My understanding of game theory is limited at best, mostly coming from ecology class in college and some independent reading. I do find it interesting, though. So here's a Slate article on the "weak-bidder" theory as it may apply to how men get chosen by women as they get older.
LSU's women's basketball team made the Final Four for the fifth year in a row, only the second team to accomplish the feat. That is outstanding. The team also lost in the national semifinals for the fifth year in a row. With the exception of last year, when they got blitzed and run out of the building by Rutgers, each loss has come as a result of not being able to throw it in the ocean from farther out than ten feet. It was a problem in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. You'd think that somewhere along the way, someone would have thought about recruiting a player with shooting skill. Just one, that's all I ask.
This makes me think of something Jim Calhoun said in an interview with Charlie Rose. Rose asked him the difference in the recruiting strategies between Roy Williams and Mike Krzyzewski. Calhoun replied that Williams goes for athleticism, and Krzyzewski goes for skill. Williams would like skill, and Krzyzewski would like athletes, but given the choice between the two, they differ. LSU's women's team has apparently chosen athleticism, and his has paid off in a very big way. But one skilled player would have been nice.
Now that baseball has started again, be sure to check out the FJM blog, which does an entertaining job of ripping apart bad sportswriting.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Bill James
60 Minutes had a very pleasant story on Bill James tonight. It's not often I'll intentionally watch something other than the Simpsons or Sunday Night Baseball at 8pm. But this was an exception. They talked about his early yearly abstracts, which sold a few copies. They also showed his Historical Baseball Abstract, which I think is one of the most informative books I've ever read. I recommend it if you've got some time and don't mind things that run a thousand pages. His decade-by-decade breakdown of trends, players, innovations, and lists is outstanding. Supplemented with sections on the minor leagues, independent leagues, and the Negro Leagues, there's just a wealth of information that fans of baseball history will soak up.
The story said he invented Sabermetrics, but there's a good number of people who work in the field, so I don't know if I'd go that far. There's a lot of things about it that I do like, mostly because the explanations of them seem to make sense. It's also fun listening to baseball mystics go into fits over how number crunchers are ruining the game. And of course, without Sabermetrics there would be no FJM blog. And there might not be a Rob Neyer as we know him, and he's the whole reason I signed up for ESPN Insider in the first place. Favorite sabermetric stat: Secondary Average. There's something I like about the formula. I tend to think of it as an expectation for each time a player comes to bat. Rob Neyer answered one of my emails about it, saying he doesn't pay too much attention to the stat. At least that's how I remember it. Oh well.
The story said he invented Sabermetrics, but there's a good number of people who work in the field, so I don't know if I'd go that far. There's a lot of things about it that I do like, mostly because the explanations of them seem to make sense. It's also fun listening to baseball mystics go into fits over how number crunchers are ruining the game. And of course, without Sabermetrics there would be no FJM blog. And there might not be a Rob Neyer as we know him, and he's the whole reason I signed up for ESPN Insider in the first place. Favorite sabermetric stat: Secondary Average. There's something I like about the formula. I tend to think of it as an expectation for each time a player comes to bat. Rob Neyer answered one of my emails about it, saying he doesn't pay too much attention to the stat. At least that's how I remember it. Oh well.
NCAA Tournament
There's a few thoughts I've had about some of the matchups and results to this point:
All four number one seeds in the Final Four for the first time. In UNC, Kansas, and UCLA, you have three of the top programs of all time. UCLA is probably #1, UNC can make a strong claim to #2, though I don't know that you could put them ahead of Kentucky, which has three more titles than UNC. Despite having "only" two titles, Kansas has enough history and tradition to claim a place in the top five. That's a big threesome to start with, and Memphis is no joke. Their tradition is pretty good as well, and they came into the tournament with a single loss, to a Tennessee team that was angling for a #1 seed themselves.
Speaking of Tennessee, I like Bruce Pearl and I think they can be fun to watch, but sometimes I think they're a bit of a head case team as well. They do some really strange things at times.
I watched the UNC/Louisville game last night, and kept thinking that each team plays fast, but they're different kinds of fast. Carolina plays with a fast tempo, pushing the ball up the floor and trying to score on the fast break. They try to catch you off guard and tire you out. Louisville plays a hectic style, one that makes you uncomfortable and forces a lot of turnovers. They press full court and pressure in the half court. Pitino did some of the same things at Kentucky, but those teams seemed like they had players with a bit more basketball skill than his current squad. This team seems like it relies a bit more on athleticism than skill and execution. Not that they don't have the latter, of course.
Carolina pulled off the win with some big late shots from Tyler Hansborough. Deep 2-point jumpers that you wouldn't expect an inside player like him to take. His game is something else to watch. He takes and makes some of the most unorthodox shots I've ever seen. He initiates contact constantly, then sort of fling-heaves (technical term) the ball towards the goal. And it goes in like that! There just doesn't seem to be a way that shots like that go in.
UCLA note: On Kornheiser's show, Hoops Weiss noted that Kevin Love's middle name is Wesley, after Wes Unseld, with whom his father played in the pros.
I'll be pulling for the winner of the UNC/Kansas game in the finals.
All four number one seeds in the Final Four for the first time. In UNC, Kansas, and UCLA, you have three of the top programs of all time. UCLA is probably #1, UNC can make a strong claim to #2, though I don't know that you could put them ahead of Kentucky, which has three more titles than UNC. Despite having "only" two titles, Kansas has enough history and tradition to claim a place in the top five. That's a big threesome to start with, and Memphis is no joke. Their tradition is pretty good as well, and they came into the tournament with a single loss, to a Tennessee team that was angling for a #1 seed themselves.
Speaking of Tennessee, I like Bruce Pearl and I think they can be fun to watch, but sometimes I think they're a bit of a head case team as well. They do some really strange things at times.
I watched the UNC/Louisville game last night, and kept thinking that each team plays fast, but they're different kinds of fast. Carolina plays with a fast tempo, pushing the ball up the floor and trying to score on the fast break. They try to catch you off guard and tire you out. Louisville plays a hectic style, one that makes you uncomfortable and forces a lot of turnovers. They press full court and pressure in the half court. Pitino did some of the same things at Kentucky, but those teams seemed like they had players with a bit more basketball skill than his current squad. This team seems like it relies a bit more on athleticism than skill and execution. Not that they don't have the latter, of course.
Carolina pulled off the win with some big late shots from Tyler Hansborough. Deep 2-point jumpers that you wouldn't expect an inside player like him to take. His game is something else to watch. He takes and makes some of the most unorthodox shots I've ever seen. He initiates contact constantly, then sort of fling-heaves (technical term) the ball towards the goal. And it goes in like that! There just doesn't seem to be a way that shots like that go in.
UCLA note: On Kornheiser's show, Hoops Weiss noted that Kevin Love's middle name is Wesley, after Wes Unseld, with whom his father played in the pros.
I'll be pulling for the winner of the UNC/Kansas game in the finals.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
No Country For Old Men
"Pretty good movie, though they could have cut off about a half hour or so and it would've been just as good." That's one of the comments I had for There Will Be Blood. Well, No Country For Old Men clocks in at about two hours, which works out well.
I'd heard that Javier Bardem's character was really spooky and terrifying, but I didn't find him to be that frightening. He's certainly an impressive villain, however. His face and voice reminds me of Raul Julia. His face is a little rounder and fleshier, but his voice has that same soft elegance to it.
I think the plot is pretty solid, if you ignore the missing motivation and background to the overall story. Certain things seem to be picked up in medias res. I really liked Llewelyn as a character.
How great is the Internet? It allows us to know that Llewelyn and its variations mean "oath of Belenus". Belenus is an old Celtic god associated with fire and healing.
Before seeing it I heard some people say they didn't like the ending. This would be the third movie I've seen this year that has an "ending without an ending", with Cloverfield and There Will Be Blood the others. Maybe saying they don't have an ending isn't the best way to put it. Let's just say they're abrupt, and some people find them unsatisfying.
The movie is still darn good, and I think probably deserving of Best Picture over There Will Be Blood. It's just a tighter movie, and that's something I don't see enough of.
Tightest movie I've seen: 12 Angry Men.
I'd heard that Javier Bardem's character was really spooky and terrifying, but I didn't find him to be that frightening. He's certainly an impressive villain, however. His face and voice reminds me of Raul Julia. His face is a little rounder and fleshier, but his voice has that same soft elegance to it.
I think the plot is pretty solid, if you ignore the missing motivation and background to the overall story. Certain things seem to be picked up in medias res. I really liked Llewelyn as a character.
How great is the Internet? It allows us to know that Llewelyn and its variations mean "oath of Belenus". Belenus is an old Celtic god associated with fire and healing.
Before seeing it I heard some people say they didn't like the ending. This would be the third movie I've seen this year that has an "ending without an ending", with Cloverfield and There Will Be Blood the others. Maybe saying they don't have an ending isn't the best way to put it. Let's just say they're abrupt, and some people find them unsatisfying.
The movie is still darn good, and I think probably deserving of Best Picture over There Will Be Blood. It's just a tighter movie, and that's something I don't see enough of.
Tightest movie I've seen: 12 Angry Men.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Devices and Desires
Whenever people see the title of the book I'm reading, they get a "look" on their face. It's kinda funny. Let's get to the good stuff.
"They closed the door on him, and he sat back down on the floor. It had been a valid question: what on earth had possessed him to do such a reckless, stupid thing? Unfortunately, he couldn't think of an answer, and he'd been searching for one ever since they arrested him. If they bothered marking the graves of abominators, his headstone would have to read:
SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
Wonderful epitaph for a wasted life."
----------
[a prisoner's friend has just paid him a visit and left]
Remarkable, Ziani thought; I've know Falier most of my life and I never knew he had magic powers. Always thought he was just orindary, like me. But he can walk through doors, and I can't.
----------
[one character ponders his relationship with another]
This isn't love, Valens told himself. He knew about love, having seen it at work among his friends and people around him. Love was altogether more predatory. It was concerned with pursuit, capture, enjoyment; it was caused by beauty, the way raw red skin is caused by the sun; it was appetite, like hunger or thirst, a physical discomfort that tortured you until it was satisfied...and so this couldn't be love, in which case it could only be friendship; shared interests, an instructive comparison of perspectives, a meeting of minds, a pooling of resources...Not love, obviously. Different. Better...
[a little bit later, he reflects further]
It was just as well he and the Eremian Duchess were just good friends, when you thought of all the damage a lover could do in the world.
----------
There's an enormous amount of detail in the book about seemingly trivial things. But there's also a good deal of insight and individual asides that are fun and funny. There's a lot of authors whose work I love and admire. But right now, I'd want to write like K.J. Parker.
Back to watching the Super Bowl. I bought some chips and pistachios to eat during the game. So far I've just been drinking tea and blogging.
"They closed the door on him, and he sat back down on the floor. It had been a valid question: what on earth had possessed him to do such a reckless, stupid thing? Unfortunately, he couldn't think of an answer, and he'd been searching for one ever since they arrested him. If they bothered marking the graves of abominators, his headstone would have to read:
SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
Wonderful epitaph for a wasted life."
----------
[a prisoner's friend has just paid him a visit and left]
Remarkable, Ziani thought; I've know Falier most of my life and I never knew he had magic powers. Always thought he was just orindary, like me. But he can walk through doors, and I can't.
----------
[one character ponders his relationship with another]
This isn't love, Valens told himself. He knew about love, having seen it at work among his friends and people around him. Love was altogether more predatory. It was concerned with pursuit, capture, enjoyment; it was caused by beauty, the way raw red skin is caused by the sun; it was appetite, like hunger or thirst, a physical discomfort that tortured you until it was satisfied...and so this couldn't be love, in which case it could only be friendship; shared interests, an instructive comparison of perspectives, a meeting of minds, a pooling of resources...Not love, obviously. Different. Better...
[a little bit later, he reflects further]
It was just as well he and the Eremian Duchess were just good friends, when you thought of all the damage a lover could do in the world.
----------
There's an enormous amount of detail in the book about seemingly trivial things. But there's also a good deal of insight and individual asides that are fun and funny. There's a lot of authors whose work I love and admire. But right now, I'd want to write like K.J. Parker.
Back to watching the Super Bowl. I bought some chips and pistachios to eat during the game. So far I've just been drinking tea and blogging.
Five movies
After a hiatus from the movies, I've seen five in recent weeks.
Movie #1: Cloverfield. The best recent example of why I consider the type of movie and what it's trying to accomplish when evaluating it. This is an experimental kind of movie, shown from the viewpoint of a hand-held camera. If you don't like the jarring motion and all that, you'll hate the movie. It did give me a headache. But all in all, I thought it was done okay. People in the theater with me didn't like the ending, but endings are always tricky. Part of me thinks that movie makers have struck back against high expectations by deliberately leaving the audience hanging and unsatisfied. The guy acting as the cameraman was really funny, like your nice-but-stupid friend who can't keep a secret and always says the wrong thing at the worst possible time. I saw where it was called an American Godzilla movie, and that's kind of accurate. There's a little bit of creepy-crawly things that I'm not fond of, but it was effective. I don't expect everybody to like it, but it was all right.
Movie #2: Charlie Wilson's War. Very funny and fun. Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are good, as they often are. Philip Seymour Hoffman is very entertaining, and I heard several people comment on how good he was. And in case you didn't know, it's about how a Congressman managed to wage war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Or something like that. It's based on a true story, so you can't really mess around with the ending too much.
Movie #3: I Am Legend. I saw this mostly because my sister raved about it. It's not really my kind of movie, since it involves creeping around in the dark, waiting for the bad things to jump out. Once the fighting started, I was okay. But the anticipation isn't for me. Will Smith is good. The whole thing is pretty well done, except for the ending. I wouldn't really recommend it unless you LOVE Will Smith and zombie-type movies. And I mean really, really love him.
Movie #4: Bucket List. Touching and funny. It's a comedy, but it does a pretty good job of showing you how serious it is to be in a hospital with cancer. There are some touching moments. But mostly it's funny with a bit of insight. Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson (maybe you've heard of them) appeared like they were having fun with each other, at least on screen. Ending was a bit of a cliche, but it was good. Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it can't work.
Movie #5: There Will Be Blood. Daniel Day-Lewis is great. His character's persona just reaches out from the screen and grabs you. Part showman, part ruthless businessman. It's a long movie, listed at 2:38. The first hour and fifteen minutes to hour and a half are good. Then it gets a little clunky. But the last hour has some pretty good scenes. The final scene, even with a sudden ending, is a great scene. Pretty good movie, though they could have cut off about a half hour or so and it would've been just as good.
Incidentally, this movie has Fletcher Hamilton, who played Julius Caesar in Rome. I could not for the life of me remember where I'd seen him. Turns out he was also Firmin in Phantom of the Opera.
There's something that bothers me about the movie, though, and it's not anything that appears on screen. It's rated R. Why? There's very little violence. There's only two things you could really consider a "killing", and they're not gory or terrible to look at. There's a couple of other instances of people dying, but it's nothing awful to watch. There's no nudity. I remember exactly one curse word. The MPAA warning on the movie says "Rated R for some violence." There's way more violence, sex, nudity, and foul language in dozens and dozens of movies that will be rated PG-13 (or even PG!) this year. I just don't get it.
Movie #1: Cloverfield. The best recent example of why I consider the type of movie and what it's trying to accomplish when evaluating it. This is an experimental kind of movie, shown from the viewpoint of a hand-held camera. If you don't like the jarring motion and all that, you'll hate the movie. It did give me a headache. But all in all, I thought it was done okay. People in the theater with me didn't like the ending, but endings are always tricky. Part of me thinks that movie makers have struck back against high expectations by deliberately leaving the audience hanging and unsatisfied. The guy acting as the cameraman was really funny, like your nice-but-stupid friend who can't keep a secret and always says the wrong thing at the worst possible time. I saw where it was called an American Godzilla movie, and that's kind of accurate. There's a little bit of creepy-crawly things that I'm not fond of, but it was effective. I don't expect everybody to like it, but it was all right.
Movie #2: Charlie Wilson's War. Very funny and fun. Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are good, as they often are. Philip Seymour Hoffman is very entertaining, and I heard several people comment on how good he was. And in case you didn't know, it's about how a Congressman managed to wage war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Or something like that. It's based on a true story, so you can't really mess around with the ending too much.
Movie #3: I Am Legend. I saw this mostly because my sister raved about it. It's not really my kind of movie, since it involves creeping around in the dark, waiting for the bad things to jump out. Once the fighting started, I was okay. But the anticipation isn't for me. Will Smith is good. The whole thing is pretty well done, except for the ending. I wouldn't really recommend it unless you LOVE Will Smith and zombie-type movies. And I mean really, really love him.
Movie #4: Bucket List. Touching and funny. It's a comedy, but it does a pretty good job of showing you how serious it is to be in a hospital with cancer. There are some touching moments. But mostly it's funny with a bit of insight. Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson (maybe you've heard of them) appeared like they were having fun with each other, at least on screen. Ending was a bit of a cliche, but it was good. Just because it's cliche doesn't mean it can't work.
Movie #5: There Will Be Blood. Daniel Day-Lewis is great. His character's persona just reaches out from the screen and grabs you. Part showman, part ruthless businessman. It's a long movie, listed at 2:38. The first hour and fifteen minutes to hour and a half are good. Then it gets a little clunky. But the last hour has some pretty good scenes. The final scene, even with a sudden ending, is a great scene. Pretty good movie, though they could have cut off about a half hour or so and it would've been just as good.
Incidentally, this movie has Fletcher Hamilton, who played Julius Caesar in Rome. I could not for the life of me remember where I'd seen him. Turns out he was also Firmin in Phantom of the Opera.
There's something that bothers me about the movie, though, and it's not anything that appears on screen. It's rated R. Why? There's very little violence. There's only two things you could really consider a "killing", and they're not gory or terrible to look at. There's a couple of other instances of people dying, but it's nothing awful to watch. There's no nudity. I remember exactly one curse word. The MPAA warning on the movie says "Rated R for some violence." There's way more violence, sex, nudity, and foul language in dozens and dozens of movies that will be rated PG-13 (or even PG!) this year. I just don't get it.
Talking Football
Today is Super Bowl Sunday, so let's talk football: LSU football. LSU has more players in the game than any other team, so I can get away with it. Corey Webster has been playing the best football of his life for the Giants the past few weeks. The Patriots have Kevin Faulk (who's gotten a lot of praise lately), Randall Gay, Eric Alexander, and Jarvis Green. They also wear a 91 sticker on their helmets to honor Marquise Hill, who died in an accident during the offseason.
LSU was able to play in the BCS national title game in spite of losing twice during the season, including losing the last game of the regular season to Arkansas. They came back and won the SEC Championship Game (SECCG to you message boarders) with a backup quarterback, and a few other things bounced their way as well. And so it happened that Ohio State would take on the SEC champion in the national title game for the second year in a row.
Based on how things had gone for them a year earlier, (and an 0-8 record against the SEC in bowl games) a lot of people predicted that OSU would get hammered. I felt that they were being undervalued. They were a good team with a great coach, and I thought the talk about LSU's speed advantage was nonsense. OSU had a good offensive line, a great running back, and a good defense. I wasn't prepared to say they deserved the #1 ranking that the statistics awarded them, but they were good.
So as you know, LSU won 38-24. Ohio State got off to a 10-0 lead one a great run by Beanie Wells and a figgie. At the time, I thought LSU holding them to a field goal on the second possession was big. A false start penatly helped. And 10-0 wasn't a big deal considering that LSU had faced ten-point deficits before. "Got 'em right where we want 'em," I thought. I didn't really mean it, but I thought it.
