MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Ooh-Ahh Hayes

Joshua Hayes


Last Updated: 11/25/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 27
Sign: Taurus

City: Indiana
State: Pennsylvania
Country: US
Signup Date: 5/14/2007

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Thursday, July 09, 2009 

TICK-T.O.CK, TICK-T.O.CK

Will Midnight Strike the T.O. Clock?

 

A little pre-football season football season talk. 

With the obvious focus-game heading into week 1 pitting Terrell Owens and the Buffalo Bills against the New England Patriots, I want to prepare you all for this reality:  ESPN will pound the Terrell Owens story into your cranium without mercy.   This seems the perfect time for Joshua Hayes  to make like every other media organization in our great nation and forcibly, utterly gluttonize your mind with more T.O. (Total Overkill) talk than you could ever bear. On a night when in three months the league's best-ever quarterback will take the field for the first time in over a year, it's a shame part of the spotlight will go to a locker room cancer.  Ryan Leaf made like his last name, dying in the fall, dropping from great heights, and crackling under pressure.  T.O. makes like a ticking and tocking clock, ready to go off at any moment, either competitively with large numbers or by virtue of his tongue, which he clearly does not use to taste his words.

At first, I was going to pass up on this opportunity to unnecessarily focus the spotlight on the eccentric and maligned wide receiver, but after a bit of time and possibly a lack of consideration for all of those who are sickened with the media hype surrounding the receiver, I said… 'WHAT THE HELL!!  Let's take the easy way out and blog about him.'  But, it's only temporary…promise!  With the Bills' quarterbacking roster, I don't think we'll hear much from the low-class Owens for too long.  And, if we do, it'll likely be his release from Buffalo after Ralph Wilson decides he's too classy to promote such a self-indulgent jackass.

I've divided the T.O. coverage into three sections.  The first section contemplates why wide receivers seem to have the most eccentric personalities of any position in the game.  The second takes on a recap of T.O.'s antics in ....Philadelphia.... in 2004, his most notorious era.  The final section allows readers to create their own T.O. stories based on the stock-type repetitive coverage the media has given him for the past eight years.  However, while it's easy to scrutinize the contraversies that have surrounded Terrell in recent months, I also feel it's important to step back objectively and give my thoughts about his on-field performance.  My closing thoughts about his ability as a player can be found after the aforementioned sections. Without adieu, let's lead into section one….

 

SECTION ONE: WIDE RECEIVERS.  WHAT MAKES 'EM TICK?

What causes the position of wide receiver to be more eccentric than those others in the NFL?  Think about it:  Terrell "Love Me Some Me" Owens, Randy "Moon over Green Bay" Moss, Eddie "Gonna Kick Their Buttocks" Kennison, Chad "Pepto Bismol" Johnson (excuse me:  "Ocho Cinco"), and Joe "Peak Minutes" Horn.  No other position in football has nearly as many blatantly eccentric personalities.  Why?  I've given this some thought.  Here are a few potential reasons:

 

1)Wide receiver is the most visible and kinesthetic position in football.  A quarterback guides an entire team, reads an entire defense.  A line works together as a unit.  A wide receiver runs his route in a personal match-up against a specific corner, mano-y-mano, and such intimate attention requires an ego.  Or, in the case of many receivers, builds it through their success.

2)What other position would?  Quarterbacks have to be team players and team generals, offensive linemen get no glory, corners are only recognized (typically) in those highlights involving receivers getting open, punters take the field when the offense fails, nobody appreciates defense anymore, and as for kickers—Adam Sandler's "The Lonesome Kicker" says it all. 

 

3)One man feeds the rest.  Get one guy to be eccentric at a popular position, and the rest will vie for that attention.  I trace this back to the Dallas star incident, where Terrell Owens raced to midfield after scoring a touchdown and posed on the center star at Texas Stadium.  From that point, wide receivers and their "charms" simply escalate.

 

4)Ego-fest.  The receivers cry must be "Leggo my Ego?  No way!" Why let the    pretty-boy quarterback get the props?  These guys get open for him!  They are jealous of the media's "zealous" for the quarterback.  This theory is a bit more far-fetched than the others, but it holds some curious water within me.

 

SECTION TWO:  TERRELL OWENS.  A VICTIM'S STORY?  NAH!

Foreseeable.  Possible.  Practical.  Probable.  Even inevitable.  Going into 2004, these are words many would have chosen to describe the seemingly unavoidable breaking point between Terrell Owens and the Philadelphia Eagles. Their words would be vindicated.  The friction between T.O. and the franchise began in modesty during their Nov. 7th matchup in 2004 against Pittsburgh, where T.O. went off with his jaw, easily as exercised as the rest of his chiseled figure, and the media caught the very first moment where the wide receiver and his quarterback, Donovan McNabb, found themselves very much in the red zone, fittingly at Heinz Field.  Much like the team color and consistent with T.O.'s oft-true colors, friction escalated between Terrell and the Eagles franchise as the off-season and a new agent caused Terrell to seek the green.  More money was the cry, coming off of a season that had provided T.O. one of the largest contracts in NFL history, markedly exponential by comparison to other wide receivers' agreements league-wide.  The 2005 off-season saw Terrell Owens doing sit-ups in his front yard (or was it back yard—no matter, it wasn't on a football field with his teammates) while berating and slating his teammates and franchise, namely his all-star quarterback, simply for the sake of spite.  The karma of the ....Philadelphia.... chameleon, whose colors seem to change like the winds that carry the wings of the rest of his Eagles teammates, showed inconsistency, as Owens apologized and came back to camp for the 2005 season. 

 Tick-T.O.ck….Tick-T.O.ck….Tick-T.O.ck.  When would midnight come?


Midnight came in an interview with Michael Irvin before week 9 of this mid-2005 season, with Terrell Owens continuing to use harsh words to describe the Eagles franchise and berate his own teammates.  Midnight came, and the bell began to toll.  Terrell Owens' day(s) with ..Philadelphia.. was over, and the dawn of a new day, with the sun shining down unadulterated on the Eagles flying over Philly, revealed a ....Philadelphia.... team overwhelmed with relief. They'd lost a receiver who had caught 20 TD's in 21 games for the franchise; they'd lost a receiver who'd just caught 3 passed for 153 yards in the prior game (one catch was a 92 yard touchdown);  they'd lost a pro-bowl receiver on a team filled with no receiver having more than 8 games of experience;  they'd lost Terrell Owens and the Eagles were relieved.  Perhaps no other indicator can be more clear of Terrell Owens' cancerous effect on that team that the team's relief in spite of the talent the receiver possesses.   If this doesn't show "T.O." (seemingly an acronym for "Total Outlandishness") the error of his ways and inspire him to, quite literally, seek emotional help/guidance for his inability to function in a professional environment, then he doesn't deserve another opportunity anywhere else, including his current locale in ....Dallas.....  So far, while the media has been buzzing at the bit to get every ounce of T.O. headliners into the public circuit, Owens has managed to maintain a fairly clean, albeit overly scrutinized, relationship with the Cowboys and his teammates and we'll see how things go with the Bills.  When the glory and hype-driven Jerry Jones doesn't want you around anymore....YIKES!

With any luck, Mr. Owens apologies to his team and the fans in ....Philadelphia.... were sincere following his release, but the cynic (or perhaps wise man) in me suggests that they probably are not.  I feel the Eagles did the right thing for their morale, but initially, their on-field performance suffered for the loss of Terrell.  However, looking long-term, I couldn't agree with Andy Reid's decision more!  He simply did the right thing.  Fast forward to the present day: one step back, many steps forward.  The Eagles off-season transactions seem to have them in championship-ready position once again!

 

SECTION THREE: WRITE YOUR OWN T.O. NEWS STORY!

Simply fill in the blanks with options from the corresponding letters, and enjoy the autonomy and accomplishment you feel after creating your own run-of-the-mill Terrell Owens story!!


