History In Rock & Roll

This piece started out as one thing, and ended up as something else entirely.

I intended to write something about the use of history in rock and roll…or to be more precise, the lack of it. Other forms of art – movies, novels, paintings – have drawn heavily on history for inspiration. But rock and roll, not so much.

And when it does, I thought, it usually screws it up. Think of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down by the Band. A great song (especially the live version) but historically inaccurate:

Back with my wife in Tennessee,
When one day she called to me,
"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee.”

I thought, those silly Canadians, Robert E. Lee wasn’t in Tennessee during the Civil War.

Bob Dylan liked to sprinkle historical figures in his lyrics (“Napoleon in rags”), but he mangled a Lincoln quote in Talking World War III Blues:

Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all of the people can't be all right all of the time.
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

You thought wrong, Bob. What Lincoln is reputed to have said is, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”


And my favorite, Billy Joel’s The Ballad of Billy the Kid. If you’ll allow me to quote at length.

From a town known as Wheeling, West Virginia
Rode a boy with a six-gun in his hand
And his daring life of crime
Made him a legend in his time
East and west of the Rio Grande

Well, he started with a bank in Colorado
In the pocket of his vest, a Colt he hid
And his age and his size
Took the teller by surprise
And the word spread of Billy the Kid

One cold day a posse captured Billy
And the judge said, "String 'im up for what he did!"
And the cowboys and their kin
Like the sea came pourin' in
To watch the hangin' of Billy the Kid

Well, he never traveled heavy
Yes, he always rode alone
And he soon put many older guns to shame
And he never had a sweetheart
But he finally found a home
Underneath the boothill grave that bears his name

Billy the Kid was not from Wheeling, or any other part of West Virginia. He didn’t rob banks. He didn’t ride alone. He killed with a Winchester rifle, not a Colt. He wasn’t captured by a posse, and he wasn’t hung. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word is a lie, including “and” and “the”.

Clearly, I thought, rock lyricists have issues with history.

Digging in the Archives
To make my case stronger, I trolled through my own 5000 song iTunes catalogue, looking for more evidence of rock’s indifference to history. And I confess, I found the opposite. More lyricists than I realized had tackled history, some quite accurately.

For example…

Mr. Churchill Says, The Kinks
Bastille Day, Rush
Sympathy for the Devil, The Rolling Stones

The first two are among the most straightforward of the history rock songs in my collection. The Kinks capture England during the Battle of Britain. He even mentions historical figures like Beaverbrook, Mountbatten, and Montgomery. Rush captures the class warfare - as well as the beheadings - of the early French Revolution.

The lyrics of both are fairly uninspired, though Neal Peart turns a neat phrase with "See them bow their heads to die, as we would bow as they rode by".


Sympathy is the ultimate rock and roll romp through history. It starts on Calvary, takes us through the Hundred Years War, the Russian Revolution, the Blitzkrieg, and the assassinations of the Kennedys.

My only quibble with the song is this lyric:

I watched in glee while your Kings and Queens

Fought for ten decades for the Gods they made.

Presumably the "fought for ten decades" refers to the Hundred Years War. While many wars were fought over religion, this wasn't one of them.

Oliver’s Army, Elvis Costello
Not a history song at all, but one that requires knowledge of history to understand. The song is about mercenary soldiers, and Oliver refers to Oliver Cromwell, who rewarded his mercenary soldiers with land in Ireland - something Elvis Costello (aka Declan McManus) would be familiar with. "Mr. Churchill" is a stand-in for England.

Children's Crusade, Sting
Russians, Sting

History Will Teach Us Nothing, Sting

Gordon Sumner, the former schoolteacher, is clearly the songwriter most obsessed with history, and the idea that the past can - though often doesn't - teach us about the future.

Children's Crusade is about the young men slaughtered in WWI ("Young men, soldiers, Nineteen fourteen"); Russians is about the Cold War; History Will...is more of a political song:

Convince an enemy, convince him that he's wrong

Is to win a bloodless battle where victory is long

A simple act of faith, in reason over might

To blow up his children will only prove him right

History will teach us nothing

Buffalo Soldiers, Bob Marley

There isn't a lot of history in this song, but what little there is seems accurate. More importantly, Marley captures why history is important in this lyric:

If you know your history,
Then you would know where you coming from,
Then you wouldnt have to ask me,
Who the eck do I think I am.

You said it, Bob.

Let It Be

(Roger Clemens is on Capitol Hill this morning to defend himself against the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He was accused by his former friend, trainer, and supplier, Brian McNamee. His former teammate, Andy Pettitte, has already confessed, and implicated Clemens. Makes me wonder what might have happened if the House of Lords, in the mid-1960’s, took an interest in the use of marijuana in rock and roll).

Member of Parliament
The House of Commons calls Paul McCartney from the Beatles. Mr. McCartney, thank you for joining us here today.

Paul
It's wonderful to be here. It's certainly a thrill.

MP

Mr. McCartney, we hope you will be honest with us here today.

Paul

Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey.

MP
Mr. McCartney, have you ever taken marijuana in order to enhance your abilities as a songwriter and a performer?

Paul
No sir. All you need is love.

MP
We have sworn testimony from a Mr. Robert Dylan, given to Joni Mitchell, that on August 28, 1964, he provided you with marijuana at the Delmonico hotel. Is that true?

