Dear Cathy,
Surprise. I hope you don’t mind me writing to you, I promise I won’t make a habit of it. I recently discovered that Liz has remarried. The news, though a bit of a shock, was not entirely surprising. Of course there was a part of me that was sad, but it was smaller part than I would have expected. Really there was but one word that popped into my mind; “why?” Not “why did she marry him,” it’s obvious that they are in love. Not, “why did we get divorced,” the reasons for that are plain as well. Rather, it was “why did she marry me in the first place?”
Even though Liz and I were in love during those years in LA she insisted that she never wanted to get married. It wasn’t until our move to DC was in the works that she decided to propose. It was here that things really began to unravel. I’m sure she’s told you horrible things about me which are only slightly exaggerated. I don’t want to get into mud slinging but I will say this, we weren’t good to each other here. We tried to solve our fears and our anxieties by being increasingly insensitive to each other’s needs. One of the issues I handled particularly poorly was her relationship with Luis. I saw him as a threat as soon as I knew of his existence. This was helped along by the fact that Liz told that he had expressed his love for her almost as soon as he had met her, that he had lamented at what a shame it was that she was getting married, that they were soul mates. As you can imagine I had strong reservations about their friendship. Though I trusted her, I never trusted him. I couldn’t understand why Liz would continue to be friends with him when he continued to say these things over the year leading up to our wedding. The obvious reason is that she was falling in love with him. Before the wedding I found emails between them that indicated a more intimate relationship than I thought was proper. Nothing physical mind you, just a much deeper level of friendship than I thought was safe for my relationship with Liz.
Things between Liz and I were deteriorating leading up to the wedding. I was filled with the feeling that Liz did not respect me, that she didn’t believe in what I was doing with my life. I felt that her heart wasn’t in it any more. So now I come back to my question, why? Why did she go through with it? Surely she knew that she had fallen out of love with me. Surely she knew that her feelings for Luis were stronger than mere friendship. The thing is that our problems were pretty much the same in the months leading up to the ceremony as they were a few weeks or a few days before. They were the same problems we had in the months that followed. Why did she lie about her relationship with him? She continued to lie even after I’d found the pictures of them together. When I first confronted her with the evidence she was contrite, so much so that I thought that this horrible discovery could lead to our reconciliation. After that one night, when she kissed me like my wife and we both wept and held each other, after that one night she denied her relationship with him. She denied that anything was going on, or had gone on, or would go on. So why did she do it? How much pain could we all have been spared if she’d never stood up there and made those vows? I don’t fault Liz for leaving me. These things happen. Maybe Luis really is her soul mate. I fault her for not leaving me sooner. I fault her for leaving me with this hole in my life, this void that was created not because she left, but because she stayed too long.
So why am writing you? I’m writing to ask you what you think. I am writing to ask if you know why, if she ever told you why. You must have asked. Of course I don’t expect you to betray your daughter’s confidence; particularly not to me. But I am hoping that you still harbor some compassion for me. I am hoping that you can find words that do not betray your familial responsibility. I would ask her these things, but she wouldn’t answer me. Or if she did, she would answer me with spite rather than with honesty. I’m writing because you’re her mother. You’re also the one person in her family most likely to respond. Of course I’ll understand if you don’t reply.
As far as other formalities, I am currently living in Maryland, I’m working in my field for an agency that contracts primarily with the government. The pay is decent and the work is interesting, though I recently requested that I not be placed on any more assignments for the military. I can no longer interpret for the military even peripherally without feeling like I’m contributing to the war effort. I’m still writing, both online and magazine articles and research. My goal is to submit my first research paper for peer review some time in the next couple months. I’ve been playing rugby for a team in DC and my name was mentioned in Rugby Magazine as part of an article on a tournament we played in New York this past December.
I hope things are well with you and your family. I don’t know if it’s proper for me to send them my regards, but if anyone ever wonders I wish them all the best. Thank you for everything you’ve done.
-Berto
Family, Sports, Politics, Random Rants: @bertoinpublic, facebook.com/interdisciplinarylife/
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sunday, March 6, 2005
Take Us Out to the Ball Game
Despite my best efforts there are still some of you who don’t believe in the power of baseball. There are some of you who just don’t see the beauty in it. So today I will divest myself of the task of trying to convince you and turn it over to people far smarter and more eloquent than myself. Thus I present to you some of the greatest quotes ever made about the American pastime. The quotes below are not all from ballplayers, and they are not about specific games or events, rather they are quotes about the game and how it fits into the American landscape. Hopefully I’ll win a few converts here. If not, then I hope I at least entertain you.
-Berto
“You see, you spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball, and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time.” -Jim Bouton, former MLB player and author of "Ball Four"
“I don't know why people like the home run so much. A home run is over as soon as it starts.... The triple is the most exciting play of the game. A triple is like meeting a woman who excites you, spending the evening talking and getting more excited, then taking her home. It drags on and on. You're never sure how it's going to turn out.” -George Foster, former player
“I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring... which makes it like sex. There's never been a ballplayer slept with me who didn't have the best year of his career. Making love is like hitting a baseball: you just gotta relax and concentrate. Besides, I'd never sleep with a player hitting under .250... not unless he had a lot of RBIs and was a great glove man up the middle. You see, there's a certain amount of life wisdom I give these boys. I can expand their minds. Sometimes when I've got a ballplayer alone, I'll just read Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman to him, and the guys are so sweet, they always stay and listen. 'Course, a guy'll listen to anything if he thinks it's foreplay. I make them feel confident, and they make me feel safe, and pretty. 'Course, what I give them lasts a lifetime; what they give me lasts 142 games. Sometimes it seems like a bad trade. But bad trades are part of baseball -- now who can forget Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas, for God's sake? It's a long season and you gotta trust. I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball. “ -Annie Savoy, Bull Durham
“Say this much for big league baseball - it is beyond question the greatest conversation piece ever invented in America.” -Bruce Catton
“A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.” -Nuke Laloosh, Bull Durham
“Walt Whitman once said, "I see great things in baseball. It's our game, the American game. It will repair our losses and be a blessing to us." You could look it up. “ -Annie Savoy
“I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game. It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism. It tends to relieve us from being a nervous, dyspeptic set, repair these losses, and be a blessing to us.” -Walt Whitman (Allegedly)
“You get out there, and the stands are full and everybody's cheerin'. It's like everybody in the world come to see you. And inside of that there's the players, they're yakkin' it up. The pitcher throws and you look for that pill... suddenly there's nothing else in the ballpark but you and it. Sometimes, when you feel right, there's a groove there, and the bat just eases into it and meets that ball. When the bat meets that ball and you feel that ball just give, you know it's going to go a long way. Damn, if you don't feel like you're going to live forever.” -John Cusak as Buck Weaver, Eight men Out
“Regardless of the verdict of juries... no player who throws a ball game... no player who undertakes, or promises to throw a game... no player who sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a ball game are discussed, and does not promptly tell his club about it... will ever play professional baseball again.” -Kenesaw Mountain Landis regarding the Black Sox scandal
“People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” -Rogers Hornsby, former player
“No game in the world is as tidy and dramatically neat as baseball, with cause and effect, crime and punishment, motive and result, so cleanly defined.” -Paul Gallico
“It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone.” -Bart Giamatti, former MLB commissioner and father of actor Paul Giamatti
“Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off.” -Bill Veeck, former baseball executive
“You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all.” -Earl Weaver, former MLB manager
“The strongest thing that baseball has going for it today are its yesterdays.” -Lawrence Ritter
“Baseball, to me, is still the national pastime because it is a summer game. I feel that almost all Americans are summer people, that summer is what they think of when they think of their childhood. I think it stirs up an incredible emotion within people.” -Steve Busby
“I don't love baseball. I don't love most of today's players. I don't love the owners. I do love, however, the baseball that is in the heads of baseball fans. I love the dreams of glory of 10-year-olds, the reminiscences of 70-year-olds. The greatest baseball arena is in our heads, what we bring to the games, to the telecasts, to reading newspaper reports.” -Stan Isaacs
“Well, you know I... I never got to bat in the major leagues. I would have liked to have had that chance. Just once. To stare down a big league pitcher. To stare him down, and just as he goes into his windup, wink. Make him think you know something he doesn't. That's what I wish for. Chance to squint at a sky so blue that it hurts your eyes just to look at it. To feel the tingling in your arm as you connect with the ball. To run the bases - stretch a double into a triple, and flop face-first into third, wrap your arms around the bag. That's my wish, Ray Kinsella. That's my wish.” -Moonlight Graham, Field of Dreams
“Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona.” -George F. Will
“Spread the diaper in the position of the diamond with you at bat. Then fold second base down to home and set the baby on the pitcher's mound. Put first base and third together, bring up home plate and pin the three together. Of course, in case of rain, you gotta call the game and start all over again.” -Jimmy Piersal
“Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax.” -Mike Royoko
“This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings.” -Bill Veeck
“They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.” -Terrance Mann, field of Dreams
“Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too.” -Yogi Berra
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Texas is Full of Assholes
Today the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty could not be given to minors. The surprise here is that the ruling was needed. 30 of the 50 states have already banned the death penalty for minors. According to NPR News, in 1990 there were 10 countries that allowed the death penalty for minors. Before today there was only one. The case that came before the court was indeed particularly heinous. It was a case involving a then 17 year old male who, during a burglary, was recognized by the home owner, taped her eyes and mouth shut, bound her, drove her to a rail road trestle, and threw her to her death. He was then tried as an adult and given the death penalty. There are several issues involved when considering the issue of whether to execute juveniles who commit particularly violent crimes. First of course is the question of whether state sponsored execution is moral to begin with. This fundamental question is followed by the questions of how we treat minors in other facets of society, and finally, why we prosecute crime and administer the death penalty all.
The big issue, the one that has sparked debate in this country for at least as long as I’ve been alive (and I’m sure longer than that) is whether the death penalty is appropriate at all. My personal views on this issue have changed over time. As a young man I believed in the eye-for-an-eye tenor of the death penalty. After all, it’s only fair right? Later I believed that the death penalty should only be administered if the family of the victim was willing to do the deed themselves. Indeed, I even conceived of a big game style hunt to carry out the task. Later still I believed that death row inmates were a drain on the general society and that they should be executed on the spot, directly after sentencing in order to save taxpayer money that was being wasted keeping them on death row for decades while they used their appeals. Over the last few years I’ve had many debates with many people about the death penalty, and they’ve swayed me. Then I did some research. The thing that really turned me against the death penalty was an episode of the nationally syndicated radio program, “This American Life” which aired on February 11th, 2005. The episode is devoted to the story of a man who, despite forensic evidence, eye witness testimony, and the fact that the police had the real killer in custody, was given the death penalty in the state of New York. The episode, titled “DIY”, can be heard at www.thislife.org. Don’t get me wrong, I think that people who commit violent crime should be dealt with harshly, but the more I read, the more I heard, the more convinced I became that putting the decision to kill in the hands of the government was too inexact a science. When you add in the yokels that make up most juries it becomes too horrible to think about some being sentenced to die by a jury of their peers. I’ll tell you, if I were ever facing the prospect of state sponsored death a jury of my peers is the last thing I’d want. I’d want twelve people way smarter and more compassionate than me. The fact is that people are wrongly convicted all the time. Witnesses lie, cops follow their prejudices or their desire more than they follow evidence, and often testimony or evidence that would clear a defendant are ignored, or never heard. Basically, the death penalty is a bad idea. It doesn’t deter crime, it doesn’t bring closure to families that still have to mourn their loved ones, and there’s just too much risk of getting it horribly wrong.
The idea of applying the death penalty to minors is even more horrific. The US generally recognizes 18 as the age of adulthood. It is the age when you can vote, have sex legally, marry without parental consent and go off to die in Iraq. (Remember, if you’re a male you have to sign up for the draft at 18 if you want to be eligible for federal student aid. Even though they say there isn’t going to be a draft, and even though you’ll likely be exempted from the draft if you’re enrolled in a degree-seeking program. Ignacio, I’m talking to you!) According to both law and custom a person who is 17 years and 364 days old is incapable of making any of these kinds of decisions on their own. So, is there some magic of biology that occurs at 18 that gives one the ability to make calm rational decisions about life? Have any of you ever been 18? Hell, I’m 28 and I’m just now starting to make calm rational decisions. The fact is that no one suddenly becomes responsible at 18. Some people are responsible at birth, others are never responsible no matter how old they get.
So what’s the point? The point is that kids are fucked up. They live in a fucked up world, in a fucked up country, with a fucked up government, elected by a fucked up society. Sure, it’s OK for us adults, we can cope, but remember high school? Now add mixed messages about sex (it sells, but it’s bad), drugs (drugs are BAD! Now take your Zoloft and Ritalin, and Cialis), politics (Marriage is good, but only for a man and a woman, ignore your divorced parents and that happy gay couple down the block who have been together for 20 years), individuality (be yourself, as long as yourself conforms to all school policies), etc. If you think it was bad when you were a kid, it’s way worse now. The point is that there are certain personality disorders that psychiatrists are prohibited from diagnosing in minors because the kids are still developing. The point is that minors are far more likely to be swayed by group interaction. There’s even a term for it, Peer…something. It’s all the rage.
It seems that juveniles being tried as adults is becoming more common as America becomes more fed up with increasing and increasingly violent crimes being perpetrated by minors. I’m not suggesting that a 17 year old doesn’t know that killing is wrong. What I’m suggesting is that the whole idea of it isn’t as developed. I’m horrified at the thought of violence in a way that I wasn’t even a couple of years ago. When I was 17 I could watch anything Hollywood was willing to put on a screen. Now when I hear about people stepping on land mines, or being torn apart by car bombs, of beaten with blunt objects it affects me physically. There’s a reason we don’t let minors do all the things we don’t let minors do, we don’t trust them. We know what it’s like to be a kid and we know that we cannot entrust them with certain responsibilities. So how can we decide to kill them?
In his decent one of the judges noted that we allow minors to make decisions about abortion without parental consent. He asked how we could entrust them such an important decision when at the same time we say that they cannot be held responsible for making the grown up decision to kill. This question is flawed in that it is based on false pretenses. In order for it to be valid we must first accept that abortion is an adult decision. It’s not. Especially in the case of minors abortion is often a way out trouble caused by making an immature decision. We allow minors to do this without their parent’s knowledge because abortion is a traumatic and stressful experience that doesn’t need to be compounded with punishment and possible life long family stress. Second, if are to accept this as a valid question then we must also accept that the decision to kill is a mature decision. It is not. The decision to kill is childish. Those who kill in a fit of rage, or during the commission of another crime do so because they are not mature enough to do otherwise. The kind of anger that leads to spontaneous murder is infantile. Crime, in and of itself is immature. The decision to rob or extort is arrived at because the perpetrator cannot see, or is unwilling to undertake a mature and responsible course in the order to achieve their goals. One could argue that any otherwise rational person who commits homicide could not possibly be mature enough to understand the full effect of their actions. It seems impossible that anyone who fully grasps the impact of committing murder could not possibly go through with it. Conversely, anyone who is capable of fully grasping the effect of murder and still go through with it must be insane, and therefore also ineligible for the death penalty. Indeed, murder can be seen as the ultimate immature crime, the instant removal of a perceived obstacle. If this is the case then how can we condemn to death a juvenile who acts in exactly the role society has cast them in?