****

"Thank you for tuning into ___(A)____.  I'm your host, ____(your name)____. To start our program, we'll switch gears over to our live correspondent in ....Dallas...., who comes to us with breaking news regarding a situation that involves the ___(B)___ Terrell Owens.   ____(your name)_____, what do you have for us?"

"Well, we've just received word from ______(C)_______ that Terrell Owens has ________(D)________.  While no resolution has been determined regarding this situation, when I talked to ______(E)_____, he stated that he intends to ________(F)________.  While this situation only heightens the media focus on T.O. in ....Dallas...., the general opinion of the team seems to be that ________(G)________.  The Cowboys are still holding their schedules practices and sessions for today, and aside from our scrutinizing media coverage and intense, overbearing interrogation tactics during press conferences, everything seems to be allotted out normally here in ....Dallas.....  We'll be sure to let you know immediately any new information that is revealed regarding this latest incident.  Until then, back to the studios!"


(A)

..T.O... ..Center.., Monday Night T.O., Stump the T.O., T.O. Countdown, Outside the T.O., T.O. Night in ....America....

(B)

Oft-maligned, controversial, well-publicized, talented, attention-seeking

(C)

Dick Jauron (Bills coach), many reliable sources in Buffalo

(D)

Been charged with aiding and abetting a _____(choose your own criminal activity)_____.

Missed another mandatory practice

Decided to attend the Mavs matchup against the Bulls instead of start this Sunday

Sent a bottle of prescription ....St. John's.... Wart to ex-teammate Donovan McNabb

(Any ridiculous actions your heart desires to use!)

Being a little bitch.
(E)

Owner Ralph Wilson

(F)

That patented slap on the wrist that he's been ever so used to!

Discuss the situation with the player behind closed doors.

Support whatever alibi his crafty veteran is able to produce!

Turn the other cheek, bend over, and say "Here now!"

(G)

Terrell Owens will be more than able to explain this recent mishap and that the next few days will be business as usual. (No other options for this space since the team never says anything other than this!)

 

 

 

 

Wow, rookie!  It looks like you're a journalistic veteran when it comes to reporting the antics of good ol' T.O.  Congratulations, "reporter." 

 

 

ONE FINAL POINT:  Getting back inside of the white lines, it is important to dually note that while T.O.'s off the field situations have been less than desirable for his reputation, his presence on the field demands respect and attention.  Terrell Owens, while noted as being self-indulgent to a point of team detriment, is a huge asset to have in a team role ON the field.  He is a physical specimen who always maintains balance, does a great job in getting off the line, never tips a defender to his route by virtue of maintaining constant vertical body position, and who uses his physical attributes to his distinct advantage in being one of the league's most dangerous receiving threats.  He's not a bad blocker, either.  Like him or not-- Terrell Owens is a HELL of a receiver.  A combination of balance, finding his way into the eyes of the quarterback, speed, and God-given talent make him a phenomenal player who must be viewed as a distinct threat at all times!! 

12:34 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, July 02, 2009 
I debated whether or not to write this because I don‘t want to come across as the newly popularized half-wit who desires to brag about Michael Jackson just because he is dead.  The type that before last week couldn't have named five of his songs without being spotted Thriller and Billy Jean.  So, I’ll simply state that I have always thought of Michael Jackson as the greatest musical artist of all time and this is in a small way my tribute to him.  If you believe me, I'm glad to share a few thoughts with you.  If not, you may not enjoy this blog, but I'd love to hear more  jokes about a man who gave vast sums of wealth toward helping the disenfranchised youths of the world (which can be proven).

First, I’m fairly certain that print about Michael Jackson has been almost as commonplace at grocery aisles as crossword puzzles and computer screens as instant messengers over the last three decades, and the past week certainly hasn’t extinguished his publicity.  From oxygen chambers to pet chimpanzees to…  well, you know what’s next on this list.  And, lastly, his death has spawned the sympathy of many who had forgotten what a revitalized movement he gave music when synthetic sound had become the industry standard in lieu of actual talent during the 1980’s.  I never actually forgot, albeit I was quite young when the “Prince of Pop” reached his peak.  I remember I was at my grandmother’s house, watching the video “Leave Me Alone” as a child.  I turned to Grandma Hutch and said, "This lady's pretty cool."

She corrected me.  I don't think I was sure if she was serious or not until junior high.   Either way I felt bad.  Either the man looked like a woman or some ignorant stage mom named her little girl Michael.

Cut me some slack! Hell, he wasn’t helping his own cause by wearing eyeshadow on his brows and layering on lipstick.  Any five year old thought  to themselves, “this is one weird-looking  chick.”

I’d go as far as to attribute him as the greatest musical talent to ever walk the face of the Earth.  He revolutionized music, homogenized race, and let me fill in another blank:  MTV=Michael television.  Not music.  Music was what happened to MTV once the network’s share gave it the opportunity to stay on the air.   That share was a public being afforded the chance to see what video could provide to the music industry.  They saw this through the effort of Michael Jackson.  Michael made music television. 

There is nobody out there who doesn’t respect him as an artist.  Period.  There are those who may deny it, either to be frictional or because they hate the idea of consenting talent to a man they feel molested children.  Really, those are the two categories.  Best is pretty loud, but fantastic within his craft is simply observation.  To not see such an obvious fact to me is the result of a mute disorder, being named Bernie and starring in a movie about your wonderful weekend (being DEAD), or strong hypnosis by a greedy father who (be careful!) is soon going to try to convince you that you spent a weekend at the ranch and Michael played with your ding-dong (too much?  Oh well…). 

And on that front, I won’t say if he did or didn’t do it.  I don’t know, you don’t know, and neither of us ever will.  It’s not ours to decide, and we’re not qualified.  The media is incredibly biased and provocative.  I am not defending him.  Ultimately, whether he did or didn’t should be pretty irrelevant at this point as his final destination has been decided.  So, ought as well focus on the music.  I know no stupider reason to discredit his accomplishments at this point than to do so because one feels he was a child molester.  The man is dead, there’s no ego left to fill, and songs don’t touch private parts.  So, relax, because no matter what the truth is, everyone’s wee-danny-doblin is safe. 

I do have a few extra thoughts on the sexual allegations surrounding him.  If you care to read, highlight below.  If not, I understand it's been tossed around more than an atomic bong.  Highlight between the asterisks:

********************

(Those who know me understand I have trouble digressing, and therefore, I’ll say this.  People find it far more comfortable to side with children on such severe topics.  I read some of the court transcripts and was shocked to discover that the children’s trips were all supervised by other adults who testified.  Likewise, the same child in an interview earlier in the month before his parents filed formal charges denied any sexual behavior when it was revealed Michael shared his bed with him.  Multiple friends of the family testified on behalf of the defense, submitting that the father seemed to have deceptive motives toward the deformation of Michael’s character and deflation of his wallet.  None of this evidence would excuse Michael, and frankly, who cares.  But, I've heard so many damning commentaries that I am compelled to provide the counter-argument:  money makes men make shit up.  And kids listen to their parents.  If my dad said to me, and he wouldn’t because of his integrity, “You’ll say this, because if you don’t, I’ll lose a million dollars and beat your ass purple,” I’d say what he asked of me and, at that age, so would you.)

Okay, here comes that digressing part that is so difficult for me.  I’ll simply summarize.

********************

To wrap up my ranting, I would summarize that I appreciate the contribution Michael Jackson made to music.  Ours is a media-driven society, which was both the King of Rock’s (no, not you, Elvis) build-up and undoing.  I won’t miss him, because I did not know him and that is a term that is thrown around far too loosely by those who can pop in the same CD like they have for the past five years, but cry at night.  They've lost nothing.  Nothing.  I will miss that his talent is no longer among us.
4:54 AM 
4 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, June 12, 2009 
Tomorrow night.  In the words of the great Mike Lange: "Oh, Lord Stanley, Lord Stanley, bring me the brandy!" 

