My Oscar Picks

While the Oscars were a week ago, here are my picks for a few of the categories.  These were not predictions, but my opinions.  My only rule is that I have to have seen the film to pick it.  The films that I have seen this year are:

• Argo
• Lincoln
• Looper
• Skyfall
• Ted
• Zero Dark Thirty

Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones

Tommy Lee Jones was fantastic in Lincoln despite the awkward hair.  He was perfect for the role as a crotchety old Thaddeus Stevens who bites his tongue to pass the 13th Amendment.  He allowed Tony Kushner to show his disappointment in our current stalled political climate.  Alan Arkin and John Goodman are also good candidates in Argo.  In my opinion, they equally contributed to make the Hollywood scenes the best in the film.

Best Supporting Actress: Sally Field

Sally Field plays well opposite the greatness of Daniel Day-Lewis.  Their interactions were just as I pictured them as I read Team of Rivals.  She plays a woman distraught over the loss of a child, who has a complicated relationship with her husband.  Emily Blunt in Looper was a pleasant surprise.  She shed her uptight British image and appeared as a blonde haired farmer who deeply cares and is worried about her son.  Judi Dench also gave a typically strong performance as an embattled M struggling to retain relevance and moral reasoning in an increasingly changing world.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis

This was a clear choice for anyone who has seen Lincoln.  Think of the challenge it is to play a figure as iconic as Lincoln whose words are among the most famous, but never having any audio of his to know his voice.  Daniel Day-Lewis not only meets that challenge but greatly exceeds it.  Day-Lewis is lost in this character and gives the defining portrayal of the President from Springfield, IL.  His  voice and disposition are what we will picture when we hear a Lincoln story.  A performance that now belongs to the ages.
   

Best Actress: Jessica Chastain

Jessica Chastain almost wins by default here because of the movies I saw, none of them really had a strong female lead except Zero Dark Thirty.  That being said, Chastain is deserving. Her intensity and relentlessness bleeds off the screen and shows not only in her words but her body language.
   

Best Screenplay: Tony Kushner - Lincoln

For me this was an easy choice.  Lincoln had as much action as a play, but it was captivating enough to follow.  The brilliant writing is what made the difference a number of different scenes, from using Lincoln's habit of storytelling to make a broader point in the Euclid story; to Thaddeus Stevens response during the debate of 13th Amendment; to Lincoln describing the shaky legal grounds his actions during the Civil War stood on.  This scene particularly stood out in my mind.  Kushner was able to effortlessly have Lincoln breakdown the complicated legal issues regarding Lincoln's Civil War actions.  I sat there shocked at how quickly and succinctly it happened.  That being said he had some pretty good source material.

Best Visuals: Skyfall

Because I am a layman, in this category I pick the movie that was the most visually stunning.  To me it was Skyfall by far.  To me the film stood out particularly in two sequences, the spectacular use of glass and light in the China tower fight scene and the fantastic use of light and shadow in the final battle scenes in the grey Skyfall manor. Besides all of this, the film had a wonderfully classic Bond look and beautifully displayed its many sets around the world inTurkey, Great Britain, the London Underground, Macao, and an abandoned Chinese island.  

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow

While it is surprising that Ben Affleck could win best director for the DGA and Golden Globe and not be nominated for the Oscar, I'm picking Kathryn Bigelow and Zero Dark Thirty who also wasn't nominated.  In Zero Dark Thirty I learned to appreciate what I missed in the Hurt Locker; Kathryn Bigelow makes intense unorthodox action films.  This movie was riveting and tense without using spectacular action or CG moving cameras, but instead focused on storytelling and drama.  Zero Dark Thirty and the Hurt Locker hit me like a bomb in the Hurt Locker, it isn't the bang and flash that gets me, its the shock wave which hits you right in the gut.  I would love to see Bigelow take on a full out action movie to see what she does with it.  I think tenseness would cause me to grip the arms right off the chair I was sitting in. 

Best Picture: Lincoln

Argo was a fun, feel good film and Zero Dark Thirty was an intensely dramatic film, but Lincoln was an instant classic.  After I saw the film, I thought it was timeless.  This is a film I expect to see on TCM.  This is why I thought Lincoln was the best film.  Lincoln could have been made in an era of Hollywood and still stood up as one of the greats.  It had iconic scenes, fluid writing, and incredible acting.  Although I enjoyed Argo, this is a film that should have won the Oscar.   

Zero Dark Thirty

The last three movies I've seen; Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, and Argo are all nominated for best picture and based on American historical events.  However, each approaches the story in a different way.  Argo is mix of comedy, action, and drama.  It is part action caper and part Hollywood satire.  Lincoln is resembles a play brought to life on the screen, relying not on action, but on the brillance of its dialogue and personality of its characters.  Zero Dark Thirty in some respects is the exact opposite.

First, the film is extremely story driven and doesn't dig deep into characters, with the exception of Jessica Chastain's character, Maya.  Character are dropped in and out of the storyline as they interact with Maya.  The two primary soldiers in the climactic raid on Bin Laden's compound aren't introduced until near the end of the film.

Second, the film narrows it's focus on story and does not overtly seem to make a larger point or pass judgment on the actions of the characters.  It seems the filmmakers have committed to telling us a story and letting us make the judgments.  This makes Zero Dark Thirty more interpretive than Argo and Lincoln, which both are pretty clear on their perspective.  For example, as I have stated earlier the movie gives us very little on the background of the characters including Maya in terms of dialogue, so we are forced to interpret from Chastain's actions and body language her mentality and disposition.  Similarly, when new characters are shown, we are forced to interpret who they are based on their actions and interactions with the other characters.

