debut. And the best opportunity that the NBA has to showcase the general excitement of the playoffs is wasted by letting TWO MONTHS pass after the NCAA Tournament. Could you imagine if the next weekend after the Final Four the NBA playoffs started? The momentum that they would have would be unbelievable. People would be on the basketball bandwagon, they'd be getting all excited about Oklahoma City and Milwaukee as the little-guys-that-could. Unfortunately, the schedule doesn't pan out that way, and the NBA playoffs come around in May and June, they take 2-3 days off in between (like Stan Van Gundy has pointed out. I actually like that guy, sometimes.) and really people want to be outside enjoying the weather and baseball games (baseball might be boring to watch, but let's face it, when the weather's nice, they are fun as hell to go to). The NBA is just poorly designed as it stands now. And I wish it wasn't true, honestly, because there are some really entertaining games between the league's top teams, and some of my favorite sports personalities are NBAers--like, if you haven't seen the Steve Nash FIFA commercials, you HAVE to, IMMEDIATELY. (Here's the link.) And if you follow Durant on twitter (http://twitter.com/kdthunderup) he posts ridiculous stuff like "drinking apple juice and playing madden online with my cuz" at 11:45 on a Friday night and "practicing on my off day with RWest in my backyard, then we're going to eat cookies and watch the cosby show". And as much as I am sour on Lebron and the whole Heat crew right now, he's still a force to be reckoned with, both on the court and in the public eye. He's got a knack for entertaining people.

So, without further ado, my thoughts on Week 1 in the NBA:

Celtics d. Heat 88-80

People tried to hype up "The New Big 3" vs "The Old Big 3" (Boston fans counter with "The REAL Big 3" or "The ORIGINAL Big 3"--no, they're not defensive about age or anything), but the reality is there was no MEANING to the matchup. The Lakers vs the Celtics has meaning right now, because they've been at each other's throats for 3 seasons. But this is the Celtics, a veteran team, playing a bunch of guys that have never played together before. There's no history, there's no rivalry, they're just two of the better teams in the East. Maybe after they sock each other in the teeth a few times, the game will take on greater importance. But after one showing, I don't think anyone was surprised to see the team that has chemistry and experience beat the team that was just recently cobbled together (despite being designed 3 years ago--CONSPIRACY!). And from what I've read and seen, this game turned into Lebron trying to break down everything one on one, the same way he used to. And it got ugly. His 8 turnovers are proof of that, and Wade/Bosh combining for 21 pts on 7-27 is even further proof. I play a lot of basketball, and I know from personal experience that sometimes it's a lot easier to just be the alpha dog on a team where everyone knows you're the alpha dog. Sometimes when you combine players with such similar skill sets, it gets messy. They clear it out for Lebron and let him go one on one, then the next possession clear it out for Wade and let him go one on one. It works a lot better when your main players have their own niches--a la the Celtics. And Bosh does not seem like the answer to Lebron's dreams. Anyone who ever watched the Cavs know that Lebron's best offenses were ones that were in constant motion. Anderson Varejao was the second best player on that team for five years, because he was always moving. He didn't stump himself in the post, calling for it, trying to push his way towards the basket. He slipped behind defenders, got rebounds, hustled like crap, was a little bit dirty and sneaky, and was really a favorite of mine. Lebron needs shooters to space the floor. Why? Because he honestly doesn't need anyone else to run the break with him. When he's got a head of steam, MOVE OUT OF THE WAY. And when he's driving the lane, the last thing he needs is for bodies to clog his path. Wade is a bit better at getting that quick motion pass off to the post players as he starts to drive the lane. Lebron, unfortunately, as talented as he is, can't really drop it off in mid-drive, something that Chris Paul does 15 times a game and has almost revolutionized--he makes a cross, drives towards the paint, but a step or two before he gets too deep he snaps a quick bounce pass off to the post man for an easy layup. It's beautiful. Lebron kind of needs to make the pass at Point A or wait until he's all the way at Point B as he did numerous times against the Sixers, who seemed determined to stop him from beating them with layups. But against the Sixers, Lebron found teammates (usually James Jones) on the wing for jumpshots. He didn't get those little dumpoffs to the post players for layups. Bosh is a good player, but he was better when the offense was facilitated around him, with guards who were paid to pass him the ball. Not that I know what I'm talking about, this is just kind of how I view it right now.