Paul
He may have had some rolled up tobacco cigarettes, always trying to act like a cowboy, that guy. Look at the bloke's record. His real name's Zimmerman, you know? He's always knockin' on heaven's door, ringin' some new religion's bell... Do us a favor, Bob, open the door, let one of 'em in and stick with it.

MP
We are not here to talk about Mr. Dylan, but about your performance. Let’s look at the record, please. In your rookie season, 1964, you wrote lyrics like

Oh yeah, I´ll tell you something
I think you'll understand
When I say that something
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand
I wanna hold your hand

Impressive. Especially that part where you rhyme “something” with “something”. Or this one from that same year:

She loves you, yeah yeah yeah
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah…yeah

Not exactly Shakespeare, is it?

Paul (mumbling…)
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting...

MP
Then, after the meeting in the Delmonico, your lyrics, as well as those of your partner, John Lennon, showed a dramatic change. Here, from your 1965 season:

Eleanor Rigby
Picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been
Lives in a dream. Waits at the window
wearing a face that she keeps in a jar by the door
Who is it for?

Quite an improvement, hmm?

Paul

Yes, I was getting better all the time.

MP
Or this one, from your 1967 season:

Picture yourself in boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.

Do you honestly expect this committee to believe this improvement came about through good old-fashioned hard work?

Paul
Ah well, that one's all John.

MP

Ah yes, your bandmate, John Lennon. Mr. Lennon, in testimony given to us last week, corroborated Mr. Dylan's testimony. He said that he did, in fact, smoke marijuana that he received from Mr. Dylan.

Paul

Listen, do you want to know a secret? Transcendental meditation. Had a profound effect on my lyric writing. [to the audience] Who is this guy anyway? Are we really sure if he's even from the House of Lords?

MP
Thank you Mr. McCartney. We now call to the witness stand, Mr. Keith Richards...

Follow up on Divisiveness

David Brooks in the Times today shows how a Democratic President will have a hard time keeping a unity promise, even within his/her own party. This all rings very true to me...

Losers Beat Nobodies

Last month, I wrote a piece proving that most Super Bowl winning coaches have been (at the time of their hiring) either Losers (have NFL head coach experience, but of the losing kind) or Nobodies (have zero NFL head coach experience). Nobodies won 25 titles, and I suggested that hiring a Nobody was the best way to go.

Since I wrote that, every head coaching vacancy has been filled by a Nobody. Harbaugh in Baltimore, Sparano in Miami, Smith in Atlanta, and now Zorn in Washington. They are all following my advice!

But...I've changed my mind. Well, tweaked it actually. I just heard Jim Fassel being interviewed on ESPN Radio. Fassel led the 2000 Giants to the NFC Championship, but has been unable to land a head coaching gig since. In fact, he just lost the Redskins job to a Nobody, Jim Zorn. Zorn has some fame as a QB, but as a coach, his resume is pretty thin - he has never been a head coach or even a coordinator on any level.

Fassel made an interesting point: he said that 8 of the last 10 Super Bowls have been won by guys on their 2nd job. I checked, and he's right:

1. Tom Coughlin - Giants (Jags)
2. Tony Dungy - Colts (Bucs)
3. Bill Cowher - Steelers (first job)
4. Bill Belichick - Pats (Browns)
4. Belichick
5. Jon Gruden - Bucs (Raiders)
4. Belichick
6. Brian Billick - Ravens (first job)
7. Mike Shanahan - Broncos (Raiders)
7. Shanahan

Three titles were won by guys who were succesful, but ringless, in their first job (1,2,5). Five were won by two guys who were unsuccesful in their first job (4,7). And two were won by guys in their first job (3,6).

So, new rule for the 21st century NFL: hire a guy with NFL head coaching experience, whether it's modestly succesful or not. By this rule, it appears the Seahawks, who just announced Jim Mora Jr. will succeed Mike Holmgren in 2008, made the right call.

All the other teams, who probably made their hire after reading FreeTime, I offer my apologies.

Redesign

Like it? I worked really hard on it. It took two whole clicks of the mouse.

In Defense of Divisiveness

A big theme in this year’s election is unity. John McCain, the Republican most beloved by Democrats, and the soothing Democrat Barack Obama, both promise to end the political divisiveness that has plagued our national politics through the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not they can succeed. But does anyone stop to wonder if, perhaps, unity is such a good thing?

Put differently: has anyone noticed that the list of America’s most successful Presidents is remarkably similar to the list of America’s most divisive Presidents?

The list starts with Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is widely considered to be America’s greatest President…but he’s got the Divisiveness Crown well in hand, too. Lincoln was elected President on November 6, 1860. He was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. In the 4-month interim between election and inauguration, 7 states seceded from the Union. They were so appalled at the idea of a Lincoln Presidency, they chose to leave the Union and start their own nation. Four more would follow.

Obviously, the divisiveness was more tragic than that. The Civil War ensued from the secession, and 600,000 American lives were lost. That, my friends, is divisiveness of the highest order.

While no other example is that stark, most great Presidents have not had the admiration of their political opponents:

FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt led a unified country through the Second World War, but his New Deal policies were fiercely contested by his political opponents through the Depression. As FDR began losing those battles in his 2nd term he unveiled his “court packing” plan – the idea was to simply add 5 new Supreme Court justices.

Republicans and conservative Democrats were disgusted at this power grab, and the Democrats were slaughtered in the mid-term elections of 1938.

Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was one of the first master practitioners - and victims - of nasty, partisan politics in American history. We know now the Sally Hemings story is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that his enemies hated him so much that they’d print it.

But TJ was no shrinking violet himself – he even secretly financed a newspaper to attack his opponents. The Federalist-Republican feud in the early 1800’s was a vicious back-alley fight that makes today's feuds seem like high tea at Harrods.

Jackson
Andrew Jackson was more despised by his political opponents than even Bush or Clinton could claim. He was even called a murderer – one campaign bill featured a picture of 6 coffins representing men Jackson had executed in court-martials or killed in duels. The attacks on him were so severe he blamed them for his wife’s sickness and death.


Coincidence?

What does all this mean? Is it merely a coincidence that great Presidents inspire the deepest hatred among their political opponents?

Of course not. Greatness only comes to the bold, to those who have and act upon strongly held convictions. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were all powerful and effective leaders who had a very strong vision for the United States. They were attacked by those who disagreed. The South, for example, realized that Lincoln's positions on slavery were dramatically different than the wishy-washy compromisers who preceded him.

You want unity? Try Warren Harding on for size. Harding ran on a “let’s all get along” platform. His most famous speech came while running for President, in which he argued for normalcy:

"America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality...."

Yawn... But seriously, if you heard Barack Obama give this speech, would you be surprised? (Well, maybe at the use of the words nostrums and equipoise.) Would you nod your head along in agreement?

Harding was immensely popular while in office, but today, historians rank him among our least effective Presidents.

So, the next time you hear one of the candidates tell you that they are going to unify the country, stop to ask yourself if that is all it’s cracked up to be.


Sidebar: McCain may be the Democrat's favorite Republican, but he's the conservative Republican's least favorite Republican. Rush Limbaugh, whom you would assume is dedicating every waking moment to fighting the Clinton Restoration, in fact spends most of his time attacking John McCain. In this respect, McCain is similar to FDR, who sometimes inspired more vitriol from conservative Democrats than from Republicans.

More Nicknames for Tyree Catch

Via the Max Kellerman show on ESPN Radio:

His-Tyree.

And more nominees from the crowd at BigBlueInteractive:

The Dynasty Killer

The Great E-scape

The Glendale Grab

The Reception that Ruined Perfection

Houdini & The Helmet

The Clutch (since Eli escaped the clutches...and Tyree clutched it)
(see more below)

Dewey Beats Truman

Nicknames for Tyree Catch

I started a thread on BigBlueInteractive to nickname The Tyree Catch. Here's what we/they've come up with so far. I've bolded the ones I like the best:

The Hel-Mitt Catch

The Hat Trick

The Great Escape

No name, just a signal. Place both hands about a foot over the top of your head with criss crossed fingers

The Holy MutherF'ing Sh** Catch

The Slip, Whip and Grip

The Crowning Moment

The Reach

The "Kiss from God"

If Tomlinson is LT to ESPN Then this is "The Catch"

The Helmet Catch

The Helmet Grab

The Great Escape... then the Great Capture

THE CLAMP

THE PLAY

The PERFECT catch

I AM LEGEND

The Scrambling Houdini

Update: Sports Guy is calling it "the Miracle Play to Be Named Later"

Perfectville

The New York Football Giants

Wow.

I doubt that I have anything original or insightful to say about this that you won't find anywhere else. But I can't not write about the greatest sporting event in my life, so here goes:

1. Dwight Clark had "The Catch". Franco Harris had "The Immaculate Reception". Gerard Phelan caught the "Hail Flutie". I hope to God somebody comes up with a nickname for that miraculous David Tyree catch on the winning drive. It was really two plays in one - Eli escaping from a near sack, and then Tyree making the spectacular falling-down-press-against-helmet-one-inch-off-the-ground grab. Any suggestions?

2. Are we allowed to say Tom Brady choked? I realize he is one of sport's untouchables, that he is, in fact, allowed to go on vacation with his girlfriend after stinking it up in the AFC Championship game and get no criticism. But in the biggest game of his life, he saw pressure, and played poorly. That's a choke, isn't it? This is a year after the Patriots blew a 21-3 lead at halftime of the AFC Championship game.

3. Back to Tyree...it was against Rodney Harrison, one of the game's dirtiest players. Bonus.

4. Why is there any debate about the Patriots' place in history? It's very simple: they join teams like UNLV 90 and Seattle Mariners 01 and the Colts and Orioles in 69 that had wonderful regular seasons and lost when it mattered. They are not allowed in the "greatest teams in history" conversation. That is for champions only.

5. Did I pick a great time to start a blog or what? If I can brag just a little bit:

• On December 16th, I wrote a column defending Eli. If I may immodestly quote myself:

Do Giants fans remember that game-tying playoff drive last year? 2nd & 30, down 7 points, in the 4th quarter, in a playoff game, at Philadelphia of all places – and Eli completed consecutive passes of 18, 14 and 11 yards to Plaxico Burress, the last one in the end zone. How can you watch that and not think this kid has what it takes?That was not his first, or last, 4th quarter
comeback. His first win, against the Cowboys, in 04. The Cowboys again in 05 (blown by the D). The Broncos in 05. The Bears in 07.

• On December 26 I wrote a piece called "The Fate of the Pats", that talked about how how-flying offensive teams tend to fall in January. Key line..."And yet...I think they're going down in January."


• I refused to outright pick the Giants to win, but outlined the reasons they could here.

6. This is the best thing that could happen to The Sports Guy's writing. The source of his greatness - besides the fact that he's a deceptively talented writer - is that he's a fan. Most sportswriters seem, after a while, to hate sports. Too much time spent in locker rooms with guys that are bigger, stronger, richer, and more beloved than they are...and are often jerks. So they turn on these guys, and the whole stench of professional sports. But The Sports Guy has kept his fan's perspective.

But being a Boston guy, he has had an unnatural amount of winning the past few years. And his writing suffered. Read - or try to read - this interminably boring piece predicting the Patriots will crush the Giants. No way he writes something this turgid about a team he cares about that is playing poorly.

This one should put his writing back in order. Welcome back, Bill.

7. I went to 4 Giants game this year, including the debacle against the Vikings. Everybody talks about how at 0-2, down 17-3 at halftime to the Redskins, you wouldn't have picked the Giants to do this. But more importantly, go to that Vikings game. Giants lost 42-17. At home. In late November. To the Vikings.

8. I just went to the Wikpedia entry on David Tyree. It already includes a description of his catch. What if we call it the "Hell-Mitt Catch"? Nah. How about "Hat Trick"?

9. I just went in the fan forum on Big Blue Interactive and started a thread to nickname the catch...Hopefully by tomorrow morning there will be some good suggestions.

Update: some folks have already made some suggestions: The Great Escape...The Slip, Whip & Grip...The Play...and The Holy MutherF'ing Sh** Catch

10. If you were running the "Eli Manning Sucks Blog", would you continue to say he sucks? Well, you have to admire this guy's tenacity...

11. I know...I've rambled on for hundreds of words and haven't even mentioned the real reason they won - pressure on the QB. What can I tell you, it's late. Good night.

Final Thoughts on SB XLII

Why Petty?
I've heard people wonder why a 57 year-old guy who hasn't had a hit in years is the Super Bowl half-time act. The answer is easy: classic rock dominates the concert scene. The Top 10 tours of 2007 were:

1. The Police
2. Justin Timberlake
3. Van Halen
4. Rod Stewart
5. Genesis
6. Bon Jovi
7. Dave Matthews Band
8. Billy Joel
9. Roger Waters
10. Bruce Springsteen et. al.

7 of these acts began their career in the 70's - or earlier. Most of them don't have a new album to promote. Only one of them, the cute kid from the boy band, had a Top 20 album in 2007 (though I'm sure Bon Jovi's concert sales were helped by opening-act Daughtry, who had one of the best-selling albums of 07).

So, if you're for a lip-synced performance that's heavy on dance moves, by all means go for the 20-something singer/dancers who have nice voices but have never touched an instrument in their life. But if you want a live performance, it's only rock and roll for me.

Spygate
I haven't touched yet on Spygate. I know the conventional wisdom on this is that spying on the other team is the football equivalent of driving 65 in a 55 zone: everyone does it, there is no harm, and nobody should be punished.

Maybe that's true. I don't claim to be an expert on what teams do about signs, or whether or not it helps much. But I do have one problem with the whole thing: if it wasn't a big deal, why did Roger Goodell hit the Patriots with the biggest fine in league history?

Belichick got hit for $500,000, the team for $250,000 and a first round draft choice. That is a killer penalty. An interesting part of the penalty is that the NFL officially claimed it was for the Patriots' "totality of conduct" and not just the Jets game.

The massive penalty (given by a league that would rather not draw extremely negative attention to its most admired team) and the fact that it was for more than just the Jets game, suggests to me that we still don't know the full story here.

(Update: interesting piece in the Times today, in which former prosecutors question the NFL's investigative techniques. It's highly unusual, they say, to investigate wrongdoing by merely asking the "suspect" to turn over whatever evidence they deem appropriate.)

Play Ball

That's all I got. I can't read, much less write, another word about Coughlin's gregariousness, Plax's knee (and mouth), Eli's vindication, Brady's foot, or anything else. It's time to play the damn game.

The Obama Letdown

I remember calling my Dad the evening of October 3, 2000, and telling him that Bush had just won the election.

October 3 was the night of the first Bush-Gore debate. Gore entered the debate with a tiny lead in the polls (48% to 46%). He was a sitting Vice-President, the country was at peace, and the economy seemed strong (though in, fact, the recession had already begun). Polls done immediately after the debate suggested that Gore had, barely, won the debate.

So why did I think Bush had just won the election? Because he was the beneficiary of low expectations.

As I’ve written before, our reaction to many things - movies, books, restaurants, vacations – is decided largely by our expectations. We all know that feeling from movies – the anticipated blockbuster that fizzles, or the small movie that takes you by surprise. We're less aware of it when it happens in sports, but it's just as strong: Alex Rodriguez gets booed while David Wright, not playing nearly as well, is cheered. It’s all about expectations.

This is true of Presidential candidates, too. Most Americans don’t follow politics very closely. They pick up snippets from Leno and Letterman, hear a celebrity make a crack to Matt Lauer, listen to Jon Stewart’s monologue and interviews.

And if, in the fall of 2000, if you were one of those people who hadn’t really tuned in to the election yet, Jay and Dave and Jon and everyone else had led you to believe that George Bush was just about the stupidest human who ever walked the face of the earth. This man couldn’t tie his shoelaces. He couldn’t feed himself. He may have degrees from Harvard and Yale, but this was only because of family connections; he should have gone to the Rocco Globbo School for the Galactically Stupid.

Huge numbers of Americans then tune in to that first debate – 75 million on the night of October 3. And something amazing happened in that debate…George Bush did not drool on himself. He did not perform magnificently, or even particularly well. But he did fine, and more or less held his own. Al Gore, the great intellectual, was supposed to wipe the floor with George Bush, the class dunce. And he failed.

George Bush was the beneficiary of low expectations.

What does this have to do with Barack Obama?

Does Barack Obama have low expectations? Er, no. He is a knight in shining armor, the great orator of his day, the man who will ride in on a white horse and single-handedly save America from its enemies within and without. He is John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, with a dash of Abe Lincoln and a teaspoon of Bono.

I’m exaggerating a little, but not much. The late-night comics are reluctant to go after him. The Clintons got hammered for playing hardball last week. And if Jon Stewart had a writing staff, they would know damn well that their audience adores this guy.

But one has to ask…is he being set up for a fall? I think so. A line in a Times article just before the New Hampshire primary caught my eye:

Political pied pipers often prove ephemeral. Mr. Obama’s support among a focus group at Dartmouth sagged noticeably after students watched him debate more veteran Democrats.

Dartmouth students fit the Obama demographic perfectly. They are young. They are educated. They are affluent. They are extremely excited about Barack Obama. But when they actually saw him go toe-to-toe with “veteran Democrats”, he didn’t live up to the absurdly lofty expectations they had for him.

It’s the opposite of George Bush. At some point, perhaps against Hillary, perhaps against McCain, there will be an Obama letdown. Will it stop him from reaching the White House? I think so.

His first try, anyway.

Brady 07: Best Ever?

Around the time Jimmy Carter was giving way to Ronald Reagan, the NFL was rapidly evolving from a Run First to a Pass First League. In retrospect, three pivotal events in a 5 year period made this clear:

1979: Dan Fouts, in San Diego's Air Coryell offense, became the first quarterback to throw for 4000 yards

1981: Joe Montana, running Bill Walsh's version of the pass-oriented West Coast offense, won the first of many 49er Super Bowls.

1983: Six quarterbacks were taken in the NFL draft; 4 of them would play in Super Bowls (with 10 starts and 2 Wins) and 3 of them would be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It was now a quarterback's league. But which quarterback had the greatest single season since that series of events? Tom Brady's record-breaking 50 TDs, combined with the Patriots record-breaking scoring season, have people wondering if his 2007 campaign fits the bill.


There are three contenders: Dan Marino in 1984, Peyton Manning in 2004, and now Tom Brady in 2007. Let's look first at the main statistics people associate with the quarterback:







Based on this, you'd have to give the edge to Brady. More yards than Manning, fewer picks than Marino, and more TDs and higher pass % than either.


But...the TD differential is statistically insignificant. And while Brady easily beats Marino in % and picks, it's really too close to call with Manning. Still, he threw for 250 more yards. Time to expand the categories a bit:





Hmm...now it's getting interesting. Brady threw 34 more passes than Marino, and 81 more passes than Manning. In Manning's case, the Colts wrapped up their division early and Manning rested significantly down the stretch in 04. Jim Sorgi played parts of 4 games, even threw 2 TDs. It's likely Manning would have thrown more TD passes and more yards than Brady if he had played those quarters.

But more important is that YPA - Yards Per Attempt. YPA is considered the most meaningful quarterback statistic, and for good reason. It measures, obviously, how much production you are getting out of each pass. Brady's 8.3 is very good - it led the league in 2007.

But it's not great. In fact, it's a very low total for a league leader - in the Super Bowl era 36 league leaders have had a higher YPA. Romo led the league last year with 8.6. Big Ben had 8.9 the year before that. Guys like Eric Hipple and Jay Schroeder and Chris Chandler have led the league with higher YPAs. Leading the league with an 8.3 YPA is like winning a batting title with a .324 average.

Brady had a great season in 2007. But every category is either incredibly close (%, TDs, QB rating, INTs), or Brady's totals were inflated by throwing more passes (yardage). Manning has a clear statistical edge over Brady in a hugely important statistic. This, coupled with Marino's 17 INTs, gives the nod to Manning 04 as the most productive season a QB has ever had.


Note to Stat Haters
Please don't tell me stats are meaningless. You're the same guy who will be sitting in a bar using stats to proclaim Brady was the best in 07 ("He had 50 TD passes, man! Manning only had 49!"). You'll just be using the wrong stats, or not enough stats.

Note to Stat Lovers

For a discussion of how Yards Per Attempt and QB Rating correlate to Winning, go here. QB Rating is often knocked, but it does seem to correlate to Winning. Manning's QB Rating in 04 was an NFL record.

Bonus Fun Fact
While passing yardage and TD passes have increased through the years, YPA has remained fairly constant since WWII. In fact, the only QBs with a single-season YPA higher than 10 were Norm Van Brocklin ('54), Otto Graham ('55 and '47), and Sid Luckman ('43).

