Monday, November 30, 2009

57 - Answers

Q: Matt - Ok, someone has to ask this so it might as well be me. What's your take on the Belichick debacle?
A: It's been about four weeks since the "Belichick debacle" as you called it, and frankly I'm more stumped now that I was when I was sitting in stunned silence alone on my couch watching my Patriots blow a game in the fourth quarter. I knew that something bad was going to happen when the Patriots turned the ball over in the red zone in the second and third quarters. You can't just give away points in the NFL, and especially not against a talented and driven quarterback like Peyton Manning. But it wasn't until the Patriots had the ball deep in their own zone and had to drive out to secure the win that I became truly nervous. The Patriots ran three plays and ended up with a 4th and 2 on their own 28 yard line. They went for it, they failed. That decision was subsequently debated on sports talk radio, the Internet, and in offices everywhere.

At the time I thought that it was a foolish decision. Better to punt in that case and make Peyton Manning march down the field. Then I remembered how Peyton Manning was giving the Patriots' defense the business. Maybe it was the right call to go for it, especially since there was only a couple of minutes left on the clock. Just get the first down and run the clock out. It was risky, and as it turns out too risky.

Oddly this scenario repeated itself in Week 12 against the Saints and then again Week 13 against the Dolphins. All three games featured 4th-and-something calls that ended up going poorly for my Patriots. In the Saints game that didn't really matter since the Saints were able to dissect the Patriots' secondary like a high school student dissecting a frog. And it was that dissection that gave me some clarity to the situation. When Belichick went for it during the Colts game one of the theories at the time was that he didn't trust his defense. Since this has now happened in subsequent games I think this might be close to the truth. I think the Patriots are weak on defense, that Belichick knows it, and that he has been leaning on his offense to make up the difference.

So that's my take on it. I'm not feeling that great about the rest of my Patriots' season. I think we'll win the AFC East pretty easily but as for farther ambitions in the playoffs I don't think we have what it takes this year.

Q: Bill - Fixed or variable price option this winter?
A: I admit that I haven't thought at all about my RG&E bill in quite some time. As it turns out it doesn't matter because as your wife correctly pointed out:

Lisa: Bill, fixed is no longer an option if you stay with RG&E

A smart woman, that Lisa. You were right to marry her, Bill.

Q: Rani - I just found out that there will be a Lobo (DC comics) movie, and am thrilled, but read it's trying to get rated PG-13, by Guy Ritchie who directed Lock, Stock, and Two Smokin' Barrels and Snatch. Will this movie get ruined, if the rating sticks?

Lobo is generally a DC equivalent of Deadpool (Marvel) didn't really find a good link to describe, so found this as clean of a reference as possibly (work safe) http://nativeberlin.net/cms/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/lobo-christmas-special.jpg

If either unknown to you (somehow), use the Guy Ritchie as a reference, and what would happen if he made a PG-13 movie, to my knowledge all of his movies are generally violent

A: I happen to be a fan of Guy Ritchie. In fact, the only reason I will go see the new Sherlock Holmes movie is that he is the director. The next movie that he is officially attached to is called Gamekeeper, but various websites report that he is going to begin production of Lobo sometime in early 2010.

I didn't know anything about the comic character in question prior to your question, and based on the little I've read it sounds like his story is pretty violent. Given that I would say that a PG-13 rating might ruin the movie if the director is not careful. Knowing what the rules are will presumably allow him to craft the story within those rules. Yes, this constricts the creative mind, but he's going into this with eyes open. So my answer is a definite maybe.

Q: Kristian - In regards to Bud Selig not having a spine, I mean that he doesn't enforce anything. Why is he such a pansy?
A: Bud Selig, like the commissioners of all the other major sports, has a fine line to walk in his job. There are many competing interests in baseball and not all of them have the same bottom line:

- Television: Getting the most viewers who will buy the most products from their advertisers and generate the most revenue.
- Teams: Acquiring the best players to give themselves the best chance at making the playoffs and winning the World Series.
- Owners: To maximize the amount of money that they make
- Fans: To be entertained, to get value for their entertainment dollar, and to root for a team.
- Players: Both to make money and to play for a team that will make the playoffs and win the World Series.

I think that these interests are always in the front of Bud Selig's mind. Therefore when an issue arises in baseball (steroids, instant replay, etc.) he must run it through each of those filters before he can decide what to do. This can lead to all sorts of confusing results and outcomes. I also think this is why it seems like he has no spine. He is reluctant to upset the status quo or to offend any of those interests. I sympathize, but he is also the head of a major sport and thus must sometimes make tough decisions. I'd rather he own up to his responsibilities and make those decisions with less regard for the interests in question.

Q: Kristian - Best Winter Olympics sport?
A: As has become tradition with Ask Mitssob the Jolinko community has weighed in on this subject and so I'll give them the first word:

Jon: your mom
Brett: Biathlon. Next question.
Bill: No way, biathalon takes too long.
Eric: skis+shotguns=win
Brett: You meant rifles.
Eric: them too
Matt: Actually, I think that could make things a lot more exciting. Instead of a regular shotgun competition where you stand in one place and shoot at moving targets, have the targets stationary and have the shooter moving, i.e. skiing and shooting at the same time.
chris: extreme downhill biathlon?
Phil: shit just add shotguns or rifles to all winter sports, imagine curling with shotguns or speedskating with snipers on the roof
Kristian: Phil, I'm liking your ideas. You sould bring them up to the Olympic Committee

First, I'd like to say what a great idea adding guns to Olympic Events is. The possibilities boggle the mind. Imagine Curling in a Crossfire. Or downhill skiing straight out of a Bond movie. This is a fantastic series of ideas and must be explored.

With that out of the way the best winter Olympics sports (in my humble opinion) are the ones that you don't normally get to see. I enjoy watching curling (even without the crossfire), hockey, and speed skating. But the "best" for me is the Super G. It combines speed, danger, cool camera shots, and spectacular crashes. It's also a sport I only watch during the Olympics, which makes it a special treat.