Thunder d. Bulls 106-95

I don't want to insult Chicago fans (and really, they don't need it, what with Jay Cutler and all) but the Thunder didn't play a particularly good game in this one. Admittedly, Durant got a lot of calls. That's something that is going to happen throughout the season. He could be on a record setting pace for free throws made, since he shoots such a high percentage, and that might end up being something that angers lots of opponent fanbases throughout the season. But he wasn't in rare form, they had almost no inside presence, and their team outside shooting was suspect. And yet they still won by 11. I know it hurts the Bulls to lose Boozer right after signing him, and that will be something they need to work through, but they could have stolen this game and didn't. Admittedly they were pretty off their game, but if you needed some sort of confirmation, then here it is: the Thunder are for real. AND they currently sport the league's top home court crowd. Without question.

Cavs d. Celtics 95-87

Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison combined for 4 points and 4 rebounds in this game (Mo did not play). Yet, the Cavs won. Against Finals runner-up Boston just after Boston dismantled the Heat. Honestly, it was either a let down game or a clever ploy by Boston to get into Lebron's head ("Yeah, we just lost to Cleveland after beating Miami, damn Cleveland is a good team!"). JJ Hickson is going to have a big year. And why not? They're not going anywhere, they have amongst the LOWEST expectations in the league, why not let this kid run wild for a season, develop some young talent, draft well next year and try and make a run at the playoffs? He could be really good, believe me. Especially if he develops smoother ball handling and a 20-foot jumpshot.

Magic d. Wizards 112-83

The Wizards are content with employing that strategy from above, just letting John Wall run wild, for good or for bad, and not caring about the box scores. He took 19 shots, 10 more than any teammate, and missed 13 of them. But sported a nifty 9/3 Assist/Turnover ratio. He'll be exciting to keep track of. But the real story here is Orlando. Not because they trounced a team they should trounce, but because there's a lot of teams they should trounce and they will do it. They're going to have the league's best record this year. They've been nearly unbeatable at home for 3 years and have a couple seasons' worth of experience edge on the Heat. This is a team that likes to win games, and I'm not convinced they've fallen into the complacent "Let's just make the playoffs" mindset yet. They're going to stomp the teams they should stomp, and it's going to lead to a lot of wins in the regular season. I don't think it'll turn into anything real by the Playoffs, but it was worth the 13/1 bet I put on them to win it all--since I believe they'll have home court in every series.

Predictions:

Scoring Leader: Durant, unless Carmelo gets traded to NYC fast

MVP: Durant, Howard as runner-up

East Top Seed: Magic

West Top Seed: Lakers

Blake Griffin Games Played: 58

Lebron 40-point Games: 4

Heat Wins: 55

Posts I write on the NBA: 3

#053 - NFL Season Win Totals

Take a look at some of Bodog's NFL season win total props with me: http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/football-team-props.jsp. I haven't started to do really ANY research into the upcoming football season, which is kind of sad, since I've been telling myself literally every day for the last 3 months to start getting into it. But I figured it was about time to check into some season win total numbers and see if I can't find a couple bets worth shooting for.

Baltimore Ravens - 10 Wins (O -120 / U -110)
Looks like there's just a little bit of action going on the Ravens at 10 wins. But really, I think this is a prime bet. Yeah, they only had 9 wins last year, but what reason do you have to think they won't improve this year? The big question marks on their schedule are Week 1 at the Jets (potentially without Revis), the Patriots, Saints, and Pittsburgh and Cincy twice. However, they get Pitt in Pitt week 4--also known as before Roethlisberger comes back. And the Saints game is at home and honestly quite winnable. I like the Ravens for at least 10 wins this year, as I think they'll win their division and 10 wins will be necessary to do that.