One impression I took away from this moviegoing experience was how tense I felt.  I literally found myself on the edge of my seat at some points throughout the film. I felt the same way in Argo as the embassy employees tried to make their way through the crowded streets of Tehran.  I was impressed I could feel this way about Zero Dark Thirty, because of the challenge all three movies have; they are historical so we know the ending.  For Zero Dark Thirty this is increasingly challenging because its events have occurred so recently.  

Instead of the traditional drama of not knowing the conclusion, the drama that the film produces is based on our knowledge of the ending, which is almost counter intuitive.  It reminded me of watching the end of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.  At the end of the film, Anakin and Obi-Wan and the Emperor and Yoda are seemingly locked in battles to the death.  The only problem is we know that all four of them survive.  As I was watching that film, I kept thinking about how they were going resolve  play it out so that Anakin becomes Vader and Yoda goes into exile.  It was fascinating to watch.  Its the thrill of the journey rather than the destination.  I felt Zero Dark Thirty takes the same drama and amplifies the tension by naming the location of events.  When the film shows London and a double-decker bus, I was cringing because I knew it was going to be about the London attacks.  The most excruciating scenes were when you realize Maya's colleague and friend, Jessica, is (spoiler alert: if that is possible in a historical film) going to be killed when an Al-Qaeda informant turns out to be a suicide bomber and detonates his bomb inside a US military base in Afghanistan.  Its almost hard to watch, because Jessica is so exciting at the prospect of a turncoat within Al-Qaeda she bakes him a cake.  All the meanwhile, we know from our knowledge of recent events that this will turn out in tragedy.

While Zero Dark Thirty is not about the characters, it ironically is about the people that made this happen.  We view them all through the lens of their interactions with Maya who is obsessed with her potential lead to catch Bin Laden.  We see the CIA officers, the intelligence gatherers, the locals who looked for this mysterious white SUV, the intelligence analysts, and the soldiers who went on the raid.  These were real people.  In a large bureaucracy it is sometimes hard to imagine the actual people behind the actual data gathering, analysis, and execution in any operation.  I think the scene that showed this the best was a scene in which all the CIA analysts are nervously sitting around a table when a guy clearly in charge walks in and starts yelling something like, "Did you think there was some other team working on Al-Qaeda?  There's not there is only the people in this room and we are failing."  You suddenly get the sense that these people, who we've become somewhat familiar with, are in charge of one of the most important tasks in the country and are the only thing separating us from another horrifying attack.

The part of this film which leaves me the most conflicted is the very limited approach of the film in terms of its storytelling.  There doesn't seem to be any metaphor or underlying ideology.  On one hand I admire it because it allows us to provide the judgment on the actions of the characters and what they mean in a larger context.  On the other hand, I almost want the filmmaker to give us an overarching theme or metaphor to get some perspective on the events she is portraying.

The best example of this is the most divisive issue in this film, the use of torture in the film as a means for justifying CIA black sites and enhanced interrogation techniques.  For the most part, I think the film shows its use and the opinions of the officers in charge of torturing without judgment.  On one hand, they do not suffer any moral consequences.  On the other hand, I thought the movie showed, in graphic detail, the realities of this type of torture.  It reminded me of a scene in John Adams where there is a loyalist who gets tarred and feathered.  It was not a pretty scene and showed the human graphic realities of the term tar and feather.  Similarly, this film didn't glamorize or celebrate the torture but showed it for what it was.  However, there was one scene where I thought the movie let slip its bias towards torture when they characters lament its demise due to Obama and Congressional hearings.

My final impression of this film was the reaction of the audience I saw it with.  Usually, after a movie, there is a noticeable buzz as people get up to leave and others quietly discuss with their friends.  After this film, there was a noticeable silence as everybody sat still for a few moments.  I don't really know why this happened, but maybe it shows the emotion this country still holds as a result of 9-11.  But I think the silence also shows why Zero Dark Thirty is a good film.  A movie about the killing of Bin Laden could have the biggest American high-five pat yourself on the back film, but Zero Dark Thirty avoids celebration, and instead at the end of the film we get a silent, solitary tear.  This is ultimately a much more powerful image and left my theater speechless.          

Bulls v. Celtics

I was lucky enough to go to the Bulls/Celtics game in the Garden here in Boston.  It was my second time at the Garden, which is actually a pretty nice place to watch a game.  I was in the balcony in the corner opposite of the Bulls bench.  It's not the greatest view because at times your perspective can be distorted, but it was closer and better than I had anticipated.  Below are some random game thoughts.

Congrats to Celtics Fans

No, I'm definitely not becoming a Celtics fan, but I have to give the Celtics fans credit.  The Garden seemed to be rocking even through it seems the fans have little to cheer for.  Although the Celtics were recently on a 7 or 8 game win streak,  they've lost their best player, Rondo, for the season and  Pierce and Garnett are soon to be retired.  The team seems like it will be in rebuilding mode in the near future.

Additionally, this game was a slogfest.  I think there was a combined 20 points scored in the 3rd quarter.  There were plenty of badly missed shots throughout the game by both teams.  Nonetheless, the Boston fans seemed to keep the energy alive and rose to the occasion when the Celtics crept back in the game after the Bulls had opened some distance from them in the 3rd quarter and were really loud at the end of the game as the Bulls had a chance to take the victory in the closing seconds.    