After that, LSU ran off 31 straight points. Gary Crowton had put together a great game plan, got the defense spread out, and Matt Flynn picked it apart. When a yard or two was needed, Jacob Hester got two or three. The receivers held onto the ball, and the offensive line gave Flynn and the running backs plenty of time and room to work with. I don't think LSU's speed on offense was what led to their success, but rather the combination of the plan, execution, and winning up front. Which brings me to the defense:
After the first two OSU drives, LSU controlled the line of scrimmage on defense. I'd watched the OSU-Illinois game and wasn't terribly impressed with Todd Boeckman, though it's not really fair to judge a guy on his worst game of the season. Illinois got some pressure on him early, and as the game wore on he got antsy. He eventually felt pressure that wasn't really there. The same thing happened against LSU. It didn't help that his wideouts had a hard time getting open, which gave the rush more time to get in his face. Aside from letting Brandon Saine get wide open a couple of times, the pass defense was fantastic, knocking down passes, getting two INTs, and tackling pretty well.
More about controlling the line: there's a general point of view that says SEC teams are faster, and Big Ten teams are more physical. LSU was the more physical team up front, and the advantage only grew as the game went on. On defense, Glenn Dorsey was healthy and looked more like the All-American people thought he was. Ricky Jean-Francois was getting back into the swing of things after missing the entire regular season (he played in the SECCG) and came up with a blocked figgie. Tyson Jackson played very well, shutting me up. I'd criticized him a good deal during the season for not pressuring the quarterback as much as I expected. He did get better at the end of the season, and when he had a one-on-one matchup, he did well.
LSU doesn't do a lot of fancy stuff with the running game, so it's mostly pulling, trapping, and straight-ahead mashing. Vernon Gholston was an All-American at defensive end, but outside of a couple of plays where he got pressure on Flynn, I didn't see much from him. Considering that LSU had a converted defensive tackle playing right offensive tackle, that's not that much. So yes, LSU has a lot of speed, but it was the line giving the speed and athleticism of the skill players the opportunity to get to work that made the difference.
(This was actually the best argument to be made for OSU winning the game, and it was made by Todd Blackledge: LSU was a better matchup for OSU than some other teams. LSU's offense really isn't a speed offense like Florida's last year. It's more of a power offense)
LSU's game plan reflected that. There was one deep pass the whole game. Most of passes were short, relying on timing, execution, protection, guys getting open, Flynn being accurate with the ball, and guys holding on to the ball. It wasn't a "let's run away from them" style of offense. It worked. Flynn threw four TD passes.
Special mention goes out to Harry Coleman, who filled in for Craig Steltz at safety. Coleman blitzed and hammered Boeckman on a play that ended in an INT. He also recovered two fumbles, one of LSU's and one of theirs. OSU was unable to take advantage of Steltz's absence, partly because everyone else was playing so well, but also because Coleman had such a solid game.
So congratulations to the players and coaches from LSU. Glenn Dorsey has been a great player for four years, and he has always expressed his joy at playing for LSU. I'm glad he came back. A couple of guys who have waited a while to earn a starting job, Flynn and Steltz, got to walk away with rings. Be Pelini got a nice sendoff before becoming the head coach at Nebraska, where I hope he does well. Ali Highsmith has been LSU's best all-around linebacker for the last three years, and he had a great game. And of course, Les Miles has only gone 35-6 in his three years as head coach at LSU. LSU doesn't always play great, (though most of the time they do) but they always play their guts out for him. Most times, that's been enough.
LSU was able to play in the BCS national title game in spite of losing twice during the season, including losing the last game of the regular season to Arkansas. They came back and won the SEC Championship Game (SECCG to you message boarders) with a backup quarterback, and a few other things bounced their way as well. And so it happened that Ohio State would take on the SEC champion in the national title game for the second year in a row.
Based on how things had gone for them a year earlier, (and an 0-8 record against the SEC in bowl games) a lot of people predicted that OSU would get hammered. I felt that they were being undervalued. They were a good team with a great coach, and I thought the talk about LSU's speed advantage was nonsense. OSU had a good offensive line, a great running back, and a good defense. I wasn't prepared to say they deserved the #1 ranking that the statistics awarded them, but they were good.
So as you know, LSU won 38-24. Ohio State got off to a 10-0 lead one a great run by Beanie Wells and a figgie. At the time, I thought LSU holding them to a field goal on the second possession was big. A false start penatly helped. And 10-0 wasn't a big deal considering that LSU had faced ten-point deficits before. "Got 'em right where we want 'em," I thought. I didn't really mean it, but I thought it.
After that, LSU ran off 31 straight points. Gary Crowton had put together a great game plan, got the defense spread out, and Matt Flynn picked it apart. When a yard or two was needed, Jacob Hester got two or three. The receivers held onto the ball, and the offensive line gave Flynn and the running backs plenty of time and room to work with. I don't think LSU's speed on offense was what led to their success, but rather the combination of the plan, execution, and winning up front. Which brings me to the defense:
After the first two OSU drives, LSU controlled the line of scrimmage on defense. I'd watched the OSU-Illinois game and wasn't terribly impressed with Todd Boeckman, though it's not really fair to judge a guy on his worst game of the season. Illinois got some pressure on him early, and as the game wore on he got antsy. He eventually felt pressure that wasn't really there. The same thing happened against LSU. It didn't help that his wideouts had a hard time getting open, which gave the rush more time to get in his face. Aside from letting Brandon Saine get wide open a couple of times, the pass defense was fantastic, knocking down passes, getting two INTs, and tackling pretty well.
More about controlling the line: there's a general point of view that says SEC teams are faster, and Big Ten teams are more physical. LSU was the more physical team up front, and the advantage only grew as the game went on. On defense, Glenn Dorsey was healthy and looked more like the All-American people thought he was. Ricky Jean-Francois was getting back into the swing of things after missing the entire regular season (he played in the SECCG) and came up with a blocked figgie. Tyson Jackson played very well, shutting me up. I'd criticized him a good deal during the season for not pressuring the quarterback as much as I expected. He did get better at the end of the season, and when he had a one-on-one matchup, he did well.
LSU doesn't do a lot of fancy stuff with the running game, so it's mostly pulling, trapping, and straight-ahead mashing. Vernon Gholston was an All-American at defensive end, but outside of a couple of plays where he got pressure on Flynn, I didn't see much from him. Considering that LSU had a converted defensive tackle playing right offensive tackle, that's not that much. So yes, LSU has a lot of speed, but it was the line giving the speed and athleticism of the skill players the opportunity to get to work that made the difference.
(This was actually the best argument to be made for OSU winning the game, and it was made by Todd Blackledge: LSU was a better matchup for OSU than some other teams. LSU's offense really isn't a speed offense like Florida's last year. It's more of a power offense)
LSU's game plan reflected that. There was one deep pass the whole game. Most of passes were short, relying on timing, execution, protection, guys getting open, Flynn being accurate with the ball, and guys holding on to the ball. It wasn't a "let's run away from them" style of offense. It worked. Flynn threw four TD passes.
Special mention goes out to Harry Coleman, who filled in for Craig Steltz at safety. Coleman blitzed and hammered Boeckman on a play that ended in an INT. He also recovered two fumbles, one of LSU's and one of theirs. OSU was unable to take advantage of Steltz's absence, partly because everyone else was playing so well, but also because Coleman had such a solid game.
So congratulations to the players and coaches from LSU. Glenn Dorsey has been a great player for four years, and he has always expressed his joy at playing for LSU. I'm glad he came back. A couple of guys who have waited a while to earn a starting job, Flynn and Steltz, got to walk away with rings. Be Pelini got a nice sendoff before becoming the head coach at Nebraska, where I hope he does well. Ali Highsmith has been LSU's best all-around linebacker for the last three years, and he had a great game. And of course, Les Miles has only gone 35-6 in his three years as head coach at LSU. LSU doesn't always play great, (though most of the time they do) but they always play their guts out for him. Most times, that's been enough.
"Put the penguins in there. And the weapons."
Of all the strange quotes and comments I heard when I was home for Christmas, that was probably the most bizarre. Speaking of Christmas vacation...
It was nice. The most interesting part was the road trip we took from the 27th-28th. We drove down to Plaquemine, LA and had lunch with my buddy Corey. We had planned on eating at City Cafe, but Corey graciously informed us that it was closed. So upon his recommendation we ate at Miranda's instead, and everybody came away praising the food up and down. And no easy critics, we. I had the sauteed (though, as the waitress noted, it was really more pan-fried) catfish, smothered in crawfish etouffee, served over white rice, with red beans and sausage. It was fantastic. Well done, Corey.
That night we had dinner at Randol's in Lafayette, where they also have Cajun dancing. I partook of the food, passed on the dancing. I had the redfish (love redfish) with crawfish and shrimp etouffee. Not bad. Here's what it looked like:
I skipped the onion rings. The next day in St. Martinville we had a very nice lunch of shrimp stew.
I'm sure there was more to the trip than food. Visited with family and friends and had a great time. I flew through Houston, the greatest airport in the world by reason of having a Popeyes and a Shipley's donuts. A long layover there is heaven on earth, I say.
It was nice. The most interesting part was the road trip we took from the 27th-28th. We drove down to Plaquemine, LA and had lunch with my buddy Corey. We had planned on eating at City Cafe, but Corey graciously informed us that it was closed. So upon his recommendation we ate at Miranda's instead, and everybody came away praising the food up and down. And no easy critics, we. I had the sauteed (though, as the waitress noted, it was really more pan-fried) catfish, smothered in crawfish etouffee, served over white rice, with red beans and sausage. It was fantastic. Well done, Corey.
That night we had dinner at Randol's in Lafayette, where they also have Cajun dancing. I partook of the food, passed on the dancing. I had the redfish (love redfish) with crawfish and shrimp etouffee. Not bad. Here's what it looked like:
I skipped the onion rings. The next day in St. Martinville we had a very nice lunch of shrimp stew.