Buffalo Bills - 5.5 Wins (O +125 / U -155)
The odds are a little steep on the under, but let's be real--the under is the bet to take. The Bills do get the Lions at home, but other than that, there are no easy games on their schedule. And they'd have to win 6 games to lose this bet, which is what they managed last year thanks only to a gift victory from the Colts in week 17.

Kansas City Chiefs - 6.5 Wins (O -140 / U +110)
This is right now my favorite offer on the table. I don't really know why, but there is a bunch of action on the Chiefs on the over, which, yeah I guess they're kind of a hot team right now, people look at them as sleepers. But they won 4 games last year. FOUR. They'd need to win 3 MORE games this year to jump into that over category, and while San Diego is looking a bit weaker this year, Oakland, I think, is going to compete with them neck and neck. I will admit that sometimes I miss things that everyone else sees, but I'm just not seeing the improvement here.

Pittsburgh Steelers - 8.5 Wins (O -130 / U EVEN)
A couple things here: one, the Steelers are a nationally popular team. People like to bet on them, they always have pretty steep spreads because bookmakers know people will bet on the Steelers anyway. Two, they are missing Roethlisberger at the start and are kind of in shambles as an organization, which is odd since they have been so tightly run as long as I can remember. But they open the season with Atlanta, Tampa, Tennessee and Baltimore in the first 4 weeks, weeks that supposedly Roethlisberger will miss. They could easily start the season 1-3, and be looking at needing to finish 8-4 to cover this total. Not that they couldn't do that, but remember, even with Roehtlisberger and Holmes last year, they only went 9-7 and struggled in losses to Kansas City, Cleveland and Oakland.

#052 - Inception (2010)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan

Runtime: 148 min

There's kind of a sadness in me. No, I was not disappointed with Inception. No, it's not a bad movie. And luckily this time around none of the bright young stars of the movie is tragically gone. It's a little bit different.

Five years ago, I would have said Christopher Nolan was one of my 20 favorite directors. At that point, I had seen Memento and Batman Begins and was pleased with both of them. But then came The Prestige. And then came The Dark Knight. And now Inception. What does this make me think now?

If I heard the title of a movie that's being made and nothing more than that, the one director that would make me most excited to hear pinned to the title is Nolan. Nobody else can eclipse him, at least not right now. And that's not to say I don't get beyond pumped for new movies by Wes Anderson or Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher or Michel Gondry or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers. They're just kind of a group of directors I like to put in section 1B.

1A is Nolan. And it's not because he makes movies with such a well-honed singular style that disregards all the conventions of modern cinema and blazes a path of his own, like the Coen Brothers. And it's not because he's an artist with the camera, like Gondry. And honestly it's not just because he's a wildly intelligent guy and his acumen bursts through all seams of his work and interviews. Really, it's because he's such a brilliant guy who wants to make people think and sort through all the details of his movies with a fine-tooth comb, yet he DOESN'T shun the concepts of the theater that bring people through the doors by the thousands. Michael Bay might be trite and overindulgent, but people still go to see his movies. Millions. Why? Because he embraces the screen. He fills the screen with images and fills the auditorium with sounds that get your heart racing, giving you the two-hour thrill ride you pay $7, $8, $10, $15, $20 for. And Nolan embraces this too. He's totally gung-ho about IMAX because he's positively giddy about the amount of detail he can fit into one frame. The little hairs on your neck? Got 'em. Paint chips on the wall? Got 'em. Drops of water beading on a glass? Got those, too. The "movie" experience is just as salient as the "film" experience, at least for me.

So why does this make me sad?