Hopefully, we will hunt moose on a harley, beat Osgood like a rented mule, and have plenty of reasons to call Joe Slick.  If all of those things fall into place, you could scratch my back with a hacksaw, and you still couldn't dampen my spirits.  Let's Go Pens!  Elvis has been way too comfortable at Joe Louis Arena; time to give him a reason to leave the building.

Any Penguins fan can agree that no matter the outcome of tomorrow night's game at Joe Louis Arena, this season has been nothing short of a success.

Ignore the cursed (and aesthetically caustic) Winter Classic (disguised as an alternate jersey) garments.

Ignore the slow start, which was easily eradicated when Dan Blysma brought vigor and, most importantly, aggressive motivation.

Even ignore the fair-weather enthusiasts.   The people who only follow the Penguins because of their recent success.  We real fans see them with a scornful eye, but it's still important that we accept that this is the nature of sports.  Most fans of any team are fake.   Fret not, true fans.  Your reward is a deeper satisfaction and true bragging rights. Sports followers come in three categories:
1) Fan (fanatics):  myself included
2) Enthusiasts:  not fanatics, but not disloyal.  They enjoy the team's success.
3)* Fair-weather fans (a.k.a. bandwagoners):  VAN CORNISH, that is you.  My ex-roommate and those who, like him, are here for the ride now, but will never truly be able to celebrate or brag to those who know them as fakes.  It's honestly annoying, though.  Before they became phenoms, I asked Van to watch a game with me.  He said, to paraphrase but be accurate to his point: "Hockey is a waste of time.  Who are the Penguins?" 

Now, that's a fan!!!!!


This blog is an appreciation of the truest Penguins fans, and a celebration of the deep joy we hope to feel Friday night!

This blog is a celebration of an immaculate turnaround season, a memorable playoff run, and- hopefully- a Stanley Cup engraved with the names of stars like Crosby and Malkin, and key role players (I hate that term; let's call them difference-makers) such as Ty Kennedy and Rob Scuderi. 

As a countdown to tomorrow's "Super Bowl of Hockey," I have created a top ten countdown of my ten BEST Penguins games (or moments) since their first Cup run in 1991. There were a number of memorable moments, so if your favorite didn't make the list, don't sweat.  In the frankest terms, I'm sure the game kicked ass.  Here are the qualifications for the list:

1) quality of gameplay
2) game intensity
3) THE PENGUINS HAD TO WIN. After all, this is a countdown of the best games from a Pens fan's perspective.  So, clearly, there's a little bias.  (And, like I'd ever include a 2-1 loss in 5 overtimes to Philthy-delphia!!  Or the 1993 debacle against the Isles.)

SIDENOTE:  I tried NOT to include multiple games from the same series unless it was clearly necessary. As an example, the Penguins' 4-2 win in New Jersey to knock off the top-seeded Devils as an eighth seed was an amazing game seven experience; however, the top ten nod went to game 6, where an injured Jaromir Jagr tied the game at 2 in the final minutes before finally sending the Mellon Arena top off with his overtime game winner.

Here are the top 10:

10)  RANGER DANGER?  NAH....

PENGUINS 5, RANGERS 4 (OT) 1993   GAME 4
Adam Graves could slash Mario's wrist, but the Penguins weren't giving in, winning pivotal game 4 on the strength of a Ron Francis hat trick. 
Francis owns the Rangers


HONORABLE MENTIONS:  2008 playoffs- Game 1 Comeback and Game 5 OT winner.


9) STICKIN' A SABRE TO BUFFA-BLOW
Hasek called it luck, but in the playoffs, you have to have some luck.  I'll agree with the tying goal in game 6 as a lucky break.  But, when Kasper shoots from the blue line, the blame has to fall on Hasek.

PENGUINS 3, SABRES 2  (OT) 2002   GAME 6
Why the Dominator Cried
PENGUINS 3, SABRES 2 (OT) 2002    GAME 7
Why the Dominator Cried


8) DISHEVELED DEVILS
The Devils were the top seed in the East and a clear favorite to reach the finals.  Jaromir Jagr was injured, and the Penguins were a meer .500 squad in the regular season, narrowly taking the Eastern Conference's eight seed.

That's why they play the games.  Or, in this case, the series...

PENGUINS 3, DEVILS 2 (OT) 1999    GAME 6
Jagr's Heroics
PENGUINS 4, DEVILS 2          1999   GAME 7
The Upset. (I almost forgot Kevin Constantine!)


7) THE SAVE
As an honorable mention, Fleury's stunning save against the Flyers in game 2 of this year's first round set up the Penguins with an opportunity to win in overtime.

However, any true Penguins fan and historian knows the original "save!"  This was a great, intense game that showcased the will of two goaltenders, one of whom set up his team to win the Stanley Cup.  It was game 6, the Pens trailed in the series to the Devils 3-2, and clearly they had to win.  It would be fair to say that "the save" potentially changed hockey history. 

PENGUINS 1, DEVILS 0     1991  GAME 6
"The save" that kept the Penguins alive in their quest for Lord Stanley.
THE SAVE!   Sorry about the video quality.


6) PHUN AGAINST THE PHILTH-ADELPHIA CRYERS
After losing all of their first three playoff series against the Flyers, this generation of the Penguins has put the Flyers away in grand fashion in consecutive years, both in blowout and comeback fashion.

PENGUINS 6, FLYERS 0  2008 GAME 5
Destruction.
PENGUINS 5, FLYERS 3  2009 GAME 6
Meltdown.


5) SUPER MARIO WORLD
Before his return in 2000, and well before the antics of Favre and Jordan, there was a day that when athletes like Mario Lemiuex retired, they tended to stay retired.  Lemieux's comeback was so successful that nobody can fault him.  However, when he first left hockey in 1997, fans knew a legend was leaving the game forever. 

And what a sendoff Lemiuex gave the fans in Pittsburgh during perhaps the most emotional moment in Penguins playoff history, aside from winning the Cup.

PENGUINS 4, FLYERS 1  1997 GAME 4
Simply the Best.




4) CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

91,'92,'95,'96, '00,'01, '09.

Nobody has been better at giving away series and games to the Penguins than the Crapitals.  Located in D.C., they replace District of Columbia with Definitive Choking.  On six different occassions since the 90's, the Capitals have led the Penguins in a series, and they lost five.  Three of those five series losses came after having a 2-0 or 3-1 series lead, the most recent in 2009. Here's some of their best.



PENGUINS 3, CAPITALS 2 (4 OT)   1996  GAME 4
Four Overtimes.

PENGUINS vs. CAPITALS 2009   VARIOUS
Aberation.
Avoiding a 3-0 hole.
Taking the series lead.
Crapital Crime: Game 7 Whitewash.



3) FLAT TIRE: RED WINGS FALL IN TRIPLE OVERTIME
Nobody can deny this Stanley Cup Finals classic it's rightful spot on the list.  Granted, the Penguins lost the series, but the game was timeless.

I am not sure my heart can handle this type of drama in game 7, but 2008's final outcome in game 5 gives me hope for what I want to see in about 14 hours.

And, for the record, Sykora did not call his shot.  Every decent player thinks about the game winner, occassionally saying "I'm going to get this done."  Sykora just happened to say it to the press. 

PENGUINS 4, RED WINGS 3 (3 OT) 2008
Sykora's Game Winner.


2) THE COMEBACK
Not A comeback.  THE comeback.

Trailing 4-1 in the first game of the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals, the Penguins came back and tied the game at 4 in the third period.  Then, Mario Lemieux did what Mario is known for doing: being the man.

All accounts from journalists, fans at the game, and players indicate that this was the most electric moment in the history of Mellon (Civic) Arena. 

PENGUINS 5, BLACKHAWKS 4   1992
Dominik Hasek: Meet Mario Lemieux


1) "LORD STANLEY, LORD STANLEY, BRING ME THE BRANDY!"
Forget the final score.  8-0.  2-1.  21-10.  Doesn't matter.  The Penguins hoisted Lord Stanley in this memorable drubbing.

