Again, due to time, quick picks:
Thursday Night:
Tampa (+5) over Minnesota
Sunday Early:
Chicago (-9) over Carolina
San Diego (-3) over Cleveland
Detroit (-1) over Seattle
Green Bay (-15) over Jacksonville
Indianapolis (+4) over Tennessee
St. Louis (+7) over New England (New England straight up)
Miami (+1) over the Jets
Atlanta (+3) over Philadelphia
Pittsburgh (-5) over Washington
Sunday Late:
Oakland (+2) over Kansas City
Giants (-1) over Cowboys
Sunday Night:
New Orleans (+6) over Denver
Monday Night:
San Fran (-7) over Arizona
Last week against the spread: 10-2-1
Last week straight up: 11-2
Season against the spread: 57-44-3
Season straight up: 66-38
As always, Thursday Night Football sucks.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
2012 NFL Week Picks - Week 7
Due to an inordinate amount of paper writing I have to do this weekend, only the picks and none of the witty commentary this week:
Last Week Against The Spread: 5-9 (YUCK!)
Last Week Straight Up:6-8 (Yuck!)
Season Against the Spread: 47-42-2
Season Straight Up: 55-36
Thursday Night Game
Seattle (+8) over San Francisco (49ers straight up)
Sunday Early Games
Buffalo (-3) over Tennessee
Indianapolis (-1) over Cleveland
Green Bay (-6) over St. Louis
Arizona (+7) over Minnesota (Minnesota Straight Up)
Redskins (+6) over NY Giants (Giants straight up)
New Orleans (-1) over Tampa Bay
Dallas (-1) over Carolina
Houston (-7) over Baltimore
Sunday Late Games
Jacksonville (+4) over Oakland
Jets (+11) over New England (Patriots Straight Up)
Sunday Night Game
Pittsburgh (-1) over Cincinnati
Monday Night Game
Chicago (-7) over Detroit (Ditka (-100) over Jim Schwartz' punk @$$ :-)
As always, Thursday Night Football SUCKS!
Last Week Against The Spread: 5-9 (YUCK!)
Last Week Straight Up:6-8 (Yuck!)
Season Against the Spread: 47-42-2
Season Straight Up: 55-36
Thursday Night Game
Seattle (+8) over San Francisco (49ers straight up)
Sunday Early Games
Buffalo (-3) over Tennessee
Indianapolis (-1) over Cleveland
Green Bay (-6) over St. Louis
Arizona (+7) over Minnesota (Minnesota Straight Up)
Redskins (+6) over NY Giants (Giants straight up)
New Orleans (-1) over Tampa Bay
Dallas (-1) over Carolina
Houston (-7) over Baltimore
Sunday Late Games
Jacksonville (+4) over Oakland
Jets (+11) over New England (Patriots Straight Up)
Sunday Night Game
Pittsburgh (-1) over Cincinnati
Monday Night Game
Chicago (-7) over Detroit (Ditka (-100) over Jim Schwartz' punk @$$ :-)
As always, Thursday Night Football SUCKS!
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
2012 NFL Week Picks - Week Six
Last week against the spread: 8-6
Last week straight up: 10-4
Season against the spread: 42-33-2
Season straight up: 49-28
Another solid week last week, finishing ahead against the spread and a solid 10-4 straight up. Eerily, as I look back to my week six picks last year, I started by posting my record, which was as follows:
"Last week against the spread: 9-4
Last week straight up: 10-3
Season against the spread: 38-37-2
Season straight up: 52-25"
So, at this point in the year I am doing much better against the spread and slightly worse straight up. That said, 21 games above .500 straight up isn't bad, and I'll always take nine games up on the spread every five weeks. This week I'm looking to build momentum, but during a dangerous week. Why is this week dangerous, you might ask? In fact, I'll answer this as if my millions (read: three) of readers were asking it aloud:
Question: Mike, why is this week dangerous?
Answer: Thanks millions (read: three) of faithful readers! I'll tell you why it's a dangerous week for me. You see, my fantasy football team has already decided it's not interested in commemorating Aaron Rodgers final season with my team by going for a fourth straight third place finish. Instead, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. To wit, my fiancee moved me up to the number six pick, the worst possible place to draft in our twelve team league this year. Then, Chris Johnson was the only option sitting at number six worth drafting (side note: I was unaware at the time that last year's "down" year for Chris Johnson was actually a great year compared to what he was going to bring to the table this year. In hindsight, I could have drafted Curtis Enis and probably been better off because at least I could cut Enis. But I digress). I followed that up by having Steven Jackson fall to me, then Larry Fitzgerald, then Brandon Lloyd. My draft plan was completely screwed up and the players I wanted kept getting taken right ahead of my pick. I took a plethora of 2nd tier running backs and wide receivers, needing to only hit on one or two to have a great team. I then hit on C.J. Spiller then watched him get injured and now am watching him get stuck in a running back by committee. Needless to say I'm 2-3, scoring nowhere near enough points to fathom making the playoff redraft, and I'm ready to sell off my team for draft picks next year. The problem with this? Nobody in my league wants to trade yet. So that's one reason why this week is dangerous: I'm checked out of fantasy football, so I'm not really paying attention to the other teams. The other reason is much simpler: the Bears are on a bye week, and I work all day Sunday, so I have nothing to draw me in this week.
So, with the challenge of fantasy apathy, a Bears' bye week, and a marathon double shift on Sunday, consider yourself warned: all the signs are there for a picks regression. Still, I'll try.
ON TO THE PICKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(New Orleans, Carolina and Jacksonville join Chicago on the bye ... that alone should make gambling more difficult with three stay away teams on the sideline)
Thursday Night Game
Pittsburgh (-5) over Tennessee - My thoughts: Pittsburgh has a running game again, and was able to beat a (supposedly) good Eagles team last week. Tennessee doesn't look good. The sad thing? I'll end up starting Chris Johnson again this week because I have no other good options.
Sunday Day Games
Atlanta (-9) over Oakland - My thoughts: Atlanta should be able to score on Oakland, and Palmer is liable to be down three, pressing, and throw a game ending TAINT (Touchdown After Interception). Or Atlanta might just kill them. Either way, this line would have to be 10+ for me to take the points and Oakland.
Cincinnati (-1) over Cleveland - My thoughts: This is free money, right? Even if Cincinnati is the "good bad team" this year, we also are sure that Cleveland is one of the "bad bad teams" right? Is Andy Dalton currently abducted by aliens? A.J. Green? How does this line makes sense?
St. Louis (+4) over Miami - My thoughts: I'm not sure if St. Louis is the best "good bad team" or the worst "bad good team" but I think I'll take more than three for them against a Miami team due for regression after last week.
Jets (-3) over Indianapolis - My thoughts: The Jets held it together against Houston; I think that Indy had their emotional win last week, and this becomes a defacto must win for Rex and the Jets. This feels like the game the Jets win that starts the "are the Jets going to be ok" talk. You know, the one that comes right before the next lopsided loss restarting the "should Tebow replace Sanchez" talk.
Philadelphia (-5) over Detroit - My thoughts: this game is like a movable object going up against a stoppable force. Andy Reid is a terrible coach. Jim Schwartz is a terrible coach. We will leave this game either thinking that the Eagles are frauds and not very good, or that the Lions are done. I hate giving points when Andy Reid is involved, but Detroit has looked bad, and Philly's defense is actually pretty good.
Tampa Bay (-3) over Kansas City - My thoughts: YUCK! That's my main thought about this game. My second thought would be when a home team is -3 that means Vegas thinks the game is even. The final thought: if you have to make a pick in this game, go against Romeo on the road.
Baltimore (-4) over Dallas - My thoughts: The Raven's disappointing game last week brings this line down way too far. I saw what can be done to Dallas when my Bears did it to them. Baltimore may have some flaws, but that team can do the same to Dallas
Sunday Late Games
Buffalo (+5) over Arizona - My thoughts: Buffalo has looked AWFUL the last two weeks. But Arizona continues to look worse and worse on offense; they have no running game, and no QB to throw the ball to Fitzgerald (remember, he's on my fantasy team so I know this). I'd stay away from this game entirely, but gun to head I'd take the points on the thoughts of a rebound game for Buffalo. (NOTE: After making this pick I found out Dave Wannstedt is the Bills defensive coordinator. That explains how their defense gave up over 1,200 yards in the last two games and nearly 100 points. Needless to say, I might take this game back if I could, but since I already wrote it I'll just hedge saying ARIZONA STRAIGHT UP. Also, how the hell is Dave Wannstedt still getting coaching jobs in football? Would you hire him to coach a pee-wee league team?)
