Tag Team: Steve and Brenna on superheroes, Star Wars and no coffee

To rip-off the disclaimer for Bill Simmons' BS Report, Tag Team is a free flowing discussion between two adults that sometimes touches on mature subjects. Back in the day, I used to teach URI 101, which is where I initially met Brenna McCabe. She then started working for the Cigar, and later became its editor-in-chief, three years after I did. She is also insane about puppies and coffee.

Want to do your own Tag Team with me? Send me an e-mail (sgre6768@gmail.com) or leave a comment.

-----

Steve says: First off, I have no clue what the freak your e-mail acronym is. BCabe M? Really? Was Brenna.McCabe taken? Or BMcCabe? Or McCabeBrenna? I expect a bit more out of you!

Second, let's get down to this superhero discussion. I still haven't seen either Hulk movie because I've heard conflicting things about both of the recent versions. The older one, the one released around 2000, is apparently too talky, while the newer one with Edward Norton is just a generic action movie, which I'm also not into.

It always amazes me how Hollywood can manage to screw up superhero franchises. The two worst I've seen are Catwoman and Elektra, and especially Elektra. The movie that spawned it - Daredevil - was pretty decent, but Elektra was pretty horrible. I watched it with someone who was a huge Alias fan, who owned practically everything Jennifer Garner had ever done on DVD, and she still fell asleep. I stayed awake, but mostly because it was so bad I cringed in a lot of parts.

If we're talking about good superhero movies, I think Iron Man, the Batman Begins series and the first two Spiderman movies are on the upper tier, and in roughly that order as well. In the next tier, I think there are a lot of serviceable films: the first two X-Men movies, Daredevil, Spawn, Spiderman 3. And in the bottom tier, there is a lot of cheesy stuff that is kind of worth watching, like X-Men 3.

-----

Brenna says: Greenwell, you'd be surprised how many folks have (or I guess are strangely obsessed with) my name. Bcabem is first class stuff. It's also the only name that made sense and wasn't taken.

But let's get to the meat of this - for the past couple of weeks, I've been plagued by movie posters and trailers of the upcoming Hulk movie. You're absolutely right about Hollywood - It is astounding how many writers and directors have managed to butcher the Incredible Hulk franchise (this includes the hilariously bad TV show from the late '70s starring Lou Ferrigno), and the new movie, though I have an incredible (no pun intended) respect for the talent of Edward Norton, looks no different than the last one.

This movie, much like its predecessor, seems centered around the love story of Bruce Banner and Betty Ross. I think Marvel was going for a revamp similar to the revival of the Batman movies in Christian Bale, with an edgier look and better talent. The difference here is that the writer and director got in touch with the darker roots of the Batman comics -- namely the period of revival in the 1970s and 1980s when the strips took on the "grim avenger of the night" mantra.

But The Incredible Hulk doesn't look like it's going to do much for Marvel lovers, except for maybe giving a slight boost to Banner's character, formerly played by Eric Bana. (Which was one of the bleakest performances I've ever seen in a superhero movie ... almost worse than what's-his-face in Superman Returns. Cringe.)

As far as I can see, the movie doesn't even get into The Avengers or any of the cool villains that surface in the actual comic, which are the best parts of Hulk's story anyway!

I think the latest Batman movies still stand as the best superhero films of late, though I also have a strong attachment for the non-traditional V for Vendetta and the original Star Wars trilogy - I don't know if you count Luke Skywalker as a traditional superhero, but he might as well be. Mmmm, Mark Hamil.

Speaking of Star Wars, I recently happened upon "Wookieepidia," the official Star Wars wikia. Do you know what this means? This means I can FINALLY win arguments concerning the definition of a parsec, which in case you were wondering is equal to 3.26 light years. And...

"By real world definition a parsec is 360×60×60/2π Astronomical Units (AU). It is a measurement of distance based on apparent stellar motion as observed from Earth. Since the Galactic Standard "AU" would be based on Coruscant's orbit (368 days) it would equal 150,349,907,726 meters. This makes a Galactic Standard parsec equal 31,011,894,586,294,500 meters. Note, that it is also possible that the Coruscant Day, Hour, etc. are 0.75 percent shorter than Earth's, in which case the AU and parsec would be the same length as Earth's. Earth has a year 365.2424 days long and an AU of 149,597,870,691 meters. This makes an Earth based parsec equal 30,856,775,813,057,300 meters."

Ha! And now that I've gotten lost in the valley of Geekville, ne'er to return until I find a good GPS and some stellar caffeine adjustments, I leave you with this: I was venturing on YouTube last night and discovered the latest cartoon version of the X-Men, X-Men Evolution. Have you seen this poppycock!? Thirty-somethings are complaining about how all kids want to do is play on the computer instead of going outside and beating up other children on the playground like they're supposed to, but do you know what the real downfall of society is going to be? I'll tell you, Greenwell. It's poor-quality cartoons. How are kids supposed to function properly in society if they have no models to look up to?

X-Men Evolution is just some of the basic characters (Cyclops, Jean Grey, Wolverine & Storm) mixed in with some new ones (Shadowcat? Come on, man) ... as teenagers. In high school. It's the Gossip Girl version of a superhero TV series. Sure, there was some drama on the old series. But it was more about the fight and the philosophy, not about Jean Grey trying to score some cartoon hottie on the football field to make Scott jealous. Thoughts? Concerns? A strongly-worded letter to Marvel?

-----

Steve said: I had forgotten that there is a lot of down time when you're being a writing coach at the Cigar. Whoops! See, if I had done this earlier, you would have had time to reply to it tonight. As is, I'm not sure if that will happen.

Speaking of being a writing coach, how do you like it? I realize you're only a couple months removed, but so was I when I started. It was a weird mix of happiness and melancholy for me; I kind of felt like I was backtracking a bit.

I really haven't seen any of the Hulk content; I just don't find him that compelling of a character. His whole motivation is based on rage and emotion, and his only "power" is actual brute force strength. With alternatives like Wolverine out there, I think he's a kind of boring character. He's like Superman to me with less spectacularness.

I also don't consider V For Vendetta a real "superhero" movie. It's mostly about a political struggle, except that one guy wears a mask and cape and ladies love him. Like, seriously - I bet female fans of that movie outnumber males 2 to 1. If I was teaching a literature class, I might consider showing it at the end of a unit on 1984 as an example of the dangers of complete authoritarian control, but I found the movie kind of... muddled.

On the whole, I think Star Wars is more like space drama than superhero, but Luke Skywalker is so underrated! I was arguing with another friend who I won't name fully - Let's call her A. Meyer. Ehhh, wait, make that Amanda M. Anyway, she's not into Luke Skywalker or Matt Fox's character on Lost, Jack, because they're too boring and heroic. I would angrily chastise her (more than I do) for this folly, except that pretty much everyone loves Han Solo in Star Wars.

You know what I say? FEH! That role is so cool that pretty much any actor could have played it. Luke has to make tougher decisions in the movies, and deal with more emotionally trying situations, so I'll always skew toward endorsing him.

I have seen portions of X-Men Evolution, and it really is... just... awful. I think it takes place in an "alternate" Marvel Universe, but I have no idea why they feel the need to do that. You have decades of great, high-selling comic books. Why would you then insist on using storylines aimed at stupid teenagers? Make them come up to you!

It's a sin I think journalism is guilty of too. Since the 1970s, most papers seem obsessed with becoming more like TV news - immediate, less investigative, less enterprise, less of an emphasis on WRITING. People sometimes throw The New York Times at me when I say that, except that the actual writing in that kind of stinks – they just use bigger words. Most of it is still mind-numbing to actually read. I think some of the best work out there now is being done by places like Slate, Rolling Stone and The New Yorker, and journalism novelists, like Malcolm Gladwell and Michael Lewis.

-----

Brenna said: Days and days and days later...

Sorry for responding so late, Greenwell. I've been very busy being important & working the early morning shift at a shitty part-time job (like all famous writers have started out doing). But I'm here, and I'm ready to rock the blogosphere.

I can't stop rhyming lately and I have no idea why.

My rhymes are so potent / That in this small segment / I made allllllll the ladies in the first two rows pregnant.
-Flight of the Conchords

Thank Allah for New Zealand!

All right, I'm stalling.

Let's start with the Cigar. The writing coach gig went well, but I know what you mean about backtracking. I'll admit it - all the warm, fuzzy Cigar feelings came back full force within the first five minutes of stepping into the room. The Reno 911: Miami poster, the photo pass board, the picture of Keith Cothran mid-alleyoop on the sports department board ...