Cold Start

Not sure if both teams didn't get enough warm up in or if this is the game before the All-Star break syndrome, but both teams started the game off cold, missing the first three or four shots by a fairly large margin.  There seemed to be a lack of execution on both sides of the ball as well.

Robinson vs. Bradley

One interest subplot was the interaction between Nate Robinson and Avery Bradley.  Both players were going at each other throughout the game.  Bradley is known as a player that will routinely pick up the opposing point guard at half court and relentlessly pursue him.  You could tell early on that the pressure was taking its toll on Nate.  Nate started complaining to the refs.  Robinson was pulled in favor of Teague midway through the 1st quarter and didn't come back until the 2nd half.  In the second half, it was Robinson that got the best of Bradley.  After initial harassment, Nate went after Bradley just as hard on defense and forced him into an offensive foul and a defensive foul and sent him to the bench with some satisfaction.  

Garnett elbowed Deng

Garnett got away with a cheap shot in the backcourt in the second half as Luol was on the ground.  Garnett gave him a cheap shot as he passed by.  The refs didn't see it because they were already down the court.  Just another reason to dislike KG.

Deng not right

Deng took a charge, in the first half and didn't seem right after it.  He got up slowly and looked to be grabbing his back during timeouts.  I didn't look serious, but it seemed to hurt him throughout the game.

Nothing on offense easy

The Bulls never got into a rhythm and on most possessions couldn't get into their offense until there was about 10 left on the shot clock.  Ball handlers Robinson, Bellineli, and Teague seemed to dance beyond the three point line and then try to create something at the last second.  I'll give credit to the Celtics, but the Bulls were equally as devastating on defense.

Missed opportunities

I felt that the Bulls should have run the offense through Carlos Boozer more throughout the game.  I felt that he might be able to create either his own shot or at least find a cutter, but as I mentioned about too much of the game was wasted with ball handlers running through fruitless screens near the three point line, only to jack something up near the 24 second limit.

I thought that Celtics should have gone to Garnett more in the fourth.  I get nervous when KG starts to knock down that outside shot, because once he starts knocking that down it complete disrupts the Bulls defense.  In the fourth, he hit a couple shots in a row, but then the Celtics went away from him for a few possessions.  If I were them I would keep exploiting that advantage until the Bulls stopped it, but luckily they went away from it.

Review: Argo

I had high expectations for Argo and everyone I have talked to recommended Argo.  This usually spells disaster for any movie.  The last hyped movie I saw, Looper (along with the last movie I saw Skyfall that makes three one word films in a row oddly enough), fell victim to this.  Going into Argo I had heard incredible things.  So I was careful not to believe too much into the good reviews I had heard.  That being said, I liked this film, but wasn't blown away by it.  Argo is a good use of a few hours, but I won't be thinking about it too much longer after the movie.  I did have to look up to see which details where correct and which were dramatized.

Argo reminded me of another film set in the seventies, Munich.  They both begin with the frenetic and chaotic reenactments of famous events; Munich Olympics and the Iran Hostage Crisis.  These serve as launching points for a lesser known, but true story.  Both movies are also draped in 70s style, as shown below.  That being said, each movie's purpose and tenor are very dissimilar.       

Munich was about the utility of an endless cycle of violence and reprisals and price it has on people's lives. Argo is more of a caper as the main objective is how to get these people out.  The film is also an example of Hollywood poking fun at its own industry.  The funniest and best parts of the movie are with Alan Arkin as a Hollywood producer and John Goodman as a make up artist who work to put together a fake movie to pull the whole plan off.  Arkin and Goodman are perfectly cast for these outlandish, comedic roles.     

Argo is about a group of Americans who escape the embassy in Iran as it is getting overrun.  In Argo, Ben Affleck's character, Tony Mendez comes up with a plan to get them out of Iran, pose as a Canadian film crew scouting a location for a movie.  Part of the reason he believes this will work is everyone's perceived notion about Hollywood's bravado.  Of course they can film a movie in a country in the middle of a revolution.  It's cheap and has exotic locations.  Of course there are other jokes too:

John Chambers (Goodman):  So you want to come to Hollywood, act like a big shot... 
Tony Mendez (Affleck): Yeah. 
John Chambers: ...without actually doing anything? 
Tony Mendez: Yeah. 
John Chambers: [smiles] You'll fit right in!

Lester Siegel (Arkin): You're worried about the Ayatollah? Try the WGA. 

Humor aside, Argo does a great job of framing the drama and giving it context to the larger problem of the Americans still held hostage in the embassy.  Argo also show the peril these six escapees face as they exit out of their Canadian safe house into the resulting Iranian revolution taking place.  Argo also  shows the conundrum the US was in diplomatically and strategically.  I really liked the small moments of drama and the small touches in the film in the Washington scenes and the Tehran scenes.  The escape scene at the end; however, to me was a little over the top.  I kept thinking, "Okay well this had to have been altered."  But in a way, I felt the film hints at this the whole time.  Of course a film poking fun at Hollywood's over the top nature will end a "based on a true story" movie with an over the top not quite true ending.  Nevertheless, I enjoyed the movie and would recommended it as a good thriller.  

I also recommend reading the true story here written by Tony Mendez, Affleck's character.  While not as riveting as the movie, it is interesting to read about the actual operation and the challenges they faced.  Spoiler note: there was no pulse pounding airport adventure, but they did fly out of the airport.      

Skyfall: Is a Cold War relic still relevant today?