This is not to say that society bears sole responsibility in creating child killers, though we should examine why this is much more of a modern phenomenon. Nor should juvenile killers skate simply because they were under age at the commission of their crimes. Anyone who takes a life in cold blood, whether spontaneously, or through conspiracy, should be locked away from society. However, in a nation where we cannot accurately assign the death penalty to adults, how can we even debate assigning it to children?
The big issue, the one that has sparked debate in this country for at least as long as I’ve been alive (and I’m sure longer than that) is whether the death penalty is appropriate at all. My personal views on this issue have changed over time. As a young man I believed in the eye-for-an-eye tenor of the death penalty. After all, it’s only fair right? Later I believed that the death penalty should only be administered if the family of the victim was willing to do the deed themselves. Indeed, I even conceived of a big game style hunt to carry out the task. Later still I believed that death row inmates were a drain on the general society and that they should be executed on the spot, directly after sentencing in order to save taxpayer money that was being wasted keeping them on death row for decades while they used their appeals. Over the last few years I’ve had many debates with many people about the death penalty, and they’ve swayed me. Then I did some research. The thing that really turned me against the death penalty was an episode of the nationally syndicated radio program, “This American Life” which aired on February 11th, 2005. The episode is devoted to the story of a man who, despite forensic evidence, eye witness testimony, and the fact that the police had the real killer in custody, was given the death penalty in the state of New York. The episode, titled “DIY”, can be heard at www.thislife.org. Don’t get me wrong, I think that people who commit violent crime should be dealt with harshly, but the more I read, the more I heard, the more convinced I became that putting the decision to kill in the hands of the government was too inexact a science. When you add in the yokels that make up most juries it becomes too horrible to think about some being sentenced to die by a jury of their peers. I’ll tell you, if I were ever facing the prospect of state sponsored death a jury of my peers is the last thing I’d want. I’d want twelve people way smarter and more compassionate than me. The fact is that people are wrongly convicted all the time. Witnesses lie, cops follow their prejudices or their desire more than they follow evidence, and often testimony or evidence that would clear a defendant are ignored, or never heard. Basically, the death penalty is a bad idea. It doesn’t deter crime, it doesn’t bring closure to families that still have to mourn their loved ones, and there’s just too much risk of getting it horribly wrong.
The idea of applying the death penalty to minors is even more horrific. The US generally recognizes 18 as the age of adulthood. It is the age when you can vote, have sex legally, marry without parental consent and go off to die in Iraq. (Remember, if you’re a male you have to sign up for the draft at 18 if you want to be eligible for federal student aid. Even though they say there isn’t going to be a draft, and even though you’ll likely be exempted from the draft if you’re enrolled in a degree-seeking program. Ignacio, I’m talking to you!) According to both law and custom a person who is 17 years and 364 days old is incapable of making any of these kinds of decisions on their own. So, is there some magic of biology that occurs at 18 that gives one the ability to make calm rational decisions about life? Have any of you ever been 18? Hell, I’m 28 and I’m just now starting to make calm rational decisions. The fact is that no one suddenly becomes responsible at 18. Some people are responsible at birth, others are never responsible no matter how old they get.
So what’s the point? The point is that kids are fucked up. They live in a fucked up world, in a fucked up country, with a fucked up government, elected by a fucked up society. Sure, it’s OK for us adults, we can cope, but remember high school? Now add mixed messages about sex (it sells, but it’s bad), drugs (drugs are BAD! Now take your Zoloft and Ritalin, and Cialis), politics (Marriage is good, but only for a man and a woman, ignore your divorced parents and that happy gay couple down the block who have been together for 20 years), individuality (be yourself, as long as yourself conforms to all school policies), etc. If you think it was bad when you were a kid, it’s way worse now. The point is that there are certain personality disorders that psychiatrists are prohibited from diagnosing in minors because the kids are still developing. The point is that minors are far more likely to be swayed by group interaction. There’s even a term for it, Peer…something. It’s all the rage.
It seems that juveniles being tried as adults is becoming more common as America becomes more fed up with increasing and increasingly violent crimes being perpetrated by minors. I’m not suggesting that a 17 year old doesn’t know that killing is wrong. What I’m suggesting is that the whole idea of it isn’t as developed. I’m horrified at the thought of violence in a way that I wasn’t even a couple of years ago. When I was 17 I could watch anything Hollywood was willing to put on a screen. Now when I hear about people stepping on land mines, or being torn apart by car bombs, of beaten with blunt objects it affects me physically. There’s a reason we don’t let minors do all the things we don’t let minors do, we don’t trust them. We know what it’s like to be a kid and we know that we cannot entrust them with certain responsibilities. So how can we decide to kill them?
In his decent one of the judges noted that we allow minors to make decisions about abortion without parental consent. He asked how we could entrust them such an important decision when at the same time we say that they cannot be held responsible for making the grown up decision to kill. This question is flawed in that it is based on false pretenses. In order for it to be valid we must first accept that abortion is an adult decision. It’s not. Especially in the case of minors abortion is often a way out trouble caused by making an immature decision. We allow minors to do this without their parent’s knowledge because abortion is a traumatic and stressful experience that doesn’t need to be compounded with punishment and possible life long family stress. Second, if are to accept this as a valid question then we must also accept that the decision to kill is a mature decision. It is not. The decision to kill is childish. Those who kill in a fit of rage, or during the commission of another crime do so because they are not mature enough to do otherwise. The kind of anger that leads to spontaneous murder is infantile. Crime, in and of itself is immature. The decision to rob or extort is arrived at because the perpetrator cannot see, or is unwilling to undertake a mature and responsible course in the order to achieve their goals. One could argue that any otherwise rational person who commits homicide could not possibly be mature enough to understand the full effect of their actions. It seems impossible that anyone who fully grasps the impact of committing murder could not possibly go through with it. Conversely, anyone who is capable of fully grasping the effect of murder and still go through with it must be insane, and therefore also ineligible for the death penalty. Indeed, murder can be seen as the ultimate immature crime, the instant removal of a perceived obstacle. If this is the case then how can we condemn to death a juvenile who acts in exactly the role society has cast them in?
This is not to say that society bears sole responsibility in creating child killers, though we should examine why this is much more of a modern phenomenon. Nor should juvenile killers skate simply because they were under age at the commission of their crimes. Anyone who takes a life in cold blood, whether spontaneously, or through conspiracy, should be locked away from society. However, in a nation where we cannot accurately assign the death penalty to adults, how can we even debate assigning it to children?
Sunday, January 30, 2005
This called The Show
OK, I was going to let this go, but a co-worker recently brought up Doug Brien’s missed opportunity to send the Jets back to the AFC Championship Game. Here’s the thing, of course Brien should have made those field goals, but either Herm Edwards, or Paul Hackett should have tried to get him closer for that first FG attempt. After all, once they got within 47 yards the Jets didn’t make any serious attempts to get any closer. Therefore I blame the coaching staff for setting Dougie up to fail. This isn’t the first time Dougie has been set up to take the fall for other people’s shortcomings. Hence, in defense of a good player I present an article that first appeared on this site in October of ’03. This one’s for you Dougie…
Owen Pochman is out (thank goodness) and the Niners will now turn to Todd Peterson to solve a kicking game that has been in flux since, well, since Ray Wersching left in 1987. Since then they have had adequate guys like Mike Cofer, Doug Brien, and Wade Richey. Some very good kickers like Jeff Wilkins and Gary Anderson. But mostly they have had spectacular flops, Jose “Clown Shoes” Cortez, Tony “El Bouquero” Zendejas, Jeff “Really? A 4th Round Draft Pick?” Chandler, and now, Owen “Cut by the Giants” Pochman.
Pochman missed 3 field goals last week in a game won by the 49er defense. This week he missed two more as the 49ers lost in OT to the hapless Arizona Cardinals. Now Pochman is out and SF will bring in Peterson hoping that last years 57.1 FG% was an aberration. While Peterson may help in the short term the 49ers kicking problems run much deeper and will not be solved without a change in organizational philosophy. Basically the 49ers have never cared about kickers, since the glory years began having a good kicker was considered a luxury not worth the expense.
This was fine when SF had Montana, Craig, Rice, Solomon, Clark, Young, Watters, Taylor, Jones, Frank, an great O-line and an all pro defense. Back when John Madden was calling out “Sooooo many weapons” and the Niners were in the NFC championship game year after year. But this is a different team in a different era. Dennis Erickson has not lived up to his promise to “open up the offense.” The O-line is shaky and SF is having trouble scoring points. This team that is not going to blow people away like they did during the stretch between ’81 and ’97. This is a team that needs to scratch out wins the way Carolina is with John Kasay (career FG% 80.1, 17/17 this year).
SF has made some terrible decisions with its kickers, here is brief over view:
Name Year Career% %When Cut Post SF Career
Ray Wersching ‘77-‘87 67.5 76.5 Retired in 1987
Jeff Backhaus 1987 50.0 50.0 Subbed for Wersching, never played in NFL again
Mike Cofer ’88-‘93 66.2 61.5 44.4% for Indy in 1995
Doug Brien ’94-95 80.5 88.2 Current 88.9% with NYJ
Tony Zendejas 1995 73.5 42.9 Never played again.
Jeff Wilkins ’95-96 80.2 88.2 Went to rival Rams and won a Super Bowl
Gary Anderson 1997 80.1 80.6 92.9% for Tennessee in ’03
Wade Richey ‘98-‘’99 72.4 68.2 Currently 1/1 with Baltimore
Jose Cortez ‘00-’02 71.9 75.0 With Minn. no FG attempts this year.
Jeff Chandler ’02-’03 73.7 85.7 Out of football
Owen Pochman 2003 47.1 53.3 Out of football
Todd Peterson 2003 77.8
(During this time they also cut Ryan Longwell and his career 81.1%)
Some analysis on the above list shows that the Niners had a decent run of kickers from the middle of 1995 through the end of 1997 which was also the end of the Niners great run (lost NFC Championship to Green Bay). Since then the Niners have suffered through salary cap hell and the premature retirement of Steve Young. But their inability and unwillingness to resign good kickers has cost them games over the years. They didn’t want to spend the money to resign Wilkins or Anderson. They ran out of patience with Chandler who was kicking well when he was cut. Brien was made the scapegoat for a slow start in 1995 when the real problem was that SF tried to replace Ricky Watters with Derek Loville. In both cases the quick hooks cost them games. They brought in Zendejas in ’95 who lasted three games and went 3-7 with 3 blocks (he was also 1-3 on PATs). This year they cut Chandler in favor of a guy who brought in a career FG% of 47.1.
If SF ever again finds a reliable kicker they need to keep him. Consistency is good, from 1981 through 1994 SF had three regular kickers. Since then they have had eight. If SF had a consistent kicker at this point they would be a least 4-4 (if not better) and still be in the hunt in the NFC. As it is they face a huge up hill fight to make the playoffs. You can overlook special teams when you’re rolling over fools to the tune of 42 point per game. When you fall back to the pack however, you need good special teams, coverage, returns, and kicks. After all, as good as the Pats were in ’01 it was Adam Vinatieri (career 81.7%) who won the game for them.
Owen Pochman is out (thank goodness) and the Niners will now turn to Todd Peterson to solve a kicking game that has been in flux since, well, since Ray Wersching left in 1987. Since then they have had adequate guys like Mike Cofer, Doug Brien, and Wade Richey. Some very good kickers like Jeff Wilkins and Gary Anderson. But mostly they have had spectacular flops, Jose “Clown Shoes” Cortez, Tony “El Bouquero” Zendejas, Jeff “Really? A 4th Round Draft Pick?” Chandler, and now, Owen “Cut by the Giants” Pochman.
Pochman missed 3 field goals last week in a game won by the 49er defense. This week he missed two more as the 49ers lost in OT to the hapless Arizona Cardinals. Now Pochman is out and SF will bring in Peterson hoping that last years 57.1 FG% was an aberration. While Peterson may help in the short term the 49ers kicking problems run much deeper and will not be solved without a change in organizational philosophy. Basically the 49ers have never cared about kickers, since the glory years began having a good kicker was considered a luxury not worth the expense.
This was fine when SF had Montana, Craig, Rice, Solomon, Clark, Young, Watters, Taylor, Jones, Frank, an great O-line and an all pro defense. Back when John Madden was calling out “Sooooo many weapons” and the Niners were in the NFC championship game year after year. But this is a different team in a different era. Dennis Erickson has not lived up to his promise to “open up the offense.” The O-line is shaky and SF is having trouble scoring points. This team that is not going to blow people away like they did during the stretch between ’81 and ’97. This is a team that needs to scratch out wins the way Carolina is with John Kasay (career FG% 80.1, 17/17 this year).
SF has made some terrible decisions with its kickers, here is brief over view:
Name Year Career% %When Cut Post SF Career
Ray Wersching ‘77-‘87 67.5 76.5 Retired in 1987
Jeff Backhaus 1987 50.0 50.0 Subbed for Wersching, never played in NFL again
Mike Cofer ’88-‘93 66.2 61.5 44.4% for Indy in 1995
Doug Brien ’94-95 80.5 88.2 Current 88.9% with NYJ
Tony Zendejas 1995 73.5 42.9 Never played again.
Jeff Wilkins ’95-96 80.2 88.2 Went to rival Rams and won a Super Bowl
Gary Anderson 1997 80.1 80.6 92.9% for Tennessee in ’03
Wade Richey ‘98-‘’99 72.4 68.2 Currently 1/1 with Baltimore
Jose Cortez ‘00-’02 71.9 75.0 With Minn. no FG attempts this year.
Jeff Chandler ’02-’03 73.7 85.7 Out of football
Owen Pochman 2003 47.1 53.3 Out of football
Todd Peterson 2003 77.8
(During this time they also cut Ryan Longwell and his career 81.1%)
Some analysis on the above list shows that the Niners had a decent run of kickers from the middle of 1995 through the end of 1997 which was also the end of the Niners great run (lost NFC Championship to Green Bay). Since then the Niners have suffered through salary cap hell and the premature retirement of Steve Young. But their inability and unwillingness to resign good kickers has cost them games over the years. They didn’t want to spend the money to resign Wilkins or Anderson. They ran out of patience with Chandler who was kicking well when he was cut. Brien was made the scapegoat for a slow start in 1995 when the real problem was that SF tried to replace Ricky Watters with Derek Loville. In both cases the quick hooks cost them games. They brought in Zendejas in ’95 who lasted three games and went 3-7 with 3 blocks (he was also 1-3 on PATs). This year they cut Chandler in favor of a guy who brought in a career FG% of 47.1.
If SF ever again finds a reliable kicker they need to keep him. Consistency is good, from 1981 through 1994 SF had three regular kickers. Since then they have had eight. If SF had a consistent kicker at this point they would be a least 4-4 (if not better) and still be in the hunt in the NFC. As it is they face a huge up hill fight to make the playoffs. You can overlook special teams when you’re rolling over fools to the tune of 42 point per game. When you fall back to the pack however, you need good special teams, coverage, returns, and kicks. After all, as good as the Pats were in ’01 it was Adam Vinatieri (career 81.7%) who won the game for them.
Friday, January 28, 2005
"Can Music Save Your Mortal Soul?"
I started writing this as a self-pitying year-in-review taking stock of my sad, sad 2004. Then I realized that would be a bunch of bullshit. Instead I hit upon something infinitely more important about 2004 than my depression over getting older. You my gentle reader have been faithfully reading about all the things that piss me off for about a year and half now, so today I've decided to expound upon some of the things I actually liked in 2004.
The inspiration for this radical new line of thought was brought about, in part, by one the things I liked in 2004, a book called "Planet Simpson," a postmodern deconstruction of the TV show "The Simpsons." The important thing in this discussion is something almost totally unrelated to the overall subject of the book. For now I'll concentrate on something from the last chapter. In a section entitled "The Rebirth of Sincerity" the author writes about the exact moment when he regained his faith in rock n' roll. Prior to this point in his life the author details how the cynicism of youth culture in the 1990s had pretty much consumed his entire being. In his mind rock was "played out." He then goes on to describe how he regained his faith in rock n' roll.
This resonated with me as I had been going through the same rock malaise since 1994. As you may recall that was the year Kurt Cobain decided that being Kurt Cobain was played out. With Nirvana gone a whole horde of whiney-Wallflower-Bush-crappy-McCrap rock rushed in to fill the void. Ever since then my relationship with rock n' roll had stagnated into an adoring love for all the songs I loved during high school mixed in with an occasional single from a current band. At no time in the decade between then and now did I feel the need to rush out and buy an entire album from any one rock band.
Now, allow me to be not one bit original or insightful. Here's the thing, I don't know about music the way, say, my friend, and former contributor here, Daniel knows about music. I know what I like, and, except for a few isolated singles most of what I like was released prior to 1996. That changed in 2004. The past year was the best year in music since 1991, which saw the release of Nevermind, Blood Sugar Sex Magic, and The Low End Theory (along with Metallica's Black Album). 2004 finally saw the release of three very good rock albums:
-Jet: Get Born:
The Rolling Stones can go ahead and retire. Remember back when everyone said that Oasis were the next Beatles? Uh, where's Oasis been the past few years? Yeah, that's what I thought. If anyone has assumed the mantle from the rock bands of the 60s and 70s it's Jet. The problem with Oasis is that they were pretentious. They set out to be the next Beatles, they believed they were the next Beatles, they were decidedly, NOT, the next Beatles.
Jet however has done exactly what I, as a rock fan, want, an unpretentious rock album, an album without any real message, an album that is not intended to shock people, or make them think, or any of the other BS things that bands try to work into their albums. This is an album that simply rocks. This is the album, in particular the first single "Are You Gonna Be My Girl," that restored my faith in rock n' roll. Topics covered on the album include women who are, by turns, unattainable, unreachable, and evil, bad DJs, and general RnR malaise. In other words, they cover all the old rock standards.
The band also produced two of the best rock videos of the past decade, for "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" and "Look What You've Done." I simply can't stress enough how great it is to finally here a band that's not overly poppy, or whiney, or any of the other crappy adjectives that can be placed upon most of the crap that has passed itself off as rock and roll since Kurt killed himself.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000AQVCL/qid=1106947785/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-3740391-5741558
-Greenday: American Idiot:
I spent a long time trying to figure out why this was such a good album. In the dark years after '94, after Green Day's "Dookie" was released I had a lot of hope that this would be the band to shine through and take over where Nirvana left off. Then that stupid "Time of Your Life" song found it's way into every TV show in the Western Hemisphere. I remember watching NBC one night and hearing that song on three shows back-to-back-to-back. At that moment Green Day went from being a slightly disappointing band, to an object of down right scorn.
All that has changed. "American Idiot" is a great, let me repeat, great rock album on sooo many levels. First off it's an overt return to politically based anti-establismentary punk. I don't know if Green Day has been inserting political messages into their albums all along, I do know that their singles haven't had anything like the edge that "American Idiot" has. The album, like the title song, rails against the powers that be, and have been for the past few years. There's an awesome send up of the Governator on the third track "Holiday." The last voice begins with an intercom type announcement that "The representative form California has the floor." The next few lines take the piss out of both Bush and Ahnold,
Sieg Hail to the President Gas Man
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel Towers
that criticize your government
And it goes on like this throughout the whole album. The radical thing is not that a band, or anyone else, would speak out against the idiocy of the US government, or the media, the radical thing is that it would come from a band that has such a strong history of making commercial pop-punk. That is, we're used to rebellion from the counter culture segments of the population, but rarely does a band with something to lose put out a statement this strong. That's why the call of rebellion in this album hits as hard as it does, because it comes from people who don't need to use it as a device, it comes from those who have already "made it" and are now risking rebuke from those that gave them their position.
But rebellion and angst are only a small part of why this album rocks. The album is actually a concept piece. It tells the story of St. Jimmy, The Jesus of Suburbia, and a girl they call Whatsername. The album tells a story in a very loose sense. There's no real clear narrative. Instead the album guides the listener through an emotional pseudo-story that, like a film noir project, is meant to leave the audience with the experience of a feeling rather than a coherent story. The album sounds like a soundtrack to a play that doesn't exist, which it kind of is. However, the fact that the album is being fleshed out into a Broadway show is irrelevant. The point is, in an era of good musicals also standing as good rock albums (Hedwig, Rent), Green Day has put out a solid rock album that should do well as a musical. It's this interplay that allows Green Day to escape their stripped down power trio roots while maintaining a solid punk sensibility that was missing from their later over produced mass-market schlock.
I'm not doing this album justice. Buy it, or better yet, steal it, listen to it a few dozen times, then get back to me.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002OERI0/qid=1106947742/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-3740391-5741558
-Killers: Hot Fuss
Anyone else miss Depeche Mode or New Order? Well, the Killers aren't really like them, but they're like a bastard love child of punk and new wave. They're album, which includes the singles "Mr. Brightside" and "Somebody Told Me," is another one that makes over produced punk sound cutting edge rather than just commercial. I really don't have as much to say about this album as I did with the previous two. It pretty much just rocks
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002858YS/ref=m_art_bow_1/104-3740391-5741558?v=glance&s=music
So there it is, 2004, the year that saved rock. I know there are other good albums that came out but many of these (To The 5 Boroughs to name one) came from groups that have been putting out a consistently good product forever. Instead I wanted to focus on the bands that surprised me and restored my faith in an art form.
Also deserving mention:
-Franz Ferdinand: Take Me Out
-Maroon 5: This Love (I know it's cheesy but it helped me through a tough time.)
-Modest Mouse: Float On
-My Chemical Romance: I'm Not OK
-Velvet Revolver: Slither (So GnR yet So STP, let's have some peanut butter cups.)
The inspiration for this radical new line of thought was brought about, in part, by one the things I liked in 2004, a book called "Planet Simpson," a postmodern deconstruction of the TV show "The Simpsons." The important thing in this discussion is something almost totally unrelated to the overall subject of the book. For now I'll concentrate on something from the last chapter. In a section entitled "The Rebirth of Sincerity" the author writes about the exact moment when he regained his faith in rock n' roll. Prior to this point in his life the author details how the cynicism of youth culture in the 1990s had pretty much consumed his entire being. In his mind rock was "played out." He then goes on to describe how he regained his faith in rock n' roll.
This resonated with me as I had been going through the same rock malaise since 1994. As you may recall that was the year Kurt Cobain decided that being Kurt Cobain was played out. With Nirvana gone a whole horde of whiney-Wallflower-Bush-crappy-McCrap rock rushed in to fill the void. Ever since then my relationship with rock n' roll had stagnated into an adoring love for all the songs I loved during high school mixed in with an occasional single from a current band. At no time in the decade between then and now did I feel the need to rush out and buy an entire album from any one rock band.
Now, allow me to be not one bit original or insightful. Here's the thing, I don't know about music the way, say, my friend, and former contributor here, Daniel knows about music. I know what I like, and, except for a few isolated singles most of what I like was released prior to 1996. That changed in 2004. The past year was the best year in music since 1991, which saw the release of Nevermind, Blood Sugar Sex Magic, and The Low End Theory (along with Metallica's Black Album). 2004 finally saw the release of three very good rock albums:
-Jet: Get Born:
The Rolling Stones can go ahead and retire. Remember back when everyone said that Oasis were the next Beatles? Uh, where's Oasis been the past few years? Yeah, that's what I thought. If anyone has assumed the mantle from the rock bands of the 60s and 70s it's Jet. The problem with Oasis is that they were pretentious. They set out to be the next Beatles, they believed they were the next Beatles, they were decidedly, NOT, the next Beatles.
Jet however has done exactly what I, as a rock fan, want, an unpretentious rock album, an album without any real message, an album that is not intended to shock people, or make them think, or any of the other BS things that bands try to work into their albums. This is an album that simply rocks. This is the album, in particular the first single "Are You Gonna Be My Girl," that restored my faith in rock n' roll. Topics covered on the album include women who are, by turns, unattainable, unreachable, and evil, bad DJs, and general RnR malaise. In other words, they cover all the old rock standards.
The band also produced two of the best rock videos of the past decade, for "Are You Gonna Be My Girl" and "Look What You've Done." I simply can't stress enough how great it is to finally here a band that's not overly poppy, or whiney, or any of the other crappy adjectives that can be placed upon most of the crap that has passed itself off as rock and roll since Kurt killed himself.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000AQVCL/qid=1106947785/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-3740391-5741558
-Greenday: American Idiot:
I spent a long time trying to figure out why this was such a good album. In the dark years after '94, after Green Day's "Dookie" was released I had a lot of hope that this would be the band to shine through and take over where Nirvana left off. Then that stupid "Time of Your Life" song found it's way into every TV show in the Western Hemisphere. I remember watching NBC one night and hearing that song on three shows back-to-back-to-back. At that moment Green Day went from being a slightly disappointing band, to an object of down right scorn.
All that has changed. "American Idiot" is a great, let me repeat, great rock album on sooo many levels. First off it's an overt return to politically based anti-establismentary punk. I don't know if Green Day has been inserting political messages into their albums all along, I do know that their singles haven't had anything like the edge that "American Idiot" has. The album, like the title song, rails against the powers that be, and have been for the past few years. There's an awesome send up of the Governator on the third track "Holiday." The last voice begins with an intercom type announcement that "The representative form California has the floor." The next few lines take the piss out of both Bush and Ahnold,
Sieg Hail to the President Gas Man
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel Towers
that criticize your government
And it goes on like this throughout the whole album. The radical thing is not that a band, or anyone else, would speak out against the idiocy of the US government, or the media, the radical thing is that it would come from a band that has such a strong history of making commercial pop-punk. That is, we're used to rebellion from the counter culture segments of the population, but rarely does a band with something to lose put out a statement this strong. That's why the call of rebellion in this album hits as hard as it does, because it comes from people who don't need to use it as a device, it comes from those who have already "made it" and are now risking rebuke from those that gave them their position.
But rebellion and angst are only a small part of why this album rocks. The album is actually a concept piece. It tells the story of St. Jimmy, The Jesus of Suburbia, and a girl they call Whatsername. The album tells a story in a very loose sense. There's no real clear narrative. Instead the album guides the listener through an emotional pseudo-story that, like a film noir project, is meant to leave the audience with the experience of a feeling rather than a coherent story. The album sounds like a soundtrack to a play that doesn't exist, which it kind of is. However, the fact that the album is being fleshed out into a Broadway show is irrelevant. The point is, in an era of good musicals also standing as good rock albums (Hedwig, Rent), Green Day has put out a solid rock album that should do well as a musical. It's this interplay that allows Green Day to escape their stripped down power trio roots while maintaining a solid punk sensibility that was missing from their later over produced mass-market schlock.
I'm not doing this album justice. Buy it, or better yet, steal it, listen to it a few dozen times, then get back to me.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002OERI0/qid=1106947742/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-3740391-5741558
-Killers: Hot Fuss
Anyone else miss Depeche Mode or New Order? Well, the Killers aren't really like them, but they're like a bastard love child of punk and new wave. They're album, which includes the singles "Mr. Brightside" and "Somebody Told Me," is another one that makes over produced punk sound cutting edge rather than just commercial. I really don't have as much to say about this album as I did with the previous two. It pretty much just rocks
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002858YS/ref=m_art_bow_1/104-3740391-5741558?v=glance&s=music
So there it is, 2004, the year that saved rock. I know there are other good albums that came out but many of these (To The 5 Boroughs to name one) came from groups that have been putting out a consistently good product forever. Instead I wanted to focus on the bands that surprised me and restored my faith in an art form.
Also deserving mention:
-Franz Ferdinand: Take Me Out
-Maroon 5: This Love (I know it's cheesy but it helped me through a tough time.)
-Modest Mouse: Float On
-My Chemical Romance: I'm Not OK
-Velvet Revolver: Slither (So GnR yet So STP, let's have some peanut butter cups.)
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Dallas vs. Dynasty
OK, the super bowl is set and SR has a few things to say. First of all, Jim Mora Jr. knows that he still has Michael Vick on his team right? Atlanta should have carved up that Philly defense but they only used Vick to his true abilities when it was predictable, or on busted plays. Vick is the most exciting player since Barry Sanders, but only when you allow him to do what only he can do. Barry used to lead the league in yards lost, but he’d also lead the league in yards gained. The point is you have to take the bad to get the good. By playing so conservatively in the first half Atlanta put themselves in a bad situation, instead of Vick being unpredictable and maddening Philly knew exactly when and where he would try his trickery.
That said Philly played very well. The great thing is that they did it without TO. Don’t get me wrong, TO is a great player, and I rode him like Zorro in my fantasy league, but, in the end I, like the Eagles, had to find a way to get it done without TO. Andy Reid drew up a great game plan the last two weeks but, Freddie Mitchell’s “great” hands not withstanding, the Iggles won on a couple of lucky bounces last week. Now I’m left to wonder whether TO will help or hurt his team if he can come back for the big game.
Not that I think it will make any real difference. The Pats look as good as ever and I expect them to win it all. Sure, last week I thought that Manning and Co. would roll into Foxboro and sprint on to Pittsburg. Sure I said that a scheme can’t win without the players to carry it out and that the time had come for the New England secondary to finally not only be exposed, but exploited. But I was wrong. Around the middle of the third quarter last week I decided that Belichick IS the next Walsh and that my money’s on the Pats to win until they lose. After Pitt escaped last week’s game against the Jets and Big Ben looked like the rookie he really is, I knew there was no way the Steelers could win.
So, if the Pats win what is their legacy? A lot of people are starting to throw around the word “dynasty.” During the broadcast yesterday Chris Collinsworth mentioned that when asked about dynasties Belichick mentioned the Dallas teams of the early 90s. Those teams won three titles in four years, which is exactly what the Pats are trying to do, so it’s apt that Belichick would choose them as his example of a dynasty. I disagree. Those Cowboy teams were very good, great even, but they were no dynasty. “But SR, if the Cowboys run doesn’t make a dynasty what does?” I’m glad you asked.
A dynasty requires both winning and longevity. Both the Cowboys of the 90s, and these Pats, if they win the Super Bowl, have the winning, sort of. In order to be a dynasty I think you need to match the title total of the NFL’s first modern dynasty, the four Super Bowls won by the Steelers in the 1970’s. During their dominant stretch (1972-1984) the Steelers won their division 10 times, went to the playoffs 11 times and played in 7 AFC Championships. Still, in order to define a true dynasty you must look at the single greatest dynasty in NFL history, the San Francisco Forty Niners. Even if you mark their run only from the start to the end of their championship years you are looking at 14 years at or near the top of the league. If you include the fact that they lost the 1997 NFC Championship Game their legacy spans 17 years of dominance, nearly two decades as the team to beat in the NFC. During those 17 years SF won their division 13 times, went to the playoffs 15 times, played in 10 NFC Championships, and was the first team to win 5 Super Bowls. No other team has ever had that much success for so long. Even in the lean years, 1998-2004, SF made the playoffs three times, including the second biggest comeback victory in NFL playoff history.
Want more? Too bad, it’s my web site and I’ll Rant if I want to. Going back to the original dynasty, the Steelers won two titles in the first half of the 1970s, and then two in the second fitting them to the criteria of both winning and longevity. The Niners won their championships over an extended period of time becoming the team of the 80s. This is a very important factor. Even if you toss out the ‘94 season the Niners won four titles over nine years with one repeat. They never went more than three years without a title. By contrast, the Cowboys of the early 90s won three tiles in four years, but none after 1995. In my mind this makes them the team of the first half of the nineties, but not a dynasty. This is the mold from which the current Patriots may be cast. If they win this title they will be a very good team that has had a short run of incredible brilliance. Of course they still need to win the Super Bowl this year, and even then they won’t be as good as those Cowboy teams for the fact that between titles the Boys lost to the Niners in the NFC championship Game, between titles the Pats missed the playoffs.
So what needs to happen for the Pats to become a dynasty? Well, they’ll need to win on Feb. 6th, and they’ll have to win at least won more time after that. That fourth win can come any time, but if it comes in 2006 or 2007 so much the better. In the meantime the Pats would have to win their division and make it deep into the playoffs in the years they don’t win it all. If they can keep up this kind of pace for next two or three years I’ll be willing to call them a dynasty.
That said Philly played very well. The great thing is that they did it without TO. Don’t get me wrong, TO is a great player, and I rode him like Zorro in my fantasy league, but, in the end I, like the Eagles, had to find a way to get it done without TO. Andy Reid drew up a great game plan the last two weeks but, Freddie Mitchell’s “great” hands not withstanding, the Iggles won on a couple of lucky bounces last week. Now I’m left to wonder whether TO will help or hurt his team if he can come back for the big game.
Not that I think it will make any real difference. The Pats look as good as ever and I expect them to win it all. Sure, last week I thought that Manning and Co. would roll into Foxboro and sprint on to Pittsburg. Sure I said that a scheme can’t win without the players to carry it out and that the time had come for the New England secondary to finally not only be exposed, but exploited. But I was wrong. Around the middle of the third quarter last week I decided that Belichick IS the next Walsh and that my money’s on the Pats to win until they lose. After Pitt escaped last week’s game against the Jets and Big Ben looked like the rookie he really is, I knew there was no way the Steelers could win.
So, if the Pats win what is their legacy? A lot of people are starting to throw around the word “dynasty.” During the broadcast yesterday Chris Collinsworth mentioned that when asked about dynasties Belichick mentioned the Dallas teams of the early 90s. Those teams won three titles in four years, which is exactly what the Pats are trying to do, so it’s apt that Belichick would choose them as his example of a dynasty. I disagree. Those Cowboy teams were very good, great even, but they were no dynasty. “But SR, if the Cowboys run doesn’t make a dynasty what does?” I’m glad you asked.
A dynasty requires both winning and longevity. Both the Cowboys of the 90s, and these Pats, if they win the Super Bowl, have the winning, sort of. In order to be a dynasty I think you need to match the title total of the NFL’s first modern dynasty, the four Super Bowls won by the Steelers in the 1970’s. During their dominant stretch (1972-1984) the Steelers won their division 10 times, went to the playoffs 11 times and played in 7 AFC Championships. Still, in order to define a true dynasty you must look at the single greatest dynasty in NFL history, the San Francisco Forty Niners. Even if you mark their run only from the start to the end of their championship years you are looking at 14 years at or near the top of the league. If you include the fact that they lost the 1997 NFC Championship Game their legacy spans 17 years of dominance, nearly two decades as the team to beat in the NFC. During those 17 years SF won their division 13 times, went to the playoffs 15 times, played in 10 NFC Championships, and was the first team to win 5 Super Bowls. No other team has ever had that much success for so long. Even in the lean years, 1998-2004, SF made the playoffs three times, including the second biggest comeback victory in NFL playoff history.
Want more? Too bad, it’s my web site and I’ll Rant if I want to. Going back to the original dynasty, the Steelers won two titles in the first half of the 1970s, and then two in the second fitting them to the criteria of both winning and longevity. The Niners won their championships over an extended period of time becoming the team of the 80s. This is a very important factor. Even if you toss out the ‘94 season the Niners won four titles over nine years with one repeat. They never went more than three years without a title. By contrast, the Cowboys of the early 90s won three tiles in four years, but none after 1995. In my mind this makes them the team of the first half of the nineties, but not a dynasty. This is the mold from which the current Patriots may be cast. If they win this title they will be a very good team that has had a short run of incredible brilliance. Of course they still need to win the Super Bowl this year, and even then they won’t be as good as those Cowboy teams for the fact that between titles the Boys lost to the Niners in the NFC championship Game, between titles the Pats missed the playoffs.
So what needs to happen for the Pats to become a dynasty? Well, they’ll need to win on Feb. 6th, and they’ll have to win at least won more time after that. That fourth win can come any time, but if it comes in 2006 or 2007 so much the better. In the meantime the Pats would have to win their division and make it deep into the playoffs in the years they don’t win it all. If they can keep up this kind of pace for next two or three years I’ll be willing to call them a dynasty.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Deja Vu
Monday, January 10, 2005
Hmmm, I feel like I just wrote this column. Sure, it was two years ago, and sure, I only wrote it in email format to a few friends. Still I feel like I just had this conversation and that the sentiment hasn't changed much. Some of the names are different (Pete Carroll), and some are the same (Romeo Crenel), but basically the list of guys I don't want is longer than the list of those I do want.
Here's a brief recap on my conversation with DMJ on this very topic in January of 2003.
From: SR Subj: Head Coach
Here are some names I've heard that I think could work out for the 49ers:
Lovie Smith (Rams D-coordinator)
Ray Rhodes (Broncos D-coordinator)
Rick Neuheisel (U of Washington head coach)
Jim Tressel (U of Ohio head coach)
Names I've heard that I don't like:
Dennis Green
Tom Coughlin
Ted Tollner (SF QB's coach)
Mike Riley (Former SD head coach)
Ted Cottrell (Jets D-coordinator)
Jim Mora Jr.
Dark Horse???:
Willie Shaw (Vikes D-coordinator)
Terry Donahue
June Jones (U of Hawaii head coach)
When Hell Freezes:
Jim Mora Sr.
Marv Levy
Wade Phillips
Art Shell
Mike White
Joe Bugal
Barry Switzer
From: SR Re: Head Coach
Jimmy Johnson?
From: DMJ Subj: Dumb
Glenn Dickey said in today's Chron that Neuheisel would take the job if the team offered it, despite his denials. Apparently him and Donahue have some (good) history. Erickson would be a disaster.
From: SR Re: Dumb
And dumber...
49ers comfortable with Erickson hiring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noooooooooooooo!!!!!........... Erickson WILL be a disaster. ESPN reported that Neuheisel said he had not been contacted, nor was he interested. May the spirits of Frankie Albert and Vic Morabito save us all.
From: DMJ Re: Dumb
I don't know who those people are. Explain, please. For some reason, I
didn't watch the news last night, nor this morning.
From: SR Re: Dumb
I'm going to assume you mean you don't know Albert and Morabito. (You better know Ricky, Ricky can't stand people not knowing Ricky.) Vic Morabito was Eddie D before Eddie D. He was the founding owner of the 49ers back in 1946. He tried to get an NFL team but was rebuffed and so he helped found the AAFC. He paid players well and loved the game. Frankie Albert was Steve Young before Steve was. Back when QB's threw less and ran more Albert threw a lot. He was the first star QB in SF. People mention Montana, Young and now maybe Garcia, but they forget about Albert, Tittle, and Plunkett...and Steve Deberg. Roger Craig? How about Hugh MacElhenny, Joe Perry, and John Henry Johnson? Along with Albert they formed "The Million Dollar Backfield" in an era when if four player's salaries added up to a million dollars it was big news. So there you go, your 49ers history lesson for today. There will be one comprehensive final at the end of the semester.