I didn't realize I was so attached to posters until just now. But it was a great feeling to be back even though Lindsay Lorenz, the new chief, rearranged all the tables and my old office is no longer plastered with Patriots and Celtics schedules, and puppy posters. Seeing my young bucks take the lead as news editors was also a treat, though I felt oddly removed from everything at the same time. But these things take time, Greenwell. All things must come to an end.

Kind of like The Amazing Spiderman. There have been rumors that there is going to be three more Spiderman movies coming out, but what's even more disturbing is that there is a Broadway musical slated for 2010. And Bono from US has taken it upon himself to write the score. This is more abhorrent than shocking, seeing as U2 is one of the biggest musical sellouts of all-time. They're the kind of band that rides on their earlier musical masterpieces (“Sunday Bloody Sunday” and pretty much anything from The Joshua Tree) and thinks it's OK to produce crap like “Vertigo” because they can get away with it. (Although that song is still a guilty pleasure of mine because iut's so catchy.)

So now Bono is trying to do the same with Spiderman, one of my favorite superheroes of all time. And why? Who knows. Maybe he's insecure about his own sellout status so he has to pick on a comic book character that can't fight for his own dignity. No one's going to spin Bono up in a web and hang him from the Empire State building for this. Moreover, I'm too curious and too much of a Spiderman fan to simply IGNORE the musical, so I have to at least see it!

It's just like with the last three Star Wars movies... God knows they should have never been made, but they're part of the story. So I HAD to see them. I'm “that guy” that has to finish the goddamn book, even if I start picturing a hundred different ways to kill the author. Read Twilight and you'll know what I mean.

You know George Lucas is going to make three more Star Wars movies. You know he's going to do it. It's definitely going to be the Luke / Mara Jade storyline from the Star Wars books. The movies will probably be the last big project the man does before he kicks the bucket! If he does decide to disgrace himself further, I at least hope they pick a better actor for the role of Luke than he did for Anakin Skywalker.

In regards to the Luke vs. Han Solo match-up, I agree with you on that front. Though I can't say I wasn't always a little in love with Solo. That wit, that charm ... and what a hottie. Hahaha. But Luke had a better story, and that's definitely one reason why the old movies were so great.

I love this time of year because Spike plays the old Star Wars movies in frequent marathons. I'm also really excited for Star Wars in Concert coming to the Dunkin Donuts Center. Is that wrong? Should I check myself in somewhere? I mean, I'm not going to dress up for it or anything. But I am probably paying out the ass for it. And I only make a measly $12 per hour. Hmm. I wish that made a difference to me. My wallet is going to be really thin by the time Christmas rolls around - Marion (mom), Francis P. (dad), Little McCabe (Meaghan?), I hope you don't expect too much this year. Brenna's working the early shift for you people already!

Speaking of which, do you know how hard it is to quit coffee when you have to slap yourself awake at 4 a.m. each week? It's like kicking a nicotine habit (or so I imagine). News of my one-month no-coffee triumph spread like wildfire this week, so my co-workers have decided to torture me more by shoving coffee beans under my nose, trying to switch my decaf to regular when they think I'm not paying attention and tempting me with Starbucks syrup that they're only supposed to give to customers. I'm not entirely sure of this, but my investigative reporting skills have led me to believe that the waiters actually have a pool going for who can crack me first. Bollocks!

Luckily, Starbucks has been a kind soul to me. This week, for example, I found its new tribute to decaf: http://blogs.starbucks.com/blogs/customer/archive/2009/10/12/1-new-starbucks-via-product-idea-coming-soon-decaf.aspx. For now, I drink my free decaf coffee at the Viking Hotel. Fancy-schmancy-watered-down-decaffeination. Awesome. When my grandmother Mary died, I was told people threw Bingo chips in her coffin because she loved the game so much. All I ask is that my close friends do not feel the same way about my Starbucks mugs.

-----

Steve said: Dear McCabe, at least your choice for procrastinating lyrics are excellent. That's still one of my away messages, one of the few that served the jump over to my new computer. But back to the matter at hand, yes.

With each year that passes from what should have been my true graduation year - 2006 - I feel more removed from the general URI student body. I mean, Lorenz is a senior at the Cigar, and I'm about FIVE years older than her. Ugh. Unlike that sleazy guy from Fast Times At Ridgemont High, this is not a discrepancy that makes me happy. Each time I go back, I feel like I'm reliving a sort of arrested development, and not in the good way, with Michael and George Michael and Gob. The posters still are everywhere; I was surprised that all of them were still up from my days, and that there is a picture of Nat "Buddy" Binns in the editor's office still, who nobody on the current paper knows.

This talk of Spiderman: The Musical worries me, especially if that horrible snake Bono is involved. What gives??? I wish I was a superhero, so that I could stop that. The third movie was bad enough that I'd be seriously worried about the future installments of the series. And like you, I have not really liked anything done by U2 since The Joshua Tree.

However, I am a bit excited at the prospect of more Star Wars movies, especially if Lucas isn't the sole architect of the project. I've read the officially-sanctioned unofficial 7, 8 and 9 books by
Zahn, and I thought they were pretty swell and plausible, much more so than the actual 1 and 2 films done by Lucas. (Revenge of the Sith is the only "new" Star Wars movie that I'll still
watch, because I think it really sets up A New Hope really well.)

You going to that Star Wars concert is pretty sad, though.

I do whole-heartedly agree with your no-coffee pledge though, since I dislike drinking coffee. It is a vile substance that just clings to your skin for hours. My favorite part of working for a different newspaper company is that I no longer have to constantly meet sources at the local coffee house, which I had to do a lot in Warren. It's weird that from southern to northern Rhode Island, there is a pretty decent split in terms of coffee consumption.

-----

Want to do your own Tag Team now? Of course you do... Send an e-mail to sgre6768@gmail.com and we'll make it work, as a wise man once said. On to the usual photo credits: The Spiderman photo is from here. The picture of the Hulk comes from an interview with Lou right here. The picture of Luke Skywalker is from here. Flight of the Conchords is from here.

Pickin' Pigskin: Week 6 Tally

It was gridlock in terms of picking this week, as everyone finished with the same record. We all finished at 6-8, so the records are the overall standings for this year.

Kristin: 52-38
Bob: 51-39
Steve: 45-45

Sigggghhhh. I'm languishing behind the leaders still, six games behind Bob and seven games behind Kristin. I'd like to say that I'm ready to go on a big run, but who the heck knows? My performance to date has been very disappointing.

At least on the plus side, my fantasy football team is still dominating. This week we got 63 points from Mr. Tom Brady, with his six touchdowns and 380 passing yards, primarily in the first half. Even without him, we would have won, since Garrard actually had 25 points this week, and the rest of our team did well - 13 for Mendenhall, 15 for Bowe, 10 for Prater and 18 for Denver's defense and special teams.

I was worried about this week a bit, since Reggie Wayne and Ronnie Brown were on their bye weeks, but our opponent only managed 73 points because of lackluster performances by Eli Manning, Michael Turner and Pierre Thomas. This week should be a tougher match-up for us, as we have to face-off against a team that has Randy Moss and Colston.

The evolution, kind of, of Family Guy vs. The Cleveland Show

After exchanging a few Twitter comments with Ethan Winters, I decided to give some of my thoughts about the initial episodes of The Cleveland Show, and the evolution of Family Guy.

To start with, The Cleveland Show is oddly compelling, and I can't quite explain why. It is essentially a new version of Family Guy; the tone and music feels very similar, unlike American Dad, which is more like its own show. Cleveland is surprisingly fleshed out as a full character, and the show is a lot more wholesome than Family Guy. Granted, that isn't saying much, but Cleveland is a surprisingly decent role model for the other family members.

The supporting characters also make the show better, which is nice. Cleveland has a weird bear neighbor that's hilarious, as is the Stewie-like Rollo, another little kid who talks like an adult. There are a lot of little similarities between The Cleveland Show and Family Guy, but enough differences that I'll probably watch both.

Referencing back to the other point of this post, it is weird to watch some earlier episodes of Family Guy - especially the pre-cancellation episodes - and note how they have changed in tone. The early episodes mostly focused on Peter and Lois' relationship, and their relationship with other members of the family.

The newer episodes are guilty (although I still like them) of what South Park accused them of a couple years ago - Nothing but asides and random jokes and plotless episodes. The best examples are the episodes focused solely on Stewie and Brian, of which there are two to six a year now, it seems. This seems like a few too many, and I'd like to see the show do a couple more episodes on other characters.