This installment of Bond asks if 007 and his era of spy craft are still relevant.  This leads into the theme, which is pretty in your face throughout the film, which is have the times past 007 and M?  It's the class of old school verses the new.  This theme seems appropriate in the fiftieth year of the Bond franchise.  Bond was created in the post-World War II, Cold War era.  It seems fair to ask how this Cold War invention play in today's digital terror era.

This theme plays itself most visible in the first scenes with Bond's new Q, which is the first Q of the Daniel Craig era.  Q in this film looks like he's straight out of college, as does the new Moneypenny by the way.  Bond meets Q in an art gallery as he stares at a painting of a old warship being brought in to be scraped, as I said the theme is pretty in your face.  Q gives Bond his gadgets for the mission, which are a gun and a radio distress signal.  Bond looks at Q and asks if that's it.  Q follows with a quip about not having any exploding pens.  Gadgets have been part of the lure of the Bond films I have seen.  You always ask what were the gadgets, who was the girl, who was the villian, and who sang the opening song (in this case Adele).  This is a very conscious departure from past films to emphasize the  conservative way Bond is being cast in this film.  They are basically sending him into the field with a gun, radio, and a good luck.  Of course, they didn't go completely old school as the gun will only fire if it reads Bond's fingerprints.

This movie just as much about Bond as it is M.  Both have story lines which questioning their usefulness at their advanced age and antiquated ways.  This actually increases the drama as you question if either of them will be around in a next film.  It had a very Dark Knight Rises feel to it.  As in that movie, Bond fails (and falls) on an early mission and is assumed dead, but in contrast to Bale's jail-hole dwelling Batman, Bond is living comfortably on a beach drinking his life away.  Bond returns to action after a terrorist attack on MI6.  His skills and mental state, however remain suspect, just as Batman's did throughout Dark Knight Rises.  M's ability and decision making choices are immediately questioned as she must choose whether to order a shot which could hit Bond or take out a target with sensitive information in the opening scenes.

The villain in this film is played by Javier Bardem who is a former MI6 agent, which M had sold out to the Chinese.  His mission is to destroy M, much the same way she destroyed him.  Bardem, who plays Silva, is reminiscent of Dark Knight's Joker and Dark Knight Rises' Bane, in that they have a grand plan and seem to be a step ahead of everyone.  You should skip ahead to the last two paragraphs if you don't want spoilers.


Other similarities include how Silva allows himself to be captured to compromise the new bunker MI6 and escape into London, much like the Joker in Dark Knight.  Silva has a Chinese island which was abandoned after he claimed there was a chemical leak, much like Bane is able to control an island in Dark Knight Rises.  Silva, in the end, is a little confusing to me.  Was his goal destroying the entire intelligence agency or just M?  It seems like he could have done either with a lot less grand planning.  It almost seems as though he planned the whole getting caught part to escape into London to kill M.  A plane ticket and hiding out in M's house, which Bond is always able to do, seems a lot easier.  Well, then maybe he got caught to trying to take down MI6 again, but he already did that once and there is no further story line about this motivation after Silva escapes into London.  In the end, he just seems obsessed with killing M, who is like a mom to both Bond and Silva.  This  doesn't seem like it would be that difficult with everything else he's accomplished.  But then again maybe I'm analyzing someone who isn't the most stable of people

That being said, the drama over Judy Dench's future role in the series is gripping.  The action scenes are wonderfully ridiculous.  Bond, M, and Bond's groundkeeper Kincaid preparing his boyhood home has a bit of a Home Alone/Saving Private Ryan feel as they prepare to defend against a much greater numbers.

The visuals in the film are pretty stunning and I'm not just talking about the scenery from Turkey to China to London.  The film expertly uses light and takes shots off glass and mirrors to show reflections.  The best scene is the assassination scene on the upper levels of a Shanghai skyscraper which shows glass, outside advertising, and obscured views.  There are also many other scenes at Bond's childhood home which wonderfully use of light through bullet holes and fog (in different scenes).

In someways its almost as if the film is asking us to believe that Bond is still relevant and he is.  Bond is still very alive in all of his gentlemanly brutish, British swagger.  He's classic and this movie shows how a tuxedo, a martini, and an Aston Martin never go out of style.  

Turning the House Upside Down: Bears vs. Seahawks

Flipping the House

During the Lovie Smith era, you can look at the Bears team as a house.  The defense is the foundation and the offense is the house that sits on top.  No matter how much the offense changed above ground (Shea/Turner/Martz/Tice, Orton/Grossman/Griese/Cutler, Jones/Benson/Forte), the base below (Urlacher/Briggs/Tillman) stayed the same.  No matter how  the offense looked,  we have always relied on the defense below to support the team to at least play .500 ball.  This game flipped the equation with the house holding up the foundation.   

Last week, I ended by saying, "Cutler can look in control throughout games, but I still doubt whether he has that elite quarterback ability to will his team to win in the last few minutes of a game."

I've always considered Cutler the key to the Bears becoming an elite team.  Sure the Bears can win games against inferior opponents, but can they win a close playoff game in Lambeau?  My gut told me that in a close game with Cutler needing to run a two-minute drill, the Bears would end up somewhere around midfield and end the game on a 4th down incompletion.  Cutler, at least for a week, proved me wrong.  In the last 24 seconds of the game, he and Brandon Marshall willed this team towards a victory.      

But they lost.  The Bears vaunted defense allowed a rookie quarterback to run all over them (literally) on them in two consecutive drives totaling 177 yards and 2 TDs when the game mattered most.  We've seen the defense falter before.  We've seen them give up play after play in soft prevent defense which allow opposing offenses to perilously march down the field.  However, I can't remember the last time the Bears defense seemingly fell apart so badly (a 97 yard drive, followed by a 12-play 80 yard drive) and it was the offense came to the rescue (temporarily).  For one week at least, it was the defense cracking and the offense providing the clutch plays.

Finding a Match

This was probably the most evenly matched team the Bears have played this year.  Most of the other teams, seemed superior (Green Bay, 49ers, Texans) or inferior (Titans, Jaguars, St. Louis).  The Seahawks seemed in that Goldilocks zone, which possibly informs where the Bears will eventually end up.  One good takeaway (only on fumble this week) from this game was that the Bears outplayed the Seahawks for most of this game.  They just couldn't reflect it on the scoreboard.  I remember midway in the 2nd quarter thinking, "Wow, the Bears are complete owning the game right now, yet the score is only 7-0."  Then when Seattle went in to half up 10-7, I remember thinking that the Bears won about 75% of that half, but lost the 25% which produced scoring.  In the 2nd half, its seemed like both teams played to a draw until Russell Wilson just decided to run free.  Cutler's and Marshall's heroics turned out to be a small respite, until Seattle methodically drove down the field in their first drive in overtime.  On a final note, while the game ended in a loss, this was easily the most exciting game this season.  For the first time this season, my hands were actually clammy as I listened to the last minutes of the fourth quarter and overtime.      

Vikings v. Bears: Back to normalcy and the necessity of Jay Cutler

Back to Normal

After two weeks of misery, the Bears seemed to get back to this season's norm; beating up lesser teams with overwhelming defense and efficient offense.  The Bears look like a completely different team against lesser teams.  The line between these two classes of Bears opponents seems to be the Viking, Lion, and Cowboy line.  Minnesota, Detroit, and Dallas are on the edge of the playoff picture looking in.  Against solid playoff teams like Green Bay, Houston, and San Francisco the Bears have looked very suspect.

The victory against the Vikings had all the markings of a quality 2012 Bears victory:  

1. Turnovers - 2 fumbles and 1 interception - Check
2. Dominating defense - 10 points allowed, with 3 coming after a Forte fumble - Check
3. Effective running game - 113 yards - Check
4. Time of Possession - 37:30 to 22:30 - Check
5. Efficient Offense - 3 TDs on 296 yards and 11-19 on 3rd downs  - Check 
6. Quality Special Teams - Blocked Field Goal, Fake Field Goal, Podlesh 43 yard Avg - Check
1. Although the Vikings also blocked a field goal.  

With a strong 1st half, the Bears were able to put this one on cruise control in the 2nd half.  While the Vikings game back a little, the Bears defense held its own and offense was able to lull this one into the victory column.  

Cutler and the Bears  - Confidence, Belief, and Doubt  

After an embarrassing loss last week, the Bears looked like different team.  No longer were they the team getting physically dominated, they were the team stopping the ball carrier short of the marker and getting two physical touchdowns near the goal line.  This play embodies what I am talking about.     http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000100069/Cutler-penalized-for-unsportsmanlike-conduct

It was stupid for Cutler to toss the ball at the defender after the game, but it was nice to see some swagger.  That's who Jay Cutler is, he's a jerk, but he's our jerk for better or worse.  The team needs  Jay Cutler and it's not necessarily because of his play.  The team attacks the game on both sides of the ball with so much more confidence when Jay is on the field.  The Bears have the feeling that with Cutler they have the potential to succeed in any situation, whereas Jason Campbell hasn't earned that yet. 

The Bears trust Cutler to get the job done.  It doesn't matter what his stats are, as Cutler only threw for 188 yards,  he scrambles when the pocket is closing, he finds the opens receivers, and he chucks its to Brandon Marshall through triple coverage somehow.  I still don't think of Cutler as a leader, because of the way he yells down to teammates and treats his coaches, but the team performs better when he is on  the field because they believe.  

In a way, I view Cutler as I view the Bears, both have enough potential to succeed, but I have doubts whether or not they will succeed.  This team can be Super Bowl contenders, in the same way that Jay Cutler has the tools to become an elite quarterback.  The Bears have shown they can systematically dominate lesser opponents, yet look weak against playoff opponents.  Cutler can look in control throughout games, but I still doubt whether he has that elite quarterback ability to will his team to win in the last few minutes of a game.  So while I have confidence in Jay and the Bears to win games, I'm doubtful they have the ability to win the big game.  

Degrees of Destruction: Bears v. 49ers

Now we know what the Titans felt like two weeks ago.  If there are degrees of defeat, this is probably next to worst.  While watching the last excruciating quarter of the Bears/49ers game, I came up with five factors with which to judge humiliating losses; general ineffectiveness, unforced errors, embarrassing plays, point differential, and physicality.  On a scale of ten, the Bears probably score near ten in most of these categories, but save a little face on point differential and unforced errors.  

General ineffectiveness is what we saw in the first quarter; a defense which looked helpless against a quarterback in his first start and an offense which couldn't muster 20 yards in the first half.  General ineffectiveness is playing without too many mistake, but just not being equal to the team on the other side of the field.  It was mystifying to see Colin Kaepernick pick apart the Bears defense.  It was more concerning when Kendall Hunter and Frank Gore began to find creases in the defense for big yards. But the offense didn't give the defense anytime to sit on the bench as a majority of the Bears drives ended up with negative yardage.  The Bears score a solid ten here.  I'm reminded of the Patriots/Bears game two years ago in a snowy Soldier Field for a good example of good butt kicking when the Patriots scored to close the half to make the score 33-0.             

