So our new President has been in office for only a few weeks and now we have some actions to base our opinions on! Here's a quick rundown of some of the things he's done and how I feel about them. (This is in no way a comprehensive or complete list of the Presidents actions)
Investigating the detainees at Gitmo: Good. They deserve someone looking into whether or not they should still be detained, convicted, deported, or released with our apologies. I'm not so thrilled that this order is going to declare a halt to all trials currently under way. I thought that getting these people trials was the point.
Closing Gitmo within one year: Bad. It's gonna take more time than that to investigate and give due process to everyone there. Especially if you are putting a stop to current trials. What do we do with the ones that we are holding for trial, or haven't gotten to yet? Put them in our already over crowded prisons?
Hillary as Secretary of State: Bad. President Obama, you had instilled great confidence in me with your speech, parade, and first actions. Then I heard Hilary speak as Secretary of State and I remembered that somehow you wanted to unify the country by appointing one of the most divisive women in the nation to the highest possible position in your administration. (And upon further review I see that you've kept John McCain close to you. You selected someone who said you couldn't be a leader as your VP and another person who said you weren't ready to lead as your Secretary of State. Are you simply keeping your "enemies" close by?) You had many choices, she was a bad one.
A desire that his daughters not receive preferential treatment due to Affirmative Action: Good. I like the sentiment. Act on it. Just like you wouldn't want your daughters to be "punished with a baby." You've acted on that one.
Lifting ban on Federal Funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions: Bad. So much for "trying to reduce the number of abortions." Though, honestly, does this move surprise anyone?
Transparency of Government: Good. In high school, I ran for student council president. I lost. However, one major platform of my campaign was that the student council was insulated from the rest of the student body. They made decisions, interacted with the administration "on our behalf," and suggested changes to how the school was run. All, seemingly, without the knowledge or input of any students except those that got up at the crack of dawn and got a ride to school to attend their meetings. The first thing the Student Council president did once he was elected was put up a bulletin board for notifications of possible changes from, and suggestions for, the student council. Transparency of Government has always been important to me. I hope he fulfills this promise.
Economic Stimulus Package: Bad. Being a fan of small government, anytime they return some of our own money to us I'm happy. Of course, if what I've heard is true and there will be checks sent to those that didn't pay any taxes, I'd need to be sold on why that is a fair action for the government to take. Who else can we give money to? Gave to the banks, gave to Detroit, giving to every American. Whose left? And where is the money coming from?!
Salary Freeze for White House Employees making $100K/Year: Good. This is very good. They shouldn't be handing out raises to people who make more than enough in a time of economic crisis. What does the White House think it is? One of the "failing" banking institutions?
End date for the War in Iraq: To Be Determined. Obama has said he wants US combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months, as long as withdrawal does not endanger either the gains made there or the Americans left behind to provide training. If this is what actually happens: good. If he sticks to the 16 months regardless of outcome: bad.
Praise from Fidel Castro: Bad. Nothing like the most well known former communist leader in the Western Hemisphere praising the new President.
Limits on Lobbyists' White House access: Good. I don't like lobbyists. I think they are part of what is wrong with our government. This is a good first step. The new lobbying rules will ban any former White House employee from trying to influence the administration after they leave the staff. It also includes current aides, should they, at any point, leave their posts. Those already hired will be banned from working on matters they have previously lobbied on, or to approach agencies that they once targeted. The rules also ban lobbyists from giving gifts of any kind to any member of his administration.
Certain appointees: Bad. Fraud. Tax problems for the head of the IRS. Other issues that are being swept under the rug. If this Congress or media had a Republican appointing people with these "errors," "mistakes," or "oversights" it would be all over the news and they probably wouldn't be in those positions. Which really, leads me to my final point:
Democratic President, Democratic House, Democratic Senate: Bad. Nothing like Carte Blanche. Does his majesty want something? It shall be so. Stimulus package? Aye aye! There are checks and balances in the government for a reason. Right now, they are all in the off position.
If we weigh all of these the same, it looks like his first few weeks is leaning bad. But that isn't to say he can't turn it around.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Why?
Often certain questions nag at me. They don't surround any one topic. The only through-line for them is I don't know the answer.
Why is it a faux pas to wear the shirt of the band you are going to see, but an expectation that you wear the shirt of the team you are going to see?
Why is it that if something is hard there are those that think we weren't meant to do it? (IE: Fidelity in marriage, purity in life, unexpected pregnancy, etc)
Why can't we have some event designed for the weekend between Championship Sunday and the Super Bowl? That's got to be the most boring two weeks in the sports world!
Why won't the government offset the cost of the Digital converter box for analog TVs if you don't subscribe to cable or a dish network? The very time you don't need it!
Why is it not considered "racist" that 96% of African Americans voted for President Obama?
Why is it that toddlers never want to go to bed and teenagers never want to get up?
Why do "cutting edge" comedians try to push the envelope like George Carlin's "Seven things you can never say on TV" in an effort to offend, and this is called funny and we should get over it, but say the words "Jesus," "God," or "hell" and this is just offensive and we should keep that to ourselves?
Why did President Clinton hold a press conference on the tarmac before leaving Washington?
Why, when airing a video of Bin Laden, do news outlets insist on putting "Courtesy: Al Jazeera?" Are they really being "Courteous" in allowing us to air their propaganda?
Why does February have to be such a boring sports month?
Why does the local Christian camp plan their high school snow camp weekend for the same weekend as the Super Bowl every year?
Why do retired people think they are the only ones on a fixed income? My paycheck is the same every week, too.
