I'm not going to say I predicted the Seahawks to win, because as you read just below, I didn't. I told you it was going to be a game, and that's honestly as much as I could've told you and felt comfortable doing. I wanted to pick the Seahawks, but who in their right mind would've? Nobody.
And most of all, nobody could've told you that this would happen.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
2011 NFL Playoffs - Wild Card Weekend Preview
Wild Card Weekend always offers some of the most exciting football of the whole playoffs, and I'm not just saying that because that seems to be the only time the Redskins have shown up recently. The elite teams aren't involved, and everybody has a shot in every game.
You're 7-9 Seattle, going up against the defending Super Bowl Champion Saints? Well, Drew Brees had a career high 22 interceptions this year, and New Orleans is now missing their top two threats on the ground, with Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas going on injured reserve. Everybody's got a chance to come out of this weekend a winner. And while for some that just means the opportunity to get steamrolled in the second round, it's a playoff win nonetheless, a currency that's often used to justify keeping a head coach (or the lack of which is used to justify firing a head coach).
So let's look at the games!
NFC Playoffs
#5 New Orleans Saints (11-5) at #4 Seattle Seahawks (7-9)
As I said, Brees' season was much less close to perfect than he has been in previous seasons. And the losses of Thomas and Ivory aren't inconsequential; Reggie Bush is dynamic, but he's less effective when he has to be the focal point of the running game. And Seattle is a tough place to play.
The problem, of course, is that the team that plays home games in Seattle is the Seahawks. They beat the Rams in a playoff-type game last week, and I think that's all they've got in them. I do think they'll keep it close, and the Saints won't be able to put the hammer down without a strong running game, but New Orleans should pull it out.
Prediction: Saints 24, Seahawks 14
#6 Green Bay Packers at #3 Philadelphia Eagles
Coming into the season, the Packers seemed like the logical choice for the NFC champions. Their offense was clicking on all cylinders, and while Kurt Warner and the Cardinals gashed them in last year's playoffs, we saw the makings of a potent defense. The defense was right on, with Clay Matthews leading them to top five finishes in both points and yards allowed. And the offense is still good, putting up 24 points a game. Their only real weakness is a lack of a consistent running game, precipitated by the loss of Ryan Grant early in the season.
The Eagles, meanwhile, have been the toast of the league, and Michael Vick will deservedly garner MVP consideration. Their defense isn't as stout as the Packers', but their offense is well-balanced...or so it seems. Remember that a good portion of the Eagles' run production is from Vick himself on scrambles. That's good, but it doesn't work as a late game clock-eating face-pounding running game. I think, like pretty much everyone else, it'll come down to Green Bay's defense, and how they're able to counter Vick's dynamic abilities. I expect them to be up to the task.
Prediction: Packers 38, Eagles 24
AFC Playoffs
#6 New York Jets at #3 Indianapolis Colts
Maybe the coolest thing about this matchup is that the Jets, on top of trying to get to the Super Bowl, really do have something to prove against the Colts. Last year, the Jets ended the Colts' perfect season...after the Colts pulled half their starters. Then, in the AFC title game, the Colts proved to be the better team. This is the Jets' chance to show that they've grown, specifically Mark Sanchez, who's shown he at least has the capacity for great games. Will they show it?
I think so, yes. This Colts team is much more susceptible to bad games than last year's was, and they went down to the wire just to get into the playoffs. As the saying goes, these aren't your father's Colts. This is a chance for Rex Ryan and the Jets to put their money where their loud mouths are, and Ryan seems like the kind of guy who can legitimately make a difference on the field. There aren't a lot of coaches like that; my money's on the one who is.
Prediction: Jets 26, Colts 21
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #4 Kansas City Chiefs
Initially, I thought this would be the toughest game to predict. Both the Ravens and the Chiefs have dynamic offensive players, as well as noteworthy holes. But when you look at actual game day performance, it's not close.
The Ravens have four losses this year by an average of four points. Three of their four losses were to eventual #1 or #2 seeds in these playoffs (New England, Pittsburgh, Atlanta). The Chiefs, meanwhile, went 2-2 against playoff teams from 2009, and lost to pretty much every team that showed some semblance of an offense against them. I expect the Ravens, who didn't play a bad game all year, to show up to play, and to put an end to Kansas City's dream season.
Prediction: Ravens 40, Chiefs 17
See you in a few days, when I have to explain how the Ravens let Jamaal Charles beat them, and what I was thinking when I said the Packers could stop Vick.
You're 7-9 Seattle, going up against the defending Super Bowl Champion Saints? Well, Drew Brees had a career high 22 interceptions this year, and New Orleans is now missing their top two threats on the ground, with Chris Ivory and Pierre Thomas going on injured reserve. Everybody's got a chance to come out of this weekend a winner. And while for some that just means the opportunity to get steamrolled in the second round, it's a playoff win nonetheless, a currency that's often used to justify keeping a head coach (or the lack of which is used to justify firing a head coach).
So let's look at the games!
NFC Playoffs
#5 New Orleans Saints (11-5) at #4 Seattle Seahawks (7-9)
As I said, Brees' season was much less close to perfect than he has been in previous seasons. And the losses of Thomas and Ivory aren't inconsequential; Reggie Bush is dynamic, but he's less effective when he has to be the focal point of the running game. And Seattle is a tough place to play.
The problem, of course, is that the team that plays home games in Seattle is the Seahawks. They beat the Rams in a playoff-type game last week, and I think that's all they've got in them. I do think they'll keep it close, and the Saints won't be able to put the hammer down without a strong running game, but New Orleans should pull it out.
Prediction: Saints 24, Seahawks 14
#6 Green Bay Packers at #3 Philadelphia Eagles
Coming into the season, the Packers seemed like the logical choice for the NFC champions. Their offense was clicking on all cylinders, and while Kurt Warner and the Cardinals gashed them in last year's playoffs, we saw the makings of a potent defense. The defense was right on, with Clay Matthews leading them to top five finishes in both points and yards allowed. And the offense is still good, putting up 24 points a game. Their only real weakness is a lack of a consistent running game, precipitated by the loss of Ryan Grant early in the season.
The Eagles, meanwhile, have been the toast of the league, and Michael Vick will deservedly garner MVP consideration. Their defense isn't as stout as the Packers', but their offense is well-balanced...or so it seems. Remember that a good portion of the Eagles' run production is from Vick himself on scrambles. That's good, but it doesn't work as a late game clock-eating face-pounding running game. I think, like pretty much everyone else, it'll come down to Green Bay's defense, and how they're able to counter Vick's dynamic abilities. I expect them to be up to the task.
Prediction: Packers 38, Eagles 24
AFC Playoffs
#6 New York Jets at #3 Indianapolis Colts
Maybe the coolest thing about this matchup is that the Jets, on top of trying to get to the Super Bowl, really do have something to prove against the Colts. Last year, the Jets ended the Colts' perfect season...after the Colts pulled half their starters. Then, in the AFC title game, the Colts proved to be the better team. This is the Jets' chance to show that they've grown, specifically Mark Sanchez, who's shown he at least has the capacity for great games. Will they show it?
I think so, yes. This Colts team is much more susceptible to bad games than last year's was, and they went down to the wire just to get into the playoffs. As the saying goes, these aren't your father's Colts. This is a chance for Rex Ryan and the Jets to put their money where their loud mouths are, and Ryan seems like the kind of guy who can legitimately make a difference on the field. There aren't a lot of coaches like that; my money's on the one who is.
Prediction: Jets 26, Colts 21
#5 Baltimore Ravens at #4 Kansas City Chiefs
Initially, I thought this would be the toughest game to predict. Both the Ravens and the Chiefs have dynamic offensive players, as well as noteworthy holes. But when you look at actual game day performance, it's not close.
The Ravens have four losses this year by an average of four points. Three of their four losses were to eventual #1 or #2 seeds in these playoffs (New England, Pittsburgh, Atlanta). The Chiefs, meanwhile, went 2-2 against playoff teams from 2009, and lost to pretty much every team that showed some semblance of an offense against them. I expect the Ravens, who didn't play a bad game all year, to show up to play, and to put an end to Kansas City's dream season.
Prediction: Ravens 40, Chiefs 17
See you in a few days, when I have to explain how the Ravens let Jamaal Charles beat them, and what I was thinking when I said the Packers could stop Vick.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Dead Rising 2 Review - Part Two
As a precursor to my upcoming 2010 Game of the Year blog posts, I'd like to offer you part two of my three-part review of Dead Rising 2 and its complementary titles (prologue and epilogue). This portion of the review will cover the actual full-size Dead Rising 2 game.
The story is similar to the original: you're a guy who was present for a zombie outbreak in a contained area (this time, it's several malls and casinos, along with an outdoor plaza area). In DR2, you've got the added pressure of caring for your daughter, who's been bitten, and is essentially a zombie time bomb waiting to go off. While taking care of your other main missions and countless side missions (mostly involving rescuing other survivors from their inevitable demises), you've also got to scrounge up doses of Zombrex, the drug that keeps your daughter from having a change in appetite.
The story is a little deeper than the original, but unfortunately (at least in my opinion), it seems a little light on the "good guys." There's one big twist in the story that I won't ruin for you, but you'll likely be able to see it coming a mile away, despite the fact that it really does come out of nowhere.
It should be noted that this sequel shows very high fidelity to the original Dead Rising. The gameplay, the "working against the clock" system, the sense of humor, and the expansive, secret-filled world all hearken back to the cult classic. And it's absolutely safe to say that if you enjoyed the original, you're going to love Dead Rising 2. That said, though, if you weren't a big fan of the original, it's tough to see you doing a 180 on the series with this title.
However, I would like to address a few of the concerns I've heard from friends regarding the original game, and how they've been (somewhat) addressed in the sequel.
Overall, I was very happy with my Dead Rising 2 experience. I definitely see myself getting back into it at some point (after I finish up some of the 25 or so games I bought off Steam over the past 20 days), mostly to get into the cooperative mode. I played it briefly with a complete stranger, and it was fun, but I'm hoping to convince someone (cough, Tommy, cough) to spring for a copy of the game the next time it goes on sale, and join me for long-term zombie mashing.
The story is similar to the original: you're a guy who was present for a zombie outbreak in a contained area (this time, it's several malls and casinos, along with an outdoor plaza area). In DR2, you've got the added pressure of caring for your daughter, who's been bitten, and is essentially a zombie time bomb waiting to go off. While taking care of your other main missions and countless side missions (mostly involving rescuing other survivors from their inevitable demises), you've also got to scrounge up doses of Zombrex, the drug that keeps your daughter from having a change in appetite.
The story is a little deeper than the original, but unfortunately (at least in my opinion), it seems a little light on the "good guys." There's one big twist in the story that I won't ruin for you, but you'll likely be able to see it coming a mile away, despite the fact that it really does come out of nowhere.
It should be noted that this sequel shows very high fidelity to the original Dead Rising. The gameplay, the "working against the clock" system, the sense of humor, and the expansive, secret-filled world all hearken back to the cult classic. And it's absolutely safe to say that if you enjoyed the original, you're going to love Dead Rising 2. That said, though, if you weren't a big fan of the original, it's tough to see you doing a 180 on the series with this title.
However, I would like to address a few of the concerns I've heard from friends regarding the original game, and how they've been (somewhat) addressed in the sequel.
- The bosses are too difficult. While the bosses are still a challenge, your potential arsenal of created weapons helps to counter this. The knife gloves are a particular favorite of mine.
- The survivors are idiots. It wasn't until I played Dead Rising 2 that I realized just how bad the AI was in the original. Nobody in this game has anything remotely close to the death wish that half of the survivors had in the original, and the ones who can wield weapons are still pretty handy with a 12 gauge.
- GOD DAMN CONVICTS AND THE GOD DAMN JEEP FUCKING FUCK! I won't lie to you; there is a similar game mechanic in the sequel, where the central area is patrolled by psychopaths. However, this situation doesn't come up until much later in the game, when you've had time to develop your levels/skills/weaponry. They're still a pain, but they're easier to navigate around this time.
Overall, I was very happy with my Dead Rising 2 experience. I definitely see myself getting back into it at some point (after I finish up some of the 25 or so games I bought off Steam over the past 20 days), mostly to get into the cooperative mode. I played it briefly with a complete stranger, and it was fun, but I'm hoping to convince someone (cough, Tommy, cough) to spring for a copy of the game the next time it goes on sale, and join me for long-term zombie mashing.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Dave Steckel is not a dirty player.
I've watched the clip a few dozen times, and I can't believe that there are still people out there who think that Dave Steckel was head-hunting Sidney Crosby on Saturday's Winter Classic matchup between the Washington Capitals and the Pittsburgh Penguins.
A friend referred me to this article that talks about how the Penguins, and Crosby specifically, come across as whiners for their reaction to the hit. I read the article, and it starts off on the right foot. However, it seemed to get off on a tangent about how Crosby got away with a slash earlier in the period (he did), and about how if he's going to play hockey, he has to expect to get hit (he does).
To me, that's not the most important point. If you watch the clip (at the top of that article), you can actually see Steckel angle his shoulder to get around Crosby to try to get up ice. Crosby was watching the puck go behind him, and had no idea where his path on the ice was taking him. It took him directly into the path of Steckel. If it had taken him into a net, would the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review be talking about how the nets should be made of a plastic polymer instead of metal, because he clanked his head on it?
Please. When you're on the ice, you're responsible for where you send your body. If you weren't, people could just lead with their heads and draw penalties and suspensions for their opposition. Remember this classic Simpsons clip? Do any of us think he's not responsible for eating that pie?
The most frustrating part of the Tribune-Review's article is the hint at retribution by Brooks Orpik at the end. The whole Penguins squad seemed to rally behind Crosby's assessment of the hit, and that's okay. I get standing behind your guy. And I get Crosby's reaction; to him, it was a blindside hit in a chippy game, and he's the one who actually got hurt. But at some point, logic has to prevail, doesn't it? Don't you have to look at the clip and say, "Gee, that doesn't look as sinister as it felt"?
That's my biggest problem with Crosby's reaction. As perhaps the league's biggest star and his team's captain, he sets the tone for his team. He needs to be bigger than revenge, bigger than calling Steckel a dirty player when he's clearly not. He needs to corral his team, not let them chirp to local media about it being a cheap shot. And his own response to the media needs to be, "Hockey is a physical game. I got hit, I'm over it. We're looking forward to our next game, and you can bet your ass we'll be ready for our next game against the Caps."
Of course, if 5'11" Crosby wants to tangle with 6'5" Steckel, I imagine the big fella would oblige.
A friend referred me to this article that talks about how the Penguins, and Crosby specifically, come across as whiners for their reaction to the hit. I read the article, and it starts off on the right foot. However, it seemed to get off on a tangent about how Crosby got away with a slash earlier in the period (he did), and about how if he's going to play hockey, he has to expect to get hit (he does).
To me, that's not the most important point. If you watch the clip (at the top of that article), you can actually see Steckel angle his shoulder to get around Crosby to try to get up ice. Crosby was watching the puck go behind him, and had no idea where his path on the ice was taking him. It took him directly into the path of Steckel. If it had taken him into a net, would the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review be talking about how the nets should be made of a plastic polymer instead of metal, because he clanked his head on it?
Please. When you're on the ice, you're responsible for where you send your body. If you weren't, people could just lead with their heads and draw penalties and suspensions for their opposition. Remember this classic Simpsons clip? Do any of us think he's not responsible for eating that pie?
The most frustrating part of the Tribune-Review's article is the hint at retribution by Brooks Orpik at the end. The whole Penguins squad seemed to rally behind Crosby's assessment of the hit, and that's okay. I get standing behind your guy. And I get Crosby's reaction; to him, it was a blindside hit in a chippy game, and he's the one who actually got hurt. But at some point, logic has to prevail, doesn't it? Don't you have to look at the clip and say, "Gee, that doesn't look as sinister as it felt"?
That's my biggest problem with Crosby's reaction. As perhaps the league's biggest star and his team's captain, he sets the tone for his team. He needs to be bigger than revenge, bigger than calling Steckel a dirty player when he's clearly not. He needs to corral his team, not let them chirp to local media about it being a cheap shot. And his own response to the media needs to be, "Hockey is a physical game. I got hit, I'm over it. We're looking forward to our next game, and you can bet your ass we'll be ready for our next game against the Caps."
Of course, if 5'11" Crosby wants to tangle with 6'5" Steckel, I imagine the big fella would oblige.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sorry About That
For the four of you who kept on top of this blog week-to-week, I apologize for hanging you out to dry from early November through today. It was a combination of despair for the Redskins, disappointment in the Wizards, and the end of baseball season that got me out of a sports mindset for a while. Then, when the Capitals went on that extended losing streak, I though our window had closed, and we would be a bad sports town again.
We might still be a bad sports town, but the Caps have bounced back enough to give us something to cheer for, and now that the Redskins' season is thankfully over, we can turn our attention to hockey and baseball and fantasy baseball, things that have an innate ability to make me happy. I'm not going to make any promises or anything, but my goal for this year is to offer you at least one blog post every week. I don't know if I'll be going back to the Redskins Report Card; the wounds are so deep. But I liked the Twi-Night Doubleheader feature, and I'll be looking to bring that back. Any input on it or any other stuff you'd like me to write about is appreciated.
We might still be a bad sports town, but the Caps have bounced back enough to give us something to cheer for, and now that the Redskins' season is thankfully over, we can turn our attention to hockey and baseball and fantasy baseball, things that have an innate ability to make me happy. I'm not going to make any promises or anything, but my goal for this year is to offer you at least one blog post every week. I don't know if I'll be going back to the Redskins Report Card; the wounds are so deep. But I liked the Twi-Night Doubleheader feature, and I'll be looking to bring that back. Any input on it or any other stuff you'd like me to write about is appreciated.
The Year of the Blog
So after writing and re-reading my last blog post, I feel like I ought to be able to put interesting content up here and on my other blog with some regularity. I get distracted, or disillusioned, or bored sometimes, but I bet I can focus myself long enough to post content at least once or twice a week.
As a result, one of my "resolutions" this year will be to make at least one blog post every week. If you're one of those people who sees me regularly (and let's face it, if you're not, you're probably not reading this), hold me to it. Say, "Hey Joe, where's that blog post? Been a quiet week so far." I'll need your help to keep me honest.
Thanks in advance. :)
As a result, one of my "resolutions" this year will be to make at least one blog post every week. If you're one of those people who sees me regularly (and let's face it, if you're not, you're probably not reading this), hold me to it. Say, "Hey Joe, where's that blog post? Been a quiet week so far." I'll need your help to keep me honest.
Thanks in advance. :)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Commercialization of Christmas
There's always a lot of talk around Christmas about how the holiday has been commercialized, and how people are missing the true meaning of Christmas, and how people should have a stronger appreciation for the religious basis for the holiday. If that's important to you, that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone's priorities on any subject, as long as it doesn't affect my day.
I'm not religious. Like, at all. And I like Christmas. Is it wrong for me to enjoy the "bastardization" of a holiday that I don't celebrate as it was originally designed? I don't think so; I certainly don't feel bad about it.
When I buy a video game for my sister, or mittens for my mom, or a poster for my brother, I don't feel like I'm disparaging anyone's religious beliefs. I'm not trying to spit in the face of anyone who has a different view on Christmas. I'm just trying to make them happy, and let them know that I care about them. Is it wrong to try to make people happy by spending money on them? We do it all the time:
And that's the other aspect of Christmas, the part that me and the pious can get together on. Christmas is a time to appreciate each other. It's a time when families come together, kids come home from college, people from out of town fly in to spend a few days with their cousins/siblings/parents/children. Commercialized or not, we all still recognize Christmas as a time of year to spend with the people who matter the most to us. And on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day, we sit around a table with our family and closest friends. We break bread with the people who've shaped our lives, these people for whom we've expressed love, through words and actions and, yes, gifts.
Sounds pretty meaningful to me.
I'm not religious. Like, at all. And I like Christmas. Is it wrong for me to enjoy the "bastardization" of a holiday that I don't celebrate as it was originally designed? I don't think so; I certainly don't feel bad about it.
When I buy a video game for my sister, or mittens for my mom, or a poster for my brother, I don't feel like I'm disparaging anyone's religious beliefs. I'm not trying to spit in the face of anyone who has a different view on Christmas. I'm just trying to make them happy, and let them know that I care about them. Is it wrong to try to make people happy by spending money on them? We do it all the time:
- Buying a beer for a buddy
- Giving money to a charity
- Paying for dinner on a date
And that's the other aspect of Christmas, the part that me and the pious can get together on. Christmas is a time to appreciate each other. It's a time when families come together, kids come home from college, people from out of town fly in to spend a few days with their cousins/siblings/parents/children. Commercialized or not, we all still recognize Christmas as a time of year to spend with the people who matter the most to us. And on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day, we sit around a table with our family and closest friends. We break bread with the people who've shaped our lives, these people for whom we've expressed love, through words and actions and, yes, gifts.
Sounds pretty meaningful to me.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Dead Rising 2 Review - Part One
As you may or may not remember, Dead Rising was my personal game of the year for 2009. I poured hours and hours of time into the game, beating it in six different ways, and it's actually snuck back into my rotation on occasion this summer.
Right up until August 31st. On August 31st, Xbox Live released a Dead Rising 2 prequel game for 400 Microsoft points ($5.00), called Dead Rising 2: Case Zero. To an average gamer, I don't know what they would think of the game. But to me, a big fan of the original game and someone who was jacked for the sequel, I thought the prequel game was a lot of fun. To me, it accomplished everything that Capcom could've wanted:
Part 2 of my Dead Rising 2 review will discuss the actual, full-sized game. And I have no idea when I'll post it, so don't ask.
Right up until August 31st. On August 31st, Xbox Live released a Dead Rising 2 prequel game for 400 Microsoft points ($5.00), called Dead Rising 2: Case Zero. To an average gamer, I don't know what they would think of the game. But to me, a big fan of the original game and someone who was jacked for the sequel, I thought the prequel game was a lot of fun. To me, it accomplished everything that Capcom could've wanted:
- It gave players an opportunity to preview the new game in a method that was more interesting than a simple gameplay demo.
- It offered a preview of the new features of the game, specifically the crafting system where you use duct tape to combine two items into awesome weapons, like the paddlesaw or boomstick.
- It bridged some of the plot gap between the original and its sequel, and helped to develop the two new main characters.
- It gave players the chance to get a jump start on the real game, allowing them to carry over a couple levels and some cash from the prequel.
- It generated buzz for the actual game, and brought in money.
Part 2 of my Dead Rising 2 review will discuss the actual, full-sized game. And I have no idea when I'll post it, so don't ask.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Poetry?
I've never really understood poetry.
I don't mean to say that I don't understand what poetry is; I think I've at least got a grasp on that. I mean that I don't understand what's appealing about poetry over regular writing. What's the advantage of communicating using less forthright means? How does it serve anyone to try to convey your message using innuendo and metaphors, when actual discussion is more complete and easier for the average person to understand?
Let me qualify my standpoint here for a moment. There is poetry out there that isn't bad. There's poetry that, while still more vague than regular conversation, has its own value, by eliciting an emotional response, or offering a general starting point, rather than trying to actually make a point. But these pieces of poetry are few and far between, and aren't the poetry you encounter from day to day.
That poetry is written by some boner friend of yours who thinks he's complex. Or by some girl who thinks her poetry tells you how she's got all these layers. Or, overwhelmingly, by a random internet person, full of doubt and angst, like the rest of us, but "able" to express themselves through twitchy, broken phrases.
So who is it that actually likes all this poetry that's out there?
I ask that question, but I know the answer. I haven't met a single person who likes poetry that doesn't also write their own poetry. And they get their poetry-writing skills reinforced by other people who like poetry and write their own poetry. It's like there's some kind of quietly understood agreement that if you appreciate my poetry, I'll appreciate yours, and we can both seem profound.
It's a clever little way to seem like an artist, which we all want to be (me included). We'd all like to be able to create something that outlives us, some work that people look at/listen to/read and say, "What an amazing piece of work." Poets just seem to have figured out how to accomplish that, without having to actually, you know, be talented.
I don't mean to say that I don't understand what poetry is; I think I've at least got a grasp on that. I mean that I don't understand what's appealing about poetry over regular writing. What's the advantage of communicating using less forthright means? How does it serve anyone to try to convey your message using innuendo and metaphors, when actual discussion is more complete and easier for the average person to understand?
Let me qualify my standpoint here for a moment. There is poetry out there that isn't bad. There's poetry that, while still more vague than regular conversation, has its own value, by eliciting an emotional response, or offering a general starting point, rather than trying to actually make a point. But these pieces of poetry are few and far between, and aren't the poetry you encounter from day to day.
That poetry is written by some boner friend of yours who thinks he's complex. Or by some girl who thinks her poetry tells you how she's got all these layers. Or, overwhelmingly, by a random internet person, full of doubt and angst, like the rest of us, but "able" to express themselves through twitchy, broken phrases.
So who is it that actually likes all this poetry that's out there?
I ask that question, but I know the answer. I haven't met a single person who likes poetry that doesn't also write their own poetry. And they get their poetry-writing skills reinforced by other people who like poetry and write their own poetry. It's like there's some kind of quietly understood agreement that if you appreciate my poetry, I'll appreciate yours, and we can both seem profound.
It's a clever little way to seem like an artist, which we all want to be (me included). We'd all like to be able to create something that outlives us, some work that people look at/listen to/read and say, "What an amazing piece of work." Poets just seem to have figured out how to accomplish that, without having to actually, you know, be talented.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Redskins Report Card - Week 10 vs. Philadelphia Eagles
Eagles 59, Redskins 28
Offense: See me.
Defense: See me.
Overall: SEE ME.
Offense: See me.
Defense: See me.
Overall: SEE ME.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 8 vs. Detroit Lions
Lions 37, Redskins 25
I'm not sure we could've seen something worse than this happening on the way into the bye week. Really, really terrible. And I don't just mean the loss.
Offense: R
As in, vulgar. Donovan McNabb really did have a terrible game. His two big pass completions to Anthony Armstrong seemed like mistakes, where Armstrong had to adjust his route to the errant pass by McNabb (kudos to Armstrong on that, by the way). The biggest problem was an inability to string together positive plays to extend drives. The Redskins punted nine times on Sunday, way too much. You need more of those drives to end in scores.
The offensive line seemed overwhelmed a lot of the time, though, so you can't put it all on McNabb. You can't give up six sacks just from the QB taking too long to get rid of the ball; some of those are on line play. We knew coming into this season that the Redskins' offensive line was going to be a point of concern, and we're reaping what we sow. First round pick Trent Williams still has some work to do to become the blind side tackle that Mike Shanahan foresaw when he drafted him.
Speaking of, I also have to put a little of the blame here on the shoulders of Shanahan. He had only two running backs on the active roster, so when Ryan Torain suffered a hamstring injury, the Redskins had Keiland Williams. Period. I don't like the idea of Larry Johnson or Willy Parker in the backfield, but it would've been nice to have somebody. My friend was right when she said, "We're going to miss Rock Cartwright," but who knew it would be as a running back?
The lack of a running game and the constant sacks put the Redskins into a lot of bad 3rd down situations, which is probably why they went just two of fourteen on third down conversions. This problem hasn't gone away, and I hope the coaching staff does some research into how to resolve it, because it's killing the team's chances at victory.
Defense: B
I don't blame the defense for this week's loss. Could they have played better? Sure. But when your offense goes three-and-out on seven different drives, you're not being put in a position to win. The Redskins' longest drives were two that went three minutes, twenty-eight seconds. When you're constantly being sent back onto the field in no better shape than where you left, you get tired, and you get disheartened.
Furthermore, something that may have been lost in the heartbreak is that the Redskins actually held the Lions to just 4.3 yards per play, less than even our own pitiful offense. Add to that a big interception deep in Redskins territory by DeAngelo Hall, and you can't really fault the defense for the way this game played out.
Overall: C-
I really wish Shanahan hadn't benched McNabb at the very end of the game. Is it possible that Grossman gave the Redskins a better chance to win the game at that point? Sure, it's possible. I don't know the extent of McNabb's hamstring injuries, and I don't honestly know very much about Grossman's skill set or comfort level with this offense.
But by pulling McNabb, you've ensured that the next two weeks will be marred with quarterback talk, which is like poison to a town's football fans. Now we hear that the Redskins have brought in JaMarcus Russell for a workout, and in our minds, we're wondering if he might be a starter for Washington sometime this season. One of the things that McNabb's presence was supposed to provide was stability, the knowledge that, no matter what, if he's healthy, he's the quarterback. Now? Who knows.
I'm not sure we could've seen something worse than this happening on the way into the bye week. Really, really terrible. And I don't just mean the loss.
Offense: R
As in, vulgar. Donovan McNabb really did have a terrible game. His two big pass completions to Anthony Armstrong seemed like mistakes, where Armstrong had to adjust his route to the errant pass by McNabb (kudos to Armstrong on that, by the way). The biggest problem was an inability to string together positive plays to extend drives. The Redskins punted nine times on Sunday, way too much. You need more of those drives to end in scores.
The offensive line seemed overwhelmed a lot of the time, though, so you can't put it all on McNabb. You can't give up six sacks just from the QB taking too long to get rid of the ball; some of those are on line play. We knew coming into this season that the Redskins' offensive line was going to be a point of concern, and we're reaping what we sow. First round pick Trent Williams still has some work to do to become the blind side tackle that Mike Shanahan foresaw when he drafted him.
Speaking of, I also have to put a little of the blame here on the shoulders of Shanahan. He had only two running backs on the active roster, so when Ryan Torain suffered a hamstring injury, the Redskins had Keiland Williams. Period. I don't like the idea of Larry Johnson or Willy Parker in the backfield, but it would've been nice to have somebody. My friend was right when she said, "We're going to miss Rock Cartwright," but who knew it would be as a running back?
The lack of a running game and the constant sacks put the Redskins into a lot of bad 3rd down situations, which is probably why they went just two of fourteen on third down conversions. This problem hasn't gone away, and I hope the coaching staff does some research into how to resolve it, because it's killing the team's chances at victory.
Defense: B
I don't blame the defense for this week's loss. Could they have played better? Sure. But when your offense goes three-and-out on seven different drives, you're not being put in a position to win. The Redskins' longest drives were two that went three minutes, twenty-eight seconds. When you're constantly being sent back onto the field in no better shape than where you left, you get tired, and you get disheartened.
Furthermore, something that may have been lost in the heartbreak is that the Redskins actually held the Lions to just 4.3 yards per play, less than even our own pitiful offense. Add to that a big interception deep in Redskins territory by DeAngelo Hall, and you can't really fault the defense for the way this game played out.
Overall: C-
I really wish Shanahan hadn't benched McNabb at the very end of the game. Is it possible that Grossman gave the Redskins a better chance to win the game at that point? Sure, it's possible. I don't know the extent of McNabb's hamstring injuries, and I don't honestly know very much about Grossman's skill set or comfort level with this offense.
But by pulling McNabb, you've ensured that the next two weeks will be marred with quarterback talk, which is like poison to a town's football fans. Now we hear that the Redskins have brought in JaMarcus Russell for a workout, and in our minds, we're wondering if he might be a starter for Washington sometime this season. One of the things that McNabb's presence was supposed to provide was stability, the knowledge that, no matter what, if he's healthy, he's the quarterback. Now? Who knows.
Monday, November 1, 2010
2010 MLB Awards
Joe and Joe Sports is proud to announce our award winners for the 2010 Major League Baseball season:
AL Most Valuable Player
NL Most Valuable Player
AL Cy Young
NL Cy Young
AL Rookie of the Year
NL Rookie of the Year
AL Manager of the Year
NL Manager of the Year
Comments? Arguments? Outrage? Let's hear it!
AL Most Valuable Player
- Josh Hamilton, OF, Rangers
- Jose Bautista, OF, Blue Jays
- Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers
NL Most Valuable Player
- Joey Votto, 1B, Reds
- Albert Pujols, 1B, Cardinals
- Carlos Gonzalez, OF, Rockies
AL Cy Young
- Felix Hernandez, SP, Mariners
- David Price, SP, Rays
- CC Sabathia, SP, Yankees
NL Cy Young
- Roy Halladay, SP, Phillies
- Adam Wainwright, SP, Cardinals
- Josh Johnson, SP, Marlins
AL Rookie of the Year
- Neftali Feliz, RP, Rangers
- Austin Jackson, OF, Tigers
- Brian Matusz, SP, Orioles
NL Rookie of the Year
- Buster Posey, C, Giants
- Jason Heyward, OF, Braves
- Jamie Garcia, SP, Cardinals
AL Manager of the Year
- Ron Washington, Rangers
- Joe Maddon, Rays
- Ron Gardenhire, Twins
NL Manager of the Year
- Bobby Cox, Braves
- Bruce Bochy, Giants
- Bud Black, Padres
Comments? Arguments? Outrage? Let's hear it!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 7 vs. Chicago Bears
Redskins 17, Bears 14
I feel dirty.
Offense: C
It seems like the Redskins are going backwards when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness on offense. Rather than moving towards crisp passing plays, the team is dropping passes, Donovan McNabb is still throwing balls into the ground, and the offensive line is still inconsistent.
Meanwhile, it looks like Ryan Torain is proving why he drew the affection of Mike Shanahan for all these years. He's a hard runner who, while he'll never break one for 60 yards, looks like he can get hard yards, which is one of the most valuable things for a running back in the NFL. Chris Johnson is obviously great, but there are circumstances in which I'd rather have Marion Barber. I like that "the All-Torain Vehicle" is on Washington.
But two interceptions and SIX FUMBLES (only one lost) don't bode well for the future. You can't put the ball on the turf that frequently and expect to win football games.
Defense: B??
This was the hardest defensive game to grade since I started the Redskins Report Card. They held the Bears to 66 yards rushing...but gave up 4.1 yards per carry. They intercepted Jay Cutler four times (all by DeAngelo Hall)...but allowed four drives of 59 yards or more. This hasn't historically been a "big play defense," so I worry that these were just fortunate circumstances, but hey, who knows. Maybe Jim Haslett has transformed the defense, but it's still got a long way before they can be counted on to win games.
Overall: W
Really, the only grade I can give this team for Sunday's game is a win. They won the game, inexplicably, and that's great, but other than that, I don't think you can take away any information going forward. Most wide receivers aren't going to bail on their routes like Johnny Knox did. Most teams aren't going to ignore a fairly productive running game in a close ballgame. And it's pretty rare that you'll have a pick six by the other team negated by a delay of game penalty.
But our boys are 4-3, and that ain't bad.
I feel dirty.
Offense: C
It seems like the Redskins are going backwards when it comes to efficiency and effectiveness on offense. Rather than moving towards crisp passing plays, the team is dropping passes, Donovan McNabb is still throwing balls into the ground, and the offensive line is still inconsistent.
Meanwhile, it looks like Ryan Torain is proving why he drew the affection of Mike Shanahan for all these years. He's a hard runner who, while he'll never break one for 60 yards, looks like he can get hard yards, which is one of the most valuable things for a running back in the NFL. Chris Johnson is obviously great, but there are circumstances in which I'd rather have Marion Barber. I like that "the All-Torain Vehicle" is on Washington.
But two interceptions and SIX FUMBLES (only one lost) don't bode well for the future. You can't put the ball on the turf that frequently and expect to win football games.
Defense: B??
This was the hardest defensive game to grade since I started the Redskins Report Card. They held the Bears to 66 yards rushing...but gave up 4.1 yards per carry. They intercepted Jay Cutler four times (all by DeAngelo Hall)...but allowed four drives of 59 yards or more. This hasn't historically been a "big play defense," so I worry that these were just fortunate circumstances, but hey, who knows. Maybe Jim Haslett has transformed the defense, but it's still got a long way before they can be counted on to win games.
Overall: W
Really, the only grade I can give this team for Sunday's game is a win. They won the game, inexplicably, and that's great, but other than that, I don't think you can take away any information going forward. Most wide receivers aren't going to bail on their routes like Johnny Knox did. Most teams aren't going to ignore a fairly productive running game in a close ballgame. And it's pretty rare that you'll have a pick six by the other team negated by a delay of game penalty.
But our boys are 4-3, and that ain't bad.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 6 vs. Indianapolis Colts
Colts 27, Redskins 24
Offense: C+
It's hard to get too down on the offense, when this was the first time all season we've seen some balance, yardage-wise. Ryan Torain ran for 100 yards and two touchdowns, and the ground game was effective start to finish. Alleged "MVP candidate" Donovan McNabb passed for 246 yards and a touchdown, but the Colts' defense made two good plays to get interceptions (one in the final seconds) that quelled the Redskins.
Defense: D+
The defense let us down this week. You knew you were going to give up the yards to Peyton Manning. That passing offense is too crisp and too strong to have any notions of stifling them, especially on a warm October evening. But 7.5 yards per carry for Joseph Addai is unacceptable.
All of the talk on local sports radio has been about whether or not Albert Haynesworth, a healthy scratch on Sunday, would have made a difference in this game. Honestly, I don't see how he couldn't have helped. There's a reason he warranted the kind of contract he got from the Redskins two years ago. He's an elite defensive tackle, and I don't care if he's awkward in a 3-4 defense, or if he doesn't have the whole scheme down; he's huge, powerful, and any defense is better with him than without him.
Overall: C-
Honestly, coming into this week, I'd have had no problem with the Redskins losing this game. I've always seen Manning as an outrageous talent, and I've always seen the Redskins as a team that has trouble overcoming outrageous talents (see Steven Jackson, Andre Johnson, and Bill Belichick). The Redskins went into halftime down 17-7, and I was able to accept my favorite team's fate.
Then, of course, the sack/fumble of Manning by Brian Orakpo (who appears to be even better than we could've expected) and subsequent touchdown by Torain got my hopes up. With 2:13 left and the Redskins down just a field goal, starting their drive at their own 38, I was honestly expecting them to at least push the game to overtime. Four inept plays later, I was sour and frustrated, partly at the loss, but mostly at the fact that I had let myself get excited again. I keep forgetting how many times this team has let me down. I guess that's football, though.
Tomorrow is always another day.
Offense: C+
It's hard to get too down on the offense, when this was the first time all season we've seen some balance, yardage-wise. Ryan Torain ran for 100 yards and two touchdowns, and the ground game was effective start to finish. Alleged "MVP candidate" Donovan McNabb passed for 246 yards and a touchdown, but the Colts' defense made two good plays to get interceptions (one in the final seconds) that quelled the Redskins.
Defense: D+
The defense let us down this week. You knew you were going to give up the yards to Peyton Manning. That passing offense is too crisp and too strong to have any notions of stifling them, especially on a warm October evening. But 7.5 yards per carry for Joseph Addai is unacceptable.
All of the talk on local sports radio has been about whether or not Albert Haynesworth, a healthy scratch on Sunday, would have made a difference in this game. Honestly, I don't see how he couldn't have helped. There's a reason he warranted the kind of contract he got from the Redskins two years ago. He's an elite defensive tackle, and I don't care if he's awkward in a 3-4 defense, or if he doesn't have the whole scheme down; he's huge, powerful, and any defense is better with him than without him.
Overall: C-
Honestly, coming into this week, I'd have had no problem with the Redskins losing this game. I've always seen Manning as an outrageous talent, and I've always seen the Redskins as a team that has trouble overcoming outrageous talents (see Steven Jackson, Andre Johnson, and Bill Belichick). The Redskins went into halftime down 17-7, and I was able to accept my favorite team's fate.
Then, of course, the sack/fumble of Manning by Brian Orakpo (who appears to be even better than we could've expected) and subsequent touchdown by Torain got my hopes up. With 2:13 left and the Redskins down just a field goal, starting their drive at their own 38, I was honestly expecting them to at least push the game to overtime. Four inept plays later, I was sour and frustrated, partly at the loss, but mostly at the fact that I had let myself get excited again. I keep forgetting how many times this team has let me down. I guess that's football, though.
Tomorrow is always another day.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A New Feature?