OK so that kind of went off on a tangent. The point is that I was wrong about Neuhiesel, he would have been a disaster also. I was right about Ericsson tough. The guy I liked, Lovie Smith, is now the HC in Chicago, Green, Coughlin, and Mora Jr. all have other HC jobs too. Cotrell is back in the mix, Donahue is out, and the rest of the names are out dated and not worth discussing.
So, here we are, two years and a world of talent away from 2003. For the record I still hope they call Jimmy Johnson. I know he's old, and we all still remember him for his 63-3 playoff loss in his last game, but maybe he's reenergized now. OK, back to reality, let's see who's out there...
First off, "owner" John York said he wants to look for a "proven, winning NFL coach," which would seem to rule out the man who seems to have grabbed the headlines recently, USC HC Pete Carroll. Good old Pete, the D-coordinator for the Niners last championship. The thing is, Carroll, like Ericsson, is a great college coach who has totally bombed as an NFL head coach. Prior to 1994 Carroll was fired by the Jets; and afterward he was fired by the Pats. Still, Carroll is currently the hot guy even though he says he's not interested. "Not interested" is the same thing Neuhiesel said around the time of his secret interview. Carroll should stay at USC. He's been very good there. He should not ever leave USC. Ever. He should retire after that job. At the very least he should never go back to the NFL.
The sad thing is that the landscape is very bleak right now. There are no hot coaching candidates. I can't even come up with a good list of who I don't want. And my list of who I would want is exactly two, Johnson and the guy the Niners can't get and never should have let go, Steve Marriuci. I think the Dolphins got the only real viable college guy and the list of coordinators is uninspiring. Romeo Crenel seems to have the inside track, but who knows how he'd do as the top guy? So, here is my please, please God no list in no particular order, including guys who haven't been officially mentioned:
-Pete Carroll
-Dave Wandstat
-Greg Williams
-Wade Phillips
-Ray Rhodes
-Jim Fassel
-Dan Reeves
Other than that there are two coaches that are at least a little bit interesting. Mike Holmgren, who still hasn't shown that he can win without Brett Favre, and Raven's D coordinator Mike Nolan who is the son of former SF head coach Dick Nolan. Both men have SF ties, which is nice. Holmgren brings a pedigree that includes a Super Bowl win, and ties to the Bill Walsh era. Nolan brings a good defensive mindset and by being an unknown won't have to face the same kind of pressure the other candidates may face.
Hmmm, I feel like I just wrote this column. Sure, it was two years ago, and sure, I only wrote it in email format to a few friends. Still I feel like I just had this conversation and that the sentiment hasn't changed much. Some of the names are different (Pete Carroll), and some are the same (Romeo Crenel), but basically the list of guys I don't want is longer than the list of those I do want.
Here's a brief recap on my conversation with DMJ on this very topic in January of 2003.
From: SR Subj: Head Coach
Here are some names I've heard that I think could work out for the 49ers:
Lovie Smith (Rams D-coordinator)
Ray Rhodes (Broncos D-coordinator)
Rick Neuheisel (U of Washington head coach)
Jim Tressel (U of Ohio head coach)
Names I've heard that I don't like:
Dennis Green
Tom Coughlin
Ted Tollner (SF QB's coach)
Mike Riley (Former SD head coach)
Ted Cottrell (Jets D-coordinator)
Jim Mora Jr.
Dark Horse???:
Willie Shaw (Vikes D-coordinator)
Terry Donahue
June Jones (U of Hawaii head coach)
When Hell Freezes:
Jim Mora Sr.
Marv Levy
Wade Phillips
Art Shell
Mike White
Joe Bugal
Barry Switzer
From: SR Re: Head Coach
Jimmy Johnson?
From: DMJ Subj: Dumb
Glenn Dickey said in today's Chron that Neuheisel would take the job if the team offered it, despite his denials. Apparently him and Donahue have some (good) history. Erickson would be a disaster.
From: SR Re: Dumb
And dumber...
49ers comfortable with Erickson hiring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noooooooooooooo!!!!!........... Erickson WILL be a disaster. ESPN reported that Neuheisel said he had not been contacted, nor was he interested. May the spirits of Frankie Albert and Vic Morabito save us all.
From: DMJ Re: Dumb
I don't know who those people are. Explain, please. For some reason, I
didn't watch the news last night, nor this morning.
From: SR Re: Dumb
I'm going to assume you mean you don't know Albert and Morabito. (You better know Ricky, Ricky can't stand people not knowing Ricky.) Vic Morabito was Eddie D before Eddie D. He was the founding owner of the 49ers back in 1946. He tried to get an NFL team but was rebuffed and so he helped found the AAFC. He paid players well and loved the game. Frankie Albert was Steve Young before Steve was. Back when QB's threw less and ran more Albert threw a lot. He was the first star QB in SF. People mention Montana, Young and now maybe Garcia, but they forget about Albert, Tittle, and Plunkett...and Steve Deberg. Roger Craig? How about Hugh MacElhenny, Joe Perry, and John Henry Johnson? Along with Albert they formed "The Million Dollar Backfield" in an era when if four player's salaries added up to a million dollars it was big news. So there you go, your 49ers history lesson for today. There will be one comprehensive final at the end of the semester.
OK so that kind of went off on a tangent. The point is that I was wrong about Neuhiesel, he would have been a disaster also. I was right about Ericsson tough. The guy I liked, Lovie Smith, is now the HC in Chicago, Green, Coughlin, and Mora Jr. all have other HC jobs too. Cotrell is back in the mix, Donahue is out, and the rest of the names are out dated and not worth discussing.
So, here we are, two years and a world of talent away from 2003. For the record I still hope they call Jimmy Johnson. I know he's old, and we all still remember him for his 63-3 playoff loss in his last game, but maybe he's reenergized now. OK, back to reality, let's see who's out there...
First off, "owner" John York said he wants to look for a "proven, winning NFL coach," which would seem to rule out the man who seems to have grabbed the headlines recently, USC HC Pete Carroll. Good old Pete, the D-coordinator for the Niners last championship. The thing is, Carroll, like Ericsson, is a great college coach who has totally bombed as an NFL head coach. Prior to 1994 Carroll was fired by the Jets; and afterward he was fired by the Pats. Still, Carroll is currently the hot guy even though he says he's not interested. "Not interested" is the same thing Neuhiesel said around the time of his secret interview. Carroll should stay at USC. He's been very good there. He should not ever leave USC. Ever. He should retire after that job. At the very least he should never go back to the NFL.
The sad thing is that the landscape is very bleak right now. There are no hot coaching candidates. I can't even come up with a good list of who I don't want. And my list of who I would want is exactly two, Johnson and the guy the Niners can't get and never should have let go, Steve Marriuci. I think the Dolphins got the only real viable college guy and the list of coordinators is uninspiring. Romeo Crenel seems to have the inside track, but who knows how he'd do as the top guy? So, here is my please, please God no list in no particular order, including guys who haven't been officially mentioned:
-Pete Carroll
-Dave Wandstat
-Greg Williams
-Wade Phillips
-Ray Rhodes
-Jim Fassel
-Dan Reeves
Other than that there are two coaches that are at least a little bit interesting. Mike Holmgren, who still hasn't shown that he can win without Brett Favre, and Raven's D coordinator Mike Nolan who is the son of former SF head coach Dick Nolan. Both men have SF ties, which is nice. Holmgren brings a pedigree that includes a Super Bowl win, and ties to the Bill Walsh era. Nolan brings a good defensive mindset and by being an unknown won't have to face the same kind of pressure the other candidates may face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)