Here's why: Nolan has explicity stated in several interviews that Inception is his labor of love. The story that he's been working on since he was a teenager when he first got into writing, the idea that he's been hammering out for at least 9 years since he first pitched his script to the studio. In fact, he's said that he took the job directing the Batman movies so that he could learn how to operate on a large-scale movie with an enormous set and all the trappings of a big-budget movie. Those movies were so fantastic yet they were just PRACTICE for him? Insane. Essentially everything he's been doing for the last 15 years has been working towards making Inception. And Inception is a brilliant movie. Brilliant. Ridiculous. The opening is marvelous. And while it's not perfect for every second of its run, the last 25 minutes of the movie are better maybe than any other 25 minutes stretch I've ever seen. That's not a joke. I'm honestly a little bit confused at how people can get lost in this movie. Yes I know it's a complex concept with multiple worlds and dreams-within-dreams, but it's often said in writing that if you (as the author) know the world you're describing, your readers will too, without fail. And I'm quite certain that Nolan knows his world. Backwards and forwards. And the fact that he doesn't present the "rules" of the world in a step-by-step manual is his way of thanking the audience for paying attention. You don't need a list of rules to be able to understand what's going on, he reveals them alongside the story so that everything flows together. The first time I saw this movie, I was in the midst of a fit of vomit and yet I found the story understandable. (Seriously, I threw up 10 minutes in and was fading from some bad dehydration. So I saw it again.)

It's at a point like this, after gushing about the movie, that I kind of want to say it's the best I've ever seen. But you know what? It probably isn't. Movies are inherently limited. Limited by the story itself, limited by their length, limited by the screen they're displayed on. Inception, at least to me, completely maxed out all of its limits. The story is fantastic--but it's not the best story ever written. It'll end up being one of my favorite movies ever, sure. But ONE OF. Not the single best. And that's okay. To appreciate and be utterly impressed by it is enough for me, I don't need to immediately place it on a pedestal just two weeks in. It could grow on me, or it could fade. Either way, it won't change the fact that it floored me--twice in a week.

When I left the theater, other than the inevitable "did the top fall or did it keep spinning" questions (by the way, SICK ending. Very slick. Nolan has mastered the art of the last shot.), the one major thought that was swirling in my head was, "Is this it? Is this the apex?" Nolan is in my opinion the best we have right now, and from everything I've read, this was the best he has. I'm quite certain he'll put out more brilliant movies, but will he ever be able to top this? I know what it's like to have ideas, to have ideas for stories that you want to build, you have THE ONE that's always at the top, always the ideal scenario, you're always tweaking, and then below that you have THE OTHERS. They're good, sure, and you love them, but they're not the one. And from what I've been hearing, this is the one for Nolan. Will he become satisfied? Will he move to be more experimental? It kind of makes me worry. It kind of makes me sad.

It's a bizarre feeling to leave a movie that thrilled you from start to finish and feel sad.

In a way, I kind of hope to feel it again.

I know this wasn't a true review of the film. But I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about something that was on my mind. And no review of the film will do it any justice. So just know that I suggest you go see it. And if you don't like it, that's okay. But it will be more than worth it for those of you who do.

#051 - I'm In A Contest! Vote For Me!

So what if I copied this from the e-mail I sent out to just about everyone that reads this blog? I don't have time! I'm busy being in ridiculous online contests!

Hello all.

I've entered myself in this contest. It's kind of silly, but hey, if you win, you get a trip to Vegas. So... why not right?

Anyway, it's called Every Man Jack. It's some sort of male grooming products, like hair gel and aftershave and all that business. What, you've never heard of them? Well, me neither. But I stumbled across this contest and I figured I'd give it a shot.

You can vote for me to win on their website from now (July 21) to August 4th. Apparently you can vote once a day or something like that. Basically, it would be AWESOME if you could vote for me as often as possible between those dates. And if you could share this with people, that would be AWESOME as well. Because it costs you nothing, and it costs me nothing, and we can all bond together to screw over "the man" (or this company, either way).

Here's the link:

http://www.everymanjack.com/wanted/node/594/lightbox2?sms_ss=email

And if you get lost on the site, just go to www.everymanjack.com, click on gallery, search "Evan" and vote for me, not that crazy person next to me.

Thank you all greatly.

-Evan

#050 - LeBenedict Bronold?

Err... whoops.

There's a bunch wrong with this photo, but there is one thing correct--and it has nothing to do with "Cleveland", "23", "Nike", or the ridiculous pose. We indeed are ALL witnesses, witnesses to one of the stupidest, most self-important, pain-inflicting debacles of all time.

LeBron built us all up, scheduled a hokey press conference, waffled more than kids with these spray cans, and finally produced one of the lamest "Decisions" I've experienced. The whole time leading up to the one-hour special, I was thinking to myself, "This means he has to be picking Cleveland, right?"--even though scheduling it in Connecticut was a bizarre way to throw people off the scent. I figured, if you're going to leave Cleveland, leave the fans and the city and the state that depends on you so dearly, you have to do it in a quiet, respectful manner. Shake Dan Gilbert's hand, issue a heartfelt statement to your fans (and maybe a couple of your teammates), and sign your new contract with Chicago.

...Um?

Miami, of course.

See, the way I saw it going in, the only legitimate options for LeBron were Cleveland and Chicago. New York is just a mess, it's a basketball nightmare and has been for the last 8 years, and even though they've cleaned out Isiah Thomas and some of the bench-surfing garbage that has festered there, it was still about as ass-backwards as you could get from an organizational standpoint. New Jersey was never as legit as people thought, playing up the Jay-Z connection, but they weren't going to be able to bring in any other talent except through the draft. The Clippers were a joke. And now that Miami had gone for broke with Bosh and Wade and a supporting cast of Porky Pig, Bill Murray and Newman, they were going to be out of the running because it didn't present LeBron the chance to spread his wings.

That left Cleveland and Chicago, which from a basketball standpoint was always the best decision. They had great young talent, a great market, always the chance to expand in the future with more money to spend than most, and was still in the same region for a guy who claimed to be so hometown-centric. But I still couldn't imagine him not saying Cleveland. He was the King in Cleveland in more ways than one. Dan Gilbert basically said, "You don't like Mike Brown? Fired. You don't like Danny Ferry? Fired. You want Shaq? Done. Oh now you want Shaq gone? Done, too." They catered to his every whim, which is not necessarily the reason why I thought he would pick them, but now that I've seen the things that REALLY seem to interest LeBron, I think their willingness to defer would have been a big selling point.

I guess there were a few reasons why I thought he was going to end up in Cleveland. One, which I'm a little ashamed to say, is just that I wanted him to. It was projecting a little. I felt like if I was him, I would go there. (Well, I would go to OKC, but that was never in the running.) I saw a guy who seemed to be in his element, and it seemed right for him to stay. Two, I didn't think he would hold a big Broadway show just to stab the Cleveland fans in the back so gruesomely. It's a kick in the face. And a kick in the pants. And everything else. All they had was LeBron and they gave him everything he wanted. The other teams would be fine if he announced he was re-upping. They never really HAD him so it wasn't like he was deserting them. But to hold a staged ordeal like that just to say, "Hey Cleveland, you're my home and I love you, but f*** off!" seemed too low.