Heck, the original plan of the show was to not be like The Simpsons, and to have the characters age and take new jobs and what not. With that spirit in mind, why not have Meg and Chris move up a grade in school? Or have Meg go to college, or have Peter get yet another new job, or have Lois do some weird Lois thing.

The picture from The Cleveland Show is a still from this site.

Storytime with Amanda Meyer: The best crushes ever ever

Every weekend, my friend Amanda Meyer writes an entry. This week's concerns her celebrity crushes.

The more I talk to people, the more I realize that I have entirely too many celebrity crushes. It needs to stop, though I do not imagine that it will. What follows is a list of my Top Five actual celeb crushes and Top Five fictional celeb crushes.

Actual People That Should Fall in Love With Me:

1)Leonardo DiCaprio. Leo has topped this list since I first saw Titanic in theaters at the age of nine. He has been faithful ever since, only getting better looking as he ages and continuing to pick characters I can’t help but fall in love with. Furthermore, he’s got class; this guy cleans up real well, is very active with charity work, and he’s a good actor, not just a pretty face.

2)Milan Lučić. If I ever needed a guy to fight for me, he would be it. This guy kicks ass. He is also Canadian and plays hockey. What’s not to love? His ONE drawback is that he’s six months younger than me. And he gets a lot of broken noses, which takes away from looks. Slightly.

3)Bobby Flay. Bobby and I would get along great, and I would always have a great meal to come home to. The only downside here is that he is my parents’ age. Eww.

4)Matt Damon. A local boy, he and I have the streets of Dorchester in common. What girl can’t resist a Boston accent? Besides, he’s dreamy. And look, he loves the Sox. ‘Nuff said.

5)John Cena. Don’t even ask. I don’t watch wrestling, his acting career is miserable. But he’s HOT. And he can fight.

Fictional Characters Who Would Love Me if They Were Real:

1)Jack Dawson from Titanic. If you haven’t seen this movie you need to. There really is no reason why I should even need to explain this. In three days he waltzes in, turns Rose’s world upside down and gets her to fall head over heels in love with him. She wasn’t the only one who fell.

2)Jim Halpert from The Office. Jim has a goofy smile, makes amazing facial expressions, gave the PERFECT wedding toast this season, and is all-around adorable. What a great guy. Also the actor is from Brighton, my current digs. I like it.

3)James “Sawyer” Ford from Lost. If I ever get stuck on an island, I hope Sawyer is there to save me. He’s sarcastic, a huge wise-ass and obsessed with condescending nicknames, but after a few episodes, it’s just endearing. He also kicks ass, takes names and has a heart. He might not ever say it back, but Sawyer, I love you.

4)Billy Costigan from The Departed. Boys from Boston. What can I say? Us local girls love our boys. The accents, the badass persona, the Irish Mobster boss... We love it all. Sure. Billy had issues, but at the end of the day, all he wanted was to make it out of the Southie projects and be respectable. How can you not fall for that?

5)Chuck Bass from Gossip Girl. Chuck is arrogant. He only loves himself. He owns more Dior than I do (and that’s saying something). He’s 18 (creepy). He’s a pompous mutli-billionaire Upper East Sider. But GOD is he gorgeous. His one-liners are almost as good as Sawyers, and sometimes he has a heart. He makes me want to leave Boston for NYC, and that is saying something.

The picture of Crush soda is from here.

Pickin' Pigskin with Bob and Steve: Week 6

In an effort to get more sports content up on my blog, my buddy Bob and I pick NFL football games every week. Sorry for the lateness this week, but unfortunately, real life intruded.

WASHINGTON over Kansas City (6.5)

Steve: Washington -6.5

Given how absolutely, frighteningly insipid Kansas City has looked this year, I'm not sure why this number is "only" 6.5. Yeah, they played tough against Dallas, but Dallas is pretty dysfunctional at the moment. As weird as this might sound, I trust the Redskins a bit more than them; I feel like after a rough initial start to the season, they are ready to beat up on some of the Sisters of the Poor they are now facing.

Also, this has nothing to do with football picks, but I wanted to mention it toward the top to give you time to respond - How DARE you not sign the Thank You card from your wedding! I got a wonderful note from Mrs. Kristin Hanson, a true saint, and she signed your name on there as well, it looks like. Hey, what else does she do for you now, Bob? Does she go into work for you sometimes and analyze TPS reports? Honestly. You must stay at home with the crotchet needles to knit scarves for your many adopted kittens and puppies.

Bob: Washington -6.5

Living down here I get to see the putridity of the ‘Skins every week, and have absolutely no faith in them. I desperately want to pick the upset, but looking at how these two teams have performed I just can’t. The ‘Skins defense is fifth—FIFTH—in the league, and their offense is better than KC’s as well. Kansas City did look frisky against Dallas last week, but as you mentioned this is not exactly a fantastic Cowboys team. I have to pick the Redskins here, although I really feel like this one could be an upset.

Oops on the thank you card. I didn’t realize she was sending them out that quickly. I thought she was doing her family first. Oh well. You should be happy you got a thank you card; this is totally the type of thing I would forget to do if left to my own devices. That’s why you get married—so at least one of you has common courtesy. Anyway, let me be the second to say thank you, Steve, for coming by the wedding and your gracious gift (which I will not publicize in a public manner).

CINCINATTI over Houston (5)

Bob: Bungals -5

Looking at statistical rankings can sometimes be deceiving. For example, Houston currently has the No. 11 offense (by yardage) in the NFL, compared to Cincinnati coming in at No. 18. On defense, the Bengals are a mediocre No. 17 while the Texans fall at No. 25. Both of these look like pretty clear differences, but if you delve deeper it is not so. Houston is giving up about 35 more yards per game on defense, but six extra points per game. Meanwhile the offenses are only separated by 14 yards per game, and less than three points. Looking deeper, there is a key mismatch—Houston is pretty bad against the run, and the Bengals can run because somehow Cedric Benson is “good.”

I’m worried about the Bengals, though. They have beaten some teams (Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore) that are well regarded, but may not be as good as was assumed. I get the feeling that the Bengals are going to have a letdown game pretty soon. But that shouldn’t come against Houston.

Steve: Bengals -5

While I don't think the Bengals are going to go 15-1, I don't think this Houston team will be the one to trip them up. Look at last week's game as an example - The Texans were coming off a win, and have a pretty soft Arizona team to beat, and they sleepwalked through half the game. I mean, as a Bengals fan, I am worried about the Good Texans showing up Sunday, but it is seemingly just as likely that Matt Schaub will be too busy on his iPhone to play the first half seriously.

PITTSBURGH over Cleveland (14)

Steve: Pittsburgh -14

Another threateningly large line for one of the dregs of the league, the Browns. Again, out of personal greed, I am picking the Steelers because I want Mendenhall to have a big game. It worked great for Ronnie Brown and the Dolphins, although he waited until there were about 20 seconds left in the fourth quarter to clinch my victory. Rashard plays a little bit earlier than Brown did, so hopefully he won't make me sweat things out.

Speaking of the Browns, although I wasn't, they are just unbelievably awful at this point. I have no idea how the final of that game was only 6-3. Did Terrell Owens dropkick Trent Edwards during the game? After showing some spunk against the Patriots in the first week of the season, the Bills have been awful, to the point that they let the lowly Browns win. This was with Derek Anderson going 2-14 on the game, which is a bad week for a baseball player, nevermind a single game for a guy who fancies himself an NFL quarterback. The Steelers actually have a pulse, so I'll be very surprised if they don't put up more than 14 points on the Browns.

Bob: Terrible Towels -14

The Steelers have the statistics of an elite team, but they haven’t played like it (if that makes sense). I don’t know if it’s the loss of Polamalu, the lack of ferocity since they just won a Super Bowl, or the fact that the season is still young and there is not much urgency yet. That being said, the Browns are devastatingly bad. I hope Mangini enjoyed his one year stint in Cleveland.

MINNESOTA over Baltimore (3)

Bob: Baltimore +3

I would feel better about this pick if it were a few weeks ago. The Ravens were playing well, but have lost some of their swagger after the last two games. Still, I think Minnesota has benefited from a weak schedule (Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, an okay Green Bay at home, and a miracle win against the 49ers). Also, even though Baltimore’s defense isn’t as stifling as years past, they still are great against the run. I see this game not even really being close, although you never know what kind of magic Favre can come up with.

Steve: Minnesota -3

I'm actually surprised that the Vikings aren't favored by more. They dismantled that okay Green Bay team, and while that might have been more of a win via emotion, they looked good enough that I'm picking them here too. I also think Baltimore has flip-flopped, going from a dominant defensive team to (at least by season's end) a dominant offensive team. Baltimore still has Ed Reed, who is awesome, but Ray Lewis sure looks old now.

