I saw Deja Vu not too long ago and got to do a movie review for it. This is what I wrote:
Denzel Washington (known for such sports movies as Remember the Titans and Hurricane) plays a detective trying to get to the bottom of who is responsible for an explosion that claimed the lives of hundreds of people on a boat in New Orleans. He plays the role of the ambitious, dedicated detective called to the scene to investigate. He goes along the usual path of evidence gathering, until he's asked to join an elite – and secret – task force just assembled for which this disaster is its first task.
It is here where the script unveils its central plot device, a high-tech "surveillance" system, which is eventually revealed not to be a surveillance system at all, but a way to digitally recreate images from anywhere exactly four days and six hours in the past, provided it falls within the "target area." Nevermind how this is possible - there's an explanation involving wormholes or "Einstein-Rosen bridges" and folding time on itself, the fact is the characters can use knowledge of the present to try to look in the right places in the past to find clues for the future.
Of course, it doesn't end there, as Washington figures out that they can do more than just "look" into the past – they can actually manipulate the past and even send back objects, and indeed himself – hence travel back in time to try to change the past and attempt to avert the disaster.
While watching this movie, you'll get that sense that you've seen this before. That's because it's been done before. The plot develops similarly to a number of movies involving time travel, most notably 12 Monkeys. And like so many others, it suffers from the inevitable paradoxes inherent in most stories in which a character travels back in time. (He goes back in time to stop an event – but if the event does not occur, he has no reason to travel back in time.)
Another thing that will seem familiar, but in a good way, is the fact that it's a typical Jerry Bruckheimer movie, with elaborate and entertaining action scenes, though not much in character development. And it has a certain style to it that's typical of a Tony Scott-directed picture, and it was the first movie shot in New Orleans post-Katrina.
There are some original aspects, in terms of the technology employed, which leads to one especially fun highway chase scene – a Bruckheimer special, but with a twist. Washington, while employing some time-shifting goggles has to navigate a highway both in the past and present – you have to see it to understand.
One major disappointment was the absence of the very thing that made the prospect of the movie so intriguing: an alternate theory on deja vu. I was waiting for a scene in which a character - preferably Washington's – has a moment in which he senses that "phenomenon" of deja vu, but we later learn that it is not just a trick of the mind, but something entirely different, where you go "wow" because it's explained by technology or the results of time travel. Sadly, such a scene is lacking.
Also lacking was a good explanation of why the antagonist, played by Jim Caviezel, does what he does. Caviezel plays a callous, yet troubled terrorist. It's amazing that the man who played a compassionate Jesus in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ could play such a cool, stone-faced killer, but he does it with precision and a certain degree of mystery. Unfortunately, mystery around his motives remains.
One line in the movie, which is prominent in the trailer, delivered by Caviezel is "You think you know what's coming? You have no idea." As entertaining as the movie was, it would have been nice to have found out what he was talking about.
Despite a couple disappointments, overall it was an entertaining movie and worth the $12 to go see on the big screen.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
It had been so long since I did blog entry, tonight I'm doing a double dip. I'll call this one my "rant, critique and brag." I'll start with the "brag":
For the second straight year, I correctly predicted the winners of the Masters and PGA Championship (two of the four golf majors). I realize that the winner each time was either Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson, and they're not exactly longshots. But though it may seem like I could have simply picked them each time and had a good chance at being right, even if I were to know in advance that each time the winner were going to be one of the two and pick randomly, I'd have only a 1/16 chance at being right. That's pretty good, eh?
Furthermore, I didn't pick them to win the other four majors, so it's not like I blanketed all the majors with those picks. And Tiger Woods has only won four of the eight majors (only!) so it's not like he made it much easier for me to be right by picking him for one each year (only a little easier).
Now looking specifically at Phil Mickelson, the past three years he was won three majors (one each year). I have correctly predicted each one, and he has never won a major that I didn't predict he would. If you're a Phil Mickelson fan, you may want to convince me to pick him to win all four majors this year! :)
So, that's three years in a row now that I've correctly predicted two out of four majors. Have I done enough bragging now? I should go into sports betting.
Speaking of sports betting, I saw "Two for the Money" the other day. Al Pacino is awesome. And I really like Matthew McConnaughay. (He was great in "Contact", one of my favourite movies.) Anyway, "Two for the Money" is pretty good. I thought the movie was going to be about sports betting for a living, but it was actually about sports advising for sports bettors. That's a lot more interesting.
Working in sports media, I know this, but I still find it funny that such services are legal while the actual betting is illegal. It's like the law that says it's legal to upload pirated music to an accessible server but it's illegal to download. The only reason you would upload said music is for people to be able to illegally download it, so shouldn't that be illegal too?
Anyway, the movie was entertaining, though there were parts that were a bit farfetched. Like how he's able to go perfect in his weekly predictions, just because he says he's going to, even when one of his picks he got some clerk to pick them for him whom he had no reason to think would pick correctly. And how he suddenly can't pick winners anymore. And one thing I didn't like was how he arrogantly told a co-worker his pick for a certain NFL game was wrong, and then they didn't show the outcome. A great dramatic moment missed! Okay, so that was my "critique." I'll finish with my rant, on my favourite NFL team, the Eagles, who just suffered the most ridiculous collapse I have ever seen.
Leading by 17 points in the fourth quarter at home against the Giants, they blew the endgame in so many different ways I just can't believe. It all began when a long reception by the Giants' Plaxico Burress was fumbled and the Eagles' safety Michael Lewis had a chance to recover the fumble at the one-yard line. He fell on it, but somehow let the ball get away. It bounced in the end zone and was recovered by the Giants for a touchdown. Oh well, I thought, the Eagles are still up by 10 points, yet I had a funny feeling that this would come back to cost them. I wish it had been just a feeling.
The coach did some ridiculous play-calling after that, calling an entirely different type of offence than the one that had built up a 24-7 lead. I'm sure he was playing more cautiously trying to keep the lead, but there was still a lot of time left on the clock such that playing it as such would not bleed the clock enough to be effective. They needed to try to move the ball, get scoring chances, but barring that, force the Giants into bad field position. Unfortunately, Andy Reid not once but twice senselessly went for it on 4th-and-1 plays and failed. I get why. You make it, and you ice the game. But I'm not of the camp that believes that if you can't make one-yard, you don't deserve to be on the field. And if you are going to go for it, do the quarterback sneak or any play where you start going forward. Not a handoff to a running back in the backfield, which gives the defence time to penetrate!
I can forgive the fumble by Westbrook, which immediately led to a touchdown to make it 24-21, and the missed 49-yard field goal by Akers early in the game, which may have made a difference. Those things happen. What I can't forgive is terrible decisions, and routine things that you practice. Players should be able to recover fumbles when you get both hands the ball. (There was at last one other opportunity to recover a fumble later in the game that would have given the Eagles an excellent chance to win.) Players should make receptions when they get two hands on the ball, especially for first downs. (There were at least a couple of those that would have iced the game.) And kicking a player for no reason, which draws a personal foul and puts the team in almost gimme field-goal position to tie the game? That's inexcusable too.
It was just one mistake after another, and it gave the Giants a win they had no business getting. The Eagles will be okay, because I still think they're the better team. But it will take a while to get over. And I really hope they beat the Giants the next time they meet.
For the second straight year, I correctly predicted the winners of the Masters and PGA Championship (two of the four golf majors). I realize that the winner each time was either Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson, and they're not exactly longshots. But though it may seem like I could have simply picked them each time and had a good chance at being right, even if I were to know in advance that each time the winner were going to be one of the two and pick randomly, I'd have only a 1/16 chance at being right. That's pretty good, eh?
Furthermore, I didn't pick them to win the other four majors, so it's not like I blanketed all the majors with those picks. And Tiger Woods has only won four of the eight majors (only!) so it's not like he made it much easier for me to be right by picking him for one each year (only a little easier).
Now looking specifically at Phil Mickelson, the past three years he was won three majors (one each year). I have correctly predicted each one, and he has never won a major that I didn't predict he would. If you're a Phil Mickelson fan, you may want to convince me to pick him to win all four majors this year! :)
So, that's three years in a row now that I've correctly predicted two out of four majors. Have I done enough bragging now? I should go into sports betting.
Speaking of sports betting, I saw "Two for the Money" the other day. Al Pacino is awesome. And I really like Matthew McConnaughay. (He was great in "Contact", one of my favourite movies.) Anyway, "Two for the Money" is pretty good. I thought the movie was going to be about sports betting for a living, but it was actually about sports advising for sports bettors. That's a lot more interesting.
Working in sports media, I know this, but I still find it funny that such services are legal while the actual betting is illegal. It's like the law that says it's legal to upload pirated music to an accessible server but it's illegal to download. The only reason you would upload said music is for people to be able to illegally download it, so shouldn't that be illegal too?
Anyway, the movie was entertaining, though there were parts that were a bit farfetched. Like how he's able to go perfect in his weekly predictions, just because he says he's going to, even when one of his picks he got some clerk to pick them for him whom he had no reason to think would pick correctly. And how he suddenly can't pick winners anymore. And one thing I didn't like was how he arrogantly told a co-worker his pick for a certain NFL game was wrong, and then they didn't show the outcome. A great dramatic moment missed! Okay, so that was my "critique." I'll finish with my rant, on my favourite NFL team, the Eagles, who just suffered the most ridiculous collapse I have ever seen.
Leading by 17 points in the fourth quarter at home against the Giants, they blew the endgame in so many different ways I just can't believe. It all began when a long reception by the Giants' Plaxico Burress was fumbled and the Eagles' safety Michael Lewis had a chance to recover the fumble at the one-yard line. He fell on it, but somehow let the ball get away. It bounced in the end zone and was recovered by the Giants for a touchdown. Oh well, I thought, the Eagles are still up by 10 points, yet I had a funny feeling that this would come back to cost them. I wish it had been just a feeling.
The coach did some ridiculous play-calling after that, calling an entirely different type of offence than the one that had built up a 24-7 lead. I'm sure he was playing more cautiously trying to keep the lead, but there was still a lot of time left on the clock such that playing it as such would not bleed the clock enough to be effective. They needed to try to move the ball, get scoring chances, but barring that, force the Giants into bad field position. Unfortunately, Andy Reid not once but twice senselessly went for it on 4th-and-1 plays and failed. I get why. You make it, and you ice the game. But I'm not of the camp that believes that if you can't make one-yard, you don't deserve to be on the field. And if you are going to go for it, do the quarterback sneak or any play where you start going forward. Not a handoff to a running back in the backfield, which gives the defence time to penetrate!
I can forgive the fumble by Westbrook, which immediately led to a touchdown to make it 24-21, and the missed 49-yard field goal by Akers early in the game, which may have made a difference. Those things happen. What I can't forgive is terrible decisions, and routine things that you practice. Players should be able to recover fumbles when you get both hands the ball. (There was at last one other opportunity to recover a fumble later in the game that would have given the Eagles an excellent chance to win.) Players should make receptions when they get two hands on the ball, especially for first downs. (There were at least a couple of those that would have iced the game.) And kicking a player for no reason, which draws a personal foul and puts the team in almost gimme field-goal position to tie the game? That's inexcusable too.
It was just one mistake after another, and it gave the Giants a win they had no business getting. The Eagles will be okay, because I still think they're the better team. But it will take a while to get over. And I really hope they beat the Giants the next time they meet.
I just watched the season premiere of Law & Order: Criminal Intent. I was really looking forward to it, not only because it's my favourite show, but because of the anticipation of who would replace Jamey Sheridan's character as the new captain.
Unfortunately, I must say I did not like the premiere at all. Actually, in my opinion it was the worst episode of CI ever.
I didn’t care for the new captain. I’m sure that’s just because I’m comparing him to Deakins and in time I'll get used to him. But that’s not the real problem.
The real problem is that the style was COMPLETELY different from what we’ve come to love through the show’s first five seasons. The pace was awkward - scenes cut from one to another too quickly. There was no dramatic tension built up when Goren would realize something and go with it. The music was overdone, and the lines were cheesy.
But most importantly, it sorely lacked the component of the show involving ADA Carver. You cannot have a LAW & Order show without that. The scene with Eames struggling to find a way out of the “dungeon” would be great for serial killer movie, but not for this show.
This episode lacked everything that makes Criminal Intent great. If this is what can be expected for the rest of the season, sadly, it will no longer be one of my must-watch shows of the week.
Unfortunately, I must say I did not like the premiere at all. Actually, in my opinion it was the worst episode of CI ever.
I didn’t care for the new captain. I’m sure that’s just because I’m comparing him to Deakins and in time I'll get used to him. But that’s not the real problem.
The real problem is that the style was COMPLETELY different from what we’ve come to love through the show’s first five seasons. The pace was awkward - scenes cut from one to another too quickly. There was no dramatic tension built up when Goren would realize something and go with it. The music was overdone, and the lines were cheesy.
But most importantly, it sorely lacked the component of the show involving ADA Carver. You cannot have a LAW & Order show without that. The scene with Eames struggling to find a way out of the “dungeon” would be great for serial killer movie, but not for this show.
This episode lacked everything that makes Criminal Intent great. If this is what can be expected for the rest of the season, sadly, it will no longer be one of my must-watch shows of the week.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
A lot of people are critical of what George W. Bush has done as President of the United States. But can you think of a major leadership post that he could not have screwed up any more than the man he would have replaced? I can. How about commissioner of baseball? And it very nearly could have happened.
The present commissioner Bud Selig is one whom I don’t think could have done a worse job as head and I’ve written about such in the past. But before Bush went into politics, as many people know, he was the owner of the Texas Rangers.
Well at that time he had aspirations about becoming MLB commissioner. If Bud Selig had have made the post available, Dubya just might have been the new guy. And he’s nowhere near as bumbling as old Bud.
Here’s a scary thought: Mr. Selig as Commander and Chief. With him in charge, maybe the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. But I shudder to think of what would have happened to the country. He may have invaded Canada....
Speaking of the Bush clan, George Jr.’s brother, whom I have to be a fan of simply because of his first name, Jeb, which are my initials, has been rumoured to be in consideration for the next commissioner of the NFL.
Paul Tagliabue, the anti-thesis of Selig for the fine job he has done in turning the league into the big daddy of sports organizations, is retiring in July. Similarly to his brother, the other Bush would love to consider running a professional sports league such as the NFL. But he has said he’s adamant about finishing out his term as governor of Florida, which runs until January 2007. So you can pretty much count him out.
But that would leave him as a prime candidate for another post for which he is rumoured to be considered, which brings us full circle again. Could you imagine a third Bush in the White House?....
Staying with the NFL, and "Bush" while we’re at it, that was quite an interesting decision not to let Reggie Bush, potentially the next Walter Payton, wear No. 5 for the New Orleans Saints, even though that’s the number he wore in college for the USC Trojans.
Although it would have been more interesting had the decision gone the other way, I knew it wouldn’t. The NFL is not called the No Fun League for nothing.
But seriously, I understand the reasoning for it. The NFL requires running backs to wear numbers in the range 20-49 so that it’s easier for defences to recognize player positions on the field. There’s no reason why he should get an exception, even if he did win the Heisman Trophy (and even with his pledge to donate 25 per cent of jersey sales to relief for Hurricane Katrina victims in the New Orleans area).
But I can’t help but wonder if the decision would have been different had Bush been drafted No. 1 overall. He was highly expected to be the first pick in the draft by the Houston Texans – or another team had Houston chosen to make a trade. But on the day before the draft, the Texans surprised everyone by signing Mario Williams.
It would probably have been harder for the league not to give the first-overall pick the utmost respect. Not getting the No. 1 in the draft may have cost Bush his precious No. 5.
Though I doubt it....
Another thing I doubt the NFL will do, but probably should do, is put pressure on the CFL and the Toronto Argonauts not to let Ricky Williams play for them.
Ricky was suspended by the league for the entire season for partaking in, yet again, what is clearly a higher love to him than football: pot, to be precise. Another drug violation, and the Miami Dolphins running back is out of the NFL for a year.
I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but if the NFL is serious about its drug policy, and most indications are that it is, they have to do whatever they can to make sure that players they suspend can’t just go north and play in the other league. That would seriously hamper the strength of the drug policy and what it tries to accomplish. Why would a player worry so much about getting busted if he can just go play in the other league? Sure, it’s not the big dance, and not for as much money. But it’s still football, and only for one year.
Legally, they won’t be able to do anything. They don’t govern the CFL – it’s an entirely separate enterprise. And they can’t inhibit someone’s ability to make a living. But there are certain agreements and connections between the two leagues, especially with regard to the development of players in the CFL for the NFL. And the big brother (yes, I chose that term intentionally) NFL should tell the CFL that if they let Ricky in, their relationship will be seriously harmed.
Again, that’s if they take their drug policy seriously. If they don’t, well then let him go from one joint to another.
And that pretty much sums up all of my topics for today’s blog.
I’ll do another one soon – I hope.
The present commissioner Bud Selig is one whom I don’t think could have done a worse job as head and I’ve written about such in the past. But before Bush went into politics, as many people know, he was the owner of the Texas Rangers.
Well at that time he had aspirations about becoming MLB commissioner. If Bud Selig had have made the post available, Dubya just might have been the new guy. And he’s nowhere near as bumbling as old Bud.
Here’s a scary thought: Mr. Selig as Commander and Chief. With him in charge, maybe the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. But I shudder to think of what would have happened to the country. He may have invaded Canada....
Speaking of the Bush clan, George Jr.’s brother, whom I have to be a fan of simply because of his first name, Jeb, which are my initials, has been rumoured to be in consideration for the next commissioner of the NFL.
Paul Tagliabue, the anti-thesis of Selig for the fine job he has done in turning the league into the big daddy of sports organizations, is retiring in July. Similarly to his brother, the other Bush would love to consider running a professional sports league such as the NFL. But he has said he’s adamant about finishing out his term as governor of Florida, which runs until January 2007. So you can pretty much count him out.
But that would leave him as a prime candidate for another post for which he is rumoured to be considered, which brings us full circle again. Could you imagine a third Bush in the White House?....
Staying with the NFL, and "Bush" while we’re at it, that was quite an interesting decision not to let Reggie Bush, potentially the next Walter Payton, wear No. 5 for the New Orleans Saints, even though that’s the number he wore in college for the USC Trojans.
Although it would have been more interesting had the decision gone the other way, I knew it wouldn’t. The NFL is not called the No Fun League for nothing.
But seriously, I understand the reasoning for it. The NFL requires running backs to wear numbers in the range 20-49 so that it’s easier for defences to recognize player positions on the field. There’s no reason why he should get an exception, even if he did win the Heisman Trophy (and even with his pledge to donate 25 per cent of jersey sales to relief for Hurricane Katrina victims in the New Orleans area).
But I can’t help but wonder if the decision would have been different had Bush been drafted No. 1 overall. He was highly expected to be the first pick in the draft by the Houston Texans – or another team had Houston chosen to make a trade. But on the day before the draft, the Texans surprised everyone by signing Mario Williams.
It would probably have been harder for the league not to give the first-overall pick the utmost respect. Not getting the No. 1 in the draft may have cost Bush his precious No. 5.
Though I doubt it....
Another thing I doubt the NFL will do, but probably should do, is put pressure on the CFL and the Toronto Argonauts not to let Ricky Williams play for them.
Ricky was suspended by the league for the entire season for partaking in, yet again, what is clearly a higher love to him than football: pot, to be precise. Another drug violation, and the Miami Dolphins running back is out of the NFL for a year.
I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but if the NFL is serious about its drug policy, and most indications are that it is, they have to do whatever they can to make sure that players they suspend can’t just go north and play in the other league. That would seriously hamper the strength of the drug policy and what it tries to accomplish. Why would a player worry so much about getting busted if he can just go play in the other league? Sure, it’s not the big dance, and not for as much money. But it’s still football, and only for one year.
Legally, they won’t be able to do anything. They don’t govern the CFL – it’s an entirely separate enterprise. And they can’t inhibit someone’s ability to make a living. But there are certain agreements and connections between the two leagues, especially with regard to the development of players in the CFL for the NFL. And the big brother (yes, I chose that term intentionally) NFL should tell the CFL that if they let Ricky in, their relationship will be seriously harmed.
Again, that’s if they take their drug policy seriously. If they don’t, well then let him go from one joint to another.
And that pretty much sums up all of my topics for today’s blog.
I’ll do another one soon – I hope.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
It's now time for my annual golf Major predictions.
Every year, just before the Masters (the first "Major" of the year), I pick who I think will win the four Majors. I've been doing it the past two years, and I've got a pretty good record so far, especially in the Masters.
Two years ago, these were my picks:
2004 Masters - Phil Mickelson (won)
2004 U.S. Open - Mike Weir (finished T4)
2004 British - Todd Hamilton (won)
2004 PGA - Briny Baird (T37, but he was actually leading in the third round)
So, I went 2-for-4, and my other picks came close.
Last year, I did even better, sort of:
2005 Masters - Tiger Woods (won)
2005 U.S. Open - Mike Weir (T42)
2005 British - Padraig Harrington (withdrew due to Dad's death)
2005 PGA - Phil Mickelson (won)
So, I went 2-for-3 in the majors in which my pick actually played. That's one of the things about these picks. Since for all of them except the Masters, I'm picking them at least 2 months in advance, I have to predict who I think will be playing well at the predicted time, and the field's aren't even totally set yet. So, that makes it tricky. But when a player who you know will qualify for the field withdraws the week before, well that's impossible to take into account. My last-minute replacement pick was Tiger Woods, and he came through. But that's not the way the game is played.
Onto my picks for this year:
2006 Masters - Phil Mickelson-w
2006 U.S. Open - Mike Weir-x
2006 British - Luke Donald-y
2006 PGA - Tiger Woods-z
w-This is the easiest prediction, since it's closest to when I make the pick - and a 13-shot win at the BellSouth last week makes it easier.
x-I'm going with him yet again (last time I promise, if he doesn't pull it out) - I like him on a course like Winged Foot, not terribly long and though it is being lengthened it, it will still put a premium on shot-making.
y-I almost went with Padraig Harrington again, but I don't want all my picks to be the same as last year!
z-Except in the case of Tiger. He's been playing so well this year, I can't see him not winning at least one of the Majors this year. But note my Masters and PGA picks are swapped from last year. Let's see how I do.
2006
Every year, just before the Masters (the first "Major" of the year), I pick who I think will win the four Majors. I've been doing it the past two years, and I've got a pretty good record so far, especially in the Masters.
Two years ago, these were my picks:
2004 Masters - Phil Mickelson (won)
2004 U.S. Open - Mike Weir (finished T4)
2004 British - Todd Hamilton (won)
2004 PGA - Briny Baird (T37, but he was actually leading in the third round)
So, I went 2-for-4, and my other picks came close.
Last year, I did even better, sort of:
2005 Masters - Tiger Woods (won)
2005 U.S. Open - Mike Weir (T42)
2005 British - Padraig Harrington (withdrew due to Dad's death)
2005 PGA - Phil Mickelson (won)
So, I went 2-for-3 in the majors in which my pick actually played. That's one of the things about these picks. Since for all of them except the Masters, I'm picking them at least 2 months in advance, I have to predict who I think will be playing well at the predicted time, and the field's aren't even totally set yet. So, that makes it tricky. But when a player who you know will qualify for the field withdraws the week before, well that's impossible to take into account. My last-minute replacement pick was Tiger Woods, and he came through. But that's not the way the game is played.
Onto my picks for this year:
2006 Masters - Phil Mickelson-w
2006 U.S. Open - Mike Weir-x
2006 British - Luke Donald-y
2006 PGA - Tiger Woods-z
w-This is the easiest prediction, since it's closest to when I make the pick - and a 13-shot win at the BellSouth last week makes it easier.
x-I'm going with him yet again (last time I promise, if he doesn't pull it out) - I like him on a course like Winged Foot, not terribly long and though it is being lengthened it, it will still put a premium on shot-making.
y-I almost went with Padraig Harrington again, but I don't want all my picks to be the same as last year!
z-Except in the case of Tiger. He's been playing so well this year, I can't see him not winning at least one of the Majors this year. But note my Masters and PGA picks are swapped from last year. Let's see how I do.
2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
I said all along that Sidney Crosby should have been on Team Canada, and was it any more clear after yesterday's quarter-final elimination against the Russians? While, Crosby sat at home on the couch and watched (presumably), his Russian counterpart was flying all over the ice and scored the decisive goal. I'm talking of course about Alexander Ovechkin. Team Russia had no problem putting him front and centre on their team (I suppose their depth of talent was a little "less" than Canada's). But really, there's no excuse for him not being on the team. As well as other young players like Eric Staal, Jason Spezza and Bryan McCabe.
I understand "why" they went with the team that they did -- experience, past success, and to some degree loyalty. That's all fine and good, and it worked in Salt Lake City. But a lot of the same players were put on the team -- for the same reasons. Problem is, these players are now four years older. It's hard not to think of a player like Mario Lemieux not still being one of the best players in the game. But he took himself out of the running for the Team because he knows he's not. He even went a little further... he retired from hockey altogether.
Yzerman turned down a chance to play on the Team. Wayne Gretzky and the executives that picked the roster should have followed that lead. They need players with fresh legs, and who are the players whose stardom is now-and-in-the-future -- and not in the past-but-"hopefully"-still-now.
I wonder if all the people who said, "There's plenty of time in the future for Crosby to make the team." still hold to that now. That doesn't do us much good today. I guess there's plenty of time in the future for Team Canada to win more gold medals. But they could have done it in Torino.
And I hope all the negative talk and questioning about Todd Bertuzzi's selection doesn't get going again. He actually played well, and the penalty he took which led to the Ovechkin goal on the power play was not as bad as some are making it out to be. In fact, I think it was just a bad call by the referee. He was hustling to get into position, and ended up colliding with another player. They called it interference on a "pick play" but I watched it on replay on my recorder, and it just looked like incidental contact. No, you can't hit a player that doesn't have the puck, but if a bunch of players a fighting for the puck -- and for position in the vicinity of the puck -- incidental contact should not be called as interference.
At any rate, it certainly wasn't a "bonehead" penalty, or another instance of "thuggery" on the part of Bertuzzi. But I have a feeling he's going to be made the scapegoat here -- if he hasn't already been.
It's interesting how in the course of a few weeks, the image around Bertuzzi has wavered all over the place.
First, he was a "thug" who in some people's opinions should not represent Canada.
Then, his part on Team Canada was overshadowed by a bigger scandal, that being the team's braintrust being involved in a betting scandal (with his assistant coach in Phoenix, Rick Tocchet, who by the way used to be my favorite player during his playing days in Philadelphia.)
Then, he was gaining sympathy after Steve Moore filed a lawsuit against him the day before Team Canada was to play their first game at the Olympics. People started losing all sympathy and respect for Moore for the timing of his filing, which seemed to be meant to upset Team Canada's shot of being successful. They also said he and his parents were just going for a "cash grab." Well, I thought that he has every right to file a lawsuit -- though I don't think he should get what he's asking for -- but I thought the timing of it was just a bad idea for even his own sake. If I'm in his case, I want to have as much sympathy my way as possible, and he's got to realize that doing it when he did would take some away from him, even if it wasn't his intention to be a distraction.
And finally, after Bertuzzi what turned out to be the decisive penalty, the negative light will shift back on him, and we'll just have to see what happens from here.
My thoughts were a little jumbled here today, but I wanted to get them out the day after Team Canada's loss and while I had a little time -- and before the loss becomes a distant memory. As if that will ever happen.
I understand "why" they went with the team that they did -- experience, past success, and to some degree loyalty. That's all fine and good, and it worked in Salt Lake City. But a lot of the same players were put on the team -- for the same reasons. Problem is, these players are now four years older. It's hard not to think of a player like Mario Lemieux not still being one of the best players in the game. But he took himself out of the running for the Team because he knows he's not. He even went a little further... he retired from hockey altogether.
Yzerman turned down a chance to play on the Team. Wayne Gretzky and the executives that picked the roster should have followed that lead. They need players with fresh legs, and who are the players whose stardom is now-and-in-the-future -- and not in the past-but-"hopefully"-still-now.
I wonder if all the people who said, "There's plenty of time in the future for Crosby to make the team." still hold to that now. That doesn't do us much good today. I guess there's plenty of time in the future for Team Canada to win more gold medals. But they could have done it in Torino.
And I hope all the negative talk and questioning about Todd Bertuzzi's selection doesn't get going again. He actually played well, and the penalty he took which led to the Ovechkin goal on the power play was not as bad as some are making it out to be. In fact, I think it was just a bad call by the referee. He was hustling to get into position, and ended up colliding with another player. They called it interference on a "pick play" but I watched it on replay on my recorder, and it just looked like incidental contact. No, you can't hit a player that doesn't have the puck, but if a bunch of players a fighting for the puck -- and for position in the vicinity of the puck -- incidental contact should not be called as interference.
At any rate, it certainly wasn't a "bonehead" penalty, or another instance of "thuggery" on the part of Bertuzzi. But I have a feeling he's going to be made the scapegoat here -- if he hasn't already been.
It's interesting how in the course of a few weeks, the image around Bertuzzi has wavered all over the place.
First, he was a "thug" who in some people's opinions should not represent Canada.
Then, his part on Team Canada was overshadowed by a bigger scandal, that being the team's braintrust being involved in a betting scandal (with his assistant coach in Phoenix, Rick Tocchet, who by the way used to be my favorite player during his playing days in Philadelphia.)
Then, he was gaining sympathy after Steve Moore filed a lawsuit against him the day before Team Canada was to play their first game at the Olympics. People started losing all sympathy and respect for Moore for the timing of his filing, which seemed to be meant to upset Team Canada's shot of being successful. They also said he and his parents were just going for a "cash grab." Well, I thought that he has every right to file a lawsuit -- though I don't think he should get what he's asking for -- but I thought the timing of it was just a bad idea for even his own sake. If I'm in his case, I want to have as much sympathy my way as possible, and he's got to realize that doing it when he did would take some away from him, even if it wasn't his intention to be a distraction.
And finally, after Bertuzzi what turned out to be the decisive penalty, the negative light will shift back on him, and we'll just have to see what happens from here.
My thoughts were a little jumbled here today, but I wanted to get them out the day after Team Canada's loss and while I had a little time -- and before the loss becomes a distant memory. As if that will ever happen.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Well, that Super Bowl pretty much went exactly how I thought it would -- at least, the way it started out.
See I had Seattle winning (sure, I’ll admit it). I just felt that their offence was too good and Hasselbeck would be able to move the ball and score early. I just didn’t account for the seemingly pro-Steeler officiating and the complete ineptitude of the Seahawks coaching staff at managing the clock. I’ll deal with the first part first so it I can quickly assure you that this is not sour grapes (hey, as you know I’m not a Seattle fan, but an Eagles fan -- the similarities in name, logo, colours and uniform notwithstanding.)
Okay, I’m not really saying that I think the refs were biased. But if the Steelers players/fans thought the refs were pro-Colts in the Indy game, they certainly couldn’t think similarly about this game.
There’s no way that was offensive pass interference in the end zone. At first I thought, the ref was convinced by the Pittsburgh player to throw the flag, because he didn’t throw it right away. But on the replay it just looked like he had trouble getting the flag out initially. But also on the replay, it was clear there was no real contact, just incidental while he changed direction. I’m not saying it would have changed the outcome. But I expected the Seahawks to come out and Hasselbeck get an early TD pass, and he did.
And of course there was the Roethlisberger touchdown. That’s not a really big deal, even though I don’t think the ball got in, because I don’t think the refs could have – or should have – overturned the call. But the Steelers can’t say they didn’t get the benefit of the doubt on that one.
It also seemed the Seahawks got a lot of holding calls against them in crucial spots (when they would have had first-and-goal from the 1 trailing 14-10 for example), while the Steelers got away with some (when they made their last first down to essentially ice the game).
And finally, that was a bad call on the Hasselbeck block on the interception. That gave the Steelers even extra field position to go on to score.
Now onto clock management. Clearly the blew the final seconds of the first half. They should have been able to come away with at least three points.
And they probably should not have punted on fourth-and-13 with less than five minutes left.
But the final 2 minutes was the worst display of clock management I’ve ever seen. With 40 seconds left they had no business trying for more yards. They needed to kick the 41-yard field goal right away.
When there were 27 seconds left and the clock stopped, it was ill-advised to try and run a play. They would not have time even if they went for and got a touchdown, to then kick and recover an on-side kick, then throw into field goal range, then kick the field goal.
There was only enough time to kick a field goal, then kick and recover an on-side kick, then throw into the end zone for the tying touchdown. (That’s one less play.)
So the only logic I could fathom for them to run a play in that position was if they were planning on not going for a field goal at all – and go for the win with touchdown passes either time.
But no, they did the only thing that made absolutely no sense whatsoever, which was to try to gain a little bit of yardage for a shorter field goal!!! Even if the player had gotten out of bounds, it still would have basically guaranteed no chance at tying up the game (apart from a Hail Mary).
Brutal.
But congratulations to the Steelers. I’m happy for Bill Cowher, Jerome Bettis. And I suppose if Philadelphia couldn’t win, at least it went to a Pennsylvania team.
There’s no doubt Pittsburgh played well and deserved to win. But they did have a lot of big plays. While the Seahawks had a lot of drops, in addition to the bad breaks.
See I had Seattle winning (sure, I’ll admit it). I just felt that their offence was too good and Hasselbeck would be able to move the ball and score early. I just didn’t account for the seemingly pro-Steeler officiating and the complete ineptitude of the Seahawks coaching staff at managing the clock. I’ll deal with the first part first so it I can quickly assure you that this is not sour grapes (hey, as you know I’m not a Seattle fan, but an Eagles fan -- the similarities in name, logo, colours and uniform notwithstanding.)
Okay, I’m not really saying that I think the refs were biased. But if the Steelers players/fans thought the refs were pro-Colts in the Indy game, they certainly couldn’t think similarly about this game.
There’s no way that was offensive pass interference in the end zone. At first I thought, the ref was convinced by the Pittsburgh player to throw the flag, because he didn’t throw it right away. But on the replay it just looked like he had trouble getting the flag out initially. But also on the replay, it was clear there was no real contact, just incidental while he changed direction. I’m not saying it would have changed the outcome. But I expected the Seahawks to come out and Hasselbeck get an early TD pass, and he did.
And of course there was the Roethlisberger touchdown. That’s not a really big deal, even though I don’t think the ball got in, because I don’t think the refs could have – or should have – overturned the call. But the Steelers can’t say they didn’t get the benefit of the doubt on that one.
It also seemed the Seahawks got a lot of holding calls against them in crucial spots (when they would have had first-and-goal from the 1 trailing 14-10 for example), while the Steelers got away with some (when they made their last first down to essentially ice the game).
And finally, that was a bad call on the Hasselbeck block on the interception. That gave the Steelers even extra field position to go on to score.
Now onto clock management. Clearly the blew the final seconds of the first half. They should have been able to come away with at least three points.
And they probably should not have punted on fourth-and-13 with less than five minutes left.
But the final 2 minutes was the worst display of clock management I’ve ever seen. With 40 seconds left they had no business trying for more yards. They needed to kick the 41-yard field goal right away.
When there were 27 seconds left and the clock stopped, it was ill-advised to try and run a play. They would not have time even if they went for and got a touchdown, to then kick and recover an on-side kick, then throw into field goal range, then kick the field goal.
There was only enough time to kick a field goal, then kick and recover an on-side kick, then throw into the end zone for the tying touchdown. (That’s one less play.)
So the only logic I could fathom for them to run a play in that position was if they were planning on not going for a field goal at all – and go for the win with touchdown passes either time.
But no, they did the only thing that made absolutely no sense whatsoever, which was to try to gain a little bit of yardage for a shorter field goal!!! Even if the player had gotten out of bounds, it still would have basically guaranteed no chance at tying up the game (apart from a Hail Mary).
Brutal.
But congratulations to the Steelers. I’m happy for Bill Cowher, Jerome Bettis. And I suppose if Philadelphia couldn’t win, at least it went to a Pennsylvania team.
There’s no doubt Pittsburgh played well and deserved to win. But they did have a lot of big plays. While the Seahawks had a lot of drops, in addition to the bad breaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)