The Stanley Cup.  The hardest trophy to win in all of American Sports (fact).  And, in 1991, the Penguins won it. 

Hopefully, the Penguins hoist is again soon.

Very soon.

(cough)  Very, very soon.

PENGUINS 8, NORTH STARS 0
Let's Go Pens!



 
6:49 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, June 01, 2009 
People get too caught up in the small stuff.  We stress and ponder over every detail, some of which I, myself (guilty!) ponder over below.  Truth is, there is very little in this world to stress about.  And, that isn’t a sad thing, so long as we place an honest emphasis on the things in life that truly are important:  self-respect, family, etc.  Below is a list, a very small sample of things I’ve encountered recently (in the last 72 hours) that I don’t give a rat’s ass about, and you shouldn't either.   

I digress and present my modest little list.

AN OFFICIAL JOSHUA HAYES I NORMALLY DON’T GIVE A SHIT LIST:

-Any documentaries that explore the Titanic in any capacity, especially the videos of the boat.  "But, it's amazing that they can get their cameras so deep."  True, but a boat at the bottom of the ocean looks a lot like a boat at the bottom of a lake: a sunken boat.  And, in this case, it's not so majestic anymore.  It was a boat.  It sank.  People froze to death or drowned.  I get it.  The tragic loss of life is disheartening.  You don’t have to prove it to me.  Murky water in high definition still looks like murky water, only in high definition.  I don't need to see the rusted metal to know the boat really sank.  The movie and an endless onslaught from Celine Deon (spelling?  Don't care.) are ample proof.

-The national deficit or the devaluation of the American dollar.  If China demands payment tomorrow and we have to print more money to appease the debt, theory says it would then take a wheel barrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread.  I say we then ignore all economic principles and create a piece of paper worth a wheel barrow of cash.   Then, a wheel barrow of cash serves to be the same as it was yesterday if I get a barrow dollar to replace all of my real dollars.  It’ll be like taking the money from seven Monopoly boxes and playing on one board; we can just pretend and play stupid.  That’s what I’m saying.  Why be accountable if you don’t have to be?  It’s worked for the war-spending Republicans who now chastise Liberal America for the deficit.  Why change things?!

-Milk money.  Unless I could travel 200 years to the future, considering natural inflation, and steal a kid’s milk money and then come back.  That’d be a solid $1.50 theft that far into the future.  Enough to almost buy a Jack Links Peppered Beef Jerky stick when I come back home, which everyone should care about to the point of stress if necessary.  Hell, when I was a kid, I wasn't worried about having milk money (40 cents) when SunnyD cost 80 cents.  To get my artificial O.J. would require me to steal two kids' milk monies, and those two would just conspire to beat me down anyway.  So, ultimately, I'd just take 80 cents to school and fend for my life.  Orange juice money:  that was something to care about!!

-Hearing about your kids at 8:00 a.m. and 8:10 a.m. and 8:12 a.m. and 8: 31 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and 8:52:03 a.m. and 8:52:34 a.m.  I hate to be mean.  But, close your cell phone. That picture of your precious being precious isn't so precious to Mr. Precious over here.  I hate having to pretend to smile and enjoy your children’s lives.  If I approach you about your wonderful children, this means they have miraculously (and I mean miraculously) engaged my interest in some way, albeit a cute picture or that they can juggle axes.  I like kids, but on my own terms.  Otherwise, why are you assuming that I give a spare third nut (if I had one) about your kid’s hurt feelings because a bully shot a rubber band at them in English class?  It’s okay to be excited about their accomplishment, but if I can’t count the number of times you mention it to me on one nose (total of once), it’s too much.   I admire your child in moderation.  In excess, I start to smile in the deepest part of my brain about the things they'll do as teenagers that you'll never know about and never approve of!

-Complaints about stray cats.   Sympathy for stray cats is the top reason for the epidemic that so many people complain about: strays that stick around their home.  They feed them, and then they stay.  They then respond with, “I hate all of these stray cats I have around here.”  Newsflash:  if you feed them, and they stay, they are not strays.

-Hot dog quality and milk health.  Let me be more specific:  some fat in your diet is good.  IF your primary concern, taste non-withstanding, is that your milk isn’t too unhealthy, you may be like most people who take the milk out of their milk.  Consider this equation:
MILK minus MILK equals WATER. 
IF you are anywhere below 2%, you should drink some water.  Oh wait, you already are!  Also, if you are concerned about the meat quality of your hot dogs (e.g. “Are they all beef?”), then you should not be eating hot dogs.  Therefore, if you do eat hot dogs, by default this implies you already should not give a shit about hot dog quality.  Take it from me.  I don’t care.  I load ’em up with the essential condiments and dig in.  And I’m still here.

-Tattoos.  Sentiment isn’t proven in ink.  And pictures are free when they’re not embedded into your skin.  Your mind is your scribe to speak to others, not the body's largest organ- your skin.  And, if you like the picture that much, put it in a frame.  AND if you like it enough to put it on your body, show it to me drawn on a piece of paper.  I’ll get the same message from it, it’s cheaper, and it’s where the picture should have stayed in the first place.  Plus, odds are you are not a supermodel, and thus, I’ll avoid having to study dramatic imagery off of your flabby love handles OR freckle-laden shoulder blades.

-How much money I could save by switching to Geico. 
5:24 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, March 05, 2009 

Humans doing what humans do best- being human.  “As Good As It Gets” is about as good as it gets at being the feel-good comedy that doesn’t have to feel good the entire way through to be an uplifting experience.  Granted, it has its weaknesses, and hell- the main plot is perhaps the biggest weakness.  Single mom falls for obsessive compulsive restaurant patron that is twice her age due to his charitable act of kindness toward her ailing son, the same act for which she is skeptical of his intentions only moments earlier in the film.  However, our main character, OCD patient Jack Udall, falls in love with his gay neighbor’s dog- so to speak- and buys the neighbor soup in perhaps his first act of compassion of the entire film.  Then, quite boldly, Carol tells Jack that his generosity toward her son won’t result in them engaging in intercourse (literally- I know, sounds a bit abrasive).  Then, BANG-suddenly, without her knowing of any of these described kindnesses, she whimsically gives into his charms because he takes her out to dine and dance at HER demand.  Then, he buffoons through the entire experience, only to spare himself in the nick of time to end the film.

Only in a romantic comedy, right?  And if your answer to that question is “yes,” we share a common point of view.

In this film, though, it’s forgivable.  Why?  It has the best human characters with whom you’ve ever empathized and spent two vicarious hours.   And just like Nicholson’s stepping over every crack, each character comes to vivid life in a remarkably crafted, albeit somewhat cliché, script.  Every nook and cranny is explored, making the viewer feel a bond with the cast that is unusual in cinema.


SIMON- the gay neighbor with the heart of gold.  As his life falls apart around him, he finds inspiration in the heart of a man reforming.  He’s the soul of the movie, the good hearted man that provides the warmth to contrast Jack Udall.  

CAROL- restaurant waitress who is the straight-girl to Nicholson’s zany portrayal.  She is the down-to-earth hard worker with all of the real problems (alongside Simon) of a hard-on-her-luck New York damsel, a.k.a. dame in distress.  

JACK- the main character.  And the most solidly established.  Jack Nicholson’s second...eh, perhaps third-best role ever.

These are remarkably developed and deep characters with real problems portrayed with heart and care.  Vicarious experiences come easy when you are provided with characters that are this accessible.  Hell, the heart of the film may lie with it’s most important character, Verdell, the dog who shows that true heart and human compassion can be inspired by the most simple and unexpected of things in life- even a dog.  In a poignant scene, Udall, after Verdell has been taken from his apartment, plays his piano in a sort of mourning, only to laugh seconds later, chiming the words “…..over a stinky dog.”  From that point forward, we begin to see a transition in Jack Udall, and- in a classy and unexpected way- our disgruntled main character becomes the dose of humanity that helps pull the more “normal” characters around him out of their sordid dispositions.  Once again, true heart inspired from the most unexpected things….even the most unexpected people.