Unforced errors is where the Bears could have looked worse.  Unforced mistakes are careless turnovers and pre/post penalties.  There were only 6 penalties and there weren't any false starts that I can remember; however, the Bears did call a couple timeouts when they couldn't get the right personnel on the field.  The worst unforced mistake was at the end of the game when JT Thomas jumped across the line denying the Bears the chance to at least attempt a touchdown return or morale's sake.  It was the final insult.  An example of this kind of loss is Charles Tillman's personal foul penalty overtime against Tampa Bay in 2008 which gave the Bucs a first down on third down and helped themI'll give them a four here.  

Embarrassing plays is where the Bears should have scored a fifteen on a ten point scale.  These are plays that make professionals look like amateurs.  I thought it was embarrassing in the second quarter when a Bears drive consisted of: Forte tackled for no gain by unblocked defender, Forte tackled for no gain by unblocked defender, then Forte tackled for no gain on the saddest looking screen play I've ever seen.  I didn't know what would await me in the 2nd half.  Devin Hester returned a punt for minus nine officially, but it looked like minus twenty.  J'Marcus Webb and Gabe Carimi getting pushed into Jason Campbell multiple times.  On one play Webb look like he was guarding Aldon Smith's shadow as he moved outside but Smith went inside.  Carimi didn't fare much better getting bull rushed too many times to count.  On his worst play, he gave up the sack and was still falling backwards for about ten yards as Campbell was getting annihilated.  The absolute worst play was the safety which we had to agonizingly watch over and over as it was reviewed.  First of all, the pocket absolutely collapsed and Campbell had no chance.  It turned to ridiculous (and no the the Devin Hester-type) when the ball squirted out and landed at Chilo Rachal's feet.  Rachal looked like he didn't know what he found as he momentarily stared at it.  He picked it up, lumbered forward, and guess it was ruled he forward passed it.  Whatever it was it was a mess, he gave the ball some type of forward movement.  The refs had a hard time classifying what had just happened.  The Bears earn a most definite ten in this category defined which can be defined by the infamous Bears/Giants game a couple years ago when many of the same linemen gave up 9 sacks in one half.  That game established and defined for a national audience the poor reputation the Bears O-Line has had ever since.        

Point differential is a category that while bad could have been a lot worse.  I remember at half thinking they are lucky to be down twenty to nothing right now.  Point differential is pretty self explanatory, any time a team runs up the score.  We'll again compare it to the Patriots game from a couple years ago or the 45-10 loss at the hands of a Carson Palmer led Bengals team in 2009.    Yes, a 32 to 7 loss is bad, but it could have been a lot worse.  The final point total wasn't has humiliating as the game.  Eight out of ten here.

Physicality is a category I would not have considered until watching the Bears destruction by the 49ers.  The 49ers just physically beat up on the Bears all game on both sides of the field.  Whether it was the Smiths bull rushing over the offensive line or Bowman and Willis thrashing down Forte or Bush, it was reminiscent of some Lions games of the past couple years.  The Bears defense was not exempt either as there were a number of broken tackles and huge clear out blocks in the run game.  Eight out of ten here as well.

So if you add it up that's 40 out of 50 for my ranking of next to worst, although right now I'm hard to imagine what a 50 out of 50 would look like.  

Review: Looper

Going into Looper I had just heard incredible things and I was excited see what was dubbed as a "smart action film".  Unfortunately, this caused me to watch the film too analytically, instead of merely sitting back and enjoying this film.  As I was watching this film, I constantly was asking myself, "Am I enjoying this ... I think so."  I spent the whole movie asking the question, I'm not sure what I actually thought about it at the end.

I did enjoy it, until I tried to explain the plot and the movie seemed completely ridiculous.  If you explain this film to someone who hasn't even seen the trailers, its easy to get completely lost.  Let me try.  You see it involves people called Loopers, who kill people sent back in time.  The mob in the future sends a person they want dead, back in time and Loopers shoot them.  Can everyone go back in time? No, time travel was outlawed so only the most powerful mobs can do it.   Why can't the mob kill someone in the future?   Because its hard to get rid of a body in the future.   You're saying its easier to time travel in the future than to kill someone.  Yes?  So anyways Loopers are called Loopers because their service is over after they kill their future self and then they have 30 years to enjoy their life until the mob sends them back in time so  they can be killed by their younger self and their Loop is closed.  (Confusion).  Basically, Bruce Willis gets sent back and Gordon-Levitt, who plays the same character 30 years apart, fails to kill Willis and the story continues.  Oh and then there is this plot about telekinesis, the Rainmaker, a little boy, killing children, post-apocalyptic society, and all the normal time travel issues any time travel movie will have.  Yes, this movie has a lot going on.  Even still, if you can ignore the plot holes and accept the basic framework of the setting, you can enjoy the film, that is if you can get past a modified Joseph Gordon-Levitt-to-look-like-Bruce Willis face.  (I never really did.)

After thinking about this film (and you will think about this film, which is a major plus for me for any film even if I decide i didn't like the film), I believe Looper is well made and has some great performances by Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt.  I couldn't believe Blunt transformed herself from a proper British woman to a blonde gun tote'n American farmer-mother.  I liked how the characters react to their situation and how they adapt to time travel and its consequences.  The characters are complex and there are few one note characters in the film.  Each has his or her own flaws, strengths, and desires.  There is no evil or good clearly established by the film, but just damaged people with selfish or sacrificing motives.  Its up to the viewer to judge these characters.  The game of chess between Willis and Gordon-Levitt is also fascinating to watch.  The Willis/Gordon-Levitt character literally can talk to his younger self to give him advice and its interesting which one of them makes the final move in the film.  In a way this film is all about consequences, because the characters are very conscious of the effect their actions will have on the future.      

I would not recommend this film if you get stuck on plot holes, inconsistencies, and logic.  But if you able to get past it, you can enjoy a film which intertwines a web of competing characters with competing interests trying to find the best future for themselves.  Looper lets the viewer decide the relative morality of each of these wonderfully complex characters.   

Far too late to do any good: NBC new show roundup

I thought I'd start a new section reviewing TV shows and movies, but since I don't see them until they are about to expire on Hulu, they are really out of date.  That being said, this year I decided to try out a few new NBC shows, mostly because they expire first on my Hulu.  It's pretty much how I determine most of what I watch.  Anyway, I figured I would test drive Go On, The New Normal, and Revolution.  My expectations going into each series were pretty low.  I expected to see Go On as another failed post-Friends cast member series, which didn't look very appealing at all, the New Normal, as a Modern Family knock off, which it probably is, and Revolution as another attempt to recreate Lost magic.
    

Go On

Go On actually is a strange mix, in my mind, of Community and sentimentality.  The group element is apparent with Matthew Perry playing the Joel McHale role of too cool for the group, but sees he might be a leader, but finally sees that he needs the group as much as anyone else.  However, Go On has the twist of this being a support group and Matthew Perry's character is trying to overcome the death of his wife.  I'm not sure if the mix works well.  There are many interesting characters in the support group as well as John Cho (Harold and Kumar) and Allison Miler (Terra Nova) who make up Perry's work unit.  Most of these characters seem like one note quirks, but it seems that there will be more layers added in future episodes.  Like I said before, I'm not sure the mix of comedy and sentimentality works like it did in shows like Scrubs.  The episodes so far seem very formulaic, Perry does something that everyone in the group likes, everything goes horribly wrong, Perry is apologetic with Laura Benati's character (Group therapist) fixing what she told Perry would go wrong, and finally Perry does something inspirational and good for someone in the group. Not that I don't appreciate formula but the first two episodes seemed too similar for me.  Anyway,  I've seen three episodes so far and I'm not sure if I'll continue.  It's loaded in my Hulu queue, but I'll probably let it expire.

The New Normal

This show was the show I was most reluctant to see because I'm not a big Modern Family fan and I heard that this was a knockoff.  After watching, I thought that this series might have the best chance of surviving.  Contrary Go On, this show has a better mix sentimentality and comedy.  The show is driven on Justin Bartha and Andrew Rannells' characters anxiety about become fathers.  These anxieties, at least to me, seems sincere.  Their experience through the pregnancy of their surrogate mother forms a solid storyline for the show. Their support of Georgia King's character, who is carrying their child, forms the emotional center of the show.  The comedy comes from these characters interactions with King's intolerant grandmother played by Ellen Barkin, King's daughter played by Bebe Wood who also provides sweetness and comedy, and  NeNe Leakes, as Andrew Rannells' assistant.  She plays against Rannells inattentiveness and Barkin's racist, homophobic attitude.  That being said, much of the comedy is based on making fun of stereotypes and many of the characters themselves are bordering on stereotypes themselves.  I'm not sure if I'll continue watching, but of the three new series I've seen, this had the most solid base with a good storyline.   

Revolution

I've only seen two episodes of Revolution, but I'm sure to be disappointed.  Revolution is another Lost-style show with a concept, nobody has power and doesn't know why it went out, and a lot of mysteries,  does somebody know how to turn the power on?  I can tell this show is designed to suck you in with mystery after mystery, in which you are continually seeking answers.  I actually like shows with a concept, I thought Terra Nova could have eventually made it even if the first 3/4s of the series weren't great, but I don't know if any storyline in Revolution really holds my interest.  I'm interested vaguely interested to see how they explain the power, but I'm not sure Tracy Spiridakos' journey to find her brother, which is driving the plot right now is a sufficient engine for this vehicle.  Giancarlo Esposito is excellent, but nothing else really stands out.  I can see certain plot lines already developing for better or worse and I'm tempted to cut myself off before I get sucked into too many weak episodes by last minute cliff hangers.    

Bears v. Titans

It was nice to get a easy win before things get tough in the next few weeks with the 7-1 Texans and the 6-2 49ers.  I'm not sure what you can say after a defensive/special teams performance like that.  Other than dominating and wow.

Defense

This was Charles Tillman's game with a team leading 9 tackles to go along with a ridiculous 4 forced fumbles.  Brian Urlacher still showed he could make headlines with 7 tackles, 1 forced fumble, and 1 interception for a touchdown.  But back to Tillman, I'm not sure how you force 4 fumbles in a game, but these were all legit forced fumbles and not some accidental elbow.  It definitely is the most dominant performance by a defensive back and maybe a defender I have ever seen.  When he got the last one in the fourth quarter, it was like this is getting ridiculous.  Anyway, Tillman probably just punched his ticket back to the Pro Bowl this year.