I'm sure there was more to the trip than food. Visited with family and friends and had a great time. I flew through Houston, the greatest airport in the world by reason of having a Popeyes and a Shipley's donuts. A long layover there is heaven on earth, I say.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Sundry Items
I know I've mentioned before that TMQ is the best online football column there is. This week's edition is particularly good. It includes praise for the BCS, a rare position these days. Constant whining about a playoff gets on my nerves. I'd like to see one, but I'm not a fanatic about it. The worst is hearing from writers and yodelers who watch baseball and basketball and the NFL all year long, pay little or no attention to college football, then start calling for a playoff in when bowl season rolls around. My position is that the BCS works: it does what we tell it to every year. It comes up with screwy outcomes sometimes because we give it screwy goals and instructions. It's not the system's fault, but the fault of the people who put it together.
TMQ also talks about fuel efficiency standards (a regular topic), rich people who call for higher taxes, and the Golden Compass movie coming out soon. Great stuff all around.
Slate recently had this article about the complexity of NFL offenses and how it may be hindering offensive productivity.
LSU will be playing in the BCS title game on January 7. I'm very happy. Surprised, but happy. I thought there were too many teams ahead of the in the standings, but I was ignoring the bias that many voters have against teams that didn't win their conference playing for the title. There is no rule against it, but it looks to have affected the voting. As Mark Richt put it, you can get disqualified by a rule that doesn't exist.
LSU started Ryan Perrilloux in the SEC title game due to an injury to Matt Flynn. He played well, much better than I expected. There's never been a question about his talent, just about putting everything together. Some observations:
I would not call him a "scrambling quarterback". I can't recall a play where he dropped back to pass and then ended up running. He moved around to escape pressure, but he would always look to pass first.
He doesn't just rely on his physical ability. His mechanics appear to be sound. I expected to see him try to throw on the move a lot, but he would also try to set his feet when he could.
I think LSU scaled back the playbook some to protect him, but I saw him make several different types of throws: deep ball, flare into the flat, slant, screens, outs. There didn't appear to be a throw he couldn't make, though I didn't see a lot over the middle.
He runs the option well and generally makes good decisions on when to pitch and when to keep. With four different backs with playmaking ability, the option could be a serious weapon next year.
He's good at finding the tight end as a safety net. Some young QBs either want to chuck it downfield or dump it off in the flat, with nothing in between. Perrilloux has done a good job in the two games he started of using the tight end, something I think is pretty important.
The biggest thing I would worry about on the field is that he doesn't seem to be aware of when the rush is closing in. This could lead to turnovers and getting beaten up as the game/season goes on.
Overall I think his skill set is a great fit for Gary Crowton's system, and that he can be more than just a manager in the offense. He can be a playmaker.
TMQ also talks about fuel efficiency standards (a regular topic), rich people who call for higher taxes, and the Golden Compass movie coming out soon. Great stuff all around.
Slate recently had this article about the complexity of NFL offenses and how it may be hindering offensive productivity.
LSU will be playing in the BCS title game on January 7. I'm very happy. Surprised, but happy. I thought there were too many teams ahead of the in the standings, but I was ignoring the bias that many voters have against teams that didn't win their conference playing for the title. There is no rule against it, but it looks to have affected the voting. As Mark Richt put it, you can get disqualified by a rule that doesn't exist.
LSU started Ryan Perrilloux in the SEC title game due to an injury to Matt Flynn. He played well, much better than I expected. There's never been a question about his talent, just about putting everything together. Some observations:
I would not call him a "scrambling quarterback". I can't recall a play where he dropped back to pass and then ended up running. He moved around to escape pressure, but he would always look to pass first.
He doesn't just rely on his physical ability. His mechanics appear to be sound. I expected to see him try to throw on the move a lot, but he would also try to set his feet when he could.
I think LSU scaled back the playbook some to protect him, but I saw him make several different types of throws: deep ball, flare into the flat, slant, screens, outs. There didn't appear to be a throw he couldn't make, though I didn't see a lot over the middle.
He runs the option well and generally makes good decisions on when to pitch and when to keep. With four different backs with playmaking ability, the option could be a serious weapon next year.
He's good at finding the tight end as a safety net. Some young QBs either want to chuck it downfield or dump it off in the flat, with nothing in between. Perrilloux has done a good job in the two games he started of using the tight end, something I think is pretty important.
The biggest thing I would worry about on the field is that he doesn't seem to be aware of when the rush is closing in. This could lead to turnovers and getting beaten up as the game/season goes on.
Overall I think his skill set is a great fit for Gary Crowton's system, and that he can be more than just a manager in the offense. He can be a playmaker.
A hump like a snow--hill
I recently finished reading Moby Dick. Maybe you've heard of it. I think it's unique among all the books I've read. It jumps around often from subject to subject. Here's what the ship looks like. Here's what we ate. Here's a story about Nantucket. Here's a description about three crew members you'll never see again. Here's some facts about whaling. More about whaling. More about whaling. More about whaling. Here's stuff about Captain Ahab. Here's what the weather was like. It's like reading a blog. It seems like he didn't have an editor to tell him to cut back on anything.
Other things I noticed:
It's over a hundred pages into the book before they even get on the ship, and my edition showed page 595 before the title character makes an appearance.
Even though it's a hard read, I enjoyed it. It's an educational read if you can pay attention to the factual material. Melville makes many stirring observations about humanity and human nature. Exchanges between characters are often funny and/or fun. Some of the language is great, including in the climactic scene:
Other things I noticed:
It's over a hundred pages into the book before they even get on the ship, and my edition showed page 595 before the title character makes an appearance.
Even though it's a hard read, I enjoyed it. It's an educational read if you can pay attention to the factual material. Melville makes many stirring observations about humanity and human nature. Exchanges between characters are often funny and/or fun. Some of the language is great, including in the climactic scene:
"Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but onconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."
If you've got the patience for it, it'll be a good experience.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Menses vs. Womenses
The day before the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team was set to play in the Women's World Cup semifinal against Brazil, coach Greg Ryan announced that Briana Scurry would start in place of Hope Solo. Solo had been the regular starter pretty much all year long. She'd won a hefty chunk of the games during the 50-game winning streak the team had going. She let in two goals against North Korea in the first game, one of which went right through her hands (Hockey players call it a "soft goal". Whether it carries the same label in soccer, I don't know.) She had not allowed one since. Ryan's reasoning was that Scurry had never lost to Brazil (12-0) and that her quick reflexes would help against the Brazilians. If you were going to argue the chemistry angle, you'd say that the team was coming off its best game against England, and switching things up drastically like this was bound to be a distraction and was unnecessary. You could make a case either way: history vs. what's working now.
That's when the fun began. And when I say "fun", I mean "misery".
The U.S. got crushed 4-0. The first goal came on an own goal. Two others Scurry got her hands on, but was only able to deflect as they went into the net. Shannon Boxx got a red card before halftime. Regardless of whether it would have made a difference or not, that opened the door to wonder if Ryan had made the right decision. Somebody walked right through it, and that somebody was Hope Solo. Let me paraphrase:
"Greg Ryan made the wrong decision. Anybody who knows anything about the game knows that it was wrong. Briana Scurry used to be great, but she's not anymore. I'm the best goalie we have now. You can't live in the past. I know I would have made the saves on the goals she let through."
There's a word for this: BLAMMO!
There's a technical term for this: Throwing your teammate under the bus.
In the history of the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, there's an elite tier of players that includes Michelle Akers, Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Kristine Lilly and Joy Fawcett. I may be missing one or two others. Briana Scurry is not in that top tier, but she's not far behind, either. She's won two Olympic gold medals and a World Cup, making the winning save in the shootout against China in 1999. She's the best goalie in team history. Not the best goalie now (at age 36), but the best over her career. Calling her out in the media is a huge stunner, and something that I've never seen from anybody on the women's team. Solo did come out the next day and apologize for some of what she said.
The rest of the team got together and decided to send a message that they were all united. United, that is, except for Solo. Not only did the team decide she wouldn't play in the 3rd-place game, she wouldn't even be with the team for the game. Scurry started and the U.S. won 4-1.
I imagine that there are people who are a bit pleased that the story got as much attention as it did. A few years ago, "So what?" would have been the prevalent reaction. Now it's reported on the front page of espn.com. Maybe a sign that the popularity of the women's game is increasing.
I don't look at it like that.
There are people who say that for women's sports to succeed they have to become more like men's. Lashing out at your own teammates is the sort of thing that happens in men's sports, so that and the attention it got are signs of progress, right?
NO!
If I want to watch a sport being played and evaluated on the same plane as the men, then I might as well watch the men. They can do things the women can't and do the things they can better. That's not why I watch women's soccer. I watch because I like the players better. Because our women are actually good--even dominant--on a global level. Because I get the sense that they play for different reasons than the men. I've always felt that the women's team consists of players who love each other and play for each other, not just with each other. I don't get any of that from watching the men play.
I don't want women's sports to be more like men's sports. Intersection between the two is okay, particularly when it's in the area of improvement. But it would be a shame for the women's game to lose what makes it different and appealing in the pursuit of more money, advertisers, and notoriety.
That's when the fun began. And when I say "fun", I mean "misery".
The U.S. got crushed 4-0. The first goal came on an own goal. Two others Scurry got her hands on, but was only able to deflect as they went into the net. Shannon Boxx got a red card before halftime. Regardless of whether it would have made a difference or not, that opened the door to wonder if Ryan had made the right decision. Somebody walked right through it, and that somebody was Hope Solo. Let me paraphrase:
"Greg Ryan made the wrong decision. Anybody who knows anything about the game knows that it was wrong. Briana Scurry used to be great, but she's not anymore. I'm the best goalie we have now. You can't live in the past. I know I would have made the saves on the goals she let through."