A great aspect of the film is a mix of operatically timed comedy (waitresses gasp in unison at the notion of waiting on Jack Udall early in the film).  Likewise, the harsh one-liners of Nicholson’s Udall keep viewers ever-involved.  The film’s ultimate quality is easy to distinguish:  digging deep into the multi-layered enigma that is the ever-evolving spectrum of human emotions. “As Good As It Gets” turns the cliché concept of unexpected love into a story with enough character and originality to make the plot seem like a mere necessity by comparison to the scope of the characters within it.  


FINAL SCORE: 8.5/10


12:33 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 

Current mood:  weird




Truly, this is a wonderful lil' rant, and if you dislike the Winter Classic jerseys, you deserve a prerequisite high five before reading this.  If you do like them, you deserve a five of clubs.  But, I'm a nice guy.  So, I'll just shake my head with disappointment, try to respect your opinion, fail, and rant.

Before this jersey came along, I'd examined the pink Steelers jersey (in my second blog).  I revealed it for the non-acceptable, hypocritical atrocity that it is.  In our one-sided discussion (a.k.a. my dissertation, a.k.a my blog), we figured that if Jack Lambert decided to beat a child for wearing a pink jersey with his name emblazoned upon it, Child Protective Services would be forced to amend current regulations to allow for such justifiable violence. 

I'd hoped my disdain would convince other Pittsburgh teams to be tactful in choosing jerseys and alternate jerseys, since, naturally, they are all keeping track of my thoughts and concerns via this blog.  But, to my disappointment, a new symbol has emerged, a new bastardized jersey.  It puts the "Pitts" in Pittsburgh not as much as the pink jersey, but it rivals.  And, by pitts, I don't mean a hole in the ground with which these monstrosities could be dumped, covered, and forgotten.  I mean arm pits- reaking, stinky, rank, pungent pits, the likes of which any attempt of dignity you'd try to spare for a person who has them woudl be completely overridden by a natural, uncontrollable gag reflex.  Those pits.

The blue Winter Classic Penguins jersey.  Blue jersey.  Bluer balls. 

Pittsburgh is black and gold.  Black like grit and hard work.  Gold like a champion.  Damn-nimity, why do we have to piss with it?  If we're going to piss with the jersey of a Pittsburgh sports team and in the process give off the essence of feminimity and soft, marshmallowy goodness, there is a team that we could use.  And we only have 3.  2 down.  Next time, hopefully, they'll unveil the brand new "Purple Pirates" and basically just slap Jolly Roger on a blazing purple jersey.  Oh, and we can't forget the commemorative "18" patch to celebrate our record-breaking 18th straight losing season!  Shaaaa-wwwweee-yeeeet, or what?!  I'd advocate that.  The Pirates deserved to be punished for not using money through revenue sharing to improve the on-field product.  Getting back on track:

If I were to sing the blues in response to this jersey, it would be fitting.  In fact, let me provide you with the first verse of a blues melody you can sing to yourself every time these aesthetic horrors are worn.  Once you get started with this, watching a game with six of these blue bastards on the ice will allow the words to come to you naturally:
(*-after each line, add a "dum-dudda-dum-dum", blues style!)
"Was watchin' the game *
Saw somethin' pure lame *
M'heart 'twas broken in two*
By a jersey so blue*"


The jersey was first worn in the Winter Classic that the Penguins played outdoors in Buffalo (Orchard Park) on January 1, 2008.  It was a unique moment, and I thoroughly enjoyed the jersey for that event.  It was classy and fit the moment.  And, it could still be sold as an isolated event jersey, the Winter Classic commemorative, and the peeps would buy.  But, then we made it our alternate jersey.  This is bad for two reasons:
1) We are black and gold.  What is so hard about this?
2) It's powder blue.  Girl blue.

Again, is it as bad as pink?  No.  Unforgivable?  Yeah.  We had a badass alternate jersey that had the triangulated Penguin head on a pure black and bright yellow (or, in Pittsburgh, gold) jersey that brought back memories of Ron Francis, Mario, and Jags.  But, a-noooo-ho-ho.  We can't stick with what kicks ass.  We can't keep on with what takes names.  We can't stick with what kicks ass and takes names (forgive my ranting redundancies!).  And I get it: jersey sales.  But, simple put, make sure the jersey is black and gold.  You could sell an alternate and then also market the Winter Classic as a collector's item (and charge more). 


To conclude, here's a mad lib:
The Winter Classic Penguins jerseys are _________ alternate jerseys.


If the adjective you used was not insulting, then I'm mad at you.  Well, mad is harsh. Just ...  "disappointed."


My doctor says I could reduce my stress is I focused more on eliminating stressors that have no major actual impact or ramification on my life.  Basically, don't sweat the small stuff.  What does he know?  ;-)









10:57 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, February 19, 2009 


Should privately-owned businesses be forced to ban smoking as a result of legislation within their doors?  It's a slippery slope, and most people believe (from my conversations) that these demands should be legislated and smoking in public should be, essentially, eliminated. And, to be specific, by business, I refer to industries of patronage, not offices or factories.  I'm referring to places where smoking is traditionally expected, i.e. some convenience stores (though not so often these days), bars, and certain restaurants. 

As a non-smoker for my the better part of my life (I occasionally slip...) who is, admittedly less than dedicated to heightening awareness of its unhealthy, often fatal, ramifications, I don't advocate smoking, casually or as a result of addiction, in any way.  I will not judge those who choose to partake, as what a person chooses to ingest into their own body is a purely subjective decision to which any amount of coersion or, more lightly, persuasion, cannot compare. Let's face it: if you're capable of snapping a lighter with your thumb and igniting the open end of a cigarette, you know the consequences of the habit.  Your body, your choice, your consequences.  So, as it concerns those folks who believe that smoking should be publically banned as an act of politicking for better health: get real!
It shows a much more independent, self-controlled, and tasteful mindset to have the willpower to NOT get yourself into a position where you "need" or even
"want" to smoke.  However, I am equally aware that in an egalitarian society, we have to let "freedom" ring, and smoking, while unhealthy, for the MOST part,
doesn't impair judgments to a point where its going to hurt somebody, i.e. lack of inhibitions, lowered coordination, EXTREME and UNCONTROLLABLE mood swings, etc. And, I don't hear these advocates of non-smoking for the sake of health promotion asking for a return to alcohol prohibition, so any point as such on the basis of these terms becomes moot.

HOWEVER, there is an exception here which does affect other people around a smoker negatively, SECOND HAND SMOKE.  (How many of you were griping about this before we got to this paragraph?  Hm?)  While I do condone that smokers have the right to smoke as they choose and while I don't see them in any lesser light for it, I say smokers CAN take it OUTSIDE. It's
just a door away.  But only if a business owner chooses to ban smoking.  In the winter time, have a jacket; during rain, have an umbrella. During work, save up those five minute breaks or really catch up outside during lunch.  In all public places alike, and even homes with non-smokers to some level (hey....its important to respect those who choose not to do it), there can be be NO SMOKING. I, as a non-smoker, and other of my decision, should NOT have to absorb or inhale
second-hand smoke as a compromise to our own healths so that smokers
can feel they are not being impeded upon or that they have more public
options to cater to their own vice.  Thus, I'd be pleased if a business owner decided to ban smoking from his/her establishment. That's the "morally 'happy' " answer. 

If the business owner allows smoking, that leaves me with two choices:  I can step outside OR deal with it.  End of story.  And, he/she should be able to allow it.

That's the ACTUAL answer.  Or, at least the American one.