New England (-4) over Seattle - My thoughts: this line seems low, and I like the way that New England is playing. Tough defense, tough running game, a little Brady sprinkled in ... holy crap, did I just time warp back to 2003?
San Francisco (-5) over NY Giants - My thoughts: revenge for the NFC title game. Also, San Fran is playing well, and the Giants just let Brandon Weeden roll 27 points up on them.
Minnesota (+2) over Washington - My thoughts: if Cousins is the QB this is a no brainer: take the points. If RGIII is healthy this becomes more of a tough question.
Sunday Night Game
Houston (-4) over Green Bay - My thoughts: a "season may be on the line early" type game for the Pack. Do you realize they are very close to being 1-4, and that the only team they showed up against was my Bears? Do you realize that if Houston wins this game we'll have the talking heads on ESPN talking all week about how Houston is Super Bowl bound, and the Packers are on life support? Do you realize that I'm a Bears fan, and that the Colts playing the Packers is the only possible scenario where I would root for the Colts ... so I celebrated the Packers' late choke last week? Do you realize I'm answering the "my thoughts" segment with only questions at this point?
Monday Night Game
Denver (+1) over San Diego - My thoughts: A week ago, San Diego was 3-1 and starting to get "the Chargers just MIGHT run away with this division" buzz. I'm amazed how many people forget that Norv Turner is still (inexplicably) coaching this team. Manning wins, both teams come out 3-3, and the buzz goes to "when will Norv get fired?" again. The world will feel more right at that point.
Enjoy football for me everyone, I'll be working. As always, Thursday night football SUCKS.
Last week straight up: 10-4
Season against the spread: 42-33-2
Season straight up: 49-28
Another solid week last week, finishing ahead against the spread and a solid 10-4 straight up. Eerily, as I look back to my week six picks last year, I started by posting my record, which was as follows:
"Last week against the spread: 9-4
Last week straight up: 10-3
Season against the spread: 38-37-2
Season straight up: 52-25"
So, at this point in the year I am doing much better against the spread and slightly worse straight up. That said, 21 games above .500 straight up isn't bad, and I'll always take nine games up on the spread every five weeks. This week I'm looking to build momentum, but during a dangerous week. Why is this week dangerous, you might ask? In fact, I'll answer this as if my millions (read: three) of readers were asking it aloud:
Question: Mike, why is this week dangerous?
Answer: Thanks millions (read: three) of faithful readers! I'll tell you why it's a dangerous week for me. You see, my fantasy football team has already decided it's not interested in commemorating Aaron Rodgers final season with my team by going for a fourth straight third place finish. Instead, everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. To wit, my fiancee moved me up to the number six pick, the worst possible place to draft in our twelve team league this year. Then, Chris Johnson was the only option sitting at number six worth drafting (side note: I was unaware at the time that last year's "down" year for Chris Johnson was actually a great year compared to what he was going to bring to the table this year. In hindsight, I could have drafted Curtis Enis and probably been better off because at least I could cut Enis. But I digress). I followed that up by having Steven Jackson fall to me, then Larry Fitzgerald, then Brandon Lloyd. My draft plan was completely screwed up and the players I wanted kept getting taken right ahead of my pick. I took a plethora of 2nd tier running backs and wide receivers, needing to only hit on one or two to have a great team. I then hit on C.J. Spiller then watched him get injured and now am watching him get stuck in a running back by committee. Needless to say I'm 2-3, scoring nowhere near enough points to fathom making the playoff redraft, and I'm ready to sell off my team for draft picks next year. The problem with this? Nobody in my league wants to trade yet. So that's one reason why this week is dangerous: I'm checked out of fantasy football, so I'm not really paying attention to the other teams. The other reason is much simpler: the Bears are on a bye week, and I work all day Sunday, so I have nothing to draw me in this week.
So, with the challenge of fantasy apathy, a Bears' bye week, and a marathon double shift on Sunday, consider yourself warned: all the signs are there for a picks regression. Still, I'll try.
ON TO THE PICKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(New Orleans, Carolina and Jacksonville join Chicago on the bye ... that alone should make gambling more difficult with three stay away teams on the sideline)
Thursday Night Game
Pittsburgh (-5) over Tennessee - My thoughts: Pittsburgh has a running game again, and was able to beat a (supposedly) good Eagles team last week. Tennessee doesn't look good. The sad thing? I'll end up starting Chris Johnson again this week because I have no other good options.
Sunday Day Games
Atlanta (-9) over Oakland - My thoughts: Atlanta should be able to score on Oakland, and Palmer is liable to be down three, pressing, and throw a game ending TAINT (Touchdown After Interception). Or Atlanta might just kill them. Either way, this line would have to be 10+ for me to take the points and Oakland.
Cincinnati (-1) over Cleveland - My thoughts: This is free money, right? Even if Cincinnati is the "good bad team" this year, we also are sure that Cleveland is one of the "bad bad teams" right? Is Andy Dalton currently abducted by aliens? A.J. Green? How does this line makes sense?
St. Louis (+4) over Miami - My thoughts: I'm not sure if St. Louis is the best "good bad team" or the worst "bad good team" but I think I'll take more than three for them against a Miami team due for regression after last week.
Jets (-3) over Indianapolis - My thoughts: The Jets held it together against Houston; I think that Indy had their emotional win last week, and this becomes a defacto must win for Rex and the Jets. This feels like the game the Jets win that starts the "are the Jets going to be ok" talk. You know, the one that comes right before the next lopsided loss restarting the "should Tebow replace Sanchez" talk.
Philadelphia (-5) over Detroit - My thoughts: this game is like a movable object going up against a stoppable force. Andy Reid is a terrible coach. Jim Schwartz is a terrible coach. We will leave this game either thinking that the Eagles are frauds and not very good, or that the Lions are done. I hate giving points when Andy Reid is involved, but Detroit has looked bad, and Philly's defense is actually pretty good.
Tampa Bay (-3) over Kansas City - My thoughts: YUCK! That's my main thought about this game. My second thought would be when a home team is -3 that means Vegas thinks the game is even. The final thought: if you have to make a pick in this game, go against Romeo on the road.
Baltimore (-4) over Dallas - My thoughts: The Raven's disappointing game last week brings this line down way too far. I saw what can be done to Dallas when my Bears did it to them. Baltimore may have some flaws, but that team can do the same to Dallas
Sunday Late Games
Buffalo (+5) over Arizona - My thoughts: Buffalo has looked AWFUL the last two weeks. But Arizona continues to look worse and worse on offense; they have no running game, and no QB to throw the ball to Fitzgerald (remember, he's on my fantasy team so I know this). I'd stay away from this game entirely, but gun to head I'd take the points on the thoughts of a rebound game for Buffalo. (NOTE: After making this pick I found out Dave Wannstedt is the Bills defensive coordinator. That explains how their defense gave up over 1,200 yards in the last two games and nearly 100 points. Needless to say, I might take this game back if I could, but since I already wrote it I'll just hedge saying ARIZONA STRAIGHT UP. Also, how the hell is Dave Wannstedt still getting coaching jobs in football? Would you hire him to coach a pee-wee league team?)
New England (-4) over Seattle - My thoughts: this line seems low, and I like the way that New England is playing. Tough defense, tough running game, a little Brady sprinkled in ... holy crap, did I just time warp back to 2003?
San Francisco (-5) over NY Giants - My thoughts: revenge for the NFC title game. Also, San Fran is playing well, and the Giants just let Brandon Weeden roll 27 points up on them.
Minnesota (+2) over Washington - My thoughts: if Cousins is the QB this is a no brainer: take the points. If RGIII is healthy this becomes more of a tough question.