There's a word for this: BLAMMO!
There's a technical term for this: Throwing your teammate under the bus.
In the history of the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, there's an elite tier of players that includes Michelle Akers, Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Kristine Lilly and Joy Fawcett. I may be missing one or two others. Briana Scurry is not in that top tier, but she's not far behind, either. She's won two Olympic gold medals and a World Cup, making the winning save in the shootout against China in 1999. She's the best goalie in team history. Not the best goalie now (at age 36), but the best over her career. Calling her out in the media is a huge stunner, and something that I've never seen from anybody on the women's team. Solo did come out the next day and apologize for some of what she said.
The rest of the team got together and decided to send a message that they were all united. United, that is, except for Solo. Not only did the team decide she wouldn't play in the 3rd-place game, she wouldn't even be with the team for the game. Scurry started and the U.S. won 4-1.
I imagine that there are people who are a bit pleased that the story got as much attention as it did. A few years ago, "So what?" would have been the prevalent reaction. Now it's reported on the front page of espn.com. Maybe a sign that the popularity of the women's game is increasing.
I don't look at it like that.
There are people who say that for women's sports to succeed they have to become more like men's. Lashing out at your own teammates is the sort of thing that happens in men's sports, so that and the attention it got are signs of progress, right?
NO!
If I want to watch a sport being played and evaluated on the same plane as the men, then I might as well watch the men. They can do things the women can't and do the things they can better. That's not why I watch women's soccer. I watch because I like the players better. Because our women are actually good--even dominant--on a global level. Because I get the sense that they play for different reasons than the men. I've always felt that the women's team consists of players who love each other and play for each other, not just with each other. I don't get any of that from watching the men play.
I don't want women's sports to be more like men's sports. Intersection between the two is okay, particularly when it's in the area of improvement. But it would be a shame for the women's game to lose what makes it different and appealing in the pursuit of more money, advertisers, and notoriety.
Friday, September 14, 2007
1 vs 3
The U.S. Women's Soccer Team is playing Sweden right now, pitting #1 vs #3. No, I don't mean their FIFA rankings (Sweden is #4, I believe). As you ought to know, Abby Wambach is #1 on the Scotty Williams Big Board. Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is #3 (or Kronprinsessan, for you Swedes out there). The higher ranking and American citizenship give Abby a huge advantage.
She's used that advantage to score two goals so far. The first was on a penalty kick, the second on a nice play where she settled a beautiful pass from Kristine Lilly off her chest and nailed it into the left side of the net. That's 80 goals in 98 international games for her.
I haven't talked about LSU football in a while, so let's see how they're doing...
...oh my.
They appear to be doing quite well. Opponents have been outscored 93-7. They rolled up almost 600 yards of offense against Virginia Tech and forced seven turnovers against Mississippi State. Let's go over the players drafted in the first round that they had to replace:
JaMarcus Russell, QB: Matt Flynn has done very well. He hasn't turned the ball over at all, been fairly accurate on his passes, and run well when asked. Ryan Perrilloux has looked pretty good when given the chance to play. Gary Crowton's offense suits his talents well.
LaRon Landry, FS: I believe that Curtis Taylor is officially his replacement, and he's played well, though I can't say he's been challenged or picked on to any real extent. He looks like a good athlete, and he's got a sack and an interception through two games. Craig Steltz has assumed the leadership role in the secondary, and done very well. Four INTs so far for Steltz.
Dwayne Bowe and Craig Davis, WR: Early Doucet has done a good job being the #1 guy and drawing attention from the defense. The question was who would play opposite of him, and Branden LaFell came out with a huge game against Virginia Tech. Terrance Toliver had a good catch to extend a drive in the first game and a nice TD catch in the second. He looks like he's got a bright future in front of him.
The defense has played very well, as expected. Eight starters are back from last year's defense, which was third in yards allowed. Every starter is either a junior or senior. They're strong, fast, disciplined, smart, deep, and a bunch of other things. Dominance was predicted and they have delivered.
The biggest surprise of the first two games has been the offensive performance against VT. The offensive line looked outmatched against Mississippi State, and the offense as a whole didn't click early on until late. There was no struggle against Virginia Tech. The backs had holes to run through and Flynn had time to find his receivers. Jacob Hester is playing better than he ever has. Keiland Williams is on the verge of becoming known across the country as a playmaker. His "leap over a blocker, break a tackle, cut across the field and outrace the secondary" for a 67-yard touchdown was a thing of beauty. Charles Scott has shown a bit of shiftiness and versatility that surprises me a little. He caught a pass for a touchdown against MSU and a third-down pass for a first down against VT. He's more than just a bruiser. Those are the top three, but Trindon Holliday and Richard Murphy have done well when given the chance.
So far the Tigers look like a complete team that is going to be tough to beat and is a favorite in the SEC West and SEC overall. I'll hold off on anything BCS-wise until after Florida.
She's used that advantage to score two goals so far. The first was on a penalty kick, the second on a nice play where she settled a beautiful pass from Kristine Lilly off her chest and nailed it into the left side of the net. That's 80 goals in 98 international games for her.
I haven't talked about LSU football in a while, so let's see how they're doing...
...oh my.
They appear to be doing quite well. Opponents have been outscored 93-7. They rolled up almost 600 yards of offense against Virginia Tech and forced seven turnovers against Mississippi State. Let's go over the players drafted in the first round that they had to replace:
JaMarcus Russell, QB: Matt Flynn has done very well. He hasn't turned the ball over at all, been fairly accurate on his passes, and run well when asked. Ryan Perrilloux has looked pretty good when given the chance to play. Gary Crowton's offense suits his talents well.
LaRon Landry, FS: I believe that Curtis Taylor is officially his replacement, and he's played well, though I can't say he's been challenged or picked on to any real extent. He looks like a good athlete, and he's got a sack and an interception through two games. Craig Steltz has assumed the leadership role in the secondary, and done very well. Four INTs so far for Steltz.
Dwayne Bowe and Craig Davis, WR: Early Doucet has done a good job being the #1 guy and drawing attention from the defense. The question was who would play opposite of him, and Branden LaFell came out with a huge game against Virginia Tech. Terrance Toliver had a good catch to extend a drive in the first game and a nice TD catch in the second. He looks like he's got a bright future in front of him.
The defense has played very well, as expected. Eight starters are back from last year's defense, which was third in yards allowed. Every starter is either a junior or senior. They're strong, fast, disciplined, smart, deep, and a bunch of other things. Dominance was predicted and they have delivered.
The biggest surprise of the first two games has been the offensive performance against VT. The offensive line looked outmatched against Mississippi State, and the offense as a whole didn't click early on until late. There was no struggle against Virginia Tech. The backs had holes to run through and Flynn had time to find his receivers. Jacob Hester is playing better than he ever has. Keiland Williams is on the verge of becoming known across the country as a playmaker. His "leap over a blocker, break a tackle, cut across the field and outrace the secondary" for a 67-yard touchdown was a thing of beauty. Charles Scott has shown a bit of shiftiness and versatility that surprises me a little. He caught a pass for a touchdown against MSU and a third-down pass for a first down against VT. He's more than just a bruiser. Those are the top three, but Trindon Holliday and Richard Murphy have done well when given the chance.
So far the Tigers look like a complete team that is going to be tough to beat and is a favorite in the SEC West and SEC overall. I'll hold off on anything BCS-wise until after Florida.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Football
I thought about this yesterday: both my football teams opened the season on a Thursday night: LSU against Mississippi State on 8/30, Saints against Colts on 9/6. Their results were a little different.
LSU forced seven turnovers and pitched a shutout, 45-0. The Saints got outscored 31-0 in the second half and lost 41-10. It's a good thing they don't play the Colts every weekend, or I'd be worried. More on LSU:
The game against Virginia Tech was probably the most highly anticipated game of the first two weeks. Non-conference game, with #2 vs. #9. Tech had a good defense and great special teams. LSU fans were concerned about the simplified offense shown against MSU and the "punt ugly" formation that drives people up the wall. It seemed almost guaranteed that VT would block one or two punts. The offensive line didn't seem good enough to allow the rest of the offense to shine. Most of Matt Flynn's completions went to a single receiver, Early Doucet. So there were questions.
Questions answered.
Some scouts had given VT the advantage at several positions, but none of them would pick them to win, and I think there are two main reasons. One is Tiger Stadium. Two is that LSU's linebackers don't play against VT's linebackers, so position A vs. position A matchups don't mean anything. The biggest mismatch in the game was up front between the LSU defensive line and the VT offensive line. No room for Branden Ore to run, no time for Sean Glennon to throw. Unless VT's defense was dominant and kept the game close and low-scoring, they couldn't expect to win.
They couldn't.
LSU's defense played just as well as expected. 149 total yards, 7 points, 2-14 on third down. It was the offense that really surprised people. Looking sluggish against MSU, a lot of people thought it was being held back in order to keep VT from being able to scout it. Les Miles downplayed that, saying they weren't going to unveil a new "wantango" offense against VT. If Saturday's performance is what we can expect, then I say "Unleash the Wantango!"
Nearly 600 yards of offense, almost 50-50 rushing and passing. Everybody on the field played very well. The offensive line played its best regular-season game in years. Matt Flynn hit Brandon LaFell with some big passes. LaFell took advantage of the attention paid to Early Doucet and had his best game as a Tiger.
Keiland Williams looked like he's becoming a breakout player with national recognition. He took a pitch from Flynn, leaped over a blocker, broke a tackle, and cut across the entire length of the field for a 67-yard touchdown. Later on he took a simple handoff around right end, cut upfield, accelerated, came back left a little and scored a 32-yard touchdown. Great plays.
Jacob Hester has steadily become a better player each year, and he looks great through two games. He doesn't seem to be as much of a receiver in the Wantango, but he's running tough and breaking tackles.
I had figured Charles Scott to be a bruiser, but he's shown some good moves and shiftiness that I didn't expect.
Early Doucet had a good game against MSU and good catches for first downs against VT. They have him returning punts as well. Check that. They have him catching punts. I don't think he tried to return any, which is fine with me.
Ryan Perrilloux has seen time as a backup in both games and looked pretty good. This offense looks like a really good fit for him. He had two touchdown passes: a good fake on a run that left Early wide open, and a really nice pass to Terrance Toliver in the end zone in the 4th quarter.
You could have argued that VT's defense matched up well against LSU's offense in two areas: linebackers versus running backs and secondary versus receivers. Neither of those things were true.
Virginia Tech had allowed the fewest yards on defense the last two years, giving them the #1 statistical defense in the country. I don't usually go for the "conference vs. conference" nonsense that goes around because I think usually ends up sounding silly. But looking at Virginia Tech's schedule last year, they played against ONE good quarterback, BC's Matt Ryan. ACC QBs stunk last year, and I have to believe that that's one reason for their lofty ranking. Not the only reason, but a real reason.
LSU's picked up some ground in the writers' and coaches' polls, though not enough to overtake USC. A few sites and individuals are arguing for LSU #1 based on performance on the field so far. There's a long way to go.
LSU forced seven turnovers and pitched a shutout, 45-0. The Saints got outscored 31-0 in the second half and lost 41-10. It's a good thing they don't play the Colts every weekend, or I'd be worried. More on LSU:
The game against Virginia Tech was probably the most highly anticipated game of the first two weeks. Non-conference game, with #2 vs. #9. Tech had a good defense and great special teams. LSU fans were concerned about the simplified offense shown against MSU and the "punt ugly" formation that drives people up the wall. It seemed almost guaranteed that VT would block one or two punts. The offensive line didn't seem good enough to allow the rest of the offense to shine. Most of Matt Flynn's completions went to a single receiver, Early Doucet. So there were questions.
Questions answered.
Some scouts had given VT the advantage at several positions, but none of them would pick them to win, and I think there are two main reasons. One is Tiger Stadium. Two is that LSU's linebackers don't play against VT's linebackers, so position A vs. position A matchups don't mean anything. The biggest mismatch in the game was up front between the LSU defensive line and the VT offensive line. No room for Branden Ore to run, no time for Sean Glennon to throw. Unless VT's defense was dominant and kept the game close and low-scoring, they couldn't expect to win.
They couldn't.
LSU's defense played just as well as expected. 149 total yards, 7 points, 2-14 on third down. It was the offense that really surprised people. Looking sluggish against MSU, a lot of people thought it was being held back in order to keep VT from being able to scout it. Les Miles downplayed that, saying they weren't going to unveil a new "wantango" offense against VT. If Saturday's performance is what we can expect, then I say "Unleash the Wantango!"
Nearly 600 yards of offense, almost 50-50 rushing and passing. Everybody on the field played very well. The offensive line played its best regular-season game in years. Matt Flynn hit Brandon LaFell with some big passes. LaFell took advantage of the attention paid to Early Doucet and had his best game as a Tiger.
Keiland Williams looked like he's becoming a breakout player with national recognition. He took a pitch from Flynn, leaped over a blocker, broke a tackle, and cut across the entire length of the field for a 67-yard touchdown. Later on he took a simple handoff around right end, cut upfield, accelerated, came back left a little and scored a 32-yard touchdown. Great plays.
Jacob Hester has steadily become a better player each year, and he looks great through two games. He doesn't seem to be as much of a receiver in the Wantango, but he's running tough and breaking tackles.
I had figured Charles Scott to be a bruiser, but he's shown some good moves and shiftiness that I didn't expect.
Early Doucet had a good game against MSU and good catches for first downs against VT. They have him returning punts as well. Check that. They have him catching punts. I don't think he tried to return any, which is fine with me.
Ryan Perrilloux has seen time as a backup in both games and looked pretty good. This offense looks like a really good fit for him. He had two touchdown passes: a good fake on a run that left Early wide open, and a really nice pass to Terrance Toliver in the end zone in the 4th quarter.
You could have argued that VT's defense matched up well against LSU's offense in two areas: linebackers versus running backs and secondary versus receivers. Neither of those things were true.
Virginia Tech had allowed the fewest yards on defense the last two years, giving them the #1 statistical defense in the country. I don't usually go for the "conference vs. conference" nonsense that goes around because I think usually ends up sounding silly. But looking at Virginia Tech's schedule last year, they played against ONE good quarterback, BC's Matt Ryan. ACC QBs stunk last year, and I have to believe that that's one reason for their lofty ranking. Not the only reason, but a real reason.
LSU's picked up some ground in the writers' and coaches' polls, though not enough to overtake USC. A few sites and individuals are arguing for LSU #1 based on performance on the field so far. There's a long way to go.
Ahh, Wambach
I can't tell you how good it feels to get up at 5am to watch the U.S. women play their first game of the 2007 Women's World Cup in China. A couple of notable stats they've mentioned so far:
-- Wambach scores about 45% of her goals with her head
-- The U.S. is 51-0-7 when Wambach starts a game. They have never lost.
The U.S. are the favorites and the top-ranked team in the world. The Group they drew includes Sweden (3rd) and North Korea (4th). Throw in a really rough Nigeria, and it's no picnic.
So far the team looks a little slow and disorganized, but that may be the rain. The Koreans are also playing well, so give them credit.
-- Wambach scores about 45% of her goals with her head
-- The U.S. is 51-0-7 when Wambach starts a game. They have never lost.
The U.S. are the favorites and the top-ranked team in the world. The Group they drew includes Sweden (3rd) and North Korea (4th). Throw in a really rough Nigeria, and it's no picnic.
So far the team looks a little slow and disorganized, but that may be the rain. The Koreans are also playing well, so give them credit.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Thirty!
And no, I'm not talking about my age.
The Texas Rangers beat the Baltimore Orioles today by a score of 30-3. The "game notes" section says that this is the most runs scored by one team at least since 1900. Let's consider a few of the more interesting things I see in the box scores. I'm sure Jayson Stark will have loads more in his next Useless Info column.
Two Rangers had eight plate appearances. Four is about average, with some guys at the top of the order getting to five.
All 30 runs were earned runs.
Baltimore got out to a 3-0 lead, which means the Rangers scored 30 unanswered runs.
The Orioles only used four pitchers. You'll see 2-1 games where both teams will use more than that. They gave up 6, 8, 7 and 9 runs each.
Orioles pitchers threw 252 pitches, 120 more than Rangers pitchers. The Orioles actually threw more strikes than the Rangers threw pitches (157-132).
If the Orioles had driven in all the men they left on base, they would have lost 30-20.
The Texas Rangers beat the Baltimore Orioles today by a score of 30-3. The "game notes" section says that this is the most runs scored by one team at least since 1900. Let's consider a few of the more interesting things I see in the box scores. I'm sure Jayson Stark will have loads more in his next Useless Info column.
Two Rangers had eight plate appearances. Four is about average, with some guys at the top of the order getting to five.
All 30 runs were earned runs.
Baltimore got out to a 3-0 lead, which means the Rangers scored 30 unanswered runs.
The Orioles only used four pitchers. You'll see 2-1 games where both teams will use more than that. They gave up 6, 8, 7 and 9 runs each.
Orioles pitchers threw 252 pitches, 120 more than Rangers pitchers. The Orioles actually threw more strikes than the Rangers threw pitches (157-132).
If the Orioles had driven in all the men they left on base, they would have lost 30-20.
The weak link in the Rangers lineup was Michael Young, who was "only" 2 for 5 with a run scored, no RBI, and five left on base.
The Rangers scored all their runs in four innings: five in the fourth, nine in the sixth, ten in the eighth, and six in the ninth.
The Rangers set a record for the most runs scored by one team in a doubleheader, and that was before the second game even started.
Wes Littleton earned a save in a game decided by a 27-run margin.
The Rangers scored on sixteen different plays.
If Texas received an additional win for each run scored, they would go from fifteen games under .500 to fifteen games over.
The Rangers hit two grand slams and three three-run homers. That's 17 runs on five swings of the bat.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
June Allyson Sounds Like Rocky the Flying Squirrel
That's my initial impression of The Glenn Miller Story, anyway. That, and the music is great.
Looking at the date of my last post, I have been terribly lax. Let's get down to business:
I was in Louisiana, then drove to the beach in Alabama. My parents ordered a 50-piece box of Popeyes to bring on the trip. A friend had heard that there was a place called the Flora-Bama, and asked for a t-shirt. But please, please don't go out of my way. So where do we end up staying? In a condo right next door to the Flora-Bama. I got a few good pictures, went into the water a few times, picked up some shells. The water in the hot tub was REALLY hot.
We drove back to Natchitoches and went to my cousin's wedding on the 28th. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed it. May as well give it a shot: I enjoyed it very, very much. The reception was at the plantation my aunt used to have. The band's lead singer was a girl I went to high school with (good to see she's still singing). I danced. A cousin asked why I didn't dance like that in DC. I said, "I needed the heat and humidity to get me going." It was a hot, sticky, nasty Louisiana Saturday night. It was great. I was encouraged to go to a bar afterwards, but I had a relatively early flight the next day, so I had to decline. Broke my heart, I tell ya.
Browsing my recent Netflix activity, here's a quick rundown:
Man of the Year. Couldn't even finish it. Just didn't care.
Howl's Moving Castle. Good movie. Well put together. Fun. Wonderfully animated.
Extras: I watched about three and a half episodes. It's really good, really funny, but I just can't watch it for any long period of time. It's uncomfortable, cringe comedy. I can understand why people love it, but I just can't handle it.
Ordinary People. Darn good movie. Solid story, maybe a template for similar movies that followed. Superb acting. I can see why it was nominated for so many things.
12 Angry Men. I love this movie. It's got Henry Fonda, the Man Himself. Wonderful cast up and down the line. Jack Klugman, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, John Fiedler to name a few. The story is comelling, and the acting is intense. Something I really liked about it that may go unnoticed: it's 96 minutes long, so there's really no wasted scenes. the whole thing comes off tight as a drum.
Bourne Identity/Bourne Supremacy. Big blockbusters. They're good. Very well made. Acting's good, cast is good, most everything is believable to a certain degree. I just can't get excited about it. The story doesn't mean anything to me. Other people love it, and that's okay.
A Patch of Blue. Sidney Poitier is good. Elizabeth Hartman is quite good. Shelley Winters won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. It must've been very controversial when it came out.
Witness for the Prosecution. Ah, what a good movie. One of my favorites, and probably my favorite courtroom movie ever. Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power (they said my grandfather looked like Tyrone Power back in the day), and Marlene Dietrich. Suspense. Tension. Drama. Twists and turns. Humor. Loved every minute of it.
Digression: Many moons ago, back when the world was young, I came up to DC on a school trip. We went to the Lazy Susan Dinner Theater one night and watched a live performance of the play. Fantastic. I sat with a good friend of mine during the evening, so WFTP has a special place in my heart.
Lifeboat. I'd never heard of it until I saw it on Netflix. It has two people I'd heard of: Tallulah Bankhead and Hume Cronyn. It has one person who I'm glad I learned about: Canada Lee. What a great name, but not as good as what his real name was: Lionel Cornelius Canegata. Holy cow, that's a good one.
Auntie Mame. Rosalind Russell. Worth watching a movie just to say "Rosalind Russell". Fun and funny at times. I can't honestly say the movie added anything meaningful to my life, but that's not the worst thing in the world. However, Pippa Scott was a good-looking woman.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In the annals of film, it's got to be tough to find a leading duo that can compare with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. Throw in Lee Marvin playing a dastardly villain, and you've got yourself a winner. A good movie, and probably a good study for learning about what movies used to be like and how they spoke to us in days gone by. There's a strong patriotic tint to it that reminds the viewer what America is supposed to stand for.
I'll end this post here and talk about some other stuff a little later.
Looking at the date of my last post, I have been terribly lax. Let's get down to business:
I was in Louisiana, then drove to the beach in Alabama. My parents ordered a 50-piece box of Popeyes to bring on the trip. A friend had heard that there was a place called the Flora-Bama, and asked for a t-shirt. But please, please don't go out of my way. So where do we end up staying? In a condo right next door to the Flora-Bama. I got a few good pictures, went into the water a few times, picked up some shells. The water in the hot tub was REALLY hot.
We drove back to Natchitoches and went to my cousin's wedding on the 28th. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed it. May as well give it a shot: I enjoyed it very, very much. The reception was at the plantation my aunt used to have. The band's lead singer was a girl I went to high school with (good to see she's still singing). I danced. A cousin asked why I didn't dance like that in DC. I said, "I needed the heat and humidity to get me going." It was a hot, sticky, nasty Louisiana Saturday night. It was great. I was encouraged to go to a bar afterwards, but I had a relatively early flight the next day, so I had to decline. Broke my heart, I tell ya.
Browsing my recent Netflix activity, here's a quick rundown:
Man of the Year. Couldn't even finish it. Just didn't care.
Howl's Moving Castle. Good movie. Well put together. Fun. Wonderfully animated.
Extras: I watched about three and a half episodes. It's really good, really funny, but I just can't watch it for any long period of time. It's uncomfortable, cringe comedy. I can understand why people love it, but I just can't handle it.
Ordinary People. Darn good movie. Solid story, maybe a template for similar movies that followed. Superb acting. I can see why it was nominated for so many things.
12 Angry Men. I love this movie. It's got Henry Fonda, the Man Himself. Wonderful cast up and down the line. Jack Klugman, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, John Fiedler to name a few. The story is comelling, and the acting is intense. Something I really liked about it that may go unnoticed: it's 96 minutes long, so there's really no wasted scenes. the whole thing comes off tight as a drum.
Bourne Identity/Bourne Supremacy. Big blockbusters. They're good. Very well made. Acting's good, cast is good, most everything is believable to a certain degree. I just can't get excited about it. The story doesn't mean anything to me. Other people love it, and that's okay.
A Patch of Blue. Sidney Poitier is good. Elizabeth Hartman is quite good. Shelley Winters won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. It must've been very controversial when it came out.
Witness for the Prosecution. Ah, what a good movie. One of my favorites, and probably my favorite courtroom movie ever. Charles Laughton, Tyrone Power (they said my grandfather looked like Tyrone Power back in the day), and Marlene Dietrich. Suspense. Tension. Drama. Twists and turns. Humor. Loved every minute of it.
Digression: Many moons ago, back when the world was young, I came up to DC on a school trip. We went to the Lazy Susan Dinner Theater one night and watched a live performance of the play. Fantastic. I sat with a good friend of mine during the evening, so WFTP has a special place in my heart.
Lifeboat. I'd never heard of it until I saw it on Netflix. It has two people I'd heard of: Tallulah Bankhead and Hume Cronyn. It has one person who I'm glad I learned about: Canada Lee. What a great name, but not as good as what his real name was: Lionel Cornelius Canegata. Holy cow, that's a good one.
Auntie Mame. Rosalind Russell. Worth watching a movie just to say "Rosalind Russell". Fun and funny at times. I can't honestly say the movie added anything meaningful to my life, but that's not the worst thing in the world. However, Pippa Scott was a good-looking woman.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In the annals of film, it's got to be tough to find a leading duo that can compare with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. Throw in Lee Marvin playing a dastardly villain, and you've got yourself a winner. A good movie, and probably a good study for learning about what movies used to be like and how they spoke to us in days gone by. There's a strong patriotic tint to it that reminds the viewer what America is supposed to stand for.
I'll end this post here and talk about some other stuff a little later.
Friday, July 06, 2007
In Other News
I know I had some stuff to link to, but I can't remember what it was. The FJM blog had a couple of good posts the other day, so you can check that out at http://www.firejoemorgan.com/.
There's this Slate article on carding and telling people's ages.
There's this article talking about how Neifi Perez was suspended 25 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug program.
There's this Slate article on carding and telling people's ages.
There's this article talking about how Neifi Perez was suspended 25 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug program.
July 4th
Wednesday I went to the baseball game at RFK and watched the Nats beat the Cubs 6-0. It didn't happen for my team, but Dmitri Young hitting a grand slam on July 4th for the team that plays in Washington, DC has got to feel pretty special. I thought the Cubs looked tired and just didn't have any energy. I couldn't figure out why. It's not like they're not used to playing day games.
I wandered over to the Folklife Festival afterwards and sat in the Northern Ireland music tent. After an hour or so a police officer told us to leave the Mall and head to the nearest large building until the incoming severe weather was gone. Instead, I walked up to Sign of the Whale for dinner. I started doing a crossword that turned out to be pretty hard, and when I looked to see what paper it was in, it turned out to be The Onion. I got about 75-80 percent done. A Crown & Diet and a shot of Wild Turkey American Honey, and I was on the way home.
So I thought. The fireworks started right when I walked out the door, and I had a very good view of them walking down 18th Street. So I took some pictures and video and went home. Happy Birthday, America.
I wandered over to the Folklife Festival afterwards and sat in the Northern Ireland music tent. After an hour or so a police officer told us to leave the Mall and head to the nearest large building until the incoming severe weather was gone. Instead, I walked up to Sign of the Whale for dinner. I started doing a crossword that turned out to be pretty hard, and when I looked to see what paper it was in, it turned out to be The Onion. I got about 75-80 percent done. A Crown & Diet and a shot of Wild Turkey American Honey, and I was on the way home.
So I thought. The fireworks started right when I walked out the door, and I had a very good view of them walking down 18th Street. So I took some pictures and video and went home. Happy Birthday, America.
Stranger Than Fiction
I really liked it. It's a very clever concept, and easy to lose control of if you're not careful. For those of you not familiar with the story, here's an overview in 25 words or less:
Harold hears writer Karen's voice narrating his life. She says he's going to die. He tries finding her to convince her not to kill him.
25 words, and it was tough.
Will Ferrell is quite good, and not because he's funny, but because he acts the part very well. A little subdued (very subdued, by his standards), very under control. Not really any physical comedy, which can be a crutch for a comic actor who tries to play it straight without cracking jokes verbally. I know I said this about Montgomery Clift, and I certainly don't want to seem like I'm putting Ferrell at Clift's level, but his success comes from how well he uses his face. Saying an actor uses his face well is like saying a soccer player has good feet. It should be obvious, but it often goes unmentioned.
Emma Thompson plays the writer who is knowingly/unknowingly writing Harold Crick towards his death. She's great. The moment when she sees Harold in person for the first time is wonderful.
I'm not sure why Queen Latifah was playing her assistant. It's a bit of an underwhelming role for an actress who was nominated for an Oscar in Chicago a few years ago. Maybe her best stuff ended up on the cutting room floor (if they have that anymore).
Maggie Gyllenhaal is the love interest, and I thought she did a good job with a good character. She was better than attractive, she was appealing.
Digression: I think the desire that comes from appeal is stronger than what comes from attractiveness. It's a lot rarer, for one thing. And I think it's more individualistic, whereas the other is more general. A girl who can appeal to a man (and vice versa of course, ladies) is so much more special to him, though she may not appear so to others.
So Ana Pascal appeals to Harold in a very special way. She bakes cookies. She helps people. She's smart. And she's not bad lookin', either. She's a special thing in Harold's world, which is mostly lacking in anything that's not dull. Very nice.
I'm sort of wondering why Dustin Hoffman played the role of the lit professor who Harold goes to for help, but he was good. He takes sort of a twisted interest in Harold's "plight", though I can't tell if he believes him at the beginning or not.
"It's a very clever concept, and easy to lose control of if you're not careful." Quoting oneself? Ach, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I thought that was patriotism?
Shut up.
Okay, so you've got this idea that a character can actually hear the narrator's voice in his head. And not just the narrator, but the writer herself. It would be very easy to overuse the device and ruin it by hammering the viewer with it at every opportunity, trying to get as many laughs as possible. A great quality of the film is that this does not happen. It happens here and there, but we're hardly beaten over the head with it. I think the writers' management of the "voice in the head" factor was excellent.
A really good movie all around. Not too many characters, not a quirky and complicated plot that tries to be too clever, and solid acting from all players. Good stuff.
Bah, the Cubs are losing and the Brewers winning. Could be back to a 5.5 game deficit at the end of the night for the Cubs.
Harold hears writer Karen's voice narrating his life. She says he's going to die. He tries finding her to convince her not to kill him.
25 words, and it was tough.
Will Ferrell is quite good, and not because he's funny, but because he acts the part very well. A little subdued (very subdued, by his standards), very under control. Not really any physical comedy, which can be a crutch for a comic actor who tries to play it straight without cracking jokes verbally. I know I said this about Montgomery Clift, and I certainly don't want to seem like I'm putting Ferrell at Clift's level, but his success comes from how well he uses his face. Saying an actor uses his face well is like saying a soccer player has good feet. It should be obvious, but it often goes unmentioned.
Emma Thompson plays the writer who is knowingly/unknowingly writing Harold Crick towards his death. She's great. The moment when she sees Harold in person for the first time is wonderful.
I'm not sure why Queen Latifah was playing her assistant. It's a bit of an underwhelming role for an actress who was nominated for an Oscar in Chicago a few years ago. Maybe her best stuff ended up on the cutting room floor (if they have that anymore).
Maggie Gyllenhaal is the love interest, and I thought she did a good job with a good character. She was better than attractive, she was appealing.
Digression: I think the desire that comes from appeal is stronger than what comes from attractiveness. It's a lot rarer, for one thing. And I think it's more individualistic, whereas the other is more general. A girl who can appeal to a man (and vice versa of course, ladies) is so much more special to him, though she may not appear so to others.
So Ana Pascal appeals to Harold in a very special way. She bakes cookies. She helps people. She's smart. And she's not bad lookin', either. She's a special thing in Harold's world, which is mostly lacking in anything that's not dull. Very nice.
I'm sort of wondering why Dustin Hoffman played the role of the lit professor who Harold goes to for help, but he was good. He takes sort of a twisted interest in Harold's "plight", though I can't tell if he believes him at the beginning or not.
"It's a very clever concept, and easy to lose control of if you're not careful." Quoting oneself? Ach, the last refuge of the scoundrel.
I thought that was patriotism?
Shut up.
Okay, so you've got this idea that a character can actually hear the narrator's voice in his head. And not just the narrator, but the writer herself. It would be very easy to overuse the device and ruin it by hammering the viewer with it at every opportunity, trying to get as many laughs as possible. A great quality of the film is that this does not happen. It happens here and there, but we're hardly beaten over the head with it. I think the writers' management of the "voice in the head" factor was excellent.
A really good movie all around. Not too many characters, not a quirky and complicated plot that tries to be too clever, and solid acting from all players. Good stuff.
Bah, the Cubs are losing and the Brewers winning. Could be back to a 5.5 game deficit at the end of the night for the Cubs.
"...it's root, root, root...
...for the CUBBIES!..."
was heard loud and clear the last four days at RFK. The Cubs were in town for a series against the Nationals, taking three out of four. I went to the first three, including having seats six rows behind the Nats dugout on July 4th. "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" wasn't written about or for the Cubs, but Cubs fans feel that it's still our song because Harry Caray sang it at Wrigley Field for so many years. So when the line comes around, we drown out whoever the home team is. It helps that the Cubs have fans pretty much everywhere.
Devil Wears Prada was good, but I can't say I liked it too much. Meryl Streep was very good, Stanley Tucci good, but Anne Hathaway's acting didn't match the quality of the part. I thought the part of the assistant was well thought out and well written, but I just couldn't get attached to her. Whatshisface from "Entourage" plays the boyfriend. I've seen a couple of episodes, and everybody on it annoys me, so I don't watch.
My Neighbor Totoro is an animated movie from Japan about a big furry thing that makes friends with two young girls. It's nice. It's pleasant. It's very well put together. And of course, it's got a great Japanese title, "Tonari no Totoro". I liked it.
Over the weekend I watched The Last King of Scotland, which got Forest Whitaker an Oscar. He was very, very good. Jovial, cunning, wild, intelligent, all over the place. He did a great job of being a presence on screen whenever he was on. Somewhat jokingly, I sometimes tell people that one of my life's goals is to avoid going to Africa. So I really liked this quote:
Is there anything that you have done that is good, Nicholas? You came to Africa to play the white man. But we aren't a game. We're real. This room is real. Your death will be the first real thing that has happened to you.
If I went to Africa, that's all I'd be doing, playing the white man. I wouldn't do any real good. They're much better off without me sticking my nose in.
I didn't remember seeing James McAvoy before, but IMDB says he was Mr. Tumnus, and now it rings a bell. He was good.
Smokin' Aces. "Oh, that's such a good movie!" someone said to me the other day. "No it isn't." I don't think it's actually bad, though. I thought it would be good for three or four minutes, then bad for five, and it just went on like that the whole way through.
Jeremy Piven, I hear, is very good in "Entourage". I believe it. I didn't like him much here, though. I can see him being good in a role where he engages other people energetically on a consistent basis, but that doesn't happen here. He may have been miscast or just misused.
Andy Garcia's a good actor, but his character (and his phoney-baloney accent, wherever it was supposed to be from) was terrible.
Apparently there's a rapper named Common who I've never heard of. He was okay as the target's bodyguard. Alicia Keys (who I have heard of) was better.
I was very happy to see the guy who played Buliwyf in The Thirteenth Warrior cast as the Swede. I like that guy. Which brings us to my favorite and least favorite performances in the movie:
Jason Bateman (favorite) and Ryan Reynolds (not favorite). Bateman's character is sort of a pathetic loser, and he just oozed losing patheticness the entire time he was on screen. I loved him. On the other hand, Reynolds is supposed to be the tough guy hero. I don't think he can play tough. Yeah, he's got muscles. Maybe he's tough in real life. But on screen, I just can't buy it. And if you don't let him drop an f-bomb, then he may as well not say anything at all. I think he'd have been better as one of the killers, rather than an FBI agent. It's like they got his role mixed up with Ben Affleck's. They'd have been better off reversed, though Affleck wasn't bad as the bondsman.
I really liked Stranger Than Fiction, so I'll give it its own post.
was heard loud and clear the last four days at RFK. The Cubs were in town for a series against the Nationals, taking three out of four. I went to the first three, including having seats six rows behind the Nats dugout on July 4th. "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" wasn't written about or for the Cubs, but Cubs fans feel that it's still our song because Harry Caray sang it at Wrigley Field for so many years. So when the line comes around, we drown out whoever the home team is. It helps that the Cubs have fans pretty much everywhere.
Devil Wears Prada was good, but I can't say I liked it too much. Meryl Streep was very good, Stanley Tucci good, but Anne Hathaway's acting didn't match the quality of the part. I thought the part of the assistant was well thought out and well written, but I just couldn't get attached to her. Whatshisface from "Entourage" plays the boyfriend. I've seen a couple of episodes, and everybody on it annoys me, so I don't watch.
My Neighbor Totoro is an animated movie from Japan about a big furry thing that makes friends with two young girls. It's nice. It's pleasant. It's very well put together. And of course, it's got a great Japanese title, "Tonari no Totoro". I liked it.
Over the weekend I watched The Last King of Scotland, which got Forest Whitaker an Oscar. He was very, very good. Jovial, cunning, wild, intelligent, all over the place. He did a great job of being a presence on screen whenever he was on. Somewhat jokingly, I sometimes tell people that one of my life's goals is to avoid going to Africa. So I really liked this quote:
Is there anything that you have done that is good, Nicholas? You came to Africa to play the white man. But we aren't a game. We're real. This room is real. Your death will be the first real thing that has happened to you.
If I went to Africa, that's all I'd be doing, playing the white man. I wouldn't do any real good. They're much better off without me sticking my nose in.
I didn't remember seeing James McAvoy before, but IMDB says he was Mr. Tumnus, and now it rings a bell. He was good.
Smokin' Aces. "Oh, that's such a good movie!" someone said to me the other day. "No it isn't." I don't think it's actually bad, though. I thought it would be good for three or four minutes, then bad for five, and it just went on like that the whole way through.
Jeremy Piven, I hear, is very good in "Entourage". I believe it. I didn't like him much here, though. I can see him being good in a role where he engages other people energetically on a consistent basis, but that doesn't happen here. He may have been miscast or just misused.
Andy Garcia's a good actor, but his character (and his phoney-baloney accent, wherever it was supposed to be from) was terrible.
Apparently there's a rapper named Common who I've never heard of. He was okay as the target's bodyguard. Alicia Keys (who I have heard of) was better.
I was very happy to see the guy who played Buliwyf in The Thirteenth Warrior cast as the Swede. I like that guy. Which brings us to my favorite and least favorite performances in the movie:
Jason Bateman (favorite) and Ryan Reynolds (not favorite). Bateman's character is sort of a pathetic loser, and he just oozed losing patheticness the entire time he was on screen. I loved him. On the other hand, Reynolds is supposed to be the tough guy hero. I don't think he can play tough. Yeah, he's got muscles. Maybe he's tough in real life. But on screen, I just can't buy it. And if you don't let him drop an f-bomb, then he may as well not say anything at all. I think he'd have been better as one of the killers, rather than an FBI agent. It's like they got his role mixed up with Ben Affleck's. They'd have been better off reversed, though Affleck wasn't bad as the bondsman.
I really liked Stranger Than Fiction, so I'll give it its own post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)