This leads me to my conclusion.  Business owners should not be forced by any legislation to ban smoking in their establishment.  If the numbers indicate that banning smoking will increase business, business owners will ban smoking.  If statistics do not show this correlation, they will not.  It's simple economics. And, even if the owner ignores economics, the business is owned by them, period and end of story.  You own your home.  You can smoke in it.  Your landlord owns the complex from which you rent.  They can tell you whether or not they allow smoking.  The business owner (with respect to patronage-oriented business in which customers can choose to come and go and employees are aware of an established smoking culture; and don't get bitchy and technical- you know people smoke in a bar!) can choose to allow or disallow smoking.  It's just that simple.  A matter of choice.  People will often then argue that when smoking is occurring, people don't get to choose the air that they breathe.  Well, my rebuttal is: sure, they do!  It's right outside.  And, if the business owner feels differently, that same outside air will be there, freezing or temperate, for smokers to stand in.  Ultimately, it is and should be their decision. 

The problem is that people will let Big Brother, under guise of advocacy for our well-being, take millimeter after millimeter, unbeknown to them that millimeters add up.  If the government can tell the owner of a privately owned business whether or not he can allow smoking in his area of desired patronage, knowing well that people can choose to come and go at their leisure and employees will know in advance whether or not smoking is allowed, it opens the door, a.k.a. flood gates for other controls.  Just wait for the day that you can't drink in public.  You laugh.  You say it's far-fetched.  You say it disproves my point.  People are killed in alcohol-related crashes daily;  and, in the past, you could smoke in an office.  Broadcasters even smoked on air.  Trust me.  With every inch you give, the next inch is another brain-washing government official away.

Give an inch.  And watch the miles add up.




6:18 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 


I'm tired of this topic, which is why I'm discussing it.  This blog, in some ways, is a contradiction.  But, as it concerns steroids in baseball, I become offended by a public that takes no personal accountability.  I'm annoyed by our "holier than thou" mentality when we judge the players that did indeed cheat.  It bothers me that society acts like they had their moral compass pointing north regarding this issue, even back in 1996.  Newsflash: not so much! 

Let me first inform everybody that this is not a politically motivated blog.  I am not going to discuss government intervention in Major League Baseball in order to investigate what is known as a "steroid scandal," nor will I mention my tax dollars paying for Joe Friday to solve the case.  It does amaze me, however, that it is called a "steroid scandal."  If it's such a scandal or debate regarding use, here's a suggestion: make them all wizz in a cup.  Every player, every month.  It's really that simple.  Truly, it is.

Shouldn't it be considered more along the lines of a "trafficking scandal?"  I don't think that steroid use has ever been shrouded by mystery or public ignorance in baseball.  We knew what was happening the entire time.  We just didn't choose to acknowledge it until it became a headline, a herd of sheep following the shephard, a.k.a. government and public media.  Which leads me to my major point:

The public persecutes Sammy Sosa, Big Mac, and others for using steroids in order to achieve records beside which most believe an asterisk should be notated.  However, I find it amazing that while the public condemns these gaming Goliaths and baseball Bohemoths, they were first in line to buy a ticket to PNC Park, most of whom at the time couldn't name ten players on the Pirates' roster, to watch Barry Bonds hit a homerun.  While ignorance may be considered bliss, and while ignorance may be the plea of innocence to which these observers ("fans") enjoyed the record home-run races of the former decade, I'd like to be able to take a moment to transplant myself from the "now" to the "then," sitting beside them, eating a hot dog as Barry Bonds came up to bat.  I'd ask them, "Do you think Barry Bonds uses steroids or other substances to give him an advantage?"

I guarantee that if I put $10 on the line with each of you for every person I'd ask that question seven years ago, I would profit from the positive responses of those people who acknowledged the steroid use of the very same athletes that they heralded.

BUT we all sat there, ate our hot dogs, gave MLB our support, and rooted not for the home team, but for the man with the tree-sized biceps who could swing a bat almost hydraulically. 

Then, the government intervened.  Then, the public turned.  Feeding from the government's hand, the same people who would acknowledge steroid use in the game and root for those players suddenly had a beef, feeding from the teat of not only our government, but also from...  oh, goodness...    Jose Canseco??  Think about that.

Jose Conseco.

My point is that casual fans have a role in creating a culture that advocated steroid use.  Nobody wants to accept personal accountabilty, but it's a fact, like it or not.  I'm guilty, too.  The culture created was the cumulative effect of every fan who chose to buy a baseball ticket to see a homerun- opposed to a game- that didn't care whether it was fair or not.  I'm not saying we're primarily to blame.  I'm simply saying that we shouldn't act like we're front-line anti-steroid use.  Most of us are not, evidenced by our post-strike intrigue for MLB, catalyzed by the home run race.

Obviously, players had their role, as whether or not it was culturally ignored or accepted, they had a moral and ethical decision to make, and they failed in their decision-making, choosing to lend unto themselves an unfair advantage through PHD (performance enhancing drugs).  Baseball is even more to blame, for turning their glare of the entire issue away from steroids and onto the homerun race.

The MLB strike certainly caused MLB to take a morally curved stance on a lot of things.  FACT:  whether or not we want to admit it, the home run race saved baseball.  TRANSLATION: steroid saved baseball.  Weird to hear, and not a comfortable statement, but in many ways, it is the truth. 

So, we can blame the players in part, and certainly we can point a finger at MLB.  But, as a fan (if you are one), think to yourself how excited you were over the homerun race.  Then, honestly acknowledge if you suspected steroid use.  If you're honest with yourselves, most of you can already see the hypocracy of your current position, assuming you are against PHD's. 

And, we should be against PHD's.  But, we should also accept our hypocritical stance, advocating steroid use and creating a culture that MLB embraced, concerning ourselves only with the newest news story and biggest bats. If we were truly anti-steroid, the drugs would have destroyed post-strike MLB.  But, they didn't.  They made it bigger than life.  And we, fully aware of the unnatural nature of the sudden power in major league bats, bought ticket after ticket. 

To end, I'll repeat that I'm not trying to change minds or to make a political stand.  I'm just tired of SportsCenter ripping these players apart whenever they, themselves, pre-government intervention, heralded Barry Bonds as a God.  Do we need to recall Mark Maguire or Bonds' kids in the stands, signs up in the air, reading "please pitch to my daddy."  We advocated.  Most of us criticize, hypocritically, and only because we won't acknowledge that Big Brother had to tell us that steroid are wrong.  We didn't make the stand for ourselves. 

Most people just hop on board the biggest news story.  And only now are they anti-steroid.  Instead of "shame on those players," many of us should say (including myself) "shame on them and the rest of us for thinking this was okay, for being advocates."

If you are truly anti-steroid, that ticket you bought to watch the Pirates-Cardinals game in 1996 was truly for the game.  Not for the home runs.  And, if it was for the home runs, don't be offended.  Be grateful for your heightened awareness, and enjoy your memories of the asterisk race.




12:04 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 
So many people need offense to be entertained.  But, that isn't Steelers-Ravens.  If you're a real fan of real football, then you really love this rivalry.  Period.

Steelers-Ravens is as much your mother's football game as a Cadillac is your janitor's mode of transportation.  This is gritty; it's mean; it's dirty; it's defense; it's without shame; it's passionate.  It's football.  And this weekend, it is for the AFC Championship and a trip to Super Bowl XLIII.  It's going to be nasty, and that's going to be beautiful.

This rivalry was born 13 years ago, in 1996, when the former Cleveland Browns relocated to Baltimore, making Art Modell the more ire-inspiring man in the state of Ohio, narrowly beating John Elway and heftily out-menacing Satan, the third most disliked dude in the Buckeye State.  The Ravens strategy has always started with defense and in certain successful years, the offense didn't throw away more games than it protected. 

The Steelers formula for success is...  well, read above, and it had been through four Super Bowl championships.  Both teams are recent champions who do it the traditional way: defense and hard work, and well....  a running game most of the time in the case of the Steelers.  Folks, this rivalry is football, and though it has been somewhat one-sided in the favor of Pittsburgh, when it comes to these teams head-to-head, quote the Raven, "Never score." 

Downright mean.  Downright nasty.  Downright football.