Sunday Night Game
Houston (-4) over Green Bay - My thoughts: a "season may be on the line early" type game for the Pack. Do you realize they are very close to being 1-4, and that the only team they showed up against was my Bears? Do you realize that if Houston wins this game we'll have the talking heads on ESPN talking all week about how Houston is Super Bowl bound, and the Packers are on life support? Do you realize that I'm a Bears fan, and that the Colts playing the Packers is the only possible scenario where I would root for the Colts ... so I celebrated the Packers' late choke last week? Do you realize I'm answering the "my thoughts" segment with only questions at this point?
Monday Night Game
Denver (+1) over San Diego - My thoughts: A week ago, San Diego was 3-1 and starting to get "the Chargers just MIGHT run away with this division" buzz. I'm amazed how many people forget that Norv Turner is still (inexplicably) coaching this team. Manning wins, both teams come out 3-3, and the buzz goes to "when will Norv get fired?" again. The world will feel more right at that point.
Enjoy football for me everyone, I'll be working. As always, Thursday night football SUCKS.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
2012 NFL Picks Week 5 - In Brief
Most of my writing time went to the debate tonight; here's the picks for the week.
Last week against the spread: 9-6
Last week straight up: 14-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I had to count this three times)
Season against the spread: 34-27-2
Season straight up: 39-24
Thursday Night:
St Louis (+1) over Arizona
Sunday Early Games
Cincinnati (-3) over Miami
Green Bay (-7) over Indianapolis
Baltimore (-6) over Kansas City
NY Giants (-8) over Cleveland
Pittsburgh (-3) over Philadelphia
Atlanta (-3) over Washington
Sunday Late Games
Seattle (+3) over Carolina
Chicago (-6) over Jacksonville
Tennessee (+6) over Minnesota
New England (-7) over Denver
San Francisco (-10) over Buffalo
Sunday Night Game
San Diego (+4) over New Orleans
Monday Night
Jets (+9) over Houston (Houston straight up)
Last week against the spread: 9-6
Last week straight up: 14-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I had to count this three times)
Season against the spread: 34-27-2
Season straight up: 39-24
Thursday Night:
St Louis (+1) over Arizona
Sunday Early Games
Cincinnati (-3) over Miami
Green Bay (-7) over Indianapolis
Baltimore (-6) over Kansas City
NY Giants (-8) over Cleveland
Pittsburgh (-3) over Philadelphia
Atlanta (-3) over Washington
Sunday Late Games
Seattle (+3) over Carolina
Chicago (-6) over Jacksonville
Tennessee (+6) over Minnesota
New England (-7) over Denver
San Francisco (-10) over Buffalo
Sunday Night Game
San Diego (+4) over New Orleans
Monday Night
Jets (+9) over Houston (Houston straight up)
The First Presidential Debate: A Running Diary
Well, with an interesting presidential election looming (see my previous picks column for a break down of why it's interesting), how could I not do a live blog with my blow by blow reaction? After watching some pre-debate coverage on Fox News and MSNBC I finally settled on CNN to watch the debate, largely due to Wolf Blitzer's awesome beard. Man do I miss Tim Russert.
As always, I write the time stamp and what my thoughts are. Tonight's debate was supposed to focus on domestic politics, and we'll see how well Jim Lehr does holding to that. The general consensus seems to be that Romney needs to do a great job and win this debate going away to get the momentum he's been searching for. The Democrats seem to be saying that they believe the race is too close to call in spite of polling momentum going their way. Not bad to play dead and hope that increases your chance to see voter turnout up. Personally, I think that this debate hinges on if Romney can attack Obama without seeming like he's attacking Obama. Romney is the superior debater historically, but he can be knocked off kilter when his opponent manages to counter his rebuttals and attack lines while moving the point of conversation. Without further delay, here we go:
8:57pm - Little mentioned but potentially huge fact: Obama hasn't debated since 2008, whereas Romney debated somewhere north of 20 times in the Republican Primary alone. At least it felt that way. Fact check...Wikipedia says twenty on the head.
9:01pm - I feel like there should be A) Gambling odds for inane things like "over under 45.5 times the phrase 'middle class' is mentioned tonight" and B) a drinking game where you drink every time something like that is said. Wolf Blitzer tells me that Obama won the coin toss to go first, and Romney gets to go last. Doesn't it feel like Obama should have deferred to the last response? Is that even allowed? Actually, who am I kidding: as a Bears fan Obama probably is going to wait to get to the podium, look around confused, then call a time out.
9:04pm - Obama in the blue tie, Romney in red. I feel like if I was in this debate I'd wear the other guy's color just to screw with them. Economy starts with a question on jobs... and we're off. Romney is writing notes on Obama wishing Michele a happy 20th anniversary. One minute in and Obama is still setting up his answer. He ended up settling on setting up the paradigm that Romney thinks it's all about tax cuts, and whereas he described a diversified approach centered on education.
9:07pm - Romney hit well with joke about Obama spending his anniversary with him, then goes right into multiple stories from American people. Strong start by Romney, quickly describing a dichotomy between not only he and Obama, but quickly countering Obama's claim that his approach is top down. Still, after two minutes he didn't really get into any policy specifics. He did, however, hit Obama by claiming his approach is "trickle down" government. Did he just hit Reagan's legacy?
9:10pm - Obama counters by talking more about education. Seems dangerously close to pandering to the hall (at a University) rather than going for the viewers at home. He then transitions into talking about tax code, then energy. Obama's attempt seems to be to go after Romney on the tax issue while saying "I'm the authority on education and energy." First mention of the deficit tonight. First hit on Romney's tax plan from Obama.
9:12pm - Romney gives a rebuttal that says that high income people will not get a break under him... then uses Biden's terminology that the middle class is "crushed" twice. Anyone want to be that there will be a commercial showing Romney and Biden back to back saying the middle class is being "crushed" soon?
9:15pm - So Romney was asked to ask the president a question, then went on a multi-minute rant. He did say "by the way, I like coal." I want Obama to say "I love lamp" pretty bad here. At any rate, Romney went way long and didn't ask a question. It sounds to me like Romney is describing a tax plan that does little but shuffle the chips around at best: cut taxes, eliminate exemptions, deficit gone? Doesn't add up. Obama counters by saying that he did what he said he would: cut taxes for the middle class. Obama's going intellectual with his response, which makes him sound like Kerry/Gore ... not the contrast he wants.
9:18pm - Romney says that Obama is misrepresenting ... but doesn't explain how. Then he calls Obama a liar without saying it directly. Romney promises he will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. Obama comes right back at Romney saying he ran on a tax plan for eighteen months, and now is saying his "big bold idea is never mind." He then comes back with "it's math. It's arithmetic." I really get the feel, only eighteen minutes in, that these guys don't really like each other. Obama brings up Clinton first, and tells the American people he wants to go back to the tax rates that encouraged Clinton era growth.
9:22pm - Obama goes for a Trump joke that seems to miss. At the present time Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable as Obama. Jim Lehr tries to get things back on track and Romney talks over him quite a bit. Romney hits Obama on his tax plan hurting small businesses more; he also mentions Bowls-Simpson first. Obama goes right back at the tax issue, speaking right to the American people.
9:25pm - Obama ties Romney's approach to Bush directly for the first time. He then directly ties his approach to Clinton. So there you have it: A third Bush term, or a fourth Clinton term. I'm glad we could simplify this. Lehr still has not gotten them off the first subject, he tries again, and Romney talks over it again. Romney keeps saying "that's not my plan" and then says his plan is not like anything that's been done before.
9:27pm - we finally move to the second segment, this one on the deficit. Romney articulates three options to cut the deficit. Romney than says that he likes Big Bird, but will stop the subsidy for PBS. Basically, he'll cut taxes to grow the economy, then cut programs. Obama's responds by going back to Bush and illustrating the state of the deficit and how it got here. A major strength here, and Obama gets on his wheel horse. I'm not sure how he can own an issue that he's struggled so much with, but he does. Obama does great explaining his balanced approach and then contrasting Romney as unbalanced.
9:32pm - Finally we get some back and forth ... might see the gloves come off a bit. Romney says that he has his own plan and it's not Simpson-Bowls, but that Obama should have grabbed on to Simpson Bowls. If I remember correctly the House shot that plan down. Romney slams taxes again "you raise taxes, you kill jobs." Obama looks annoyed, not a great thing for him. Romney states emphatically that he has ruled out increasing revenue entirely. Romney keeps talking over Lehr.