[Left] David Garrard attempts to solve the Seahawks defense last week.

JACKSONVILLE over St. Louis (9.5)

Steve: St. Louis +9.5

I hate having to pick this game. Jacksonville showed absolutely nothing last week, as they let a pretty bad Seahawks team crush them. I was doubly pissed because I had started David Garrard for my fantasy team, because his match-up against the Seahawks seemed a lot better than Brady vs. Denver, especially since he was coming off a 30+ point week. Obviously, that was a poor decision on my part. From now on, I shouldn't trust Garrard to do anything. That includes this week, as I'm picking the horrible Rams to at least cover against the Jags.

Bob: Jacksonville -9.5

This pick literally pains me. I don’t trust Jacksonville to do anything, and that showing last week was pathetic. I think Seattle should be better than it has been playing, but a shutout? Ouch. That being said, the Rams are averaging less than a touchdown a game. You heard that right. They are averaging 6.8 points per game. They have been shutout twice, and have only scored more than a touchdown in games where they lost by double digits. Furthermore, Jacksonville’s defense is most vulnerable against the pass. And the Rams cannot pass.

This brings me to Marc Bulger. What happened to that guy? The guy was really good until 2006, and then just tanked. You could blame the injuries, but he only played half of 2005 only to bounce back in 2006 to throw for 4,300 yards and 24 touchdowns. His fall to earth has been meteoric, he has been awful for three straight years, yet the Rams have stuck by him. I suppose it helps to have Kyle Boller backing you up at QB, but I really don’t understand how they could do worse at this point.

NEW ORLEANS over New York Giants (3)

Bob: New Orleans -3

For what should be a great game, this really hasn’t been getting that much hype. Perhaps it is because these two teams don’t really have much history (imagine if the Pats and the Colts were playing as well as these two now and matched up). Still, this match-up will tell everybody a whole lot about who is the cream of the NFL crop this season. These teams are roughly equivalent on offense, but on defense the Giants have been unbelievable. They are giving up 210 yards per game, 40 yards per game better than the No. 2 team on defense (Denver). If one looks at points, however, New Orleans is only giving up two more points per game but is scoring almost a touchdown more on offense. Really, these two teams are about equal.

But there is one difference between the teams. One of them played Washington (ugh), Dallas (overrated), Tampa Bay (pew), Kansas City (yuck), and Oakland (really? How did they get this schedule???). The other played Detroit (again, ugh), Philly (frisky), Buffalo (stinks), and the Jets (hmm). Honestly, both of these teams haven’t had very strong schedules to this point, but it is striking how bad the teams the Giants have played are. Furthermore, the Giants beat the ‘Boys and ‘Skins by less than a touchdown each. I hope we get some good Eli Manning face (stupid helmet catch).

Steve: New Orleans -3

I agree with you neither - Neither team has played a good schedule. However, I view the Saints as being a bit more legit because of their offensive talent. Seriously, it's the type of roster you normally only see in Madden, as the quarterback, running back, wide receiver and tight end can all catch passes and run well, and you even have the ambiguous "this guy is highly rated but we don't really have a need for him" player in Reggie Bush. The Giants are better on defense to me, but the Saints just have so many weapons that you can only hope you guess correctly on any given day.

Carolina over TAMPA BAY (3.5)

Steve: Tampa Bay +3.5

Another confusing game to pick between two teams that will probably end up between 3-13 and 6-10. If we took a time machine back to 2006, this would be a Game of the Week candidate. Now, we have two teams that will essentially be fighting for placement in the 2010 NFL Draft.

I'm taking Tampa for two reasons. 1) They're at home, and if I consider two teams pretty equal, I take the one playing at home. 2) They are inexplicably getting points for this game. I'm not sure why this is the case, and it makes me nervous, because this resembles Seattle vs. Jacksonville from last week in terms of my befuddlement with the line. Still, I'm going to trust my instincts, as bad as they have been this year.

Bob: Tampa Bay +3.5

I’m sticking by the Simmons rule of never take Jake Delhomme on the road. But let me write why Carolina should win. First, Carolina has secretly been fielding an elite pass defense—No. 2 in the league by yardage. This, of course, means they are spectacularly bad against the run, but Tampa doesn’t really have a strong running threat. So this game should be pretty cut and dry. But never take Jake Delhomme on the road.

GREEN BAY over Detroit (13.5)

Bob: Detroit +13.5

Detroit is frisky this year. Not good (they are giving up an average of more than 30 points per game), but definitely not a team you can sleep on. Green Bay, on the other hand, is average. They don’t really do anything well, and there’s not really anybody to be afraid of besides Aaron Rodgers, who is getting approximately 10 milliseconds of protection from his line on each play. Conceivably, the spread might not be the only thing Detroit can beat. That being said, Daunte Culpepper isn’t exactly a guy I would relish betting money on.

Steve: Detroit +13.5

I agree with you about Detroit - They're like the nerd in a 1980s movie. You know, you can't really count on them to get the girl (win), but you know they'll at least make a move, even if it is a really clumsy, ill-conceived move. This is a team that will be a lot scarier next year, when Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford and A Real Running Back are used to one another, but for now, I still think the Lions are decent enough to stay within the spread.

Philly over OAKLAND (14)

Steve: Philly -14

It seems like Philadelphia gets to play every horrible team in the NFL this year. Didn't they just get done dismantling the Bucs last week? Whatever. I imagine this game will proceed along a similar storyline. Unless Donovan McNabb really manages to eff things up, this should be another blowout win for the Eagles. Maybe we'll even see some Mike Vick time, which would be a great pleasure for the Oakland crowd, I imagine. Al Davis might even have a heart attack from the thrill of it all.

Bob: The guy who puked trying to lead a drive during the Super Bowl -14

I dump on McNabb last week and his team goes to town. It was against the Bucs, but he still looked good. People are talking about St. Louis as the worst team in the league this year, but I think they’re better than Oakland. I can see a path out of wretchedness for the Rams, but the Raiders look like they could be awful forever. I’m not sure where you would have to set the line for me to take the Raiders here. I would have to think hard about even taking the Raiders +30…

[Left] Trying to pick a Star Trek picture Bob would find sacrilegious...

SEATTLE over Arizona (3)

Bob: Seattle -3

Seattle is to football as Frasier was to sitcoms. Seattle has a tendency to put together teams that are dangerous from week to week, can be very good, but you just can’t explain why. What is it about that team that has made it good in years past? Matt Hasselbeck is good, but he’s never really been great. Shaun Alexander was really good, but you could never get very excited about it. Frasier was the same way. The show was funny, but it was never really something you would make a point of watching and sometimes the jokes just didn’t make sense. It’s inexplicable.

Anyway, I think Seattle is better than they came out the gate playing, and now they don’t have Seneca Wallace playing quarterback. Also, the Cardinals have been pretty below average this year. This game shouldn’t really be close—but the way the Seahawks are playing, I wouldn’t discount the possibility.

Steve: Arizona +3

I was surprised that Seattle was favored in this game, but then I noticed that they were at home. But hell, I'm going with the Cardinals anyway! Overlooking their fourth quarter collapse or the Texans' fourth quarter surge, depending on your point of view, they played pretty well for three quarters last week. I will take their somewhat-better overall consistency, vs. the super-streaky Seahawks, who kind of came out of nowhere last week to beat the snot out of the Jags.

NEW YORK JETS over Buffalo (9.5)

Steve: Jets -9.5

Remember after Week 1, how I said that I thought the Bills' success against the Patriots wasn't a fluke, and how I liked the swagger Terrell Owens brought to the team? Well, yeah, just ignore all of that. After that nuclear, atomic, aggressive crime against football that they committed against the Browns last week, I can't justify picking them in another game unless they're going up against another truly miserable team.

Bob: Jets -9.5

I think Buffalo and the Jets are pretty close together, at least on offense. The Jets defense is better, but has looked vulnerable over the last few weeks. This line is a little bit high for me, but until the Bills show signs of life I just can’t pick them. Interesting fact — Buffalo has scored 20 points total over the last three games.

NEW ENGLAND over Tennessee (9.5)

Bob: New England -9.5

This game is scary. Tennessee badly needs a win, so they are probably going to pull out all the stops. Even scarier is the fact that Tennessee’s defense is stifling against the run but is worst in the league against the past. The Patriots’ success of the Patriots will fall squarely on the shoulders of Tom Brady. If Brady cannot succeed against this defense, it is time to get worried. I’m hoping we can see some old school Tom Brady this week, hence my pick.

Steve: New England -9.5

I actually don't think this game is scary at all. I've always thought that Fisher is overrated, similar to how Cowher was before he won a Super Bowl. Last year's finish screamed out, "Fluke!" to me, since Kerry Collins was practically out of the league before Vince Young's weird anxiety breakdown forced him into a starting role with a team that had a strong defense, one that wouldn't rely on him doing much of anything, like when he made it to the Super Bowl with the Giants. This year, he must have shit the horseshoe out of his ass at some point.


ATLANTA over Chicago (3)

Steve: Atlanta -3

I must begrudgingly admit that Atlanta has played a little bit better than I thought they would this year, even if they did lose to the Patriots. They laid out a whupping on the 49ers last week, which had been everyone's binky up until that point.

Meanwhile, the Bears have been kind of meh, which is a good summary of the outcome of the Cutler trade. There is apparently something about Soldier Field that just kills offense; it makes me wonder if there is some strange offensive park effect at play, like how balls travel higher and further at Mile High and Coors fields.

Bob: Atlanta -3

This is a tough game to pick. Chicago has no business being 4-1, but these two teams are roughly equivalent and Chicago had a bye to prepare for this game. I really want to take Chicago but I think da Bears just aren’t that good.

But let’s talk about the Cutler trade for a moment, shall we? Remember when Josh McDaniels was getting killed for trying to trade for Cassel, upsetting Cutler, and being forced to trade the upset quarterback? Remember how Denver was going to be awful? I never understood how people didn’t see this trade as one-sided—two first-rounders and a decent quarterback for an above average quarterback who just showed he’s a huge prima donna? Who doesn’t make that trade? Particularly considering that above average quarterback had failed to lead a really successful team yet.

SAN DIEGO over Denver (4)

Bob: Denver +4

I had to think all of three seconds before taking the Broncos. This is a team that has gone undefeated and just managed to knock off the still decent Patriots, against the team that barely beat the Raiders in week 1. The two teams are close together on offense, but miles apart on defense. Denver has been giving up 250 yards per game and a little more than a touchdown, compared to San Diego giving up 100 additional yards and two additional touchdowns per game. Considering Denver has the slight edge on offense, I don’t understand how Denver can be a four point underdog.

Steve: Denver +4

Maybe the Vegas book is still using team and player ratings from Madden 2009 to pick its games. San Diego hasn't looked good this year, so I don't see why they should be FAVORED to beat the undefeated Broncos. I could go along with this if the Broncos were slight favorites, since they haven't looked super impressive, but I'm not picking against them when they're somehow getting points.

OMG WTF kitty comes from this site. The Frasier Crane, a.k.a. Kelsey Grammar, picture comes from here. Da Bears image is here! And the Office Space photo is from this neat quiz here.

Pickin' Pigskin with Kristin: Week 6

Every week, as an accessory to the picks Bob and I do, his wife Kristin also picks games. So far this year, she has been in first place overall more weeks than Bob and I, so she's doing quite well. Our picks will be up at 7 p.m. tonight.

WASHINGTON over Kansas City (6.5)

Kristin: Washington -6.5

Well, let's not stop now. I might as well keep picking the 'Skins all season — Especially when they are favored at home. (Really, who thinks that's smart?)

CINCINATTI over Houston (5)

Kristin: Cincinnati -5

Last week, I learned painfully that Houston is only good at home and really isn't that good — at all.

PITTSBURGH over Cleveland (14)

Kristin: Pittsburgh -14

With all the major blowouts last week, I feel more confident making a pick with this large a spread. Hopefully, that doesn't bite me in the butt.

MINNESOTA over Baltimore (3)

Kristin: Minnesota -3

Stupid whiny Baltimore, this is what you get.

JACKSONVILLE over St. Louis (9.5)

Kristin: St. Louis +9.5

Really, a pathetic performance last week and still favored by 9.5? That seems bogus.

NEW ORLEANS over New York Giants (3)

Kristin: New Orleans -3

Go Saints! Woohoo!

Carolina over TAMPA BAY (3.5)

Kristin: Carolina -3.5

The Battle of the Terribles, who really cares about this one?

GREEN BAY over Detroit (13.5)

Kristin: Detroit +13.5

Hopefully, the score is close enough for this pick to fly.

Philly over OAKLAND (14)

Kristin: Philadelphia -14

Philly is back and Oakland is not.

SEATTLE over Arizona (3)

Kristin: Arizona +3

Seattle is annoying, and it's also annoying that both of these teams are decent — I don't like them.

NEW YORK JETS over Buffalo (9.5)

Kristin: Jets -9.5

I hate you Jets!

NEW ENGLAND over Tennessee (9.5)

Kristin: New England -9.5

We finally looked good at the beginning of the game last week. At first, no dropped passes. But we got tired and couldn't play out the full game. Our defense is strong, but they got tired and we lost heart. Now, this game will allow us to play a good full game — now that we are readjusted to Tom — and show we are ready to win out the rest of the season. We need this game to get a taste of domination and perfection and to believe again.

ATLANTA over Chicago (3)

Kristin: Atlanta -3

Only because they are at home where they can outpace the slower, colder Chi-town team.

SAN DIEGO over Denver (4)

Kristin: San Diego -4

Let's remind Denver they aren't all that cool, we lost that game — They didn't win.

The other Kristin Hanson is from this site. The Ben Folds picture is from this one. Tom Brady with Homer Simpson is from The Boston Herald.

Buy My Crap - Spyborgs

In an effort to sell more of my crap, my latest eBay auction is for Spyborgs, a Wii "bash everything in sight" game. I actually didn't care a ton for it, giving it a 6.8 over at Blast, but hey, maybe you REALLY like this type of game! I promise, I won't judge you... that badly...

To sweeten the pot a bit, if anyone from here buys it, I will autograph your instruction manual. If that STILL isn't enough of an incentive - as if! - you can have a throw-in game from my PS2 library. Don't expect anything super cool; we're talking like an old version of NCAA hoops or Crazy Taxi. But hey, it's better than nothing.

Note: I realize this is a lame post, but as usual, I'm running behind on the massive, super awesome undertaking that is the Weekly Football Picks column. It'll be up a little bit later today.

Inexplicable Movie Review: Airplane 2

I've been in an inexplicable mood lately, hence the second of these reviews in a week. Pardon my French and what not, I suppose. Anyway, similar to my review of Gremlins 2, let me talk about another sequel that doesn't get all the credit it deserves: Airplane 2.

While the original is a great film, I'd argue that the sequel is just as good, yet nobody has seen it. Most of the humor comes from two standout sequences - A courtroom scene in the early to middle portion, and the last 15 minutes, which has an incredible, and I daresay perfect, cameo. Of course, since it is an Airplane movie, there are tons of gags scattered throughout.

The courtroom scene is presided over by Raymond Burr, a.k.a. Perry Mason, and features a couple of great scenes. (The full scene can be, uh, seen here.) One is the questioning of a witness about what happened over Macho Grande. And like the first movie, there is some Jive talk. Other good portions are the questioning of Ted Stryker's psychiatrist and the calming down of a hysterical witness.

The other great scenes all deal with an incredible cameo - William freakin' Shatner. It's easier to just provide the link to the last nine minutes, which have all of his awesome scenes, and another cameo by the Starship Enterprise. It is Shatner at his over-acting best.

Other good cameos are Sonny Bono as a crazy bomber, Lloyd Bridges as air traffic controller Steve McCroskey, Peter Graves as Captain Clarence Oveur, Chuck Connors as the Sarge, Steve Stucker as a super gay air traffic controller, and Rip Torn as Bud Kruger and President Reagan.

I think the Airplane! movies maintain their humor because all of the actors are playing the material completely straight. All of the humor is derived from people acting completely oblivious to the humorous situations they're in; it is the opposite of Leslie Neilson's later, shitty spoof movies that are painfully trying to make jokes. Things are funnier when everyone is acting as if they are completely serious.

Controller #3: Get me Steve McCroskey!
Controller #2: Are you kidding? Ever since Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he's been completely senile!
Controller #3: Yeah, but what about McCroskey?
Controller #2: About the same as Reagan.

Airplane 2 picture taken from here.

The case for trading Papelbon

I was going to write a post elaborating on the sane, logical reasons to explore trading Papelbone, but Kayla over at Off The Monster already did a great job on it. You can read her post here. I concur with pretty much all of the reasoning in it, and added some other comments at the bottom of it.

The picture of Papelbon is from this site.

Inexplicable Video Game Review: Rock Band The Beatles

So, yesterday afternoon GameFly sent me the next game on my queue finally, The Beatles edition of Rock Band. I must say that it was a weird experience, and because the game isn't really new anymore, I didn't really think it was appropriate for me to review it for Blast or to try to sell a review to my current journalism employers.

Anyway. The presentation of the game is amazing, by far the best of the music games I've played - Guitar Hero 3, World Tour, Metallica and 5, and Rock Band 2. Unlike past games in both series, the continuity of The Beatles - you can't switch out members of your band - allows for much more vibrant characters and backgrounds.

This is especially true for the psychdelic phases of The Beatles' music, such as "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." All of the songs for these phases feature brightly-colored, unique backgrounds, and provide a lot of variety from the stale club backgrounds of the other games. The Beatles edition of Rock Band definitely ups the ante in terms of presentation, and the songs are just as pristine as in other music games.

Unfortunately, all this excellence in presentation probably comes at the cost of depth. Whereas the newest Guitar Hero, the fifth installment, features 85 songs, Rock Band: The Beatles only has 45 songs. If you're going to make a game solely based on one band, I'd like to see the song content maximized. As is, since The Beatles released over 200 songs, we could see a milking of their name in the form of four games. Ugh. Although I realize that the format isn't perfect for every song, some big tracks are left out completely - "Let It Be" and "Eleanor Rigby" were the two biggest omissions to me.

Also, unlike Guitar Hero: Metallica, The Beatles features nothing but The Beatles. Hitting on the previous paragraph, if it's JUST The Beatles, try to include more than 25 percent of their total catalog. I even thought of a great natural "epilogue" chapter that they could have done - The singles of their respect After-Beatles projects. I would have killed for another three songs - "Imagine" by John Lennon, "Baby I'm Amazed" by Paul McCartney and Wings, and "I've Got My Mind Set On You" by George Harrison. And, I suppose something from Ringo, if we must, and maybe some Beatles-inspired music or covers, like "Across The Universe" by Fiona Apple or anything by Oasis.

As is, I still give a high recommendation to the game, provided you're a fan of The Beatles. If you actively dislike them or think they're overrated, then avoid Rock Band: The Beatles at all costs. Otherwise, it's worth renting, since you can easily beat the story mode in about three to four hours. If you are a Beatles fanatic though, you will want to buy it.

The picture of The Beatles is from this blog. Thanks!

Pickin' Pigskin: Week 5 Tally

It was a ho-hum week for picking games, as you'll note from the leaderboard:

Kristin: 8-6 (46-30, 1st)
Bob: 7-7 (45-31, 2nd)
Steve: 7-7 (39-37, 3rd)

I at least kept pace with Bob, but he fell out of a tie with his wife Kristin, who managed to pick one game better than us boys. I'm hoping that they'll both fall apart as the season goes on, since I'm seven games out of first place right now. My prognosticating skills have just fallen apart this year.

This is a bit like a bizarro year in general, between the MLB playoffs and the success of my fantasy team. We won again this week, again in dramatic fashion via the Monday Night Football game. We trailed by one point, 87-86, with a minute left, when Ronnie Brown plunged through the goal line for a bit of a vulture TD for us. This put us ahead 92-87, and I could breathe easy for the remaining 10 seconds of the game. My fantasy team is now 4-1, good for third place in the league. Yes, it's early, but if we win two more games the rest of the way, that would tie our high water mark the past three years. So, we're not exactly used to success...

The oddness of saying hello

I've lately run into the issue of not knowing whether or not I should acknowledge that I know someone. If that sounds complicated, I'm sorry, because it kind of is in my mind as well.

Let me provide some background information - I'm pretty good at remembering names and faces. In fact, it's only happened about three times in my entire life that I've met someone and they've said something to the effect of, "Oh we've already met." If I actually shake hands with someone and introduce myself, there is a 99.9 percent chance I will remember them at a future date. Heck, I normally remember even casual stuff like former college and high school classmates.

Therefore, I'm at loss at what to do at the local Taco Bell. See, there are at least two kids I went to high school with who work there, but I'm always reluctant to acknowledge this fact. We're all now 25, so I imagine this isn't where they hoped to be; I felt similar shame when I was laid off this past year and when I worked at Dunkin' Donuts when I was 23. Also, I wasn't really friends with either one in high school - One I never talked to, and one I knew better in elementary school.

Because of this, I'm reluctant to be all like, "Hey we both went to Chariho! How is life?" Since they are the ones working, I've always thought that if they wanted to bring this fact up, they would. They both always do the sort of double-take of recognition when they see me, so I assume they know we all went there. Also, I don't think high school was a super fun time for them, so I wouldn't really want to be the one to initiate that conversation.

Dear Miss Manners, what is the proper etiquette in this situation? Also, the picture of her was taken from this site.

Pickin' Pigskin with Kristin: Week 5

Kristin did submit these picks to me on Saturday morning, but I didn't get a chance to post them until now. I'll also have another post at 9 p.m. tonight. Two for one special!

Minnesota over ST. LOUIS (10)

Kristin: Minnesota

Sad little lost lambs.

Dallas over KANSAS CITY (8)

Kristin: Kansas City

Dallas winning by 2 scores on the road?

CAROLINA over Washington (3.5)

Kristin: Washington

Why stop now? If they make the spread small enough I'll finally be right.

PHILADELPHIA over Tampa Bay (15)

Kristin: Philadelphia

I like the new baby QB they've got going on.

NY GIANTS over Oakland (15.5)

Kristin: NY Giants

Stupid giants.

BUFFALO over Cleveland (6)

Kristin: Cleveland

Cleveland was better than expected last week, and they know how to play in the cold.

BALTIMORE over Cincinnati (8.5)

Kristin: Baltimore

Thank goodness we beat them last week - but I still think Baltimore is a really good team.

Pittsburgh over DETROIT (10.5)

Kristin: Detroit

Pittsburgh has been playing some close games this season.

SAN FRANCISCO over Atlanta (2.5)

Kristin: San Franciso

Go 49ers, be the little team that could!

New England over DENVER (3)

Kristin: New England

Go Pats! Let's hope that we earned some good luck in Mile High after that play-off game we won't talk about.

ARIZONA over Houston (5.5)

Kristin: Houston

No real thoughts on this game, sorry.

SEATTLE over Jacksonville (1)

Kristin: Jacksonville

Jacksonville is a more fun team to watch.

Indianapolis over TENNESSEE (3.5)

Kristin: Indianapolis

I hate you, Colts!

NY Jets over MIAMI (1.5)

Kristin: NY Jets

I hate you Jets!

The picture of the nice spread - get it? - is from here.

Complete opposite perfection

[Left] Another example of something that failed on every god damn level.

I'm almost at the point of earning a dubious distinction: All of my playoff picks from earlier this week are on the verge of elimination, excluding the Phillies vs. Rockies series, which is still tied at 1-1 as I type this. You know, it is just as hard to go 0-4 in the playoffs as it is to go 4-0, so really, I'm hoping to not pick a single series at this point. It would be a great, great honor, one that I can wear proudly for all future game-picking posts.

Analyzing my picks a bit here, the most shocking to me as a Red Sox fan was the meltdown of Papelbon and the clutchiness of Alex Rodriguez. I think both were the result of that demon Sample Size rearing its ugly head. Papelbon hadn't ever let up an earned run in the playoffs, so he was due at the absolute worst time, and conversely A-Rod finally got a hit in an important situation.

Watching the Cardinals and Dodgers play was just depressing though. Seriously, I'm supposed to take the National League seriously? Former Mariners wash-out Ryan Franklin is now the closer for the Cardinals, who also have Red Sox castoffs Joel Piniero and John Smoltz in the rotation, with Julio Lugo as their starting second baseman. Meanwhile, in a clutch situation and with the game on the line, the Dodgers have available as a pinch hitter... Mark Loretta. This game would have been great if we took a time machine back to 2002, but it's shocking to me that they're all still playing - and playing on playoff teams! - in 2009.

And don't even get me started on Miguel Cairo batting the other night either, or the no-call on Joe Mauer's ground rule double.

Storytime with Amanda Meyer: Jeffrey Steingarten and for the love of foie gras

Every Saturday, my friend Amanda Meyer writes a blog entry. One, because I think she's an excellent writer, and two, because I like to have a day off. Questions, comments or concerns? Leave them at the end of this entry, gawd!

Something I have learned about myself this week is that if I could trade lives with anyone in the world I would choose... Jeffrey Steingarten! Shocking, oui?

So he doesn’t have much going in the looks department, he has a funny sounding voice and I’m willing to bet most people don’t even know who he is. But you know what I have to say to those people? Get you butt to a couch and start watching some Food Network!

Steingarten happens to be one of the world’s leading food critics, a field I wish was easier to break into. This guy has a sweet gig going on. First of all, he works for Vogue. Hello! Who doesn’t want to work for Vogue? That magazine can singlehandedly solve any of my life’s problems.

He is also a regular judge on Iron Chef. Not only does this mean he eats delicious food, but he gets a lot of opportunities to meet Bobby Flay (my ultimate celeb crush). I also have a great appreciation for the fact that he graduated from Harvard and then Harvard Law, worked for Boston’s Mayor White, but left politics behind to be a writer. That’s admirable, and he’s really good at it; I highly recommend his book, The Man Who Ate Everything.

This leads me to my next point - The guy is paid to eat (everything!). I blame my love of food on my very Italian family. It was not until I was about 15, when I invited my then-boyfriend over for Christmas Eve dinner, that I realized most Americans do not eat seven courses of seafood over the holidays. I grew up assuming that raw oysters and calamari were every day fare, although I now realize that could not be further from the truth. Silly me.

I have also learned that conversations with new friends about favorite foods seldom go well. Usually they talk about their love of pizza or lasagna or even ribs, to which I express my undying love of foie gras and cioppino (for those of you who care, that’s goose liver pate and Italian fish stew). My obsession with Food Network shows as well as Bravo’s Top Chef only continue to encourage me to try new things, which in turn encourages more and more strange looks from people I tell about them.

But when you’re a famous food critic, I bet you don’t get funny looks. Mr. Steingarten makes these same dishes sound so fantastic that everyone who reads his book will immediately be inclined to book a flight to France for some authentic escargots! I would love that kind of power.

Luckily for me, I have found a great way to share this love of food with other foodies via the Internet. Yelp! is not only a great way to rave or rant about a meal out, but also a wonderful way to find some hidden gems in your area that you just have to try. So maybe this doesn’t put me quite on the same level as my new-found hero, but everyone has to start somewhere. Oh, and if you’re curious, you can find all my reviews under my username: amandabanana.yelp.com.

The picture of Jeffy is from this site here, which has several humorous photos of chefs and others downing some sort of booze.

Pickin' Pigskin with Bob and Steve: Week 5

Minnesota over ST. LOUIS (10)

Bob: Minnesota (-10)

These two teams are closer together than you think. Minnesota is the No. 11 team in terms of yards given up on defense while St. Louis is the No. 19 team. Minnesota is the No. 19 team in offensive yardage, while St. Louis is the No. 30. That isn’t to say St. Louis should have a chance here, but it does say that Minnesota isn’t as good as you think.

Minnesota will go 5-0, but this team is by no means elite. Its offense and defense don’t rank up against the Giants, Saints, Ravens, and Steelers of the world, so this team is due for a let down in the near future.

Steve: Minnesota (-10)

At this point, I have absolutely no faith in the Rams to sit the right way on a toilet, nevermind to win a football game, nevermind to win a football game against a team that does not entirely suck. Yeah, you can't ever completely count on a Brett Favre-led team to win a “gimme” game, given his love of throwing interceptions, but I don't think their letdown comes against the Rams.

Dallas over KANSAS CITY (8)

Steve: Dallas (-8)

Another stinker game. Dallas has not been impressive this year, especially last week, when Tony Romo had about 40 chances to score from the goal line and instead threw it at Champ Bailey's hands a couple times. Wade Phillips is a two or three-game losing streak away from losing his job, and Roy Williams is getting paid #1 WR money for #3 WR production.

So for the 'boys, the Chiefs are coming around at just the right time. I guess Scott Pioli needs a few more years to work up a better talent base. And who is that Cassel guy that they have at quarterback? To paraphrase Bill Reynolds, I'm glad we don't get quarterbacks like him here.

Bob: Dallas (-8)

I want to underscore the point I made a few weeks ago that the ‘Boys offense is not the problem, it’s their awful defense. In terms of yardage this is an elite offense (although Romo’s penchant for throwing picks is a problem), but the defense is hardly better than the Chiefs. That being said, the Chiefs are awful on both sides of the ball. What a letdown in must be to go from throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker to having your top pass catcher traded out from under you in the offseason, leaving you with Dwayne Bowe.

CAROLINA over Washington (3.5)

Bob: Washington (+3.5)

Well, I certainly shan’t be watching this game. Neither of these teams is exactly setting the world on fire. Both of these quarterbacks have completely turned their fan bases against them. In some ways, that makes it detrimental for Carolina to be at home because there’s the risk of Jake Delhomme getting booed off the field again.

Washington is the statistically superior team, but you just get the feeling that it’s the type of team that might help Jake Delhomme get his mojo back. Although Washington has been fairly stout against the pass, they have been vulnerable against the run and do not have a lot of picks. One should never count on Jake Delhomme to perform, though.

Steve: Washington (+3.5)

As bad / mediocre as Jason Campbell has been, at least his team has had a chance to win some games. Delhomme, man. I trust him even less than Brett Favre at this point. He is Brett without Super Bowl rings. The Redskins are still owned by the shitty Jerry Jones, but at least they have some talent here and there on their team. I don't think I could name more than five or six Carolina Panther players.

PHILADELPHIA over Tampa Bay (15)

Steve: Philly (-15)

How long until Vegas just prevents anyone from gambling on Tampa Bay at all? Geez, this line is 15, and it's not like the Eagles have been dominant world-beaters this season. And man, this is yet another horrible match-up. I guess the NFL is getting them all out of the way early this season...

This spread is incredibly high, but honestly, what chance does Tampa Bay have? Kolb has been a decent fill-in for McNabb, so I think he has a good chance of beating this line.

Bob: Tampa Bay (+15)

I actually feel worse about Philadelphia’s chances knowing that McNabb is starting. First of all, I have documented Kevin Kolb’s prowess in hunting wild hogs basically with his bare hands. So I don’t want to see him get benched. But secondly, McNabb just has a tendency to let this team down. I’m not saying they lose, but they may not be able to cover this spread.

Of course, I’m kind of ignoring the fact that Tampa is anemic on offense and Philly still has a shutdown defense. But I just don’t have faith in McNabb.

NY GIANTS over Oakland (15.5)

Bob: NY Giants (-15.5)

The Giants beat Tampa Bay by 24 and Kansas City by 11, both on the road. So the Giants perform well against the NFL’s bottom feeders (of which Oakland has been a contributing member for the past few years), but 15 is a wide, wide spread. Wait: the league’s top defense against the league’s worst offense? Woof.

Steve: Giants (-15.5)

See reasoning for Philly vs. KC. Man, the Raiders stink. I'm not picking them until they prove they can do something against a real team, regardless of how high the line swells.

BUFFALO over Cleveland (6)

Steve: Buffalo (-6)

Well, I'm glad to see this line under double-digits. The Stuckey era is upon us in Cleveland, so that is clearly the reasoning behind this 6-point figure.

I was surprised that the Browns managed to keep it close against the Bengals, to the point that overtime was needed, but I thought that effort was more an example of the Bengals still being the Bungles as opposed to the Browns' quality. A week later, I think what little luster he had will wear off Derek Anderson.

Bob: Cleveland (+6)

Every morning, I ride the Metro into work. I love the Metro. I get to walk two blocks from my apartment, get on for around two bucks, and then get off at a stop that is two blocks away from work. I never have to wait for a train (during rush hour) for more than 5 minutes, and at night I may have to wait a little longer but I also don’t need to drive home so I can partake in numerous adult beverages. Unfortunately, every so often other riders partake in too many adult beverages before riding the Metro, leading to conspicuous puddles of vomit being on the floor of some Metro stations in the morning.

I love football season. Most of the games are so good. It gives you something to do on Sundays. But sometimes you get a puke puddle of a game—a la Cleveland at Buffalo this week. Buffalo should win this game. But considering Cleveland was able to keep it close last week against the Bengals, and Buffalo seems to be quitting on Dick Jauron, I see the Browns at least covering. Of course, Mangina likes to lay a stinker when I pick them. So we’ll see.

BALTIMORE over Cincinnati (8.5)

Bob: Cincinnati (+8.5)

Not much respect for your Bengals, here, but I really don’t think there should be. They barely beat the awful Browns last week, and their stats are significantly worse than the Ravens. Still, last week I made the argument that the Ravens had played a fairly week group of opponents, and even though they hung in there with the Patriots I’m not convinced that hasn’t been a factor in their strong start. I’m probably going to regret this decision, but I’ll take the points.