Why isn't there a salary cap in baseball?
Does anyone have an answer for any of these? Or feel free to add your own conundrums!
Why is it a faux pas to wear the shirt of the band you are going to see, but an expectation that you wear the shirt of the team you are going to see?
Why is it that if something is hard there are those that think we weren't meant to do it? (IE: Fidelity in marriage, purity in life, unexpected pregnancy, etc)
Why can't we have some event designed for the weekend between Championship Sunday and the Super Bowl? That's got to be the most boring two weeks in the sports world!
Why won't the government offset the cost of the Digital converter box for analog TVs if you don't subscribe to cable or a dish network? The very time you don't need it!
Why is it not considered "racist" that 96% of African Americans voted for President Obama?
Why is it that toddlers never want to go to bed and teenagers never want to get up?
Why do "cutting edge" comedians try to push the envelope like George Carlin's "Seven things you can never say on TV" in an effort to offend, and this is called funny and we should get over it, but say the words "Jesus," "God," or "hell" and this is just offensive and we should keep that to ourselves?
Why did President Clinton hold a press conference on the tarmac before leaving Washington?
Why, when airing a video of Bin Laden, do news outlets insist on putting "Courtesy: Al Jazeera?" Are they really being "Courteous" in allowing us to air their propaganda?
Why does February have to be such a boring sports month?
Why does the local Christian camp plan their high school snow camp weekend for the same weekend as the Super Bowl every year?
Why do retired people think they are the only ones on a fixed income? My paycheck is the same every week, too.
Why isn't there a salary cap in baseball?
Does anyone have an answer for any of these? Or feel free to add your own conundrums!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Welcome President Obama
It is my pleasure to welcome to office the 44th President, my President, Barack Obama.
As I watched the motorcade move toward the capital building I felt a sense of pride. As I reflected on it, I found that my pride was multifaceted:
Pride in my country: I take great pride that we have had two hundred twenty three unbroken years of transfer of power without bloodshed. Yes, there are those that have shed blood and others have taken over in power. However, it has never been the person who caused the bloodshed who took power. We've never had a coup. No one had to rise up to remove another from power. No one has ever refused to leave office. The peaceful transfer of power to someone other than a son is a shining example that America has provided for the world; particularly when the leaving leader and the pristine President are as different as the two taking part in this ceremony.
Pride in my country's people: While in my previous post I chuckled at those who "approve" of now President Obama before he has taken office, this is a sharp contrast to the mindset of those in many other countries. It expresses hope. Americans thrive on hope. This is not the case in many other countries. The smiling faces, the expectant gleams in the eyes of those gathered on the green, these displayed the great hope that people have, not only in the man, but in the nation. One can only encourage those people to turn that hope into action. It is that kind of hope that can spur people to do good things as they strive to bring about the kind of change they want to see.
Pride in my President: I often find it hard to post about those things with which I agree. President Obama has conducted himself in a fashion worthy of the Oval Office. Dignity. Humility. Expectation. His speech was captivating, moving, and unifying. As you know, JMO cannot go without finding fault. I wanted a moment. I wanted that pivotal moment. That "Ask not..." or "A day that will live in infamy..." or "". I was not given such a memorable moment. I did enjoy the final line, however: "Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
I am excited. I've not reached the height of Obamamania that many have, but I am not ashamed nor afraid to admit that I have an expectant excitement about this man's Presidency. If he can be as inspiring to the Houses of Congress as he has been to the people of this country, we may be able to do great things. I even appreciate the fact that he "called an audible" and walked for more of the parade route than was originally planned. The President is the ultimate public servant. I think Barack Obama understands that.
I've seen his picture with the seal of the highest office behind him and, for a moment, I imagined the face of some of the other political figures whom I opposed who could have held that office. I had an internal undeniable visceral reaction to the thought of President Gore or President Kerry or even President Dukakis. I do not have the same emotional response to President Obama.
The monotonous chanting of "Obama" is a little unsettling. Let's let the man do something before we begin singing his praises. He has promised many things. He believes he can deliver. I look forward to what he brings to the Oval Office. There are those that have said, "regardless of your party persuasion, we need this man to succeed." While that may be true, I also want President Obama to succeed. I want him to serve a second term. I can't say those sentiments won't change. But it's how I feel today.
Welcome President Obama.
As I watched the motorcade move toward the capital building I felt a sense of pride. As I reflected on it, I found that my pride was multifaceted:
Pride in my country: I take great pride that we have had two hundred twenty three unbroken years of transfer of power without bloodshed. Yes, there are those that have shed blood and others have taken over in power. However, it has never been the person who caused the bloodshed who took power. We've never had a coup. No one had to rise up to remove another from power. No one has ever refused to leave office. The peaceful transfer of power to someone other than a son is a shining example that America has provided for the world; particularly when the leaving leader and the pristine President are as different as the two taking part in this ceremony.
Pride in my country's people: While in my previous post I chuckled at those who "approve" of now President Obama before he has taken office, this is a sharp contrast to the mindset of those in many other countries. It expresses hope. Americans thrive on hope. This is not the case in many other countries. The smiling faces, the expectant gleams in the eyes of those gathered on the green, these displayed the great hope that people have, not only in the man, but in the nation. One can only encourage those people to turn that hope into action. It is that kind of hope that can spur people to do good things as they strive to bring about the kind of change they want to see.