Reasons to Believe

I don’t do predictions. I’m far more interested in making arguments based on the past than predictions for the future.

This is partly because I’m a history buff, and believe that all kinds of stupid things are said by people who are ignorant of the past. To believe that today’s political operatives are rougher than those of the past could only mean you know nothing about the blood-sport that was American politics from 1800 to the Civil War. To believe Derek Jeter is the greatest shortstop ever can only mean you’ve never seen the back of Honus Wagner’s baseball card.

But it’s also because making predictions is a fool’s game. Even people who dedicate their lives to a particular topic are regularly embarrassed in their predictions. Monkeys throwing darts beat stock market experts. Economists can’t agree on whether a recession is coming. As for meteorologists…let’s just say I don’t cancel my tee time if the forecast is for rain.

Then there is the NFL. You can make a case that Dr. Z from Sports Illustrated is the most knowledgeable football writer in the world. Like him or not, nobody else combines his encyclopedic knowledge of football history with copious viewing of current game film. So how did Dr. Z do in his picks for the NFL season?

He thought the Bears, Panthers, Saints, Eagles, Bengals, Ravens, and Broncos would make the playoffs. He thought the Saints, would defeat the Chargers in the Super Bowl. He thought the Giants would go 6-10. And it’s not just Z. Vegas oddsmakers, who are better than anyone else at making sports predictions, predicted a Bears-Saints NFC Championship game. Neither team made the playoffs.

All this is my way of saying that I am not going to predict that the New York Football Giants are going to upset the undefeated New England Patriots on Sunday. I am, however, going to give you 5 reasons they have a chance:

1. Momentum
As stated previously, the Patriots are not the dominating team they were through the first 10 weeks of the season when they had 9 blowouts, and victories over the Colts and Cowboys. Since then they have dodged many bullets, including last week when only the timidity of Norv Turner prevented an injury-riddled Chargers team from knocking them off. The Giants, meanwhile, are playing their best football of the year.

2. 38-35.

3. Faith
For a big upset to happen, especially in a sport that rewards intensity, it is critical for the underdog to believe it can win. The Giants aren’t cocky – they understand the enormity of the task ahead of them. But 38-35, plus victories over the two best teams in the NFC, make them believe they can win.

4. Rest
On ESPN Radio this morning, Mike Greenberg said, “The 2 weeks off is favorable to the Patriots in every conceivable way.” And went on to talk about Belichick’s preparation, the Giants momentum slowing down, etc.

I completely disagree. The Giants have been playing must-win football games since the Redskins loss. They have been on the road for weeks. Big Blue desperately needed to rest, and desperately needed to get off a plane for a few days. The break enables them to do it without in any way slowing their momentum. Do you think they are going to forget what they’ve done in the last month?

5. Luck
Sports fans are reluctant to admit what a huge role luck plays in sports. Over time, naturally, the better teams prove themselves and the lesser teams lose. But in a single game, a single series, a single moment, anything can happen. Just ask these guys. Or these guys. Or these guys.


So, no predictions, but some reasons to believe. Unfortunately, Dr. Z just picked the Giants to win. So they may be doomed…

Will Ledger Be Legend?

It is often said by insensitive hacks like me that death can be an outstanding career move. With the death of Heath Ledger - handsome, talented, young, promising - one can't help but speculate whether he will be bathed in immortal glory like so many others who died young.

My guess is no. Before I explain why, let's look at the King and Queen of actors who died young, and whose legend far outpaced their actual accomplishments.

James Dean
Dean is the King. He is a true Hollywood immortal, despite making only 3 movies (he was posthumously nominated for an Oscar in 2 of them). One was a classic (Rebel without a Cause), and the other two were greatly admired in their day but rarely watched today (East of Eden and Giant).

We'll never know if Dean would have had the kind of career that, say, Paul Newman had (10 Oscar nominations, 1 Oscar win, and some ofthe movies' most indelible moments). But in some ways Dean is more revered, since he didn't live so damn long. He didn't have the opportunity to make any bad movies, to hit any rough patches in his career, to grow old. He died perfect.

How is this for an unscientific (but still useful) comparison: I googled "James Dean" and got 7.1 million hits. "Paul Newman" - who made 80 more movies and has lived (so far) 60 more years - only turned up 4.6 million.

Marilyn Monroe

If Dean is the King, Marilyn's the Queen. 15 million google hits on "Marilyn Monroe", who was the Pamela Lee Anderson of her time (but with better taste in men). She made a handful of well-known movies, but was never nominated for an Oscar. While moments like this are known to all, few people under 70 can tell you what movie it actually came from.

Despite this rather thin resume, she is probably the most famous actress who ever lived - an unlikely scenario, if she still walked among us.

What About Heath?
Heath seems like a contender for a halo. He was ridiculously handsome. Admired by critics. Like Dean, he starred in a culturally important film. He seemed to make choices based more on art than commerce. He had a set of stones, as evidenced by his decision to play the Joker after Jack's iconic performance. And let's face it: Australians are cool.

But my guess is that, in time, Ledger will be as forgotten as River Phoenix (1.2m on Google). Phoenix had a similar resume: a short but impressive film career (including an Oscar nomination), Byronic good looks, and a far more "romantic" death (Johnny Depp's Viper Room vs. Mary Kate Olson's bedroom, without Mary Kate?* No contest). But he's rarely spoken of today, and I doubt the average college student even knows who he is ("Um, is he like Joaquin Phoenix's brother?")

The problem is Celebrity Inflation. In Dean's and Monroe's day, there were far fewer celebrities, and we knew far less about them. Today, with so many "stars" and so much information about them, who can keep track? US Weekly's home page has a list of 30 top celebrities, and I haven't even heard of some of them. Heidi Montag? Lauren Conrad? Spencer Pratt? Who are these people? I've heard of Nick Lachey, but I'm not really sure why he's famous. I think he dates other famous people.

There are so many "hot" celebrities - some created by reality shows, some who make sex tapes, some who do genuinely good work (the entire cast of Sopranos, anyone?). We are constantly told of the next new thing who is taking the world by storm (Keira Knightley! Daniel Radcliffe! Shia LaBeouf! Zac Efron!*) In Dean's day, there was, what, maybe 2 talks shows that interviewed actors? Today there are a dozen or more. And every guest on every one of these shows is a "celebrity".

Plus, we know far too much about them. See pictures of them getting their coffee, on vacation, pushing strollers. We see before and after plastic surgery shots. There is no sense of mystery anymore.

With such Celebrity Inflation, even the giant celebrities of today (George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks) have trouble competing with the legends of yesteryear (John Wayne, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant). So I can't see Heath Ledger hanging with James Dean on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

Then again, he looks really good in The Dark Knight. That could change everything...

* my wife tells me that early reports about the apartment belonging to an Olson twin were false. But I just couldn't let go of the Viper Room line...

Sidebar: Ledger's 2000 film, The Patriot, was the biggest cinematic disappointment of my life. For reasons I can't explain, there has never been a truly great movie about the American Revolution. Countless great films about Vietnam and WWII and a handful about the Civil War, but not a single one about the American Revolution. When it was announced that Mel Gibson, in his first historical movie since Braveheart, was joining with Robert Rodat, the screenwriter of Saving Private Ryan, on a Revolutionary War flick, expectations soared. But alas, the world still awaits a great film about the Revolution.

Also, we've had hundreds of great films about cops, but none about firefighters. I do have a theory about that, though: fires have no plot.

Losers & Nobodies

If you were the GM of an NFL team with a head coaching vacancy, which of the following should you hire:

a) A proven winner, like Super Bowl Champ Bill Cowher
b) A proven loser, like Cam Cameron
c) A complete nobody, like Jim Harbaugh’s brother

If history is any guide, hire the nobody. If he’s not available, hire the loser.

There have been 41 Super Bowl champions. Every single one of them has been won by a Head Coach who came to that team with exactly zero Super Bowl titles on their resume. ¾ of them have been won by losers and nobodies.

Here’s the breakdown:

Complete Nobodys (25 titles)
These 14 guys won 26 titles. The day they were hired by the team they won the Bowls for, their fan base said, “Who?”

Chuck Noll (4 titles)
Joe Gibbs (3)
Bill Walsh (3)
Vince Lombardi (2 - plus a bunch of NFL titles)
Tom Landry (2)
Bill Parcells (2)
Tom Flores (2)
George Siefert (2)
Don McCafferty
John Madden
Mike Holmgren
Brian Billick
Bill Cowher

(Yes, I'm aware that many of these guys had distinguished careers as assistants before getting their head coaching job, as illustrated by the picture above)

Proven Losers (5 titles)These two had experience – of the losing kind.

Bill Belichick (3 titles…losing record in 4 of his 5 Cleveland seasons)
Mike Shanahan (2 titles in Denver…8-12 with the Raiders)

College Degrees (3 titles)These guys won college titles, but had never been in an NFL locker room:

Jimmy Johnson (2)
Barry Switzer

Celebrity Coach (1 title)
Ditka deserves his own category. The Bears were his first head coaching gig, but he was neither a complete nobody nor a proven loser. At least I won’t call him one…

Ring-less Success (3 titles)These 3 guys each had some success as a Head Coach before switching teams and winning a Super Bowl.

Jon Gruden
Dick Vermeil
Tony Dungy

Quasi-Exceptions to the Rule - But Somebody Had to Win (3 titles)
In Super Bowl III Weeb Ewbank, who had won 2 titles with the Colts in the late 50’s (pre-Super Bowl Era) faced off against Don Shula, who would go on to win 2 Super Bowls with the Dolphins. Shula, had he won, would have been the exception to the rule.

Ewbank’s Jets won, giving Weeb his only Super Bowl title. Coupled with his Colts' titles, he is the only head coach to have won an NFL title with two different teams (good trivia question, huh?)

Won Super Bowl...Switched Teams and Won Another Super Bowl (0 titles)

Well, nobody has done that. Won't happen this year, either. If the Pats win, the Losers get another title. If the Giants win, Coughlin joins Gruden, Dungy, and Vermeil.

What happened to the Champs?On 13 different occasions an NFL team hired a head coach who had already won a Super Bowl. None of them won again.

Gibbs - round 2 with Redskins
Flores - Seahawks
Johnson - Dolphins
Lombardi - Redskins
Parcells - Jets/Pats*/Boys
Siefert - Panthers
Stram - Saints
McCafferty - Lions
Ditka - Saints
Holmgren - Seahawks*
Vermeil - Chiefs

* won Conference championship

Update: Fassel, a Qualified Loser, lost the Skins job to a Nobody, but makes a convincing argument that Losers Beat Nobodies. I address it here...

FreeTime: NFL January

There is so much going on in the world. A gripping nomination battle in both parties that will determine our nation's future. A spreading economic fear (driven more by fear than facts). War in the Middle East*. Climate change that threatens our very existence.

But who cares? The Giants are in the Super Bowl!

I'd like to apologize in advance to my legions of readers who come here to read captivating articles about the evils of gerrymandering+, or who have been eagerly awaiting my multi-part series comparing Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

For the next couple of weeks (longer, if the G-Men win), expect a lot of NFL coverage here at FreeTime...


* as Dave Barry once wrote, "...there will never be peace in the Middle East. Billions of years from now, when Earth is hurtling toward the Sun and there is nothing left alive on the planet except a few microorganisms, the microorganisms living in the Middle East will be bitter enemies."
+ Note to the irony-challenged: Yes, I do realize my piece about the evils of gerrymandering was not, in fact, captivating.

Akeem's Play by Play

All Hail The New York Giants

It's past midnight and I can't sleep. This will probably be the least coherent post you'll see on FreeTime, but what the hell. I'm still revved up from one of the Top 5 sports fans moments of my life. It's not Mookie-Buckner or Norwood wide right for a single powerful moment. But for sheer up and down drama it's right there with Niners-Giants NFC Championship in 90, and for unexpected pleasure, it's easily #1.

A few observations:

• When the Giants played their starters in Week 17 against the Pats, everyone had little pros and cons in their heads about the decision. But I don't think anybody said, "You know, one of the pros is that if they play well, and then meet the Patriots in the Super Bowl, they'll have confidence they can win." But that's what has happened. It's hard to imagine a team that will be as big an underdog as the G-men will be, but still have justified confidence they can win.


• 12 quarterbacks have played in the postseason (not counting guys like Billy Volek). Eleven of them have thrown at least one interception. I think you know who has zero.
• Also, only one guy has 3 Wins (hint: it's the same guy)


• Let's put it a different way: those 12 quarterbacks have 20 starts between them. In those 20 starts only 5 have been INT-less. Eli has 3 of them (Hasselback and Brady the others)


• Good call by my buddy Gombo...in the first quarter, Al Harris is shoving and jawing at Plaxico Burress. Gombo says, "You know, this could work out for the Giants. Plax is a guy who can take a play off here and there, but Harris may fire him up." Burress finished with 11 catches for 154 yards.


• You know how a lot of sports fans think every call goes against their team? Well, I'm not that guy. But I couldn't help shake the feeling during this game that Roger Goodell stopped by the official's locker room before the game and dropped hints about how a Favre-Brady matchup would be good for the NFL. The hold on Snee during Bradshaw's TD run and the 3rd and 5 call that extended the Packer's first FG were head-scratchers.


• Oh...and if the Packers had won, we would have had one of the great missed camera shots of all time. In the 3rd quarter, the Giants stopped the Pack on a crucial 3rd and 5...but Sam Madison got called for a 15 yard personal foul that extended the drive. Favre threw a TD pass moments later. Cameras never did catch what Madison did.


• Good observation by Windex...the Giants didn't put much pressure on Favre, but they tackled extremely well. It was as if the G's game plan was to let Favre complete little dinks all day, but tackle 'em for 2 yard gains. On one series, Favre completed 3 straight passes for lost yardage.


• You know how everyone killed Eli for his sideline demeanor mid-season? Being calm through good times and bad is one of those qualities that everybody thinks is wonderful when you win (see Brady, Tom; and Torre, Joe), but terrible when you lose (see Manning, Eli and Torre, Joe). Being wildly emotional is the same thing (see Coughlin, Tom).

• I understand that Brett Favre is a greater American than Lincoln, a greater humanitarian than Mother Theresa, a greater artist than Michelangelo, and a greater philosopher than Plato. But wasn't there room for anyone, in all the pre-game blathering, to say, "You know, Brett Favre has thrown more stupid intereceptions in his life than most of the guys who've ever played the game combined. Maybe he'll throw some today." Favre, even more than most of us, has the vices of his virtues. But none of the professional commentators were allowed to say it, because it didn't fit the script.

• To the 47 non-believers (you know who you are): Norwood missed from 47; Tynes makes it from 47. (And, of course, there was this 47). For 47 Believers it was further proof we are on the righteous path. All heretics, go here, and learn to believe.

Can the Giants go all the way? As I wrote a while ago, the Patriots are not the dominant, soul-crushing team they were through the first 2 and a half months of the season. At 10-0, the Patriots had 9 blowouts (17 points or more); their only close win was a road victory against the defending champs. Back then we were actually talking about whether or not the Patriots were arseholes for running up the score (they were; and they are).

Since then, the Pats have played 8 games. Yes, they've won all 8. But they barely slipped by mediocre teams like the Ravens and Eagles. They allowed genuinely awful teams like the Jets and Dolphins to play them close late. A Charger team whose 3 best offensive players were hobbled hung around today. And, of course, on the last day of the regular season they just eked out a shootout win against the New York Football Giants.

The Patriots are the best team in football. But they can be had.