On a related note, how lame do teams sound when they blame their losses on the officiating. There are certain times (I am looking at you, Ed Hochuli last year) when officiating can turn a game. But there was no one pivotal moment where we saw the officiating really do anything besides get the Pats a few extra yards on a drive. Was the game called tightly? Yes. But if you’re an NFL player you know that getting near the legs of Brady, Manning, and a few other elite quarterbacks will generally get a call. Why in God’s name would you even risk it? Alternatively, it’s not as though the Pats haven’t had a few egregious calls go against them, including one on Mike Wright during that game. It’s like blaming a baseball loss on an ump’s strike zone without there really being a decisive strikeout to really point to. Could it have influenced the game? Sure. But it didn’t help that your red zone defense let the Pats in the end zone after weeks of relative anemia, your return man fumbled to start off the game, and Joe Flacco threw a really inopportune pick.

Steve: Cincy (+8.5)

I agree with your take on the officials. Unless it is a play that causes a turnover, i.e. a false fumble ruling, then I think any penalty or lack thereof can be overcome with better execution. Seahawks' fans still complain about the officiating in that Super Bowl, but as a casual fan without a stake in either team, I didn't think anything especially egregious happened.

On to the game at hand! I am surprised that the line is this high, but the Ravens are at home, which probably pushed something in the 5-point range up to 8.5. The Ravens are kind of like a bizarro version of themselves this year – While they can now score, they can't seem to stop anybody, as Ray Lewis looks really old, Suggs is too busy cheapshotting opponents, and Ed Reed can't do it by himself in the secondary. I think Carson Palmer and Chad Johnson will spread the Ravens defense, although they will wisely avoid Ed Reed, who is a bad, bad man.

Pittsburgh over DETROIT (10.5)

Steve: Pittsburgh (-10.5)

I'm not crazy about this line – the spread seems so high – but Rashard Mendenhall is a bad, bad man. He scored 39 fantasy points last week, and the real world total seemed just a bit less. I think he has ended any idea of Willie Parker reclaiming the starter job in Pittsburgh, for which my fantasy team is thankful.

However, this is bad news for the Lions. I would almost be willing to take them, except that Matt Stafford won't be playing this week. Yeah, he's a rookie quarterback, but at least he's not almost-crippled like Duante Culpepper is. Teams keep giving him a chance, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he isn't that good without two Hall of Fame wide receivers (Cris Carter and Randy Moss) and two other Pro Bowl-caliber offensive players (Jake Reed and Robert Smith) on his team. With that Vikings' offensive talent, and in the dome, I think I could have thrown a dozen TD passes.

Bob: Pittsburgh (-10.5)

The Steelers were a decent team before. Looks like Mendenhall can run. Now they are a really good team again. Pile that with the fact that we get Daunte Culpepper starting for the Lions, I smell a blowout.

SAN FRANCISCO over Atlanta (2.5)

Bob: San Francisco (-2.5)

San Francisco has quietly produced the NFL’s No. 6 defense in terms of yardage. In the meantime, Atlanta is a bottom feeder defense, ranking only No. 30. Atlanta has the superior offense, but surprisingly Atlanta still is not that good—ranking just No. 23 in terms of yardage. The sample size is admittedly small—smaller still for Atlanta, who already had a bye—but I’m starting to wonder if Atlanta is as good as we thought. The one thing that could turn around this game is that San Fran has been somewhat vulnerable in its passing defense, although it makes up for that by producing interceptions. Matt Ryan could have a big day, but I don’t see how their defense can hold on to a win on the road.

Steve: San Fran (-2.5)

I think this game is pretty much a push, as the line implies, so I'm going with the 49ers because they're at home. It's weird, because Atlanta seems like the much better team on paper, yet San Fran keeps winning and at least hanging in games.

New England over DENVER (3)

Steve: New England (-3)

I guess I learned my lesson about picking against New England last week. True, Denver is undefeated, but they would have lost if Tony Romo wasn't intent on throwing it at Champ Bailey the entire game, or if he hadn't shit his pants shortly before game time when he realized that he had dumped Jessica Simpson this past year.

The Patriots haven't looked super-impressive this year either, but I'd rather bet on a resurgence from Tom Brady and company than hoping that Kyle Orton suddenly becomes a Pro Bowl quarterback.

Bob: New England (-3)

Like last week against the Ravens, this comes down to strength of schedule, as far as I see. Denver has pulled out wins against the Browns and Raiders, got a miracle win against the Bengals, and beat an unimpressive Cowboys team. Any quality team in the NFL should have gotten those wins, and I think the Giants, Saints, or Ravens could have done so a lot more impressively. So even though Denver is a slightly better team in terms of its statistics for the season, I’m not a believer in them being better than the Patriots.

That being said, I am nervous about this game. The Patriots have never been good playing in Denver. I don’t know if it’s the thin oxygen or what, but they just can’t get it done in that city. They should win this game, but the combination of not playing well in Denver and McDaniels having insider information on the Pats offense could make this game real ugly for the Patriots. I still think they can pull it off, though, particularly if Welker and Brady continue to regenerate a rhythm.

ARIZONA over Houston (5.5)

Bob: Arizona (-5.5)

I originally wanted to pick Houston to win this game, as I thought the spread was relatively high for two evenly matched teams. However, looking at the schedules, I saw that the Texans have played a relatively week schedule, with the Jets beating their pants off, a loss against Jacksonville at home, and wins against the Raiders and the disappointing Titans. ‘Zona, on the other hand, has lost to the frisky 49ers and the inexplicably underrated Colts while beating a perhaps-better-than-we-think Jaguars team. So pencil me in for Kurt Warner and the Cardinals.

Steve: Houston (+5.5)

I see this the opposite way you do, actually. Yeah, Arizona has been decent against a tougher schedule, but I'd rather take the team that has dominant against some crappy teams than the one that just manages to stick around. This is especially true in this game, where Arizona needs to win by a touchdown, essentially. This philosophy bit me on the ass last week, when I took the Ravens over the Patriots, but I'm sticking with it for this selection.

SEATTLE over Jacksonville (1)

Steve: Jacksonville (+1)

Didn't the Jaguars win last week? And isn't Seneca Wallace still the quarterback of the Seahawks? Am I missing something here? This seems like a slam-dunk line for the Jaguars...

Bob: Jacksonville (+1)

Jacksonville is very vulnerable to the pass, but I don’t think Seattle is the team that is going to capitalize on that. Maybe T.J. Houshmafdsn;lkdsajfsal will finally have a good game, but I don’t see how Seneca Wallace gets it done.

Indianapolis over TENNESSEE (3.5)

Bob: Indy (-3.5)

In the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back, Admiral Ozzel is the commander of Darth Vader’s fleet and makes a number of errors. He doesn’t believe the Rebel base is on Hoth and then he brings the fleet out of lightspeed too close to the base so they have time to raise their shields. After learning of Ozzel’s latest error, Vader calls up to the bridge of his flagship and Force chokes Ozzel, saying, “You have failed me for the last time.” (Remember that time you called me out on my Star Wars knowledge last week Steve? Eat it.)

Well, the Titans have failed me for the last time. This team shouldn’t be as bad as it has been playing, but it looks like they may be. They are better statistically than their record, ranking in the top half of the league on offense and they are putting forward a slightly worse than average defense. But for whatever reason they can’t string together a win. They will win a few games this year, but I don’t see them starting their turnaround against Peyton and the Mannings. (This means the Titans will clearly win. I’ve just accepted that I may not pick a Titans game correctly this year.)

Steve: Indy (-3.5)

First off, I wasn't questioning your Star Wars knowledge. I was questioning how you could possibly justify having it behind Star Trek in your heart, which is totally a series more for tech geeks and nerds, as opposed to the virtuous and pure of heart.

And secondly, this line seems way too low, considering the teams involved. And this is yet another shitty match-up for this week. With the baseball playoffs, NHL season and NBA preseason, it's like the NFL is daring us to watch something else.

NY Jets over MIAMI (1.5)

Steve: Miami (+1.5)

I'm going with the Dolphins out of pure, personal greed. Ronnie Brown has been a consistent scorer for my fantasy team this year, and without Pennington in there to throw, he had a decent game last week. I think he's due for another one against the Jets, even if their defense with Rex Ryan is a bit more formidable.

Bob: NY Jets (-1.5)

If there is a way to beat the Jets, it’s by running against them. They are far more vulnerable to the run than they are the pass. But I feel like Rex Ryan will be able to find a way to shut down Miami’s high school Wildcat offense. I do think this game will be close, though.

Photo credits: Mr. Moneybags at the top is from this scammy-sounding betting site. The girl in front of some sort of metro is from here. The Jessica Simpson photo is from here. The Admiral Ozzel picture is from here.