9:35pm - Obama now goes after the oil industry tax rates. I'm confused: what happened to the talk about the deficit. Use of Exon Mobile as a straw man by Obama here. Obama says he wants to do the same thing with closing loopholes that Romney says he wants to do, only he can actually say what he wants to do, not just that he will do it. Obama's first use of an "everyday American" story to four by Romney.
9:37pm - Twix break... mmmm..... Twix ....
9:39pm - Romney confronts Obama for lying a second time (again, without saying it directly). Obama is the first person to mention Reagan. We've moved on to Social Security. Obama goes to his grandmother to set up his argument. I'm shocked that Obama says "you don't need a major structural change to make sure social security is there for the future." Absolutely shocked.
9:43pm - Romney goes right after Obama on the Medicare cuts, saying he'd put the money right back in. Well, not exactly right after: he was on different chain of thinking then suddenly remembered he was supposed to be against "Obamacare" and switched course. Obama tries to get some footing by going after Romney's voucher program, but he stumbles out of the corner trying to establish this point. Obama then embraces the "Obamacare" term and illustrates why a repeal would increase cost on seniors.
9:48pm - Neither candidate has had an "ah ha" moment yet. I'd be inclined to say Romney is winning on logic, but Obama is winning in terms of presentation. Romney seems edgy and aggressive. In terms of speaking time Obama has opened a small lead over Romney. In other news, I kinda wish this was a foreign policy debate. I'm starting to think that I should start work on my NFL picks this week.
9:53pm - "Does anybody out there think that the problem we've had was due to too much regulation on wall street?" Obama scores there. Romney comes swinging back. I'm on to salt water taffy.
9:58pm - Moving to health care. First time we've heard the term Affordable Care Act. Romney opens up by talking about the cost of health care, then says that "Obamacare" is adding to cost. For the record, "Obamacare" hasn't had a negative impact on my company's bottom line. Interesting the Romney never smiles with his teeth. He just looks tight and uncomfortable.
10:00pm - Obama goes in to the positives of the ACA. Lehr is trying to hold the line, but failing. Can we send him out to pasture? I miss Tim Russert. Text in from my mother noting that Romney's been too aggressive. Obama looks much more comfortable on stage than Romney.
10:07pm - Romney blatantly lies about his "plan" by stating his plan covers pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26. He says these were already staples of the private market. If he thinks that he's out to lunch. He's also all but saying "death panel" repeatedly.
10:10pm - Obama goes through a number of things that Romney has promised tonight but outlines how he hasn't said anything about how he's going to do it. Romney barrels over Jim Lehr to get a response he didn't have the right to according to debate rules.
10:14pm - Jim Lehr has been pretty much worthless tonight. Now we are on to the role of government. Obama's first response is to keep American's safe and to create frameworks to help people to succeed. He then illustrates how past instances of the government investing have led to dividends.
10:17pm - Romney goes back to the constitution, thereby not answering the question. Obama continues to stretch out his time advantage. Now talking about student loans.
10:22pm - And here comes the blow on Romney's statement that people should just borrow from their parents to go to school. Obama's not scoring well on this topic, and Romney AGAIN calls Obama a liar without doing so directly. The lack of political acumen shocks me. Romney goes after the green energy campaigns again. It's amazing to me that he could be so short sighted on energy.
10:25pm - Getting close to the wrap up point, and Lehr did such a poor job that they missed an entire topic. He finishes up on partisan gridlock. Romney gives a pretty nondescript answer. Obama has a tougher standard with this question to hit. He responds that he will meet with anyone as long as the goal is helping further the opportunities of the American people. Obama manages to get a Bin Laden references in as well. He finishes up with nearly a minute advantage in speaking time, but it felt like Romney was the person refusing to stop talking most of the time tonight. Good job by Obama in that regard.
10:28pm - Obama stumbles out of the gate on his closing statement. He has had a hard time with transitions tonight. He didn't really go anwhere, but Romney goes right to the core and hits his talking points without any issue. A strong finish by Romney, who wanted to go last exactly for this reason.
Final Verdict: Romney did a great job staying on topic and Obama never took him out of his comfort zone. From a standpoint of actual academic topics the debate was nearly a draw, with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. Obama didn't really go after Romney much at all, nothing about any of the major attack points. Obama clearly looked more comfortable however, and if JFK v Nixon tells us anything, its that the person who looks more presidential sometimes takes a big advantage.
As always, I write the time stamp and what my thoughts are. Tonight's debate was supposed to focus on domestic politics, and we'll see how well Jim Lehr does holding to that. The general consensus seems to be that Romney needs to do a great job and win this debate going away to get the momentum he's been searching for. The Democrats seem to be saying that they believe the race is too close to call in spite of polling momentum going their way. Not bad to play dead and hope that increases your chance to see voter turnout up. Personally, I think that this debate hinges on if Romney can attack Obama without seeming like he's attacking Obama. Romney is the superior debater historically, but he can be knocked off kilter when his opponent manages to counter his rebuttals and attack lines while moving the point of conversation. Without further delay, here we go:
8:57pm - Little mentioned but potentially huge fact: Obama hasn't debated since 2008, whereas Romney debated somewhere north of 20 times in the Republican Primary alone. At least it felt that way. Fact check...Wikipedia says twenty on the head.
9:01pm - I feel like there should be A) Gambling odds for inane things like "over under 45.5 times the phrase 'middle class' is mentioned tonight" and B) a drinking game where you drink every time something like that is said. Wolf Blitzer tells me that Obama won the coin toss to go first, and Romney gets to go last. Doesn't it feel like Obama should have deferred to the last response? Is that even allowed? Actually, who am I kidding: as a Bears fan Obama probably is going to wait to get to the podium, look around confused, then call a time out.
9:04pm - Obama in the blue tie, Romney in red. I feel like if I was in this debate I'd wear the other guy's color just to screw with them. Economy starts with a question on jobs... and we're off. Romney is writing notes on Obama wishing Michele a happy 20th anniversary. One minute in and Obama is still setting up his answer. He ended up settling on setting up the paradigm that Romney thinks it's all about tax cuts, and whereas he described a diversified approach centered on education.
9:07pm - Romney hit well with joke about Obama spending his anniversary with him, then goes right into multiple stories from American people. Strong start by Romney, quickly describing a dichotomy between not only he and Obama, but quickly countering Obama's claim that his approach is top down. Still, after two minutes he didn't really get into any policy specifics. He did, however, hit Obama by claiming his approach is "trickle down" government. Did he just hit Reagan's legacy?
9:10pm - Obama counters by talking more about education. Seems dangerously close to pandering to the hall (at a University) rather than going for the viewers at home. He then transitions into talking about tax code, then energy. Obama's attempt seems to be to go after Romney on the tax issue while saying "I'm the authority on education and energy." First mention of the deficit tonight. First hit on Romney's tax plan from Obama.
9:12pm - Romney gives a rebuttal that says that high income people will not get a break under him... then uses Biden's terminology that the middle class is "crushed" twice. Anyone want to be that there will be a commercial showing Romney and Biden back to back saying the middle class is being "crushed" soon?
9:15pm - So Romney was asked to ask the president a question, then went on a multi-minute rant. He did say "by the way, I like coal." I want Obama to say "I love lamp" pretty bad here. At any rate, Romney went way long and didn't ask a question. It sounds to me like Romney is describing a tax plan that does little but shuffle the chips around at best: cut taxes, eliminate exemptions, deficit gone? Doesn't add up. Obama counters by saying that he did what he said he would: cut taxes for the middle class. Obama's going intellectual with his response, which makes him sound like Kerry/Gore ... not the contrast he wants.
9:18pm - Romney says that Obama is misrepresenting ... but doesn't explain how. Then he calls Obama a liar without saying it directly. Romney promises he will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families. Obama comes right back at Romney saying he ran on a tax plan for eighteen months, and now is saying his "big bold idea is never mind." He then comes back with "it's math. It's arithmetic." I really get the feel, only eighteen minutes in, that these guys don't really like each other. Obama brings up Clinton first, and tells the American people he wants to go back to the tax rates that encouraged Clinton era growth.