As an honorable mention, I'd point out the Steelers and Ravens first ever game resulted in touchdown on six of seven of the opening possessions, and Mike Tomczak would eventually lead the Steelers to a 31-17 victory over Baltimore at Three Rivers Stadium in 1996.  Seven possessions, six touchdowns.  That was an illusion.  Things would certainly change in the series. 


Considerations included game quality, overall team performance, game impact and importance, and rivalry intensity. Here are the top 13 games between these teams:

13) Steelers 9, Ravens 6 (in Baltimore, 2000)
The Steelers handed the Ravens their final loss of the 2000 season, a nailbiting 9-6 game in which the Steelers scored a safety and a touchdown en route to victory.  This game occurred during the infamous Baltimore Super Bowl season, and more specifically, during their stretch of five games without a  touchdown.   


12) Steelers 34, Ravens 31 (in Pittsburgh, 2002)
The Steelers rallied from a late 31-20 deficit in the season finale before heading into the playoffs.  The comeback was spurred by a late Baltimore fumble on a fourth quarter kickoff, setting up the winning Steelers touchdown.


11) Steelers 20, Ravens 19 (in Pittsburgh, 2005)
A nailbiter on Monday Night Football.  In a drive where Big Ben would fall to an injury that would plague the middle section of the Steelers' Super Bowl season, he led the team downfield late in the game to win by one point on  a Jeff Reed field goal with no time left on the clock.  A very tense mid-season game that was far more important than any Steelers fan could have realized at the time!


10) Steelers 38, Ravens 7 (in Pittsburgh, 2007)
Ben Roethlisberger set a Steelers record with five first half touchdown passes, a setback that sent the Ravens into a downward spiral that would plague their 2007 campaign.  The Steelers exacted brutal vengeance for the Ravens' dominating performances against them in 2006, which will be mentioned below.  The Steelers celebrated their 75th anniversary in style and in a downpour, making Ben's five touchdown tosses even more impressive.


9) Ravens 31, Steelers 7 (in Pittsburgh); Ravens 27, Steelers 0 (in Baltimore)
Both of these games from 2006 were a tough pill for Steelers fans to swallow, but they make the top ten for one reason:  the Ravens' defensive prowess.  The Baltimore defense harrassed Pittsburgh for 120 minutes across two games, giving up only 7 points that were the result of a short 20-yard field approaching halftime in their second meeting of the season.  This season and these games represent the most distinguished level of dominance either one of these teams has ever had over the other in a given year.  The Ravens would finish 13-3 and legitimate Super Bowl hopefuls, only to lose to the Colts 15-6. 


8) Ravens 16, Steelers 13 OT (in Baltimore, 2005)
Following the Steelers last second victory earlier in the year (Ben was injured in that game), the Ravens hosted the Steelers in Baltimore.  With Tommy Maddox at the helm, the Steelers fought to the bitter end, but early in overtime, a seemingly clear first down turned into disaster, as a pass to Hines Ward sprung off of his foot while he was in mid-flight, landing into the teeth of the Baltimore defense.  The interception set up Baltimore near mid-field, and they capitalized with an overtime victory that sent the Steelers into a three-game skid that nearly cost them their Super Bowl season.  I remember the anger I felt after this game:  describing it would be far too profane, I fear!


7) Steelers 23, Ravens 20 OT (in Pittsburgh, 2008)
Another Steelers-Ravens game at Heinz Field on Monday Night, which seems to be a fixture in the last few seasons.  Given their AFC Championship meeting this Sunday, another night-cap seems destined for these two bitter rivals in 2009, and it is welcomed by me!  These games are classics, and this was no different, as the Steelers sputtered for most of three quarters, trailing 13-3 approaching the third.  Suddenly, Santonio Holmes sprung free following a turnover for a touchdown that cut the lead to 13-10.  Then, defensive player of the year James Harrison stripped rookie Joe Flacco of the ball, and a Steelers defensive touchdown gave them the lead that they would hold until late in the game.  Tied at 20, the Steelers got the ball in overtime and won 23-20 in another great contest.


6) Steelers 27, Ravens 10 (in Pittsburgh, 2002)
In their only playoff meeting to-date, the score was lopsided, but the intensity leading up to the game was immense.  Shannon Sharpe called Plaxico Burress "plexiglass" Burress.  Hardy-har, Mr. Hee-Haw.  That man looks like a horse, but I digress.  He was a fit in Denver as a Bronco.  Anyway...  the Steelers jumped out to a 20-0 lead and the defending champion Ravens fought back valiantly, cutting the Steelers' lead to 20-10.  A late Burress touchdown proved that "plaxiglass" may bend, but it does not break!  After the game, Tony Siragusa pronounced that the Steelers would win the Super Bowl.  Clearly he did not consider the Steelers' penchant for shitting the bed in the AFC title game.  Hopefully, at home this Sunday, that tendency is not realized again.


5) Ravens 13, Steelers 10 (in Pittsburgh, 2001)
Kris Brown misses four field goals.  The defending champions win at Heinz Field. The Steelers dominate and lose, setting up a huge debate and fight for the AFC North.  Would it be the defending champion Ravens or the up-and-coming Steelers that would take control of the division and prove themselves the better team?  This game incited the debate and truly intensified the rivalry into the bitter, defensive slugfest that it is today.

I love Jeff Reed.  That's the best way I can describe this game.  Heart-wrenching!


4) Ravens 13, Steelers 10 OT (in Baltimore, 2003)
After being dominated by the Steelers in 2001 in their championship defense, the Ravens fell apart in 2002 and saw the Steelers win two consecutive division titles.  In 2003, they reloaded, and after losing five straight to Pittsburgh, the Ravens had already won the division by the time they met in the season finale.  Their coach went as far as to say, "For us to have success in the playoffs, mentally, we have to beat Pittsburgh."  The Steelers took note and brought their A-game into Baltimore.  It wasn't enough.  A fake punt for a touchdown kept the game intense, and the slobber-knocker was tied at 10 through sixty minutes.  In overtime, the Ravens completed their mission and fulfilled their vow to defeat the Steelers, 13-10.  While the implications may not have been as huge as in other games in this rivalry, true fans of these teams understand the intense emotion that went into this game, the NFL's 2003 regular season finale.   Perhaps the most emotionally charged game of the entire series....but here's why it is worthy of the top 4:  Jamal Lewis vs. the Steelers defense for the NFL rushing record.  His attempt to break the NFL rushing record did not succeed.  He did achieve his goal of getting 2,000 yards, which in itself marks this as a landmark game, per se.


3) Steelers 26, Ravens 21 (in Baltimore, 2001)
The Ravens had won earlier in the year in Pittsburgh, courtesy of four Kris Brown field goal misses.  The Steelers pronounced themselves the better team, but the Ravens were the defending champs.  If they were to win this game, the division would be tied.  If the Steelers won, they would win the division in Baltimore.  The defending champions and Steelers played an emotionally charged game on Sunday Night Football.  Trailing 13-7, the Ravens had the Steelers backed up at their own 10-yard line midway through the fourth quarter.  The Ravens blitzed, and Kordell Stewart hit Bobby Shaw with a laser throw, and in stride, he took the ball 90 yards to give the Steelers a 19-7 lead that they would not relinquish. The Ravens and Steelers finished valiantly, exchanging late scores that would give the game much more of an offensive score than the gameplay itself would have implied.  The Steelers won the division, serving notice to the defending champion Ravens that a new bad boy was on the AFC North block.


2) Steelers 13, Ravens 9 (in Baltimore, 2008)
What is it about the Ravens that they love to give the Steelers AFC North titles in Baltimore?  This game was intense, another showdown where the Ravens could either tie the division or would give it away to the Steelers.  Trailing 9-6 late in a defensive struggle that was thorougly entertaining, the Steelers scored on a contraversial late touchdown to Santonio Holmes, that review after review after review confirmed to be a correct call by literally an inch.  This intense game should surely have some carryover into this weekend's conference title game.

And, finally, the number one game........