Three, from a "legendary" standpoint, I think the reality is, being part of this modern triumvirate in Miami is going to nix any chance LeBron has at being labeled "the greatest ever". Plenty of guys have won rings in their careers, plenty of guys have won multiple rings in their careers. It's not just winning rings that makes you the best ever. It's being the best guy on the best team. That's what gets you there. Michael Jordan suffered for a long time before he got to the pinnacle. The Pistons whupped his butt for three straight years, they owned him. LeBron only lost twice to the Celtics. Could you imagine if Jordan had said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to go play with the Pistons instead of losing to them."? It would have been insane. And we certainly would not be talking about Jordan the same way--he wouldn't be Jordan. He's Jordan because he said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to get better, and come back here next year and kick your ass." And he did. LeBron doesn't understand this. He thinks, "Hey, I've proven that I can dominate the league, now all I need is a ring to settle it." That's not really how it works. You need to EARN a championship if you're at that level. Unfortunately for Ray Bourque, who toiled for two decades in Boston before jumping ship and winning in Colorado, he didn't EARN that championship. The Avs won it for him, and he got to celebrate, but winning that Cup will always be a little tarnished for him. Before yesterday, I thought LeBron was capable of winning himself. Honestly, I feel that if he had Pau Gasol as Kobe does, he could have won this year and last. You need a lieutenant, not some weird three-general formation. I just can't see his legacy being any greater than it already is after this move. It's a lose-lose. Either they'll win and everyone will say it was manufactured, like the Yankees or USC football, or they'll lose and it will be the laughing stock of the sports world for years.

Four, I was duped into thinking that the last seven years, LeBron was being genuine. All the goofy antics with his teammates and their handshakes and pregame routines, holding press conferences in Akron with his teammates around, I thought it was all genuine. He always had the look of a little kid living out his dream. But the reality of it, now, after seeing all of this, is that he's got a business model in mind--how he can make the most out of his "brand", which is a concept people have been spewing for years. And being a loveable goof seemed to go with that brand. Kobe had his thing--cold hearted assassin, generally unpleasant, but a winner. And Bron had his--great teammate, vicious physique, talented choreographer, hometown hero.

Uh... scratch that last part.

Surprisingly enough, one of the people who I feel has captured the right mindset of this whole decision has been Mo Williams, LeBron's former #2 in command, and current medium-sized fish in a very tiny pond. Check out some of his tweets. Of all the players, maybe second to Boobie Gibson, he seemed to truly be LeBron's friend, and he can thank him for the incredible boost in production he's received over the last couple seasons since joining Cleveland. But now he realizes the team is left without direction. And I can side with his sentiments. He understands why LeBron did what he did, why he left, but he's not really a big fan of how it was done, and he's left in the dust as a result of it. It's honest. And it's a lot more level-headed than Dan Gilbert, who left a ridiculously scathing note for Cleveland fans (if you haven't seen it yet) in a ridiculously silly font, just bashing LeBron right and left for his decision making. It was low, it was angry, and it probably was driven by a lot of factors that we, the public, didn't experience, for instance, what it was actually LIKE to deal with him (or NOT deal with him, as the case may be). Dan Gilbert made himself out to be a seven year old kid playing fantasy basketball, but he must have been very aware of how polarizing his statements would be. I admire that. I don't necessarily admire running your mouth like a spoiled brat, but hey, he knew some people would hate it, and he knew some people would love it. And I think he agreed with himself that he only cared about the people who were going to love it--namely CLEVELAND fans, not LEBRON fans. Good for him. He got his point across, he did what he wanted to do, I don't necessarily care for it and I'm not going to be his number one fan all of the sudden, but he had his agenda and he's sticking to it.

I can't tell if that last sentence was about Gilbert or LeBron.

Probably both.

I understand why LeBron did what he did. It's an interesting experiment to join three of the league's best young players together and recreate the fun of Team USA. But I don't think LeBron really thought through how it was going to impact his legacy. In the NBA, it's either your team, or it's not. Miami's not his team. At least not yet. But Cleveland was. And they would have done anything to keep it that way. Unfortunately that didn't seem to matter that much to him. Not as much as being able to play his role in this Hollywood production. I don't have the same personal stake in this thing as those in Ohio, but I used to root for this guy.

I'm certainly not going to anymore.