Pride in my President: I often find it hard to post about those things with which I agree. President Obama has conducted himself in a fashion worthy of the Oval Office. Dignity. Humility. Expectation. His speech was captivating, moving, and unifying. As you know, JMO cannot go without finding fault. I wanted a moment. I wanted that pivotal moment. That "Ask not..." or "A day that will live in infamy..." or "". I was not given such a memorable moment. I did enjoy the final line, however: "Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
I am excited. I've not reached the height of Obamamania that many have, but I am not ashamed nor afraid to admit that I have an expectant excitement about this man's Presidency. If he can be as inspiring to the Houses of Congress as he has been to the people of this country, we may be able to do great things. I even appreciate the fact that he "called an audible" and walked for more of the parade route than was originally planned. The President is the ultimate public servant. I think Barack Obama understands that.
I've seen his picture with the seal of the highest office behind him and, for a moment, I imagined the face of some of the other political figures whom I opposed who could have held that office. I had an internal undeniable visceral reaction to the thought of President Gore or President Kerry or even President Dukakis. I do not have the same emotional response to President Obama.
The monotonous chanting of "Obama" is a little unsettling. Let's let the man do something before we begin singing his praises. He has promised many things. He believes he can deliver. I look forward to what he brings to the Oval Office. There are those that have said, "regardless of your party persuasion, we need this man to succeed." While that may be true, I also want President Obama to succeed. I want him to serve a second term. I can't say those sentiments won't change. But it's how I feel today.
Welcome President Obama.
24
*Ka-dink Ka-dunk Ka-dink Ka-dunk*
Jack Bauer has returned and the series has never been better! Undercover in a terrorist cell, independent of any government agency, relying on Bill and Chloe to keep him safe and alive, Jack has teamed up with Tony Almieda to capture a devise that gives the user the ability to control - or shut down - any aspect of America's infrastructure: Air traffic control, the power grid, water supply, etc.
Of course, I can't feature something on my blog just to say how great it is. I have a question:
With all of the liberals in Hollywood, how did 24 get all conservatives on its writing staff? What do I mean?
There's a new President and she's disbanded CTU. Jack is facing an indictment from a Senate Judicial committee for his "techniques." The FBI is now in charge and they do everything by the book! How is this a conservative view? None of it is working!
Jack Bauer sits in front of the Senators and after you think, "Who would elect the Dad from That 70's Show to public office?" you wonder "What is Jack doing there? He's saved the country from countless terrorist attacks. He's almost single handedly responsible for saving millions of lives and he has to answer to you, oh distinguished Senator from Wisconsin? I don't think so!" It's fairly apparent that, if anyone is going to be the sacrificial lamb for all of CTU, it shouldn't be Jack Bauer.
The FBI has been a step an a half behind the threat to the nation and the only progress they've made is because an agent has been going "Jack Bauer" on some suspects. Meanwhile, the former CTU agents are not only in the cell, but have gained the trust of the local leader.
FBI Agent Renee Walker has rapidly moved from a by-the-book agent to someone who's actually getting things done. First, she tells Jack to do what needs to be done to get information, then she does it herself with a different suspect. She disobeys her commanding agent when he orders her back because she knows it wouldn't be productive to continuing to protect US citizens.
By the book, the Attorney General has sent an investigator to the FBI to speak with and arrest Agent Walker for what happened with the suspect she tortured. Wouldn't you know it, he's doing nothing but getting in the way. His insistence on carrying out his duty to the law is actually slowing down the FBI which is already falling behind.
Perhaps, in future episodes, the writers will give some victories to the law abiding authorities. For the time being, however, it appears that the current message of 24 is that we have to do whatever it takes to defend our people and our country. This is not a sentiment shared by those who oppose the tactics of the administration leaving the White House today. So, do we do anything to protect people? Or do we abide by the law at all costs, perhaps forfeiting innocent lives?
Jack Bauer has returned and the series has never been better! Undercover in a terrorist cell, independent of any government agency, relying on Bill and Chloe to keep him safe and alive, Jack has teamed up with Tony Almieda to capture a devise that gives the user the ability to control - or shut down - any aspect of America's infrastructure: Air traffic control, the power grid, water supply, etc.
Of course, I can't feature something on my blog just to say how great it is. I have a question:
With all of the liberals in Hollywood, how did 24 get all conservatives on its writing staff? What do I mean?
There's a new President and she's disbanded CTU. Jack is facing an indictment from a Senate Judicial committee for his "techniques." The FBI is now in charge and they do everything by the book! How is this a conservative view? None of it is working!
Jack Bauer sits in front of the Senators and after you think, "Who would elect the Dad from That 70's Show to public office?" you wonder "What is Jack doing there? He's saved the country from countless terrorist attacks. He's almost single handedly responsible for saving millions of lives and he has to answer to you, oh distinguished Senator from Wisconsin? I don't think so!" It's fairly apparent that, if anyone is going to be the sacrificial lamb for all of CTU, it shouldn't be Jack Bauer.
The FBI has been a step an a half behind the threat to the nation and the only progress they've made is because an agent has been going "Jack Bauer" on some suspects. Meanwhile, the former CTU agents are not only in the cell, but have gained the trust of the local leader.
FBI Agent Renee Walker has rapidly moved from a by-the-book agent to someone who's actually getting things done. First, she tells Jack to do what needs to be done to get information, then she does it herself with a different suspect. She disobeys her commanding agent when he orders her back because she knows it wouldn't be productive to continuing to protect US citizens.
By the book, the Attorney General has sent an investigator to the FBI to speak with and arrest Agent Walker for what happened with the suspect she tortured. Wouldn't you know it, he's doing nothing but getting in the way. His insistence on carrying out his duty to the law is actually slowing down the FBI which is already falling behind.
Perhaps, in future episodes, the writers will give some victories to the law abiding authorities. For the time being, however, it appears that the current message of 24 is that we have to do whatever it takes to defend our people and our country. This is not a sentiment shared by those who oppose the tactics of the administration leaving the White House today. So, do we do anything to protect people? Or do we abide by the law at all costs, perhaps forfeiting innocent lives?
Monday, January 19, 2009
A Historic Inauguration
Tomorrow is the "Historic" inauguration of President Elect Barack Obama. I'm sure everyone is surprised to learn that I have some thoughts on the subject:
Obama currently has a 70% approval rating. While 25% disapprove. Um... of what? What has he done? Of what am I approving or disapproving? Am I approving just because he isn't Bush? Am I approving because of his skin color? How does a man have a 70% approval rating before he spends a day in office? At least 5% of the people have brains enough to say that they have no opinion of the nothing he has done to this point.
Wait, the humor continues: This same poll has 65% of the people "confident" that Obama will make a good president. 28% are "not confident." 7% have "no opinion." So, if we assume that all 65% of the "confident " people approve of him, that means that 5% of the approving public had to register a response other than "confident." If we also assume that the 25% and the 5% disapprove/no opinion held true to their logical answers we can conclude that 3% of the people who "Approve" of Obama are "Not confident" that he will be a good President! (And 2% who approved aren't sure). If we don't assume that the 25%/5% answered what one would expect, then the percentage of "approving" people who were other than "confident" is actually higher than 3%!
So, the inauguration will kick off tomorrow. Here are the people scheduled to attend/appear (in alphabetical order):
Jessica Alba
Marc Anthony
Halle Berry
Joe Biden
Mary J Blige
Bon Jovi
Bono
Garth Brooks
Mariah Carey
George Clinton
Elvis Costello
Sheryl Crow
Miley Cyrus
Eve
Fantasia
Renee Fleming
Jamie Fox
Aretha Franklin
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Nominee)
Macy Gray
Josh Groban
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Herbie Hancock
Tom Hanks
Ed Harris
Anne Hathaway
Heather Headley
Faith Hill
Eric Holder (Att Gen Nominee)
Ron Howard
Jay-Z
John Kerry
Alicia Keys
Chaka Khan
Beyonce Knowles
Queen Latifah
Bettye LaVette
Spike Lee
John Legend
Lil Jon
LL Cool J
Jennifer Lopez
Ludacris
Yo-Yo Ma
Maroon 5
John Mellencamp
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes
Monica
Jennifer Nettles
Barack Obama
Malia Obama
Michelle Obama
Sasha Obama
OutKast's Big Boi
Peter, Paul & Mary
Rihanna
Tim Robbins
Samantha Ronson
Peter Saarsgaard
Susan Sarandon
Shakira
Bruce Springsteen
Sting
Michael Stipe
T-Pain
James Taylor
The Temptations
U2
Usher
Rick Warren
Dionne Warwick
Denzel Washington
Will.i.am
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
As the Queen of Hearts adeptly put it, "Who are we inaugurating? Tom Hanks?" Possibly. I mean, he'll be there. Going through that list I found 8 people that I would say belong at the inauguration and the celebrations that follow. Am I supposed to have more confidence in this man because of all of the celebrities that are going to be at his inauguration? Is this how President Elect Obama wants to begin a presidency that he won due to the economic crisis that occurred months before he was elected? By throwing the biggest glitziest political bash Washington has ever seen? I guess it's historic in a few ways: A new president is always a historic event. He is the first black president. It looks like the most celebrities gathered for a political event ever.
I'll be waiting to see what political policies Mr. Obama puts forth before passing judgement, (and, I'll be honest, it sounds like he's trending more centrist than his Senate record would have us expect. I'm cautiously optimistic.) But with these massive spectacles, he sure doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot...
Obama currently has a 70% approval rating. While 25% disapprove. Um... of what? What has he done? Of what am I approving or disapproving? Am I approving just because he isn't Bush? Am I approving because of his skin color? How does a man have a 70% approval rating before he spends a day in office? At least 5% of the people have brains enough to say that they have no opinion of the nothing he has done to this point.
Wait, the humor continues: This same poll has 65% of the people "confident" that Obama will make a good president. 28% are "not confident." 7% have "no opinion." So, if we assume that all 65% of the "confident " people approve of him, that means that 5% of the approving public had to register a response other than "confident." If we also assume that the 25% and the 5% disapprove/no opinion held true to their logical answers we can conclude that 3% of the people who "Approve" of Obama are "Not confident" that he will be a good President! (And 2% who approved aren't sure). If we don't assume that the 25%/5% answered what one would expect, then the percentage of "approving" people who were other than "confident" is actually higher than 3%!
So, the inauguration will kick off tomorrow. Here are the people scheduled to attend/appear (in alphabetical order):
Jessica Alba
Marc Anthony
Halle Berry
Joe Biden
Mary J Blige
Bon Jovi
Bono
Garth Brooks
Mariah Carey
George Clinton
Elvis Costello
Sheryl Crow
Miley Cyrus
Eve
Fantasia
Renee Fleming
Jamie Fox
Aretha Franklin
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Nominee)
Macy Gray
Josh Groban
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Herbie Hancock
Tom Hanks
Ed Harris
Anne Hathaway
Heather Headley
Faith Hill
Eric Holder (Att Gen Nominee)
Ron Howard
Jay-Z
John Kerry
Alicia Keys
Chaka Khan
Beyonce Knowles
Queen Latifah
Bettye LaVette
Spike Lee
John Legend
Lil Jon
LL Cool J
Jennifer Lopez
Ludacris
Yo-Yo Ma
Maroon 5
John Mellencamp
Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes
Monica
Jennifer Nettles
Barack Obama
Malia Obama
Michelle Obama
Sasha Obama
OutKast's Big Boi
Peter, Paul & Mary
Rihanna
Tim Robbins
Samantha Ronson
Peter Saarsgaard
Susan Sarandon
Shakira
Bruce Springsteen
Sting
Michael Stipe
T-Pain
James Taylor
The Temptations
U2
Usher
Rick Warren
Dionne Warwick
Denzel Washington
Will.i.am
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder
As the Queen of Hearts adeptly put it, "Who are we inaugurating? Tom Hanks?" Possibly. I mean, he'll be there. Going through that list I found 8 people that I would say belong at the inauguration and the celebrations that follow. Am I supposed to have more confidence in this man because of all of the celebrities that are going to be at his inauguration? Is this how President Elect Obama wants to begin a presidency that he won due to the economic crisis that occurred months before he was elected? By throwing the biggest glitziest political bash Washington has ever seen? I guess it's historic in a few ways: A new president is always a historic event. He is the first black president. It looks like the most celebrities gathered for a political event ever.
I'll be waiting to see what political policies Mr. Obama puts forth before passing judgement, (and, I'll be honest, it sounds like he's trending more centrist than his Senate record would have us expect. I'm cautiously optimistic.) But with these massive spectacles, he sure doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot...
All Things Football
So the table is set. For the second time in three years the Super Bowl that I rated as least interesting or compelling is the one we've been saddled with.
Two Complaints: First When will a helmet to helmet hit be a penalty when it's on a player other than a Quarterback? Is the health of the other 21 players on the field not as important? Second When will they stop calling holding on the defensive player who tackles the running back who was just part of a play action fake? Guess what: that means it worked! If they are going to fake the ball to him, and he's going to run like he has it, the defense has to be allowed to tackle him.
Final reason for this post: Recently I saw that my side bar was longer than my posts. I decided that the records set (and nearly set) by the 2007 New England Patriots were great, but they didn't need to be on the side bar anymore. Therefore, in order to preserve (and because I spent a lot of time compiling them) I'm going to list them here and simply have a link to this post on the side bar.
NFL Records set by the
2007 New England Patriots
Let's just hope when Brady comes back (if Brady comes back) that he's still Tom Brady.
Two Complaints: First When will a helmet to helmet hit be a penalty when it's on a player other than a Quarterback? Is the health of the other 21 players on the field not as important? Second When will they stop calling holding on the defensive player who tackles the running back who was just part of a play action fake? Guess what: that means it worked! If they are going to fake the ball to him, and he's going to run like he has it, the defense has to be allowed to tackle him.
Final reason for this post: Recently I saw that my side bar was longer than my posts. I decided that the records set (and nearly set) by the 2007 New England Patriots were great, but they didn't need to be on the side bar anymore. Therefore, in order to preserve (and because I spent a lot of time compiling them) I'm going to list them here and simply have a link to this post on the side bar.
NFL Records set by the
2007 New England Patriots
- Team Records
- Consecutive Wins, Many Seasons
Record: 21 06-08 Patriots
Previous: 18 03-04 Patriots - Touchdowns, Single Season
Record: 75 2007 Patriots
Previous: 70 '84 Dolphins - TD's scored by different players
Record: 21 '00 Broncos & '87 Rams
Current: 21 2007 Patriots
Final result: Tied - Margin of Victory, Single Season
Record: +315 net points 2007 Patriots
Previous: +292 '42 Bears
This is a crazy record as it has stood for
65 years and was set during an 11 game season! - PATs made, Single Season
Record: 75 Gostkowski
Previous: 66 Uwe von Schamann - Scoring, Single Season
Record: 589 2007 Patriots
Previous: 556 98 Vikings - Wins, Single Season
Record: 16 2007 Patriots
Previous: 14 Multiple Teams - Consecutive Wins, Single Season
Record: 16 2007 Patriots
Previous: 14 72 Mia, 04 Pitt - TD Passes, Single Season
Record: 50 Brady
Previous: 49 Manning - Passing yards, Single Season
Record: 5084 Marino
Final: 4806 Brady
Needed: 278 yds
Did the inclimate weather during the Jets game cost Brady this record? - Passer Rating, Single Season
Record: 121.1 Manning
Final: 117.2 Brady - TD Receptions, Single Season
Record: 23 Moss
Previous: 22 Rice
Let's not forget that Rice's record was set during a strike shortened season. He caught 22 Touchdowns in just 12 games! He was on pace for nearly 30 TD receptions!
Individual Records
Let's just hope when Brady comes back (if Brady comes back) that he's still Tom Brady.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
All Four Super Bowl Previews III
It's a JMO tradition to post on the four possible Super Bowls now that we know who will be playing in the Championship games. So I don't waste the time of the people not reading this here they are:
I'm going to list them as least compelling to most:
Arizona vs Pittsburgh
I don't see any reason to hope for this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh's defense was #1 in the NFL in many categories this year. Now, Arizona's offense have become more potent in the last few weeks but they are no match for the modern Steel Curtain. If San Diego couldn't get past them, the Cardinal's certainly won't. That and there's no other story. Kurt Warner vs Big Ben? Arizona's first trip to the big game vs a franchise with lots of history? Pittsburgh would be the first to 6 Super Bowls. I think this matchup would give the Steeler's their second Super Bowl victory in 3 seasons and maybe their first legitimate one. winner: Steelers (Loser: NFL Fans)
Philadelphia vs Baltimore
Another snoozer. Less so than AZ vs PIT just because the Eagles offense is slightly better than AZ and the Raven's D is slightly worse than PIT. But, again, there's no compelling story here. Rookie QB vs QB likely leaving? East Coast Battle? Redemption for McNabb vs a team that's not as good as the last team he lost to in the Big Game? I think the pressure gets to McNabb again and Ravens walk away with their first Super Bowl win since they trounced the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV. Winner: Ravens (Loser: McNabb)
Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Now we're getting interesting. "The Clash of the Keystone state!" "The Fray for P.A." "Pennsylvania Pummelling!" I think the most entertaining part about this game would be in the stands. Both fan bases are known for being obnoxious, berating, and combative. There might be harder hits in the stands than on the field. Maybe they should have the Eagles fans on one side and the Steelers fans on the other like at high school basketball games. Winner: Pittsburgh (Loser: Stadium Security)
Arizona vs Baltimore
I've listed this one last because I think this would be the best game. Two first time trips: The Cardinals and Flaco. The matchup for the Arizona offense and the Baltimore Defense is very exciting and the reverse is almost as even. Kurt Warner and his near explosive offense vs Ray Lewis and his near impenetrable defense. Veteran QB vs Rookie QB. Personally, I'd like to see Warner go out on top with a victory here. This game is tough to call. Can Flaco win the game his first time there? Can the Cardinals stop him and overcome the Ravens vaunted D? Winner: Ravens (Loser: the Manning family)
So, I'd like to see Arizona vs Baltimore with AZ winning it all. I expect to see Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia.
What are your picks (hopeful and expected)?
I'm going to list them as least compelling to most:
Arizona vs Pittsburgh
I don't see any reason to hope for this Super Bowl. Pittsburgh's defense was #1 in the NFL in many categories this year. Now, Arizona's offense have become more potent in the last few weeks but they are no match for the modern Steel Curtain. If San Diego couldn't get past them, the Cardinal's certainly won't. That and there's no other story. Kurt Warner vs Big Ben? Arizona's first trip to the big game vs a franchise with lots of history? Pittsburgh would be the first to 6 Super Bowls. I think this matchup would give the Steeler's their second Super Bowl victory in 3 seasons and maybe their first legitimate one. winner: Steelers (Loser: NFL Fans)
Philadelphia vs Baltimore
Another snoozer. Less so than AZ vs PIT just because the Eagles offense is slightly better than AZ and the Raven's D is slightly worse than PIT. But, again, there's no compelling story here. Rookie QB vs QB likely leaving? East Coast Battle? Redemption for McNabb vs a team that's not as good as the last team he lost to in the Big Game? I think the pressure gets to McNabb again and Ravens walk away with their first Super Bowl win since they trounced the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV. Winner: Ravens (Loser: McNabb)
Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh
Now we're getting interesting. "The Clash of the Keystone state!" "The Fray for P.A." "Pennsylvania Pummelling!" I think the most entertaining part about this game would be in the stands. Both fan bases are known for being obnoxious, berating, and combative. There might be harder hits in the stands than on the field. Maybe they should have the Eagles fans on one side and the Steelers fans on the other like at high school basketball games. Winner: Pittsburgh (Loser: Stadium Security)
Arizona vs Baltimore
I've listed this one last because I think this would be the best game. Two first time trips: The Cardinals and Flaco. The matchup for the Arizona offense and the Baltimore Defense is very exciting and the reverse is almost as even. Kurt Warner and his near explosive offense vs Ray Lewis and his near impenetrable defense. Veteran QB vs Rookie QB. Personally, I'd like to see Warner go out on top with a victory here. This game is tough to call. Can Flaco win the game his first time there? Can the Cardinals stop him and overcome the Ravens vaunted D? Winner: Ravens (Loser: the Manning family)
So, I'd like to see Arizona vs Baltimore with AZ winning it all. I expect to see Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia.
What are your picks (hopeful and expected)?
Friday, January 09, 2009
Review: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
2008/PG/Documentary
Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.
The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.
Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?
**Spoiler Alert**
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.
The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:
The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.
4 out of 5 stars
Hosted by Ben Stein of Ferris Beuller's Day Off and Win Ben Stein's Money fame, Expelled is a revealing documentary on the hypocrisy of today's modern biologists. The film reports on several seemingly isolated occurrences of people losing their positions in the scientific field because they dared to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design. When these "isolated" firings are grouped together, the apparent intolerance for any scrutiny of the theory of Evolution is rather disturbing. The film also puts forth a well organized and well executed argument that Darwinism was one of the major stepping stones that gave rise to Hitler's Nazi regime.
The film's contention is that, thanks to the concept of natural selection, Hitler believed he was bettering the human species by exterminating the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the Jews. Also, because evolution provided a Godless origin for man, he had no ethical qualms with which to wrestle. To him, the actions were amoral and beneficial.
Throughout the course of the documentary scientists from both sides are interviewed. It came as no surprise that the Intelligent Design scientists were lit with warm light in bright open locations while the Darwinist scientists were lit with stark cool light in cramped spaces. I have to say, whether one agrees with the theory of I.D. or not, this picture raised many ethical and sociological questions that beg for a response from the Evolutionist community. If Darwinism is fact, what's to stop us from cloning, organ harvesting, or other scientific ventures that are currently considered unethical? Why are those scientists that are seriously researching the possibility of I.D. facing such staunch and active discrimination. Evolution and Darwinism are still theories! They are good ideas but there is no solid proof with which to anchor them in the category of fact. I'm amazed that the theory of evolution is held in such a tight strangle hold by today's modern "scholars" that it can't take any type of scrutiny from other theories! If it is as air tight as has been suggested then, by all means, question it. It should be able to withstand without wavering. Is not questioning the basis of scientific discovery? How would it look if Christians didn't welcome questions from atheists or other religions? We assert that what we believe to be true. If it is true, it should be unshakable regardless of the inquest it falls under. Why won't Darwinists allow for the same dialog?
The single best moment in the movie occurred when host Ben Stein sat down with the undisputed champion of the anti-intelligent design movement Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion in which he uses the theory of Evolution to prove that God doesn't exist. Don't be mistaken, this is not a scientific treatise, this is a philosophy book. When discussing the origin of life (an event that Darwinism still struggles to explain) Mr. Dawkins offered several different possibilities: The most common primordial soup plus lightning equals life theory, "Life may have piggy-backed on crystals." (whatever that might mean...), and the "Seed" theory.
The "Seed" theory states that life on Earth may have been seeded here by some higher life form from another planet. Here is the direct quote from the movie:
Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. [Emphasis added] Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.And here we come to the crux of the issue. You see, Intelligent Design is not a problem, even for the most ardent anti-Intelligent Design biologist Richard Dawkins. It's only a problem when God is thrown into the mix. (Oh, and Mr. Dawkins apparently isn't up on his theology. If there is a God, it didn't "jumped into existence spontaneously." The theology he's refuting states that God always was. God has no beginning.) Of course, with the Seed theory, no one stops to ask how life began for the advanced civilization that designed and seeded life here. In fact, the Seed theory doesn't actually answer the question of how did life begin, it just moves the location of the event to another planet. Why is Intelligent Design ok if it's been done by aliens but not God? Morals, ethics, and responsibility. Without a God, we do not have to answer for how we live our lives.
The bottom line of this whole issue (having been brought to light by this movie) is that I can't help seeing a parallel between how the I.D. scientists of today are treated and how "Round Earth" and "Heliocentric" scientists were historically treated. Darwinism is the new religion and Intelligent Design scientists are the heretics.
4 out of 5 stars
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Liberal Media
It came to no surprise to those of us who monitor such things that the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President in this last election. But is that enough for us to label this well respected news organization "liberal?" I had some conservative friends support Senator Obama and I wouldn't consider them liberal for that action. Misguided maybe, but not liberal.
Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.
Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.
Here are some of the things that this website shows us:
Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.
Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.
It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.
Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:
Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.
Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.
Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.
Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.
What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.
Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.
Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.
Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.
Here are some of the things that this website shows us:
Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.
Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.
It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.
Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:
Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.
Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.
Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.
Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.
When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.
What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.
Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Holiday Compromise
Every year I have something to say about either the "Holiday Tree" controversy or the "Nativity in a Public Place" issue. This year is no different, but rather than my usual response: "Why is it ok for you to force your views on me by demanding that I can't have a tree with lights unless I call it a "Holiday Tree" but I can't force my views on you by making you refer to it as a "Christmas Tree?" This year I actually have a solution:
You are free to call it a holiday tree. You are free to be offended if your town puts a nativity in the public square. You are free to require people to wish you "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Here is the compromise that I require of you:
You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."
So, the choice is yours: Sit behind your desk in an empty office the week before New Years or take your kids around looking at Christmas lights, save money while buying things during Christmas (and after Christmas) sales, and give the Baby Jesus a high five in his manger for being born so we can have an excuse to see people we don't often see, get an extra day off of work, and spend enough money to keep our economy in the black.
A very Merry Christmas to everyone!
You are free to call it a holiday tree. You are free to be offended if your town puts a nativity in the public square. You are free to require people to wish you "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Here is the compromise that I require of you:
Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."
So, the choice is yours: Sit behind your desk in an empty office the week before New Years or take your kids around looking at Christmas lights, save money while buying things during Christmas (and after Christmas) sales, and give the Baby Jesus a high five in his manger for being born so we can have an excuse to see people we don't often see, get an extra day off of work, and spend enough money to keep our economy in the black.
A very Merry Christmas to everyone!
Friday, January 02, 2009
2008 NFL Playoff Predictions
With the NFL playoffs set, I couldn't resist my annual playoff prediction post. I know you've all been checking wondering when I was going to get it on the site, so, without further ado, here's JMO:Just the Facts 2008 NFL playoff predictions:
NFC
The New York Giants and the Carolina Panthers have the bye (So much for my prediction that the 2007 Super Bowl Champions wouldn't make the playoffs...)
Wild Card Round
Falcons vs Cardinals
The battle of the birds. Youth triumphs over experience in this contest as rookie Matt Ryan elevates the Falcons over Kurt Warner and the Cards.
Eagles vs Vikings
Did all of the birds make it this year? (Nope, the Seahawks are sitting at home right now.) The Eagles left it all on the field last week with their drubbing of Dallas. They are unable to overcome Adrian Peterson and the Vikings.
Divisional Round
Falcons vs Giants
The Giants D-line proves too much for young Matt Ryan. Giants win easily.
Vikings vs Panthers
Though they run well, the Panther struggle to stop the Vikings ground game and lose a close game.
Championship
Vikings vs Giants
They say defense wins championships. They are right. With Peterson unable to run against the Giants, they are forced to try to win through the air. They are unsuccessful. The Giants return to the big game.
AFC
The Tennessee Titans and the Pittsburgh Steelers have the bye. (Steelers need it with the injury to Big Ben. He may not play at all in the playoffs)
Wild Card Round
Ravens vs Dolphins
More birds. The Dolphins storybook season following last season's nightmare ends here. The Ravens D is too much for Pennington.
Colts vs Chargers
(This is a good time to mention that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. More on this sad state of affairs below.) Indy won the game in the regular season and they will do it again.
Divisional Round
Ravens vs Titans
The Titans have had a little magic up their sleeve all year. Some how they find a way to win late in the game.
Colts vs Steelers
Leftwich plays admirably and adequately. But adequate is not enough when Peyton is on the other side of the ball. Despite a great season, the Steelers lose their first playoff game of the post season.
Championship
Cots vs Titans
Nothing like peaking at the right time. Last year the Giants showed us how well that works, this year it's the Colts. Though they fight valiantly, the Titans fall to the Colts in overtime.
Super Bowl
Colts vs Giants
The matchup the networks wanted. The "Manning Bowl" will go down in history as the first time two brother's faced each other at quarterback in the big game. It will have another distinction of the most non-called false start penalties ever. (It is illegal for the QB to go under center and come out without the ball. The Mannings do this 20-30 times a game.) It will also be one of the most lopsided wins in recent memory, bringing to mind the Cowboys/Bills Super Bowls of the 90's as the elder Manning picks apart the Giants secondary and the younger Manning picks the turf out of his helmet. Colts win in a landslide 47-10.
Now, back to the fact that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. This is just because the Chargers won their sorry excuse for a division and the Colts squeaked in as a wild card team. This is also happening in the NFC where the 9-7 Cardinals are hosting the 11-5 Falcons. Consider this: There are four teams in the playoffs that have a worse record than the 11-5 Patriots. Yet New England is not in the post season. This has happened too often the past few years. The NFL needs to move to a seeded post season where division is irrelevant. The NHL and NBA are very successful with this model. The time has come.
Watch for my next picks in a few weeks when I preview the four possible Super Bowls based on the teams that make it to the Championship Round in each division. (Of course, I may feel compelled to predict the next round of games. We'll have to see how I did with this round.)
NFC
The New York Giants and the Carolina Panthers have the bye (So much for my prediction that the 2007 Super Bowl Champions wouldn't make the playoffs...)
Wild Card Round
Falcons vs Cardinals
The battle of the birds. Youth triumphs over experience in this contest as rookie Matt Ryan elevates the Falcons over Kurt Warner and the Cards.
Eagles vs Vikings
Did all of the birds make it this year? (Nope, the Seahawks are sitting at home right now.) The Eagles left it all on the field last week with their drubbing of Dallas. They are unable to overcome Adrian Peterson and the Vikings.
Divisional Round
Falcons vs Giants
The Giants D-line proves too much for young Matt Ryan. Giants win easily.
Vikings vs Panthers
Though they run well, the Panther struggle to stop the Vikings ground game and lose a close game.
Championship
Vikings vs Giants
They say defense wins championships. They are right. With Peterson unable to run against the Giants, they are forced to try to win through the air. They are unsuccessful. The Giants return to the big game.
AFC
The Tennessee Titans and the Pittsburgh Steelers have the bye. (Steelers need it with the injury to Big Ben. He may not play at all in the playoffs)
Wild Card Round
Ravens vs Dolphins
More birds. The Dolphins storybook season following last season's nightmare ends here. The Ravens D is too much for Pennington.
Colts vs Chargers
(This is a good time to mention that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. More on this sad state of affairs below.) Indy won the game in the regular season and they will do it again.
Divisional Round
Ravens vs Titans
The Titans have had a little magic up their sleeve all year. Some how they find a way to win late in the game.
Colts vs Steelers
Leftwich plays admirably and adequately. But adequate is not enough when Peyton is on the other side of the ball. Despite a great season, the Steelers lose their first playoff game of the post season.
Championship
Cots vs Titans
Nothing like peaking at the right time. Last year the Giants showed us how well that works, this year it's the Colts. Though they fight valiantly, the Titans fall to the Colts in overtime.
Super Bowl
Colts vs Giants
The matchup the networks wanted. The "Manning Bowl" will go down in history as the first time two brother's faced each other at quarterback in the big game. It will have another distinction of the most non-called false start penalties ever. (It is illegal for the QB to go under center and come out without the ball. The Mannings do this 20-30 times a game.) It will also be one of the most lopsided wins in recent memory, bringing to mind the Cowboys/Bills Super Bowls of the 90's as the elder Manning picks apart the Giants secondary and the younger Manning picks the turf out of his helmet. Colts win in a landslide 47-10.
Now, back to the fact that the 8-8 Chargers are hosting the 12-4 Colts. This is just because the Chargers won their sorry excuse for a division and the Colts squeaked in as a wild card team. This is also happening in the NFC where the 9-7 Cardinals are hosting the 11-5 Falcons. Consider this: There are four teams in the playoffs that have a worse record than the 11-5 Patriots. Yet New England is not in the post season. This has happened too often the past few years. The NFL needs to move to a seeded post season where division is irrelevant. The NHL and NBA are very successful with this model. The time has come.
Watch for my next picks in a few weeks when I preview the four possible Super Bowls based on the teams that make it to the Championship Round in each division. (Of course, I may feel compelled to predict the next round of games. We'll have to see how I did with this round.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)