1) Steelers 42, Ravens 32 (in Baltimore, 1997)
Kordell Stewart was sucking.  Bad.  The strange configuartion of gangly, gnarled moles on his right cheek were sucking the brain out of his head, and it was clear.  The guy was just dumb.  1997 was going straight down the shitter.  With a 1-2 record, the Steelers were in Baltimore, trailing 21-0 after shithead tight end Eric Green left Pittsburgh and decided to be somebody, scoring the Ravens' third touchdown.  I was at my grandpa's house, watching the game with my Uncle Casey.  I wanted to piss on the television set, hoping somehow the team would feel it and get my message of "piss on you, guys!"  Then, something clicked.   Kordell sold his soul to the devil in exchange for quarterbacking skill for the rest of the regular season.  He started to tear then then porous Ravens defense up, leading the Steelers back from certain defeat, ending the game with an 80 yard touchdown run to seal a victory, 42-32.  This game was important as it was the impetus that led the Steelers to an 11-5 campaign in 1997 and all the way to the AFC title game, eventually losing to the Broncos.  Without that rally, Kordell would have certainly been booted from Pittsburgh much earlier (probably wouldn't have hurt; damn, maybe we should've lost....) and the Steelers would have been 1-3 with no confidence, an incompetent quarterback, and a huge gap to make up in the division.  It was a brilliant, riveting comeback, and thus a compelling game.  I almost regret choosing a shootout as the top game, considering it isn't very indicative of the series as a whole, but it was simply a marvelously entertaining game and the most important game of the 1997 season.  It also marked the first note-worthy game of the series.
1:31 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Sunday, January 11, 2009 
........


  1. The 2003 New England Patriots were the best of all the Boston NFL teams, including the 2007 version that teased history like a d-cup hooker carrying an STD-free sign and a rack of baby-back ribs. That's right: the 2003 Patriots were better than the once 18-0 2007 Patriots. If those two teams could play, the tense game would end with 2003 Belichick smiling smugly as his team-oriented unit intercepts a fancy-pants hack-o-mamey Brady pass into triple coverage to Randy Moss that he threw on purpose to show that he doesn't need great receivers to win championships, thus allowing 2003 Brady the win and securing a four-point 2003 Pats victory.

  2. The NFL overtime rule does not need to be changed whatsoever. If you go strictly by college rules, both teams would get the ball well within scoring range for any decent NFL kicker, so automatically the ball would have to be moved back to start the rotating offensive possessions. At that point, the teams have to travel nearly the length of a full drive to score anyway as a touchdown would now be the obvious objective, so how is that any different from covering a kickoff and making them drive anyway? And, as for those teams that cry about not having an opportunity with the ball in overtime... they cry the loser's cry. 62% of teams that win the toss win the game, but not all of them win on the opening drive. Even more telling is that 71% of teams that stop the opening drive from a resulting game-ending score go on to win the game. Moral: play defense. If you can't, don't cry. Just improve. The rules are fine just the way that they are!

  3. Ron Jaworowski isn't announcing material, sinner made for lead color commentary on Monday Night Football. His accomplishments include driving Dick Vermeil to mental instability. His focus on the passing game and only the passing game is truly aggravating, and his absolute disregard for running and defense in his analysis truly illustrates his Philthy-delphian penchant for not knowing what it truly takes to win the big one. And don't get me started on his lack of humility. If he makes a projection that turns out to be correct, he's omnipresent and a self-proclaimed phenom. If he is wrong, he hides behind the justification that he was only “projecting, not predicting.” Yawn. What a bitch. Stick to your guns, bitch.

  4. How many years have broadcast networks has a first-down line on the telecast for reference? And we still can't consistently get that bitch within a foot of the actual first-down marker. Seriously, I think we're making faster progress trying to find a cure for cancer.

  5. I agree with Bill Parcells, who said, “I remember back in the day when a fumble was a fumble.” So many elements of the game are adjusted to favor the offense as most people who watch football are incompetent fans who don't appreciate defense and fundamentals, thus relying on shootouts to enjoy the contest. The quarterback slide rule is crap. The non-calls that occur when offensive players grasp the opposing defense's face mask is ludicrous. Offenses today are so pampered that it seems far-fetched to suggest that the ground could cause a fumble. Back in the day it did, and it SHOULD. These are well-paid (not overpaid as they receive their market value as paid by their employer- just like everyone else), even grossly paid, men playing a game whose most fundamental and basic requirement is: don't lose the ball. With four points of pressure, fumbles should not occur. See my old blogs to find out more about the four points of pressure. My opinion: if your ass hits the ground hard and the ball squirts out of your arms, you've just fumbled. End of story. You should have to hold onto the ball through the conclusion of a tackle. Men play football. Boys play offense in the NFL.

  6. Wow, Kurt Warner looks a lot like me. Or, I look a lot like him, more accurately. After all, he came first. That's what she said. Yikes! I digress...

  7. After watching Super Bowl highlight films all weekend, I miss Sam Spence and John Facenda. The more recent half hour recaps are modernized, but they lose the authentic battle-ground feel that was instilled through Spence and Facenda's orchestra. It dominated and was relentless and brutal and merciless and beautiful. It really set a mood and watching those old highlight films establishes such a sense of nostalgia. When a Raider fan hears “The Autumn Wind,” a chill either goes down his spine or he's posing as a Raider fan but really doesn't get it. After all, if you don't recognize that orchestra, you're a new age member of “the nation.” And new age members don't understand the ruthlessness and brutality that came with being a “Raider” in their golden era of the 70's and early 80's. To get back on topic, I think modern NFL Films would greatly benefit from paying homage to those old classic orchestras, thus establishing a classic feel to more recent events.

  8. I'm really hoping for a hard-knocking AFC Championship Game between the Steelers and Ravens, and thus have compiled the following list of their top 13 games (in order, 1-13, 1 being the top game). Why 13? I'd mention that this year is the thirteenth season that they've played each other, but the truth is, only 13 games stood out as worthy for a countdown. I tried to balance Ravens and Steelers positive moments, but the truth is the Steelers have really dominated this series. If the Steelers and Ravens play each other, I'll unveil these top 13 games. Otherwise, I probably will not. Conference title games that are intra-divisional are typically fantastic, and a Ravens-Steelers title game would be a sheer bloodbath. Special thanks to the Titans for thoroughly spanking that Raven ass and losing anyway. (Yes, I still believe Balti-snore, albeit physical, is extremely mediocre). I can't wait for Fluke-o to realize that sometimes not losing the game isn't enough; you have to be able to drive and win. 8-for-23 and 11-for-22 won't do it in the AFC title game, bubs, no matter the opponent.

  9. Whatever Larry Fitzgerald has been eating is what every NFL receiver should eat forever and ever and ever until he retires.

  10. I'm tired of the bullshit Peyton Manning hype. He's a great regular season statistic glutton. He's not a championship-caliber quarterback. Just period. I know he has a ring, but Trent Dilfer has a ring. That makes him a champion, but not a championship-caliber quarterback. The difference is the ability to lead a team to victory in important games in spite of inadequacies and not to ask your team to win in spite of you at quarterback. Manning's only Super Bowl run came courtesy of his overachieving defense (as defense does win championships) and in SPITE of Manning, who in those playoffs had 3 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. Yikes. Otherwise, another typical Manning year is complete, where he racks up touchdowns, yardage, and regular season victories, only to enter the playoffs and do jack-diddly dick in January. Then, there's a guy named Brady who broke his records the first year he got adequately comparable weapons, and otherwise took over a 1-3 team and losing Patriots franchise, winning three Super Bowls. At various points in that run, the Pats had defensive issues (injuries) and certainly a non-consistent running game. The entire team excelled through the inspiration of Brady, who turned the team around when he replaced Bledsoe in 2001, thus inspiring those around him to play better in the clutch. His best target for years was Deion Branch, who hasn't done a damn thing since leaving New England. And, yet, we have the annual debate (when both are healthy) about the better quarterback. Manning vs. Brady. Seriously, if you have to ask yourself that question, you're incompetent. There's no comparison.

9:54 AM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate