Well the Redskins did it. They traded three first round picks and a second round pick to move up 4 spots in this year's draft. Read that sentence again just to let how much they gave up sink in. The question becomes was this a good idea?
The Pros: They will almost certainly take Robert Griffin III. The Redskins need a franchise quarterback. They now have the opportunity to select someone who could be a franchise quarterback. RG3 had an outstanding year last year. All reports are the kid has a great head on his shoulders. But I still have concerns about a few things. First he played in the Big 12, where even the 3 or 4 winning teams don't play defense. Second, no one had heard of him until this year because his stats were average. Third, the one BCS calibre team he played against he put up a stinker in a blowout loss. Fourth, history shows us that QBs are a strange beast as far as drafting (Chad Pennington went 5 rounds before Tom Brady in 2000). Fifth: he put up big numbers in a college spread offense which doesn't always translate well (but Cam Newton does give hope). Sixth, it's the Redskins. So, I am cautiously optimistic.
This is also great because it eliminates the mistake of signing Peyton Manning. I'll admit I greatly dislike anything with the last name Manning so that has something to do with it. But it also has something to do with the fact that he is 35 years old coming off of a neck surgery and would be going to a team with a thin offensive line, no receivers, and a secondary that on it's best day is average. Manning probably has a few more years left in him but probably not enough to give him the huge free agent contract for many years he is going to command on an open market. Which brings me to my next point.
The Cons: Was this a good value? Success in the NFL is all about maximizing production while minimizing cost. With the new CBA rules on rookie contracts and the general principles of a free market economy drafts are a better, easier way to build and sustain a successful team. If you cannot bring in cheap talent through drafts you will not be able to win consistently. Let the Colts be an example. They were able to cover up four years of bad drafting with Peyton Manning's HOF level play. As soon as he was gone, the bottom fell out. I would be surprised if they are back in the playoffs within the next two years (because that would mean Andrew Luck is ridiculous). The Redskins are now faced with the same problem that kept setting them back when Dan Snyder thought he knew what he was doing: few draft picks (so now the Skins don't even have a chance to whiff on draft picks). Last year the Redskins used the draft well, trading down to drive down costs and building depth with many picks. This year, they took the old Snyder route of putting all the eggs in one basket. Granted, the basket was much needed and fixes the biggest problem, but I wonder if it really was the best solution. It definitely shows that patience is not in their repertoire. While they may have gotten the franchise QB, it exacerbates a few other problems. First: the team completely lacked depth last year. A few players went down injured (which happens in the NFL) and the wheels came off. Second: there are huge needs elsewhere on the field (like say receiver, since RG3 can't throw the ball to himself). The draft is the cost-effective way of fixing these problems. Now it seems the Redskins will have to go to the free agent market where they will have to overpay for the talent not only this year, but the next two years because a free market with high demand and low supply will always drive the price up. This has the potential of sabotaging the cap and stunting the development of the team as a model of sustained winning. Last year, they got it right: draft well, plug gaps with value free agents (it's what teams like the Patriots do and I think it's worked out quite well). That model will probably have to take a backseat for the next three years (especially since it is highly unlikely the Redskins will get back into the first round.)
So while Griffin may be the franchise quarterback the Redskins so desperately need, it may have been at a cost too much. I would feel much better if they had only given next year's first round pick away, not the next two years*. And the Billy Beane in me wishes they had stood pat, and tried to work the system for value (say Kellen Moore in the second or third round where the risk is minimal) and if it meant waiting to get Matt Barkley next year so be it, the team was never one player away from the play-offs this coming season anyway. But since Shanahan and Bruce Allen did such a good job last year handling the draft and free agency I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this one and hope it's not a flashy move to placate Snyder's ego.
*In 2004 the Giants gave San Diego two first rounds and a third round pick for Eli Manning, who has won two Super Bowls, granted the price arguably was driven down by the fact that baby Manning was pulling a John Elway by throwing a hissy fit and refusing to play for the team that drafted him.
Update: Just like that, the trade looks incredibly damning. The big selling point was the amount of money the Redskins had in cap space to sign pieces around RG3. A league ruling today effectively took that cap space away. Now the Redskins do not only not have 3 very useful draft picks, but will be seriously limited in their ability to compete in the free agent market. So no matter how good RG3 is, the team will be hard pressed to surround him with talent to help him succeed.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Review: Awake
Since 2004 network TV has tried to replicate the success of Lost as a sci-fi drama with some mythology with little to no success.* Where most of those shows failed was where Lost succeeded: developing characters; the temptation was to create this sci-fi wrinkle/ mystery to the show that kept people coming back. The problem is that if the viewer has no connection or even hates the people wrapped up in the mystery they aren't going to stick around to find out the answer because every week there is no answer people get more and more annoyed.
*NBC has had The Event, ABC threw out V, Flash Forward, and now The River, CBS said why change what's kicking everyone's butt, and Fox canned Firefly and has had moderate success with Fringe.
NBC's new drama Awake seems to have learned the lesson, and it's no surprise that the pilot was very impressive. The twist of the show is that Jason Isaacs (yes that Jason Isaacs) does not know which reality is reality: the one where his wife survived (played by Laura Allen, who had a stint on last year's Terriers, which if you haven't seen check it out on Netflix, a great character piece set around two not-so-kosher private eyes), or his son (played by Lost alum Dylan Minette, who played Jack's son and is no stranger to parallel universes). The premise alone lends itself to a need for strong character to super-cede the sci-fi elements.
Writer Kyle Killen demonstrated in the pilot that the idea of grief (and how to cope with it) is just as central to the narrative as the split reality. The scenes in the competing psychiatrists' offices play an integral role of dealing with Isaacs' Detective Britten as a human being dealing with a very strange and confusing dual realities that bleed into each other, usually for good.*
* Is BD Wong a professional psychiatrist? He's now played one on 3 shows and nails it every time.
Another nice touch of the show is the contrasting tones in each reality. We learn early on that red was the wife's favorite color and green the son's. Consequently the tones in each scene, depending on which reality Britten is in, reflect who survived. Rex's (the son) reality has a green hue to it while Hannah's (the wife) is more reds.
I think it also helps that the frame of the show is a police procedural. If Killen really wanted to he could probably run the show for a long time as just a Law & Order: Dual Realities Unit. It appears that each week there will be two crimes and how Britten pieces together information from both realities will help him solve each. This leaves the viewer with a sense of satisfaction at the end of an episode instead of only wondering what is the answer to the riddle. I'm sure (and hoping) that the show develops the cause and effect of the dual realities more, it doesn't seem quite as imperative as finding out just what the V's were on earth for, or why all those people were in that concentration camp in Alaska.
It was definitely a strong start for Awake and it will be interesting to see where the show goes. If it continues to build on this start it could be around for a while, disproving the myth that all good drama has migrated to cable.
*NBC has had The Event, ABC threw out V, Flash Forward, and now The River, CBS said why change what's kicking everyone's butt, and Fox canned Firefly and has had moderate success with Fringe.
NBC's new drama Awake seems to have learned the lesson, and it's no surprise that the pilot was very impressive. The twist of the show is that Jason Isaacs (yes that Jason Isaacs) does not know which reality is reality: the one where his wife survived (played by Laura Allen, who had a stint on last year's Terriers, which if you haven't seen check it out on Netflix, a great character piece set around two not-so-kosher private eyes), or his son (played by Lost alum Dylan Minette, who played Jack's son and is no stranger to parallel universes). The premise alone lends itself to a need for strong character to super-cede the sci-fi elements.
Writer Kyle Killen demonstrated in the pilot that the idea of grief (and how to cope with it) is just as central to the narrative as the split reality. The scenes in the competing psychiatrists' offices play an integral role of dealing with Isaacs' Detective Britten as a human being dealing with a very strange and confusing dual realities that bleed into each other, usually for good.*
* Is BD Wong a professional psychiatrist? He's now played one on 3 shows and nails it every time.
Another nice touch of the show is the contrasting tones in each reality. We learn early on that red was the wife's favorite color and green the son's. Consequently the tones in each scene, depending on which reality Britten is in, reflect who survived. Rex's (the son) reality has a green hue to it while Hannah's (the wife) is more reds.
I think it also helps that the frame of the show is a police procedural. If Killen really wanted to he could probably run the show for a long time as just a Law & Order: Dual Realities Unit. It appears that each week there will be two crimes and how Britten pieces together information from both realities will help him solve each. This leaves the viewer with a sense of satisfaction at the end of an episode instead of only wondering what is the answer to the riddle. I'm sure (and hoping) that the show develops the cause and effect of the dual realities more, it doesn't seem quite as imperative as finding out just what the V's were on earth for, or why all those people were in that concentration camp in Alaska.
It was definitely a strong start for Awake and it will be interesting to see where the show goes. If it continues to build on this start it could be around for a while, disproving the myth that all good drama has migrated to cable.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Fool's Gold
I've already dedicated one entry about the Redskins' draft choices but yesterday's breaking news that the Rams are determined to trade their number 2 pick begs me to put my thoughts on what my favorite team should do in the draft out there yet again.
The Redskins are certainly in the running for this pick because Shanahan and new Rams coach Jeff Fisher are long time friends. And the Skins definitely need a quarterback. And it appears that the Browns are in the market as well. So those are the reasons to trade. Now here are the much more compelling reasons to not.
First, don't let the hype fool you, all that glitters is not gold. RGIII is not a sure thing. For starters, his stats didn't become elite until this year. He NEVER played against elite competition. I'm sorry but the Big 12 has been an after thought these past few seasons. Yes, they have had BCS participants, but not a single legitimate title contender until this year (when Nick Saban's self-dealing kept OSU out of the title game). And in his one game against that elite team Griffin was less than impressive throwing more picks than TDs in a blowout loss (and OSU did not have an elite defense by any stretch of the imagination). So while this past season was incredible, and he deservingly won the Heisman, his body of work does not speak to automatic success in the NFL (the list of flash in the pan, one good season for a Heisman NFL flameouts is long and storied: Eric Crouch, Tim Couch, Ron Dayne, Jason White).
I also look at history of drafts with two QBs that out pace the class. Most notably, the 1998 draft where we had Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. Manning, clearly was a success. Leaf was a success, at picking up a pill problem. The only comparison I am drawing between Leaf and Griffin is that hype, desperation, competition pulled a QB with obvious flaws higher than he should have gone. 1998, like 2012 had what appeared to be a 1 and a 1A QB not necessarily because the talents were equatable, but because teams were drawn to the flash on the surface and the sense of those two then a serious drop off and talent. It lead to inflated evaluations. And the media helped because it became a good story: who will the Colts take Manning or Leaf. They have the same story today: Luck or Griffin.
Would I be mad if the Redskins drafted Griffin? Absolutely not, he has loads of talent. What will be infuriating, given the huge holes at other positions (like receiver which is not a quick fix, especially not in free agency), and the new CBA's cap on rookie salaries, would be if the Redskins revert back to their old habits of shipping draft picks out and mortgaging the future for a flashy splash that fills one hole by making two more. So, if the price is right, trade up, but a huge compensation is not worth it given the needs elsewhere, the cheap free agent market, and the ease at which an elite QB can be formed from a later round draft pick (see. Drew Brees, Tom Brady).
The Redskins are certainly in the running for this pick because Shanahan and new Rams coach Jeff Fisher are long time friends. And the Skins definitely need a quarterback. And it appears that the Browns are in the market as well. So those are the reasons to trade. Now here are the much more compelling reasons to not.
First, don't let the hype fool you, all that glitters is not gold. RGIII is not a sure thing. For starters, his stats didn't become elite until this year. He NEVER played against elite competition. I'm sorry but the Big 12 has been an after thought these past few seasons. Yes, they have had BCS participants, but not a single legitimate title contender until this year (when Nick Saban's self-dealing kept OSU out of the title game). And in his one game against that elite team Griffin was less than impressive throwing more picks than TDs in a blowout loss (and OSU did not have an elite defense by any stretch of the imagination). So while this past season was incredible, and he deservingly won the Heisman, his body of work does not speak to automatic success in the NFL (the list of flash in the pan, one good season for a Heisman NFL flameouts is long and storied: Eric Crouch, Tim Couch, Ron Dayne, Jason White).
I also look at history of drafts with two QBs that out pace the class. Most notably, the 1998 draft where we had Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. Manning, clearly was a success. Leaf was a success, at picking up a pill problem. The only comparison I am drawing between Leaf and Griffin is that hype, desperation, competition pulled a QB with obvious flaws higher than he should have gone. 1998, like 2012 had what appeared to be a 1 and a 1A QB not necessarily because the talents were equatable, but because teams were drawn to the flash on the surface and the sense of those two then a serious drop off and talent. It lead to inflated evaluations. And the media helped because it became a good story: who will the Colts take Manning or Leaf. They have the same story today: Luck or Griffin.
Would I be mad if the Redskins drafted Griffin? Absolutely not, he has loads of talent. What will be infuriating, given the huge holes at other positions (like receiver which is not a quick fix, especially not in free agency), and the new CBA's cap on rookie salaries, would be if the Redskins revert back to their old habits of shipping draft picks out and mortgaging the future for a flashy splash that fills one hole by making two more. So, if the price is right, trade up, but a huge compensation is not worth it given the needs elsewhere, the cheap free agent market, and the ease at which an elite QB can be formed from a later round draft pick (see. Drew Brees, Tom Brady).
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Good To Be Back
No I'm not referring to the first week of spring semester law school. I'm referring to regularly scheduled programming. This week marked the official return of the network TV comedies you know and love (Although CBS had to bump it's Monday night line-up's return a week early because of some exhibition football game and Modern Family should probably have chucked it's episode last week).
Earlier in the fall I did a rundown of many of my favorite shows on their premiere, and this week has the same feel. But because of the previous piece (and having written a piece on the best comedy on TV a few weeks ago for another publication) I'm just going to focus on one return I found particularly satisfying: 30 Rock.
This could be because 30 Rock was in fact a true premiere. NBC pushed back 30 Rock's premiere for two reasons: the main was that Tina Fey had a baby. The second was it was trying to rescue Community (which deserves rescuing let this and this serve as an example) and promote Whitney (which rightfully has been relegated to the Wednesday death slot because the same "I hate relationships but I like relationships" joke can only be done about once, maybe).
Tonight's episode was a great return. It wasn't a great episode, but it was a great return. Sometimes a show doesn't have to blow your mind, or reach the zenith of comedy to be good (Parks and Rec is the master of this, even it's "bad" shows have a way of making you feel good). 30 Rock was just what it needed to be, 30 Rock. A goofy, satirical take on life on a TV show by Tina Fey. It was very familiar plotlines: Jenna and Tracy battling about fame, Kenneth being a crazy hillbilly. But there were some good twists tonight. For example John McEnroe being a happy-go-lucky celeb judge on a crappy singing contest.
I'm not quite sure what the Jack/Liddy plot confusing "mommy" with "money" was all about, except maybe to reinforce that Jack really is the perfect executive: money is what matters. But the last plot line was so good it made up for it. They've done the Liz Lemon tries to change/ be happy/ not stress over everyone else's selfishness before. But in the past she eventually collapses and Jack teaches her a lesson in management. This time he didn't get the best of her (even though he figured her out). What was even better was the mystery added to the end. It was definitely great to see her genuinely happy especially the hilarity that ensued at finding out what made her happy (and the tag was amazing).
So it was great to have you back TGS with Tracy Jordan. Your hijinx have been missed.
Earlier in the fall I did a rundown of many of my favorite shows on their premiere, and this week has the same feel. But because of the previous piece (and having written a piece on the best comedy on TV a few weeks ago for another publication) I'm just going to focus on one return I found particularly satisfying: 30 Rock.
This could be because 30 Rock was in fact a true premiere. NBC pushed back 30 Rock's premiere for two reasons: the main was that Tina Fey had a baby. The second was it was trying to rescue Community (which deserves rescuing let this and this serve as an example) and promote Whitney (which rightfully has been relegated to the Wednesday death slot because the same "I hate relationships but I like relationships" joke can only be done about once, maybe).
Tonight's episode was a great return. It wasn't a great episode, but it was a great return. Sometimes a show doesn't have to blow your mind, or reach the zenith of comedy to be good (Parks and Rec is the master of this, even it's "bad" shows have a way of making you feel good). 30 Rock was just what it needed to be, 30 Rock. A goofy, satirical take on life on a TV show by Tina Fey. It was very familiar plotlines: Jenna and Tracy battling about fame, Kenneth being a crazy hillbilly. But there were some good twists tonight. For example John McEnroe being a happy-go-lucky celeb judge on a crappy singing contest.
I'm not quite sure what the Jack/Liddy plot confusing "mommy" with "money" was all about, except maybe to reinforce that Jack really is the perfect executive: money is what matters. But the last plot line was so good it made up for it. They've done the Liz Lemon tries to change/ be happy/ not stress over everyone else's selfishness before. But in the past she eventually collapses and Jack teaches her a lesson in management. This time he didn't get the best of her (even though he figured her out). What was even better was the mystery added to the end. It was definitely great to see her genuinely happy especially the hilarity that ensued at finding out what made her happy (and the tag was amazing).
So it was great to have you back TGS with Tracy Jordan. Your hijinx have been missed.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
What the Redskins Need
Well another season of ineptitude has come and gone for my beloved Washington Redskins. Now it's time to think about the future, and the immediate future is the NFL draft. The Skins will be drafting Number 6. The question becomes what do they need: QB, WR, DB, OL are the concerns (ranked from most important).
Obviously a Quarterback is a must. You cannot win in today's NFL without solid QB play (see Brees, Drew, Rodgers, Aaron, even Stafford, Matthew). The Broncos are a prime example: Tebow manages the game they win; Tebow is wildly inaccurate and turns the ball over they lose. The Redskins have not had a manageable QB since Mark Brunell and haven't had a decent QB since Brad Johnson (although it's pretty clear they gave up on Jason Campbell too early and stupidly for an aging former superstar). Rex Grossman should never put on a Redskins jersey again as he single-handedly destroyed any hopes the Skins had of being competitive with his inability to simply manage the game: completion percentage under 60%, 20 INTs, 6 fumbles lost (26 turnovers and he didn't even play in 3 games!). So the most obvious need is a QB, which is good because this draft has a few promising talents to choose from.
The other area of huge concern is WR. Part of the reason Grossman was so inefficient is there were few weapons on offense. Santana Moss is one of my favorite Redskins of all time, but he cannot play forever and he's only 5'10 (at best). Jabar Gaffney should never be anyone's number one receiver. Ever. And Fred Davis and Chris Cooley are great threats when on the field, they are both tight ends who are not going to stretch the field.
The big concern is that this draft is not deep on WR especially since the conventional wisdom is that a great college receiver almost rarely translates into a great NFL one. The main problem is that there is very little press coverage in college because a great college team has one maybe two pro-level corners. So the WRs who tend to translate well can deal with the physical play of pro defensive backs. The smart thing to do is to not waste a high round pick on a receiver, especially since even the best tend to take a year to adjust.
That being said, with the depth at quarterback, and the lack of depth at wide receiver makes for an interesting situation. Of the teams in front of the Skins one can assume Indy will take Luck (or a near contender will mortgage its future to take the pick from the Colts, something the Redskins shouldn't even think of doing). The Rams, Vikings and Bucs all have young QBs they would be foolish to give up on. The Browns could go QB, but it remains to be seen if they are giving up on Colt McCoy (who was a second rounder, so not a huge loss to do that). So it appears the Redskins would have the pick of whatever QB they wanted. I'm not as sold on RG3 as everyone else, since it is only this past season where he found accuracy in a conference not known for defense. Likewise all the other big name QBs come from the Big 12, which I don't find a good bench mark for anything (Jason White, Heisman trophy winner, 0 passes attempted in the NFL).
The one QB that does get me excited in Kellen Moore. Most scouts probably kill him for his size and his competition. But every game I've watched him play, he is smart, accurate, careful, and picking apart vaunted programs like Virginia Tech and Georgia. Everyone said Drew Brees was too small; I'm not saying, I'm just saying. But Moore could be had in later rounds most likely.
An interesting thought for the Skins is to trade down a slot or two for either more picks and take one of the two receivers who look like they could make the jump to professional football the easiest: Justin Blackmon and Michael Floyd. Both are very good route runners and just get the ball into their hands no matter what. But the more important part is the maturity. Both have had off-field issues (DUIs) but both seem to have learned from it (if this doesn't make you believe in Blackmon as a person, you have no heart), and all reports about Floyd is that he took proactive steps to clean his life up (moving into the freshmen dorms to keep out of trouble), which takes a lot of maturity.
Those are three players I think the Redskins should look at carefully. Obviously the quarterback is the priority, but the Skins can always use more draft picks. Since there is one sure-thing QB and a bunch of really close to sure-things, I hope the Skins take their time and try to think creatively with this draft. A smart strategy is a must, and I'm sure the people working on it are working hard and are probably smarter than me (unless Snyder is in on it). The big point I want to make is there are alternatives to making an impulse choice with that 6th pick, if time is taken to look at what traits have made current QBs successful and what they looked like coming out of college.*
*Of the QBs in the playoffs the only 4 drafted in the top 10 are largely considered the worst: Manning, Ryan, Smith, and Stafford, while the best 4 the highest drafted, Roethlisberger (11th overall) is probably considered not as good as Brady (6th Rd) or Brees (2nd Rd.) and the man with the title belt, Rodgers, was 25th overall.
Obviously a Quarterback is a must. You cannot win in today's NFL without solid QB play (see Brees, Drew, Rodgers, Aaron, even Stafford, Matthew). The Broncos are a prime example: Tebow manages the game they win; Tebow is wildly inaccurate and turns the ball over they lose. The Redskins have not had a manageable QB since Mark Brunell and haven't had a decent QB since Brad Johnson (although it's pretty clear they gave up on Jason Campbell too early and stupidly for an aging former superstar). Rex Grossman should never put on a Redskins jersey again as he single-handedly destroyed any hopes the Skins had of being competitive with his inability to simply manage the game: completion percentage under 60%, 20 INTs, 6 fumbles lost (26 turnovers and he didn't even play in 3 games!). So the most obvious need is a QB, which is good because this draft has a few promising talents to choose from.
The other area of huge concern is WR. Part of the reason Grossman was so inefficient is there were few weapons on offense. Santana Moss is one of my favorite Redskins of all time, but he cannot play forever and he's only 5'10 (at best). Jabar Gaffney should never be anyone's number one receiver. Ever. And Fred Davis and Chris Cooley are great threats when on the field, they are both tight ends who are not going to stretch the field.
The big concern is that this draft is not deep on WR especially since the conventional wisdom is that a great college receiver almost rarely translates into a great NFL one. The main problem is that there is very little press coverage in college because a great college team has one maybe two pro-level corners. So the WRs who tend to translate well can deal with the physical play of pro defensive backs. The smart thing to do is to not waste a high round pick on a receiver, especially since even the best tend to take a year to adjust.
That being said, with the depth at quarterback, and the lack of depth at wide receiver makes for an interesting situation. Of the teams in front of the Skins one can assume Indy will take Luck (or a near contender will mortgage its future to take the pick from the Colts, something the Redskins shouldn't even think of doing). The Rams, Vikings and Bucs all have young QBs they would be foolish to give up on. The Browns could go QB, but it remains to be seen if they are giving up on Colt McCoy (who was a second rounder, so not a huge loss to do that). So it appears the Redskins would have the pick of whatever QB they wanted. I'm not as sold on RG3 as everyone else, since it is only this past season where he found accuracy in a conference not known for defense. Likewise all the other big name QBs come from the Big 12, which I don't find a good bench mark for anything (Jason White, Heisman trophy winner, 0 passes attempted in the NFL).
The one QB that does get me excited in Kellen Moore. Most scouts probably kill him for his size and his competition. But every game I've watched him play, he is smart, accurate, careful, and picking apart vaunted programs like Virginia Tech and Georgia. Everyone said Drew Brees was too small; I'm not saying, I'm just saying. But Moore could be had in later rounds most likely.
An interesting thought for the Skins is to trade down a slot or two for either more picks and take one of the two receivers who look like they could make the jump to professional football the easiest: Justin Blackmon and Michael Floyd. Both are very good route runners and just get the ball into their hands no matter what. But the more important part is the maturity. Both have had off-field issues (DUIs) but both seem to have learned from it (if this doesn't make you believe in Blackmon as a person, you have no heart), and all reports about Floyd is that he took proactive steps to clean his life up (moving into the freshmen dorms to keep out of trouble), which takes a lot of maturity.
Those are three players I think the Redskins should look at carefully. Obviously the quarterback is the priority, but the Skins can always use more draft picks. Since there is one sure-thing QB and a bunch of really close to sure-things, I hope the Skins take their time and try to think creatively with this draft. A smart strategy is a must, and I'm sure the people working on it are working hard and are probably smarter than me (unless Snyder is in on it). The big point I want to make is there are alternatives to making an impulse choice with that 6th pick, if time is taken to look at what traits have made current QBs successful and what they looked like coming out of college.*
*Of the QBs in the playoffs the only 4 drafted in the top 10 are largely considered the worst: Manning, Ryan, Smith, and Stafford, while the best 4 the highest drafted, Roethlisberger (11th overall) is probably considered not as good as Brady (6th Rd) or Brees (2nd Rd.) and the man with the title belt, Rodgers, was 25th overall.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Merry Blog-mas
Well it's that time of year. Exams are over. No responsibilities until January (kinda...shout out to the STC swimmers). It's Christmas vacation. Which means one thing: Christmas movies. What up Home Alone (1&2) and Elf. But I think I have a unique set of movies I consider Christmas movies: the 007 movies. I think it goes back to the combination of Spike TV and training trip. See once upon a time, before Spike got obsessed with getting as close to porn on standard cable as possible they used to have their annual 007 days of Christmas. This meant from early morning to late at night it was non-stop James Bond. Couple this with training trip where in between practices were spent as horizontal as possible and Christmas led me to watch a lot of MI6's most suave agent busting up SPECTRE plots and wooing the dames. Slowly Spike began to phase out this gift to America, so what did I do? Just got the box sets for Christmas. I now own every Bond save the most recent (which wasn't impressive, more on that in just a minute). So my last blog of the year (barring a huge sports/TV story), will be dedicated to a completely off the cuff, gut reaction ranking of the Bonds.
I'm going to cause a stir with this one but my dead last is Daniel Craig. Part of that is sample size, Casino Royale was pretty good, especially since it was going back to Bond's first mission as a Double-0 agent. Quantum of Solace was pretty much not a Bond movie. It was like a Tom Cruise action flick, not Bond. Craig is raw and gritty in both movies. Works for Bond on his first mission, because of course he would be clumsy. But there is no evolution between the two films, he's not making Bond into the suave, sophisticated wit he is in the other films. And there is also a total lack of cool gadgets, which is a shame because with technology these days that should be easy (or it could make it hard since nothing seems far-fetched or clever any more). Anywho, I am very disappointed with Craig as Bond, especially after his performance in Layer Cake.
My next worst is going to have to be the man most would put at the bottom, Timothy Dalton. Dalton played a very angry Bond. He almost comes off as an anti-hero at times. It kind of works though, because Bond would get jaded after years of service (especially after what they did to poor Felix!). But the same complaints about Craig are true for Dalton except to a lesser degree. He looks more the part, he's a little smoother, he's got a sharper tongue, and cooler gadgets. It's pretty close since Craig is a better overall actor, but Dalton does slightly better in the role.
The next level up is pretty close as well. Part of this is because they have relatively the same sample size. That being said I'm going to give Pierce Brosnan the edge over George Lazenby. Both have one shining role Goldeneye and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Goldeneye is pretty much the last true Bond films as far as I'm concerned. It is the last film to use the same textures, plot devices, and characters as the previous ones. Watch Goldeneye then any of the Connery Bond films and you will see what I mean. Brosnan got unlucky that his last three films were plagued by subpar (even for Bond standards) supporting actors, and horrendously shark jumpy plot lines (genetic transformation? Really?). I can't fault him for those movies because he just looks so damn Bond. You never see him sweat. He always has a good one liner handy. And Q gives him great toys. If Brosnan had signed on when he originally was cast people would look at him differently (we also wouldn't know who Timothy Dalton is, thanks a lot Remmington Steele).
Lazenby also does great work in his one lone Bond appearance. OHMSS is a fantastic Bond film. It involves SPECTRE and James actually falling in love. There are great action sequences and a great plot for world domination by our old favorite Ernst Stavro Blofeld centered around brainwashing lovely ladies. It's also the only Bond to break the fourth wall by directly addressing the fact that Lazenby is not Connery.
The last group is the pantheon: Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It really could be a toss up since they did most of the iconic films (even if they are ridiculous ahem Moonraker). Moore was a little wittier, but Connery was much more of the sleeping dragon: a smooth operator who could be violent, powerful and not sorry for any of it when the job needed it. I'm going to give Connery the edge because his first four Bond movies are probably in the top six if not the top four: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball (my personal favorite). He also starred in Kanye West's favorite Diamonds Are Forever (featuring proud Virginian and sausage maestro Jimmy Dean). Moore has some iconic movies: Live and Let Die (Thanks Paul McCartney!), The Man With the Golden Gun, A View to A Kill (with Christopher Walken as a steroid fuel East German genetics project gone wrong), and both films featuring everyone's favorite Jaws: The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. But Connery is Bond. He was the first, he set the standard. Each Bond had it easier and harder after the Scot. They had it easier because technology could make Bond cooler and the film making process easier (special effects especially). But they had it harder because Connery did so much with less. In most of his films they couldn't even film outside at night because of lighting problems. Yet (almost) everything is believable.