As you may remember, I have a distinct sentiment when it comes to Lavar Arrington and his suitability as a radio host. If you don't remember, and choose not to click the link because you're lazy, let me sum it up for you: I think he's terrible.
What's kind of amazing is how frequently he says something irrational, obnoxious, or downright wrong. So amazing, in fact, that I'm debating adding a new feature to our blog here, where I listen to the Lavar Arrington Show for 30-60 minutes a day, and coming on here to offer you my analysis. I could use an outlet for relieving some stress, so I'm going to consider it.
And, at least for right now, I'm going to offer you another of their gems; and yes, I'm lumping in his co-host Chad Dukes, who stood by Arrington's argument that, wait for it...
"...Donovan McNabb deserves consideration as NFL MVP."
I pride myself on having pretty intelligent readers, so I'm sure you don't need me to outline why this is ludicrous, but on the off chance you're unsure, or aren't much of a football fan, or are Lavar Arrington, let me give you all the data you'll need.
The first point Arrington brought up was that McNabb has offered leadership that the Redskins haven't seen in a long time. I agree. That doesn't make a player the league MVP; that can make him the team's MVP. Furthermore, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say LaRon Landry hasn't been at least as important to the Redskins' success as McNabb.
Which brings me to Lavar's second point: the Redskins' "success." The team is 3-2. We're all glad they're 3-2, somewhere between glad and ecstatic, but still, they're a single game above .500, and they haven't played in a game yet that we didn't have to watch to the very end, except for the beating we saw our team get in St. Louis. Let's not talk about McNabb leading the team to the promised land just yet.
I will give Arrington a little bit of credit, though. The one point he was halfway willing to concede was that McNabb's stats aren't the best in football. Well, thanks for almost yielding that point, Lavar, but because it's the strongest evidence out there for why someone else should be the league MVP, let's have another look at those pesky "statistics." And, for kicks, we'll only look at quarterbacks, even though there are players at other positions who warrant more consideration than McNabb.
The quarterbacks whose teams have the best records in the league:
The quarterbacks with the highest passer ratings in the NFL:
Is McNabb doing well? I have to say yes. He's opened up the long ball like we haven't seen here since we were dabbling with Jeff freakin' George. Redskins football has become more exciting than it's been in a long time, the team looks like they can play with most other teams, and there's no doubting that McNabb is a valuable locker room and press room guy. But an MVP? God no.
My biggest problem with his performance this year is that the Redskins aren't scoring points. They have the ninth-worst scoring offense and the second worst third down conversion rate in football, despite having the seventh-most prolific passing attack in the league. That means they're never marching down the field (which any fellow Skins fan knows as well as I do just from watching the games); they make a couple big passes downfield each game, and get a touchdown or two off of them. But mostly, they come up short.
Here's some interesting information. As I said, the Redskins have the seventh highest pass output per game in the NFL. The Redskins average 88.6 yards per game on the ground; the six teams ahead of them in passing output average 84.4 rushing yards per game. But here's the remarkable stat: Washington converts just 26.2% of their third down attempts, yet none of the other six teams has a conversion rate below FORTY PERCENT. But sure, that's an offense that deserves an MVP candidate.
To be fair, here are my personal top ten MVP candidates today:
What's kind of amazing is how frequently he says something irrational, obnoxious, or downright wrong. So amazing, in fact, that I'm debating adding a new feature to our blog here, where I listen to the Lavar Arrington Show for 30-60 minutes a day, and coming on here to offer you my analysis. I could use an outlet for relieving some stress, so I'm going to consider it.
And, at least for right now, I'm going to offer you another of their gems; and yes, I'm lumping in his co-host Chad Dukes, who stood by Arrington's argument that, wait for it...
"...Donovan McNabb deserves consideration as NFL MVP."
I pride myself on having pretty intelligent readers, so I'm sure you don't need me to outline why this is ludicrous, but on the off chance you're unsure, or aren't much of a football fan, or are Lavar Arrington, let me give you all the data you'll need.
The first point Arrington brought up was that McNabb has offered leadership that the Redskins haven't seen in a long time. I agree. That doesn't make a player the league MVP; that can make him the team's MVP. Furthermore, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say LaRon Landry hasn't been at least as important to the Redskins' success as McNabb.
Which brings me to Lavar's second point: the Redskins' "success." The team is 3-2. We're all glad they're 3-2, somewhere between glad and ecstatic, but still, they're a single game above .500, and they haven't played in a game yet that we didn't have to watch to the very end, except for the beating we saw our team get in St. Louis. Let's not talk about McNabb leading the team to the promised land just yet.
I will give Arrington a little bit of credit, though. The one point he was halfway willing to concede was that McNabb's stats aren't the best in football. Well, thanks for almost yielding that point, Lavar, but because it's the strongest evidence out there for why someone else should be the league MVP, let's have another look at those pesky "statistics." And, for kicks, we'll only look at quarterbacks, even though there are players at other positions who warrant more consideration than McNabb.
The quarterbacks whose teams have the best records in the league:
- T1 - Mark Sanchez, New York Jets (4-1)
- T1 - Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens (4-1)
- T1 - Jay Cutler/Todd Collins, Chicago Bears (4-1)
- T1 - Matt Ryan, Atlanta Falcons, (4-1)
- T5 - Josh Freeman, Tampa Bay Buccaneers (3-1)
- T5 - Matt Cassel, Kansas City Chiefs (3-1)
- T5 - Tom Brady, New England Patriots (3-1)
- T5 - Ben Roethlisberger/Charlie Batch/Dennis Dixon, Pittsburgh Steelers (3-1)
The quarterbacks with the highest passer ratings in the NFL:
- Tom Brady, New England Patriots - 109.0
- Michael Vick, Philadelphia Eagles - 108.8
- Philip Rivers, San Diego Chargers - 105.4
- Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts - 102.6
- Jay Cutler, Chicago Bears - 102.2
- Ryan Fitzpatrick, Buffalo Bills - 99.9
- Kyle Orton, Denver Broncos - 97.8
- Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints - 95.7
- Vince Young, Tennessee Titans - 95.1
- Tony Romo, Dallas Cowboys - 92.7
Is McNabb doing well? I have to say yes. He's opened up the long ball like we haven't seen here since we were dabbling with Jeff freakin' George. Redskins football has become more exciting than it's been in a long time, the team looks like they can play with most other teams, and there's no doubting that McNabb is a valuable locker room and press room guy. But an MVP? God no.
My biggest problem with his performance this year is that the Redskins aren't scoring points. They have the ninth-worst scoring offense and the second worst third down conversion rate in football, despite having the seventh-most prolific passing attack in the league. That means they're never marching down the field (which any fellow Skins fan knows as well as I do just from watching the games); they make a couple big passes downfield each game, and get a touchdown or two off of them. But mostly, they come up short.
Here's some interesting information. As I said, the Redskins have the seventh highest pass output per game in the NFL. The Redskins average 88.6 yards per game on the ground; the six teams ahead of them in passing output average 84.4 rushing yards per game. But here's the remarkable stat: Washington converts just 26.2% of their third down attempts, yet none of the other six teams has a conversion rate below FORTY PERCENT. But sure, that's an offense that deserves an MVP candidate.
To be fair, here are my personal top ten MVP candidates today:
- Peyton Manning, Colts - 1609 passing yards, 11 TD, 2 INT
- Tom Brady, Patriots - 911 passing yards, 9 TD, 2 INT
- Mark Sanchez, Jets - 902 passing yards, 8 TD, 0 INT
- Clay Matthews, Packers - 21 tackles, 9.0 sacks, 1 FF
- Arian Foster, Texans - 718 total yards, 5 TD
- Philip Rivers, Chargers - 1759 passing yards, 11 TD, 4 INT
- Osi Umenyiora, Giants - 13 tackles, 6.0 sacks, 5 FF
- Kyle Orton, Broncos - 1733 passing yards, 8 TD, 3 INT
- Michael Vick, Eagles - 799 passing yards, 6 TD, 0 INT, 187 rushing yards, 1 TD
- Adrian Peterson, Vikings - 585 total yards, 3 TD
Monday, October 11, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 5 vs. Green Bay Packers
Redskins 16, Packers 13
I still don't believe it.
Offense: B-
It'd be interesting to see what this offense would look like if it ever got the ground and air attacks synced up. As it is, we still only get to see one or the other on any given Sunday. I'm still not wild about Donovan McNabb's accuracy (which in Sunday's game was at least partially a result of rampant pressure), but 357 yards is indicative of a high-caliber (get it?) passing attack.
The ground game was absolutely nowhere, though. Washington averaged a measly 2.4 yards per carry, with a long run of a whopping eight yards. Graham Gano hit three of four field goals to account for more than half of Washington's scoring, and while he missed a 51-yarder that would've put the Redskins in a position to win the game in regulation, I still like him a lot going forward.
Defense: B
It feels weird to be saying that the defense did better than the offense, but when you look at the numbers, it makes sense. The Redskins allowed a pretty large amount of offense out of the Packers: 293 passing yards, 157 rushing yards, 6.4 yards per play. So how do you hold that kind of offense to only 13 points?
Third downs. Green Bay was just 2 of 13 on third downs, meaning almost every time the Redskins had a chance to make a stop, they did. Partner that with the pair of turnovers that Washington forced, including a beautiful interception by burgeoning superstar LeRon Landry, and you've got a defense that has given your team a chance to win.
One thing I will say is that I don't know why the Redskins' corners play so far off of wide receivers. Defensive coordinator Jim Haslett must have a lot of faith in his linebackers' ability to close slant gaps and seal off WR screens, because the cushion they gave yesterday was tremendous.
Overall: B+
This was a circumstance where the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. The Packers were one of the strongest-looking teams coming into 2010, and that hasn't really changed. But the Redskins played smart, physical football, and were able to pull out a win. Next week is a Sunday night matchup against the Indianapolis Colts, which should offer a window into the rest of the Redskins' season. If they can somehow find a way to win that game, I'll probably have red lips the next time you see me...because I'll be drinking the Kool-Aid.
I still don't believe it.
Offense: B-
It'd be interesting to see what this offense would look like if it ever got the ground and air attacks synced up. As it is, we still only get to see one or the other on any given Sunday. I'm still not wild about Donovan McNabb's accuracy (which in Sunday's game was at least partially a result of rampant pressure), but 357 yards is indicative of a high-caliber (get it?) passing attack.
The ground game was absolutely nowhere, though. Washington averaged a measly 2.4 yards per carry, with a long run of a whopping eight yards. Graham Gano hit three of four field goals to account for more than half of Washington's scoring, and while he missed a 51-yarder that would've put the Redskins in a position to win the game in regulation, I still like him a lot going forward.
Defense: B
It feels weird to be saying that the defense did better than the offense, but when you look at the numbers, it makes sense. The Redskins allowed a pretty large amount of offense out of the Packers: 293 passing yards, 157 rushing yards, 6.4 yards per play. So how do you hold that kind of offense to only 13 points?
Third downs. Green Bay was just 2 of 13 on third downs, meaning almost every time the Redskins had a chance to make a stop, they did. Partner that with the pair of turnovers that Washington forced, including a beautiful interception by burgeoning superstar LeRon Landry, and you've got a defense that has given your team a chance to win.
One thing I will say is that I don't know why the Redskins' corners play so far off of wide receivers. Defensive coordinator Jim Haslett must have a lot of faith in his linebackers' ability to close slant gaps and seal off WR screens, because the cushion they gave yesterday was tremendous.
Overall: B+
This was a circumstance where the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. The Packers were one of the strongest-looking teams coming into 2010, and that hasn't really changed. But the Redskins played smart, physical football, and were able to pull out a win. Next week is a Sunday night matchup against the Indianapolis Colts, which should offer a window into the rest of the Redskins' season. If they can somehow find a way to win that game, I'll probably have red lips the next time you see me...because I'll be drinking the Kool-Aid.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
2010 Redskins Report Card - Week 4 vs. Philadelphia Eagles
Redskins 17, Eagles 12
We all knew Donovan McNabb's return to Philadelphia was going to be a game to watch. We knew it'd be hotly contested, and we knew it would be emotional for the fans and the players. We didn't know if the Redskins could win the game, and it was nice to find out that, yes, in fact, they could.
Offense: C+
The story after the game was about how McNabb went into Philadelphia and beat his old team, but that's not really what happened. Clinton Portis and Ryan Torain combined for 125 yards on 29 carries, and as a team the Redskins averaged 4.8 yards per rush. That was the story for the offense, the sudden emergence of a running game.
McNabb wasn't awful, but he wasn't very good either. He completed just eight passes all game for 125 yards, with a touchdown and an interception. The most you can say about the Redskins' offense is that they were much more effective on third down this game than they have been all season, converting five of eleven chances. But overall, not an exciting performance.
Defense: B
Alright, honestly, this was probably destined to be an Eagles win, and a C- rating for the Redskins' defense. But late in the first quarter, when two Redskins defenders sandwiched Michael Vick and put him out of the game, they created an opportunity for success, and they took advantage of Kevin Kolb's inability to get the ball down the field.
Most importantly, they stifled drives when the team really needed stops. Though they gave up 353 total yards, they held a still potent Eagles' offense to only twelve points. DeSean Jackson had just three catches for 19 yards, possibly offering a blueprint for containing his big play ability by jamming him hard at the line. LeSean McCoy was by far the Eagles most effective player, but when Kolb zeroed in on him later in the game, the Redskins were up to the task.
Special Teams: N/A
Talking about special teams is boring. I'm not going to do it anymore.
Overall: B-
Listen, this wasn't a game where the Redskins overmatched their opponents. They fought tooth and nail, they played physical football, and they got a couple of crucial big plays. It was nice to come out with a win, and to be 2-2 at this point, especially after the debacle in St. Louis last week, is completely acceptable. Green Bay next week could make things look a lot bleaker going forward, though.
We all knew Donovan McNabb's return to Philadelphia was going to be a game to watch. We knew it'd be hotly contested, and we knew it would be emotional for the fans and the players. We didn't know if the Redskins could win the game, and it was nice to find out that, yes, in fact, they could.
Offense: C+
The story after the game was about how McNabb went into Philadelphia and beat his old team, but that's not really what happened. Clinton Portis and Ryan Torain combined for 125 yards on 29 carries, and as a team the Redskins averaged 4.8 yards per rush. That was the story for the offense, the sudden emergence of a running game.
McNabb wasn't awful, but he wasn't very good either. He completed just eight passes all game for 125 yards, with a touchdown and an interception. The most you can say about the Redskins' offense is that they were much more effective on third down this game than they have been all season, converting five of eleven chances. But overall, not an exciting performance.
Defense: B
Alright, honestly, this was probably destined to be an Eagles win, and a C- rating for the Redskins' defense. But late in the first quarter, when two Redskins defenders sandwiched Michael Vick and put him out of the game, they created an opportunity for success, and they took advantage of Kevin Kolb's inability to get the ball down the field.
Most importantly, they stifled drives when the team really needed stops. Though they gave up 353 total yards, they held a still potent Eagles' offense to only twelve points. DeSean Jackson had just three catches for 19 yards, possibly offering a blueprint for containing his big play ability by jamming him hard at the line. LeSean McCoy was by far the Eagles most effective player, but when Kolb zeroed in on him later in the game, the Redskins were up to the task.
Special Teams: N/A
Talking about special teams is boring. I'm not going to do it anymore.
Overall: B-
Listen, this wasn't a game where the Redskins overmatched their opponents. They fought tooth and nail, they played physical football, and they got a couple of crucial big plays. It was nice to come out with a win, and to be 2-2 at this point, especially after the debacle in St. Louis last week, is completely acceptable. Green Bay next week could make things look a lot bleaker going forward, though.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
2010 MLB Playoff Predictions
I put out the call to friends and partners of Joe and Joe Sports for MLB playoff predictions, and here are the results. There's always one guy (Beemiller this time) who lets his predictions take on a life of their own, and we're the beneficiaries, because we get to read them.
Enjoy.
Josh Beemiller, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
Rays/Rangers - Cliff Lee shuts down the Rays in game one, but the Rays remember they are good and pound the snot out of the Rangers for the rest of the series. Rays in 4.
Yankees/Twins - Minnesota's groundball-happy pitching staff causes Jeter to hit into an ALDS record 17 double plays. New acquisition Randy Moss, batting cleanup for the concussed Justin Morneau, only has 4 hits in the series, all for homeruns.
Reds/Phils - Joey Votto continues to be awesome, hitting .500 with a pair of homeruns. However, after winning game one, Dusty "Destroyer of Arms" Baker has Volquez start games 2 and 3 as well. Phils in 5.
Braves/Giants - Giants pitch their way to a sweep. Huff, Burrell, and Posey each have a game winning homerun in the trio of 1-0 contests.
ALCS Rays/Twins - Down 3-1 in game 5 (and in the series), Joe Mauer hits a go-ahead 3-run homer. Twins go on to win the series in 7 games.
NLCS Phils/Giants - Giants continue their shutout streak in games 1 and 2. Cole F****** Hamels pitches brilliantly to put his team back in the series, and the Phils remember how to hit. The Giants don't. Phils in 6
World Series Twins/Phils - In one of the best World Series in recent memory, the two teams alternate wins for the first 6 games. In the 5th inning of game 7, with Randy Moss on 3rd, Jason Kubel fails to get the bunt down on the suicide squeeze. It doesn't matter, however, as Moss had just walked off the field. In the postgame press conference, he would later say he figured Kubel would hit a sac fly, so he didn't really need to "hustle" on that play. Later, with the score tied at 4, Ryan Howard hits his first homer of the series. The score remains 5-4 in the top of the ninth, until Joe Mauer hits a game tying shot with 2 outs. Matt Capps comes on to keep the tie in place in the bottom of the 9th, and does so, but not before three balls reach the warning track. In the top of the 11th, Denard span hits a leadoff triple, and later scores on a Mauer sac fly. After exhausting his bullpen, both in the series and in this game, Minnesota is forced to bring in Carl "The Mustach" Pavano to close it out. Phils get two runners on with one out, before Raul Ibanez hits into the series-ending double play.
Twins in 7. Total runs scored in WS - 63.
Alex Hardin, Beltway Braves
Divisional Round
League Championship Series
TB over MIN
SF over PHI
World Series
SF over TB in 6 games
Chip Hart, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
ALDS
Rays over Rangers
Yankees over Twins
NLDS
Phillies over Reds
Giants over Braves
ALCS
Rays over Yankees
NLCS
Phillies over Giants
WORLD SERIES
Phillies over Rays in 6
45 total runs
Joe Mandi, Joe and Joe Sports
AL
Yankees over Twins
Rays over Rangers
Rays over Yankees
NL
Giants over Braves
Phillies over Reds
Giants over Phillies
World Series
Giants over Rays (in 6 games)
42 total runs
Ed Mattingly, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
Twins over Yankees
Rays over Rangers
Phillies over Reds
Braves over Giants
Twins over Rays
Phillies over Braves
Phillies over Twins (5 games)
36 total runs
Joe Mattingly, Joe and Joe Sports
Round 1
Rangers over Rays - Cliff Lee and Josh Hamilton will be shaky, but Ian Kinsler and Neftali Feliz will steady the ship.
Yankees over Twins - I wish the Twins would win, and everything I read says the Twins are a bad matchup for the Yankees...but they're the Yankees. Bastards.
Phillies over Reds - I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
Braves over Giants - Bobby Cox's magic could bring one more playoff series victory to Atlanta.
Round 2
Yankees over Rangers - I just don't see the Rangers in the World Series this year. But I do think they're headed in the right direction.
Phillies over Braves - I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
World Series
Phillies over Yankees (in 5) - You guessed it. I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
50 total runs.
Mike Mattingly, Opinionated Truths
Rays over Rangers
Yankees over Twins
Rays over Yankees
Phillies over Rays in 6
(43 total runs)
Enjoy.
Josh Beemiller, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
Rays/Rangers - Cliff Lee shuts down the Rays in game one, but the Rays remember they are good and pound the snot out of the Rangers for the rest of the series. Rays in 4.
Yankees/Twins - Minnesota's groundball-happy pitching staff causes Jeter to hit into an ALDS record 17 double plays. New acquisition Randy Moss, batting cleanup for the concussed Justin Morneau, only has 4 hits in the series, all for homeruns.
Reds/Phils - Joey Votto continues to be awesome, hitting .500 with a pair of homeruns. However, after winning game one, Dusty "Destroyer of Arms" Baker has Volquez start games 2 and 3 as well. Phils in 5.
Braves/Giants - Giants pitch their way to a sweep. Huff, Burrell, and Posey each have a game winning homerun in the trio of 1-0 contests.
ALCS Rays/Twins - Down 3-1 in game 5 (and in the series), Joe Mauer hits a go-ahead 3-run homer. Twins go on to win the series in 7 games.
NLCS Phils/Giants - Giants continue their shutout streak in games 1 and 2. Cole F****** Hamels pitches brilliantly to put his team back in the series, and the Phils remember how to hit. The Giants don't. Phils in 6
World Series Twins/Phils - In one of the best World Series in recent memory, the two teams alternate wins for the first 6 games. In the 5th inning of game 7, with Randy Moss on 3rd, Jason Kubel fails to get the bunt down on the suicide squeeze. It doesn't matter, however, as Moss had just walked off the field. In the postgame press conference, he would later say he figured Kubel would hit a sac fly, so he didn't really need to "hustle" on that play. Later, with the score tied at 4, Ryan Howard hits his first homer of the series. The score remains 5-4 in the top of the ninth, until Joe Mauer hits a game tying shot with 2 outs. Matt Capps comes on to keep the tie in place in the bottom of the 9th, and does so, but not before three balls reach the warning track. In the top of the 11th, Denard span hits a leadoff triple, and later scores on a Mauer sac fly. After exhausting his bullpen, both in the series and in this game, Minnesota is forced to bring in Carl "The Mustach" Pavano to close it out. Phils get two runners on with one out, before Raul Ibanez hits into the series-ending double play.
Twins in 7. Total runs scored in WS - 63.
Alex Hardin, Beltway Braves
Divisional Round
MIN over NYY
TB over TEX
SF over ATL PHI over CIN
League Championship Series
TB over MIN
SF over PHI
SF over TB in 6 games
Chip Hart, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
ALDS
Rays over Rangers
Yankees over Twins
NLDS
Phillies over Reds
Giants over Braves
ALCS
Rays over Yankees
NLCS
Phillies over Giants
WORLD SERIES
Phillies over Rays in 6
45 total runs
Joe Mandi, Joe and Joe Sports
AL
Yankees over Twins
Rays over Rangers
Rays over Yankees
NL
Giants over Braves
Phillies over Reds
Giants over Phillies
World Series
Giants over Rays (in 6 games)
42 total runs
Ed Mattingly, friend of Joe and Joe Sports
Twins over Yankees
Rays over Rangers
Phillies over Reds
Braves over Giants
Twins over Rays
Phillies over Braves
Phillies over Twins (5 games)
36 total runs
Joe Mattingly, Joe and Joe Sports
Round 1
Rangers over Rays - Cliff Lee and Josh Hamilton will be shaky, but Ian Kinsler and Neftali Feliz will steady the ship.
Yankees over Twins - I wish the Twins would win, and everything I read says the Twins are a bad matchup for the Yankees...but they're the Yankees. Bastards.
Phillies over Reds - I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
Braves over Giants - Bobby Cox's magic could bring one more playoff series victory to Atlanta.
Round 2
Yankees over Rangers - I just don't see the Rangers in the World Series this year. But I do think they're headed in the right direction.
Phillies over Braves - I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
World Series
Phillies over Yankees (in 5) - You guessed it. I think the Phillies are the best team in baseball.
50 total runs.
Mike Mattingly, Opinionated Truths
Rays over Rangers
Yankees over Twins
Phillies over Reds
Giants over Braves
Giants over Braves
Rays over Yankees
Phillies over Giants
(43 total runs)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
We're making progress! I've got kind of a reputation for being way behind on movies and shows, a reputation well-earned. Even with t...
-
Games are a little tougher to judge, because frankly I play a lot of games that I don't finish, but often I don't finish them like, ...