9:22pm - Obama goes for a Trump joke that seems to miss. At the present time Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable as Obama. Jim Lehr tries to get things back on track and Romney talks over him quite a bit. Romney hits Obama on his tax plan hurting small businesses more; he also mentions Bowls-Simpson first. Obama goes right back at the tax issue, speaking right to the American people.
9:25pm - Obama ties Romney's approach to Bush directly for the first time. He then directly ties his approach to Clinton. So there you have it: A third Bush term, or a fourth Clinton term. I'm glad we could simplify this. Lehr still has not gotten them off the first subject, he tries again, and Romney talks over it again. Romney keeps saying "that's not my plan" and then says his plan is not like anything that's been done before.
9:27pm - we finally move to the second segment, this one on the deficit. Romney articulates three options to cut the deficit. Romney than says that he likes Big Bird, but will stop the subsidy for PBS. Basically, he'll cut taxes to grow the economy, then cut programs. Obama's responds by going back to Bush and illustrating the state of the deficit and how it got here. A major strength here, and Obama gets on his wheel horse. I'm not sure how he can own an issue that he's struggled so much with, but he does. Obama does great explaining his balanced approach and then contrasting Romney as unbalanced.
9:32pm - Finally we get some back and forth ... might see the gloves come off a bit. Romney says that he has his own plan and it's not Simpson-Bowls, but that Obama should have grabbed on to Simpson Bowls. If I remember correctly the House shot that plan down. Romney slams taxes again "you raise taxes, you kill jobs." Obama looks annoyed, not a great thing for him. Romney states emphatically that he has ruled out increasing revenue entirely. Romney keeps talking over Lehr.
9:35pm - Obama now goes after the oil industry tax rates. I'm confused: what happened to the talk about the deficit. Use of Exon Mobile as a straw man by Obama here. Obama says he wants to do the same thing with closing loopholes that Romney says he wants to do, only he can actually say what he wants to do, not just that he will do it. Obama's first use of an "everyday American" story to four by Romney.
9:37pm - Twix break... mmmm..... Twix ....
9:39pm - Romney confronts Obama for lying a second time (again, without saying it directly). Obama is the first person to mention Reagan. We've moved on to Social Security. Obama goes to his grandmother to set up his argument. I'm shocked that Obama says "you don't need a major structural change to make sure social security is there for the future." Absolutely shocked.
9:43pm - Romney goes right after Obama on the Medicare cuts, saying he'd put the money right back in. Well, not exactly right after: he was on different chain of thinking then suddenly remembered he was supposed to be against "Obamacare" and switched course. Obama tries to get some footing by going after Romney's voucher program, but he stumbles out of the corner trying to establish this point. Obama then embraces the "Obamacare" term and illustrates why a repeal would increase cost on seniors.
9:48pm - Neither candidate has had an "ah ha" moment yet. I'd be inclined to say Romney is winning on logic, but Obama is winning in terms of presentation. Romney seems edgy and aggressive. In terms of speaking time Obama has opened a small lead over Romney. In other news, I kinda wish this was a foreign policy debate. I'm starting to think that I should start work on my NFL picks this week.
9:53pm - "Does anybody out there think that the problem we've had was due to too much regulation on wall street?" Obama scores there. Romney comes swinging back. I'm on to salt water taffy.
9:58pm - Moving to health care. First time we've heard the term Affordable Care Act. Romney opens up by talking about the cost of health care, then says that "Obamacare" is adding to cost. For the record, "Obamacare" hasn't had a negative impact on my company's bottom line. Interesting the Romney never smiles with his teeth. He just looks tight and uncomfortable.
10:00pm - Obama goes in to the positives of the ACA. Lehr is trying to hold the line, but failing. Can we send him out to pasture? I miss Tim Russert. Text in from my mother noting that Romney's been too aggressive. Obama looks much more comfortable on stage than Romney.
10:07pm - Romney blatantly lies about his "plan" by stating his plan covers pre-existing conditions and kids up to 26. He says these were already staples of the private market. If he thinks that he's out to lunch. He's also all but saying "death panel" repeatedly.
10:10pm - Obama goes through a number of things that Romney has promised tonight but outlines how he hasn't said anything about how he's going to do it. Romney barrels over Jim Lehr to get a response he didn't have the right to according to debate rules.
10:14pm - Jim Lehr has been pretty much worthless tonight. Now we are on to the role of government. Obama's first response is to keep American's safe and to create frameworks to help people to succeed. He then illustrates how past instances of the government investing have led to dividends.
10:17pm - Romney goes back to the constitution, thereby not answering the question. Obama continues to stretch out his time advantage. Now talking about student loans.
10:22pm - And here comes the blow on Romney's statement that people should just borrow from their parents to go to school. Obama's not scoring well on this topic, and Romney AGAIN calls Obama a liar without doing so directly. The lack of political acumen shocks me. Romney goes after the green energy campaigns again. It's amazing to me that he could be so short sighted on energy.
10:25pm - Getting close to the wrap up point, and Lehr did such a poor job that they missed an entire topic. He finishes up on partisan gridlock. Romney gives a pretty nondescript answer. Obama has a tougher standard with this question to hit. He responds that he will meet with anyone as long as the goal is helping further the opportunities of the American people. Obama manages to get a Bin Laden references in as well. He finishes up with nearly a minute advantage in speaking time, but it felt like Romney was the person refusing to stop talking most of the time tonight. Good job by Obama in that regard.
10:28pm - Obama stumbles out of the gate on his closing statement. He has had a hard time with transitions tonight. He didn't really go anwhere, but Romney goes right to the core and hits his talking points without any issue. A strong finish by Romney, who wanted to go last exactly for this reason.
Final Verdict: Romney did a great job staying on topic and Obama never took him out of his comfort zone. From a standpoint of actual academic topics the debate was nearly a draw, with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. Obama didn't really go after Romney much at all, nothing about any of the major attack points. Obama clearly looked more comfortable however, and if JFK v Nixon tells us anything, its that the person who looks more presidential sometimes takes a big advantage.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
2012 NFL Picks Week 4 ***Plus Presidential Polls***
Well, the combination of a poor performance by the Bears offense (albeit with another great defensive/special teams performance), plus my fantasy team continuing to crap the bed from a team that looked great on paper to one that can't function (thanks to my boss, a life long Bills fan for jinxing CJ Spiller for me), plus the awful officiating culminating in the officials blowing the Sunday and Monday night games ... yeah, I'm borderline out on the NFL until the real officials are back. Which, incidentally, looks like it might be soon. Or not. Really, who the hell knows? (If you didn't take the time to follow those links, ESPN right now says "Deal between NFL, Refs very close" while Sports Illustrated says "NFL, Referees still not close to a deal." I LOVE headlines and the 24 hour a day news cycle.)
So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:
- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.
Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:
- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year.
- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.
Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?
So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.
On to the picks:
Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8
Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23
Thursday Night Game
Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.
Sunday Early Games
Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?
New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?
Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.
San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.
St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.
San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.
Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.
Sunday Late Games
Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.
Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...
Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.
Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.
Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.
Sunday Night Game
NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly
Monday Night Game
Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.
Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!
So, with that said, I thought I'd take a look at the shocking reality that is becoming this presidential election cycle. If you've read my political breakdowns here before, you know that I looked at the Republican Primary season from a "who is most likely to win" schema. I will view the general election the same way. That said, some general pointers from history indicate that:
- Presidents with economies in recession don't win re-election.
- A President with an economy this poor hasn't won re-election since FDR
- Barack Obama is the President.
Pretty simple, right? The economy has continued an uber slow recovery, barely creeping along at times. The housing market continues to be in shambles. The Congress hasn't accomplished a thing since the midterm elections split the House and the Senate in 2010. Historically, this election would look like 1976, 1980, or 1992. In each of those elections a weak incumbent, hamstrung by issues, faded quickly and ended up being defeated. 1980 (Reagan over Carter) and 1992 (Clinton over H.W. Bush) are particularly pertinent examples. To wit:
- With Carter, the nation's unemployment rate sat at 7.5% when he took office in 1977. It went steadily down, getting under 6% through much of 1979, but in 1980, an election year, the rate went back up into the 7.2-7.8% rate. Carter also faced a major crisis in the Middle East (the Iranian Hostage situation) and high energy (read: GAS) costs. Keep in mind: unemployment actually exploded under Reagan's first term , eventually going over 10% for ten concurrent months between September 1982 and June of 1983. It started declining at that point, however, and by November of 1984 (election time) the rate was at a much more comfortable 7.4%. You know, .1% less than it was when high unemployment helped to undo Carter in 1980. The message, as always? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whereas unemployment was heading in the wrong direction for Carter, Reagan could argue that things were headed in the right direction. Incidentally, they were proven "right" as unemployment continued to plummet during Ronnie's 2nd term, down to sub 6% his entire last year.
- With Bush, he took over a stable economy that held under 6% unemployment his entire first year. But then those evil economic forces started to creep in and the unemployment rate slowly started creeping up. By 1992 the rate climbed back over 7% (October 1991 to be exact) and stayed over 7% throughout 1992. Although H.W.'s foreign policy was generally (and honestly still is) something to be commended, the economic difficulty brought in Clinton, who saw unemployment rates that Reagan could only dream of, seeing 42 straight months under 5% (and even some months under 4%) to end out his term. During the "Dubya" administration rates held fairly steady, until the end where rates made it to 7% by the time he left office.
Now, if rates over 7% indicate a candidate's doom, Obama's rates above 8% (after three years sitting between 9-10%) should spell certain doom. Of course, if it were that easy, Mitt Romney should be celebrating right now. Right? After all, both Reagan and Clinton were able to breath pretty easy. However, look at the polls right now, and you find a different reality. Every set of polling data that comes out looks better and better for Obama, worse and worse for Romney. Today's Quinnipiac poll shockingly shows Obama up by DOUBLE DIGITS in three major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. And while this poll shows the largest margins of all polls, it continues the absolute trend among polls moving towards Obama. I won't take the time to break them all down here, but this link gives you a break down of each and every reputable poll. The question, simply put, isn't IF Obama is in the lead, but HOW MUCH is Obama in the lead. Honestly, the more this continues trend this way the more the question becomes: does Romney even have a punchers chance?
So, why is Obama bucking history? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I do know this: Romney needs an unbelievable debate performance, starting next Wednesday, to have even a wing and a prayer of salvaging this thing. Needless to say, I'll try to clear out my schedule to live blog the debate next week. It sure as hell interests me more than the NFL's crappy replacement officials and my awful fantasy football team.
On to the picks:
Last week against the spread: 9-6-1
Last week straight up:8-8
Season against the spread: 25-21-2
Season straight up: 25-23
Thursday Night Game
Baltimore (-13) over Cleveland - Moral of the story: I fully believe Baltimore can blow this line and win by one or two ... but I still can't bet on Cleveland.
Sunday Early Games
Atlanta (-8) over Carolina - Moral of the story: after last week's game against San Diego, is this line high enough?
New England (-5) over Buffalo - no (good) RBs healthy in Buffalo, New England can't lose three in a row... can they?
Minnesota (+5) over Detroit - Moral of the story: I just have a hunch, particularly if Stafford is out.
San Diego (-1) over Kansas City - Moral of the story: I still don't believe in Romeo.
St. Louis (+3) over Seattle - Moral of the story: Bad karma for last week's replacement ref job over Green Bay.
San Francisco (-5) over NY Jets - Moral of the story: Revis out for the year is a huge blow. No offense, struggling defense, and I bet San Fran comes to play.
Tennessee (+13) over Houston - Moral of the story: Houston continues to play like a Super Bowl contender, but this line just feels to high. I'll take Houston to win the game, however.
Sunday Late Games
Denver (-7) over Oakland - Moral of the story: Oakland is confusing me, but I think Peyton is due for a semi-Peyton game.
Arizona (-6) over Miami - Moral of the story: Fool me once, shame on Arizona. Fool me three times (and counting) ...
Cincinnati (-3) over Jacksonville - Moral of the story: I am not glad I ended up with Chris Johnson instead of MJD on my fantasy roster.
Green Bay (-8) over New Orleans - Moral of the story: Good karma for the game on Monday.
Washington (+3) over Tampa Bay - Moral of the story: RGIII can move the pocket; Josh Freeman can't seem to get things done. That said, I need to watch this closely because with all the injuries in Washington I might be missing the bus here.
Sunday Night Game
NY Giants (+1) over Philadelphia - Moral of the story: I'm getting close to out on Philly
Monday Night Game
Chicago (+4) over Dallas - Moral of the story: Both offensive lines are ... offensive. I think the extra time off helps Chicago, and I want this very badly for my Uncle.
Until next time, Thursday night football sucks. Replacement refs suck more!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Losing The Fire: The P.O.V. Review of "Away From The World"
Growing up listening to Dave Matthews Band I wore my copy of Under the Table and Dreaming out. Listening to the album on my walkman, I grew to appreciate the complexity of the music, the use of the sax and violin, and the driving, pushing music mixed in with slower songs. The album flowed, and it was just enjoyable.
The second album the band released (Crash; although Remember Two Things technically precedes both albums) had a bit more edge, but still produced the mix of larger scale songs and slower tracks. By 1998's Before These Crowded Streets I was all in on Dave Matthews Band. While that album took me the better part of a decade to truly appreciate, there is no doubt that the complexities that permeate the first two albums continued through the third installment.
By the release of Everyday, (following the benching of The Lillywhite Sessions; eventually released in slightly watered down form as Busted Stuff) the band seemed to be searching for a different direction. Everyday's pop centric feel was a stark departure from the first three albums, and Stand Up's highly political feel seemed much smaller scale than what the band had been capable of. While most fans agree that 2009's Big Whiskey and the Groo-Grux King was an inspired effort, even this return to glory of sort left true fans longing for something.
But what? As the band "took off" the summer of 2011 to focus on developing a new album most fans took the news to be what it appeared to be on the surface: the band had ground out 20 years of seemingly endless touring, and so they deserved a year off. Yet, between the lines cracks were showing: many members of the band seemed to questioning taking time off. In Charlottesville, VA, in the penultimate show of the 2010 tour Dave himself dropped perhaps the biggest piece of information to that end. That night, in the midst of perhaps the best two night stand the band had put together since the early 2000s, Dave discussed the Band's decision to take a year off. He reflected on on the death of founding band member and close friend Leroi Moore, and then stated that he sometimes wondered "what the hell" he was doing by taking a year off. As a member of that sold out arena that night I can tell you that the general feeling from the crowd was pretty much the same.
In that moment you could see the starts of the ambivalence that Dave feels towards his career at the present time. Throughout the subsequent "off" year (composed of four "Caravans" where the band played three night stands in New Jersey, Chicago, New York (four nights, counting the hurricane), and the Gorge) showed a great deal of energy from Dave, giving hope to the idea that time off, plus some creative studio time, was going to help build on Big Whiskey's momentum and lead to a Renaissance of sorts for the band. Coupled with the news that Steve Lillywhite, the producer of the first three albums as well as much of the material which ended up surviving The Lillywhite Sessions to make the Busted Stuff cut, would be producing the album, expectations were sky high for the new album.
And it was under that set of expectations that the 2012 summer tour began. All outward indication was that the band had missed touring the country (Stefan even indicated that he disliked the caravan set up so much that it wouldn't happen again). A smaller, more compact summer tour schedule was released, which was a bit of a head scratcher, but made some sense given the equally surprising announcement that the album wouldn't be released until September, after the summer tour. Perhaps the band was still working on material, wanted to road test some of it, and was planning on using a lighter schedule to help put the finishing touches on the new album.
The first new song confirmed to be on the album was "Mercy," which made its' debut on the Jimmy Falon show staring President Obama. The song felt eerily like a souped up, slower version of the same political sentiment that got the band into trouble with 2005's Stand Up, but it was just one song, and it was one song played without the band backing Dave up. The second track released, "Gaucho," was dropped in typical DMB fashion: a free release to members of the fan association on the evening of the first summer tour show. The song continued with the political theme, but involved the full band to create a great sound behind the struggling chorus lines. Still, if one had to surmise Dave's central thesis after two songs, it could be pretty easily drawn from the two songs released as being "Obama hasn't followed through, the world is going to hell, we've got to do this ourselves or else our kids won't believe in the possibility for change."
The quality musicianship behind "Gaucho" hid this overall lack of driving lyrics well, but the ensuing debuts of "If Only" and "The Riff" served only to misdirect it. The band felt like it was being kept with a muzzle on it at times throughout these songs. It was almost the opposite of the way that Big Whiskey managed to make the band the dramatic center of the group again. Coupled with the confirmation that "Sweet," a song which I saw the debut of at the Chicago caravan the year before, was going to be on the album, and suddenly we were roughly halfway through an unreleased album. Taking stock of it I came to the conclusion that this album would most likely not resonate with me right now, but would be much more meaningful in ten years. I came to this conclusion because much of the material seemed to center lyrically on a depressed melancholy mood wondering if the world was going to hell, what that would mean for one's children, and how to keep the spark alive in one's marriage.
There was even precedent for this: as mentioned above, it took me until my college years to fully appreciate the lyrical depth found in Before These Crowded Streets; whereas I initially thought the album lacked compared to the first two, I now hold the opinion that it is probably the group's crowing achievement. And so I prepared to digest the rest of the album through this schema, expecting to be underwhelmed by the album.
Meanwhile, I saw the group seven times throughout the summer, mostly coming away impressed by the shows. The first show, in Cleveland, was not great, but was salvaged by a Halloween/Tripping Billies encore. This encore would become a semi-staple of the summer tour, perhaps an indicator that the group (which had generally buried Halloween) was trying to make fans happy. Conversely, it could also be an indicator that the group was running cold and needed to bust out songs they usually saved for special occasions to drive up fan reaction. The show in Virginia Beach wasn't bad, and the two night stops in Noblesville and East Troy both lived up to their high standards. The final show, in Detroit, used the same ending of Halloween and Billies to drive up the crowd energy which had been somewhat lacking. Through seven shows I'm still not sure what to make of the group, but it seems like they were having to work harder to make average crowds happy (Cleveland, VA Beach and Detroit) but were able to play like they used to in front of crowds they felt safe with (Noblesville, East Troy).
And then, finally, the album was released. Not surprisingly, the music of the album was restrained, but great when it was allowed to shine ("Belly, Belly Nice," "Broken Things" and "Drunken Soldier" in particular shine through). Surprisingly, however, the lyrics were even worse than the first five songs would have suggested. Sluggish, feeling half baked, the lyrics often seemed to lack the full development you'd expect of a finished album. Many songs have choruses which lack depth, and even songs (like "Drunken Soldier") which seem to be on the verge of traditional DMB big scale lyrical genius end up falling short.
So what does it all mean? I firmly believe, particularly after reading and listening to a number of interviews with Dave it is painfully evident that the lead man of the band is not sure he wants to continuing doing this. The anticipation over a fall tour which looks more and more like it won't happen only serves to drive this point home: new album, with it's strength in the playing of the band, and there is no pending tour. Matthews lyrics are completely lacking, and the band feels muzzled and incapable of overcoming the lacking lyrics. Is it really a surprise that the members of the band who seem most invested in continuing to create more music (Carter, Stefan, and probably Rashawn Ross) are being held back by the front man who's name and voice is the central part of the band?
Compare this to Pearl Jam, with lead singer Eddie Vedder, who manage to continue to pump out new music and reinvent themselves through the years. Whereas Eddie continues to find new ways to express old sentiments, as well as new subjects to explore, Dave Matthews seems mired in... happiness. When you look at the songs that bring the best out of Dave's lyrical development, there is typically two inspiring forces doing the driving. The first is angst: whether of lost love, drug abuse, or confusion over life in general, angst is a central and dark passenger on many classic DMB tracks. The second force, big scale political/spiritual issues has led to the other classic DMB tracks. But now, with a wife, three children, and a comfortable lifestyle, Dave lacks the angst necessary and seems uninterested by tackling the bigger issues.
Sure, he'll take on Obama's failings and the issues with American politics, but he's doing so in a small scale, "Mercy" sort of way. Even his bigger picture attempts, such as the verses in "Gaucho" which paint a beautiful picture of human cultural/political development, he comes to a chorus which simply implores that we "gotta do much more than believe if we really wanna change things." Compare this with the burning drive in "Last Stop" or the melancholic summary of human development in "Dreaming Tree" and you find that "Gaucho" is loaded with potential, yet is impotent due to lacking lyrics.
And, honestly, Dave Matthews deserves this. Great music generally stems from the angst experienced by the musicians or witnessed by them. Dave hit the nail on the head in the pop single "Funny the Way it is" off of Big Whiskey when he mused that "somebody's broken heart becomes your favorite song." When Dave wrote songs about his broken heart, or about his lack of certainty over why we exist, or about where society is going wrong, or why there is war in the Middle East and even humanizing Christ, we could all relate. These were songs the average person could put on and say "yeah, I get it." The vast majority of people can relate to falling on their knees begging someone, anyone to help them make sense of it all, and fearing their own mortality ("When I was young I never think about it, now I can't get it out of my mind"). Now? Dave writes lyrics about things he thinks he should write things about. He's trying to write about broken hearts, but more through the schema of marriage rather than the angst of not having anyone. He writes about his son growing up, but doesn't seem to have a voice to lend to it. He still tries to tackle political issues, but seems to be throwing his hands up and saying "well, I don't know what to do, but I know it's not this, and I'm just not happy with it." He touches on the uncertainty our existence, but the gets lazy with the lyrics (again, "Drunken Soldier").
In sum, Dave Matthews lacks the fire he did when he was younger. This summer he seemed happy to rest on his reputation by busting out all the rarely played epic favorites he knew would fire the crowd up. I wonder now if the band didn't do that because they understood that their mini-renaissance in Big Whiskey was driven by an angst (following Leroi Moore's death) that they couldn't keep going. Dave is happy, comfortable, and tired of the pressure of touring and developing new songs. I think he doesn't want to go there anymore because his angst, the great energy behind the group's high points, is far behind him. Whereas Pearl Jam has managed to reinvent themselves through the years, Dave Matthews Band still is what it always was. The recipe just doesn't work as well when you try to mix it without the fire.
Album Breakdown:
1. Broken Things - 3.5/5
2. Belly Belly - 3/5
3. Mercy - 2/5
4. Gaucho - 3/5
5. Sweet - 3/5
6. The Riff - 3.5/5
7. Belly Full - 4/5
8. If Only - 3.5/5
9. Rooftop - 3/5
10. Snow Outside - 3.5/5
11. Drunken Soldier - 4.5/5
Total: 3.3/5 album rating
The second album the band released (Crash; although Remember Two Things technically precedes both albums) had a bit more edge, but still produced the mix of larger scale songs and slower tracks. By 1998's Before These Crowded Streets I was all in on Dave Matthews Band. While that album took me the better part of a decade to truly appreciate, there is no doubt that the complexities that permeate the first two albums continued through the third installment.
By the release of Everyday, (following the benching of The Lillywhite Sessions; eventually released in slightly watered down form as Busted Stuff) the band seemed to be searching for a different direction. Everyday's pop centric feel was a stark departure from the first three albums, and Stand Up's highly political feel seemed much smaller scale than what the band had been capable of. While most fans agree that 2009's Big Whiskey and the Groo-Grux King was an inspired effort, even this return to glory of sort left true fans longing for something.
But what? As the band "took off" the summer of 2011 to focus on developing a new album most fans took the news to be what it appeared to be on the surface: the band had ground out 20 years of seemingly endless touring, and so they deserved a year off. Yet, between the lines cracks were showing: many members of the band seemed to questioning taking time off. In Charlottesville, VA, in the penultimate show of the 2010 tour Dave himself dropped perhaps the biggest piece of information to that end. That night, in the midst of perhaps the best two night stand the band had put together since the early 2000s, Dave discussed the Band's decision to take a year off. He reflected on on the death of founding band member and close friend Leroi Moore, and then stated that he sometimes wondered "what the hell" he was doing by taking a year off. As a member of that sold out arena that night I can tell you that the general feeling from the crowd was pretty much the same.
In that moment you could see the starts of the ambivalence that Dave feels towards his career at the present time. Throughout the subsequent "off" year (composed of four "Caravans" where the band played three night stands in New Jersey, Chicago, New York (four nights, counting the hurricane), and the Gorge) showed a great deal of energy from Dave, giving hope to the idea that time off, plus some creative studio time, was going to help build on Big Whiskey's momentum and lead to a Renaissance of sorts for the band. Coupled with the news that Steve Lillywhite, the producer of the first three albums as well as much of the material which ended up surviving The Lillywhite Sessions to make the Busted Stuff cut, would be producing the album, expectations were sky high for the new album.
And it was under that set of expectations that the 2012 summer tour began. All outward indication was that the band had missed touring the country (Stefan even indicated that he disliked the caravan set up so much that it wouldn't happen again). A smaller, more compact summer tour schedule was released, which was a bit of a head scratcher, but made some sense given the equally surprising announcement that the album wouldn't be released until September, after the summer tour. Perhaps the band was still working on material, wanted to road test some of it, and was planning on using a lighter schedule to help put the finishing touches on the new album.
The first new song confirmed to be on the album was "Mercy," which made its' debut on the Jimmy Falon show staring President Obama. The song felt eerily like a souped up, slower version of the same political sentiment that got the band into trouble with 2005's Stand Up, but it was just one song, and it was one song played without the band backing Dave up. The second track released, "Gaucho," was dropped in typical DMB fashion: a free release to members of the fan association on the evening of the first summer tour show. The song continued with the political theme, but involved the full band to create a great sound behind the struggling chorus lines. Still, if one had to surmise Dave's central thesis after two songs, it could be pretty easily drawn from the two songs released as being "Obama hasn't followed through, the world is going to hell, we've got to do this ourselves or else our kids won't believe in the possibility for change."
The quality musicianship behind "Gaucho" hid this overall lack of driving lyrics well, but the ensuing debuts of "If Only" and "The Riff" served only to misdirect it. The band felt like it was being kept with a muzzle on it at times throughout these songs. It was almost the opposite of the way that Big Whiskey managed to make the band the dramatic center of the group again. Coupled with the confirmation that "Sweet," a song which I saw the debut of at the Chicago caravan the year before, was going to be on the album, and suddenly we were roughly halfway through an unreleased album. Taking stock of it I came to the conclusion that this album would most likely not resonate with me right now, but would be much more meaningful in ten years. I came to this conclusion because much of the material seemed to center lyrically on a depressed melancholy mood wondering if the world was going to hell, what that would mean for one's children, and how to keep the spark alive in one's marriage.
There was even precedent for this: as mentioned above, it took me until my college years to fully appreciate the lyrical depth found in Before These Crowded Streets; whereas I initially thought the album lacked compared to the first two, I now hold the opinion that it is probably the group's crowing achievement. And so I prepared to digest the rest of the album through this schema, expecting to be underwhelmed by the album.
Meanwhile, I saw the group seven times throughout the summer, mostly coming away impressed by the shows. The first show, in Cleveland, was not great, but was salvaged by a Halloween/Tripping Billies encore. This encore would become a semi-staple of the summer tour, perhaps an indicator that the group (which had generally buried Halloween) was trying to make fans happy. Conversely, it could also be an indicator that the group was running cold and needed to bust out songs they usually saved for special occasions to drive up fan reaction. The show in Virginia Beach wasn't bad, and the two night stops in Noblesville and East Troy both lived up to their high standards. The final show, in Detroit, used the same ending of Halloween and Billies to drive up the crowd energy which had been somewhat lacking. Through seven shows I'm still not sure what to make of the group, but it seems like they were having to work harder to make average crowds happy (Cleveland, VA Beach and Detroit) but were able to play like they used to in front of crowds they felt safe with (Noblesville, East Troy).
And then, finally, the album was released. Not surprisingly, the music of the album was restrained, but great when it was allowed to shine ("Belly, Belly Nice," "Broken Things" and "Drunken Soldier" in particular shine through). Surprisingly, however, the lyrics were even worse than the first five songs would have suggested. Sluggish, feeling half baked, the lyrics often seemed to lack the full development you'd expect of a finished album. Many songs have choruses which lack depth, and even songs (like "Drunken Soldier") which seem to be on the verge of traditional DMB big scale lyrical genius end up falling short.
So what does it all mean? I firmly believe, particularly after reading and listening to a number of interviews with Dave it is painfully evident that the lead man of the band is not sure he wants to continuing doing this. The anticipation over a fall tour which looks more and more like it won't happen only serves to drive this point home: new album, with it's strength in the playing of the band, and there is no pending tour. Matthews lyrics are completely lacking, and the band feels muzzled and incapable of overcoming the lacking lyrics. Is it really a surprise that the members of the band who seem most invested in continuing to create more music (Carter, Stefan, and probably Rashawn Ross) are being held back by the front man who's name and voice is the central part of the band?
Compare this to Pearl Jam, with lead singer Eddie Vedder, who manage to continue to pump out new music and reinvent themselves through the years. Whereas Eddie continues to find new ways to express old sentiments, as well as new subjects to explore, Dave Matthews seems mired in... happiness. When you look at the songs that bring the best out of Dave's lyrical development, there is typically two inspiring forces doing the driving. The first is angst: whether of lost love, drug abuse, or confusion over life in general, angst is a central and dark passenger on many classic DMB tracks. The second force, big scale political/spiritual issues has led to the other classic DMB tracks. But now, with a wife, three children, and a comfortable lifestyle, Dave lacks the angst necessary and seems uninterested by tackling the bigger issues.
Sure, he'll take on Obama's failings and the issues with American politics, but he's doing so in a small scale, "Mercy" sort of way. Even his bigger picture attempts, such as the verses in "Gaucho" which paint a beautiful picture of human cultural/political development, he comes to a chorus which simply implores that we "gotta do much more than believe if we really wanna change things." Compare this with the burning drive in "Last Stop" or the melancholic summary of human development in "Dreaming Tree" and you find that "Gaucho" is loaded with potential, yet is impotent due to lacking lyrics.
And, honestly, Dave Matthews deserves this. Great music generally stems from the angst experienced by the musicians or witnessed by them. Dave hit the nail on the head in the pop single "Funny the Way it is" off of Big Whiskey when he mused that "somebody's broken heart becomes your favorite song." When Dave wrote songs about his broken heart, or about his lack of certainty over why we exist, or about where society is going wrong, or why there is war in the Middle East and even humanizing Christ, we could all relate. These were songs the average person could put on and say "yeah, I get it." The vast majority of people can relate to falling on their knees begging someone, anyone to help them make sense of it all, and fearing their own mortality ("When I was young I never think about it, now I can't get it out of my mind"). Now? Dave writes lyrics about things he thinks he should write things about. He's trying to write about broken hearts, but more through the schema of marriage rather than the angst of not having anyone. He writes about his son growing up, but doesn't seem to have a voice to lend to it. He still tries to tackle political issues, but seems to be throwing his hands up and saying "well, I don't know what to do, but I know it's not this, and I'm just not happy with it." He touches on the uncertainty our existence, but the gets lazy with the lyrics (again, "Drunken Soldier").
In sum, Dave Matthews lacks the fire he did when he was younger. This summer he seemed happy to rest on his reputation by busting out all the rarely played epic favorites he knew would fire the crowd up. I wonder now if the band didn't do that because they understood that their mini-renaissance in Big Whiskey was driven by an angst (following Leroi Moore's death) that they couldn't keep going. Dave is happy, comfortable, and tired of the pressure of touring and developing new songs. I think he doesn't want to go there anymore because his angst, the great energy behind the group's high points, is far behind him. Whereas Pearl Jam has managed to reinvent themselves through the years, Dave Matthews Band still is what it always was. The recipe just doesn't work as well when you try to mix it without the fire.
Album Breakdown:
1. Broken Things - 3.5/5
2. Belly Belly - 3/5
3. Mercy - 2/5
4. Gaucho - 3/5
5. Sweet - 3/5
6. The Riff - 3.5/5
7. Belly Full - 4/5
8. If Only - 3.5/5
9. Rooftop - 3/5
10. Snow Outside - 3.5/5
11. Drunken Soldier - 4.5/5
Total: 3.3/5 album rating
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)