Connery set a high bar and the only one to approach consistently was Roger Moore. Moore is by no means equal to Connery, but he is close. What he lacked as an action star he made up for with his tongue. Moore was much wittier than Connery, even if he wasn't quite a Swiss Army knife like Connery. His talents as an actor were used quite well by the writers and as a result he will sit just beneath Connery in the Bond pantheon.
I'm going to cause a stir with this one but my dead last is Daniel Craig. Part of that is sample size, Casino Royale was pretty good, especially since it was going back to Bond's first mission as a Double-0 agent. Quantum of Solace was pretty much not a Bond movie. It was like a Tom Cruise action flick, not Bond. Craig is raw and gritty in both movies. Works for Bond on his first mission, because of course he would be clumsy. But there is no evolution between the two films, he's not making Bond into the suave, sophisticated wit he is in the other films. And there is also a total lack of cool gadgets, which is a shame because with technology these days that should be easy (or it could make it hard since nothing seems far-fetched or clever any more). Anywho, I am very disappointed with Craig as Bond, especially after his performance in Layer Cake.
My next worst is going to have to be the man most would put at the bottom, Timothy Dalton. Dalton played a very angry Bond. He almost comes off as an anti-hero at times. It kind of works though, because Bond would get jaded after years of service (especially after what they did to poor Felix!). But the same complaints about Craig are true for Dalton except to a lesser degree. He looks more the part, he's a little smoother, he's got a sharper tongue, and cooler gadgets. It's pretty close since Craig is a better overall actor, but Dalton does slightly better in the role.
The next level up is pretty close as well. Part of this is because they have relatively the same sample size. That being said I'm going to give Pierce Brosnan the edge over George Lazenby. Both have one shining role Goldeneye and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Goldeneye is pretty much the last true Bond films as far as I'm concerned. It is the last film to use the same textures, plot devices, and characters as the previous ones. Watch Goldeneye then any of the Connery Bond films and you will see what I mean. Brosnan got unlucky that his last three films were plagued by subpar (even for Bond standards) supporting actors, and horrendously shark jumpy plot lines (genetic transformation? Really?). I can't fault him for those movies because he just looks so damn Bond. You never see him sweat. He always has a good one liner handy. And Q gives him great toys. If Brosnan had signed on when he originally was cast people would look at him differently (we also wouldn't know who Timothy Dalton is, thanks a lot Remmington Steele).
Lazenby also does great work in his one lone Bond appearance. OHMSS is a fantastic Bond film. It involves SPECTRE and James actually falling in love. There are great action sequences and a great plot for world domination by our old favorite Ernst Stavro Blofeld centered around brainwashing lovely ladies. It's also the only Bond to break the fourth wall by directly addressing the fact that Lazenby is not Connery.
The last group is the pantheon: Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It really could be a toss up since they did most of the iconic films (even if they are ridiculous ahem Moonraker). Moore was a little wittier, but Connery was much more of the sleeping dragon: a smooth operator who could be violent, powerful and not sorry for any of it when the job needed it. I'm going to give Connery the edge because his first four Bond movies are probably in the top six if not the top four: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball (my personal favorite). He also starred in Kanye West's favorite Diamonds Are Forever (featuring proud Virginian and sausage maestro Jimmy Dean). Moore has some iconic movies: Live and Let Die (Thanks Paul McCartney!), The Man With the Golden Gun, A View to A Kill (with Christopher Walken as a steroid fuel East German genetics project gone wrong), and both films featuring everyone's favorite Jaws: The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. But Connery is Bond. He was the first, he set the standard. Each Bond had it easier and harder after the Scot. They had it easier because technology could make Bond cooler and the film making process easier (special effects especially). But they had it harder because Connery did so much with less. In most of his films they couldn't even film outside at night because of lighting problems. Yet (almost) everything is believable.
Connery set a high bar and the only one to approach consistently was Roger Moore. Moore is by no means equal to Connery, but he is close. What he lacked as an action star he made up for with his tongue. Moore was much wittier than Connery, even if he wasn't quite a Swiss Army knife like Connery. His talents as an actor were used quite well by the writers and as a result he will sit just beneath Connery in the Bond pantheon.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Brilliant
I will admit that I watch "Jersey Shore." In fact I haven't missed an episode. It renewed my faith in reality TV. And the creator, SallyAnn Salsano is a genius. Her newest project appears to be even better.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