Special Teams 

Special Teams played well and scored the game's first points on a blocked punt by Sherrick McManis and recovered for a touchdown by Corey Wootton.  Hester set up the next touchdown, by almost bringing it back to the 8 yard line for a nice Matt Forte touchdown.  By the way, that TD was great with the whole team pushing Matt Forte across the line.  You can see the video below.  Back to special team, Robbie Gould also had a solid 3 for 3 day, not that it was needed.

Offense

That leaves the only unit that perhaps needs more polish.  As seen in the video above, the offensive line looks pretty good when moving forward, but gets in trouble when moving backwards, pass protecting. Cutler was sacked 3 times and there was a safety called on a J'Marcus Webb penalty in the endzone.  The offense did look good in the run averaging 4.4 yards per carry, which includes a few Jason Campbell kneel downs.  (By the way, I guess Lovie instituted the mercy rule after the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter by having Armando Allen run the ball every single time, even on the Titans 10 yard line on fourth down.)  On passing plays, the pocket always seemed to close early on Cutler.  Whereas early in the season, Cutler may have been holding the ball for too long, it was apparent in this game that the pocket constantly constricting.  Cutler and Marshall did connect on three pretty impressive pass touchdowns to put this game into cruise control.  Watching these connections only shows hints at the potential the Bears have to put together a pretty decent offensive unit with threats on the ground and through the air.

Final Thoughts

Well the time is now.  With the Texans and Niners coming up in the next two weeks, we'll find out what this Bears team is all about.  Since the beginning of this season, we knew time was running out and the window was closing on this aging defense.  While it hasn't shown on the field too much, we can all assume that these defenders if not this year than in the near future are going to be past their primes.  These next two weeks will tell us what we can expect against two of the league's best.

I honestly believe this team has the talent to win a Super Bowl.  While in past seasons, I thought the Bears could get lucky and go on a hot streak, like the Giants did last year, I believe team has the talent to be true Super Bowl contender.  If they play up to it, is a different question.  Unfortunately, I'll miss all if not most of the game next week, so I'll have to wait to watch the Niners game.

Davis Square at Night

Bears v. Panthers

Talk about winning ugly.  I guess if you are going to have a bad game do it against a 1-5 team.  In a lot of ways this game mirrored the Lions game in reverse.  In the Lions game, it felt as if the Bears were always in control, but the score never reflected it.  In this game it felt as though the Bears kept trying to give this game away, but the score never reflected it.

For most of the 1st Quarter, it looked like the Bears were going to run away with this game, literally.
Running game was gashing the Panthers early on with a lot of nice runs.  Most of them seemed like sweeps to the outside.  Even though the Bears first drive ended in an interception of an under thrown Jay Cutler pass, the offense seemed to move at will.  After the Bears scored on a Matt Forte run, where he pretty much walked into the end zone, you just had the feeling this was going to be a rout.

Then came the sacks and the fumbles and the Bears ended up with 3 first half turnovers and negative passing yardage.  Meanwhile, the Bears defense was letting up too many points.  The Panthers had 3 consecutive scoring drives in the first half, but to the defenses credit, the score remained a reachable 13-7.  Throughout the game, the defense seemed to do just enough to keep the game within reach.  I want to give this group the benefit of the doubt and I'll blame the amount of scoring on the Panthers ability to slowly break down this older Bears defense, due to the offense's lack of ability to give the defense any rest on the sideline.

The offense was completely ineffective most of the game until the last couple drives.  The turning point was the Panthers punt of 6 yards.  After the punt went out of bounds, I just kept staring at the ref who kept on moving up the field until he got to the Panthers 38.  Speaking of special teams, the Panthers made an effort to avoid Hester, and it finally backfired for them on this drive.  For most of the game, Carolina kickoffs limited any return and were more effective when coupled with a Bears offense which couldn't move the ball.  Carolina was more cautious this year than last year when Hester returned a punt on them.  On the Bears side of the ball, Podlesh had a few good punts which pinned the Panthers pretty far into their own territory.  This was important as the Bears were not doing much to change field position throughout the game.

Back to the end of the 4th quarter.  Cutler was able to engineer a drive which started on the Panthers 38 and ended with a 12 yard pass to Kellen Davis for a Touchdown.  Cutler was mostly in the shotgun on this drive.  On the next Panthers possession, Cam Newton passed it to a wide open Tim Jennings for an interception return.  I couldn't believe it when it happened.  You have to remember, I'm seeing the game at a bar in Somerville, which is playing the Patriots game so I'm listening to Patriot game audio.  At the time, nothing was really happening in the Patriots game so for such a swing to happen was shocking.  I remember thinking, "Wait, we are up now?"  On the play, Steve Smith slipped and fell, leaving Tim Jennings an open interception and route to the end zone.  Better lucky than good.

The drama wasn't over as the Bears went for two and Cutler was intercepted.  I didn't know the NFL rule about converting 2 points and thought that the Panthers had just taken a two point lead on us, until someone at the bar said don't worry about it.  Remember, I can't hear the audio so it wasn't clear what had happened when they went to commercial.  The Panthers on the ensuing possession were able to drive down the field and kick a field goal to retake the lead.  In my mind, this was the biggest disappointment as I had hoped the Bears defense would be able to stop the Panthers in the clutch.  But once again, maybe they were just gassed.

When the Bears got the ball back I had a bad feeling.  I thought of multiple games in 2009, especially the Green Bay game and the Atlanta game, where Cutler had the opportunity to complete the two minute drill and put in the game winning score, in both cases the Bears lost. A lot of time has passed since then but the memory remains.  I previously have doubted the offense's ability to win games.  This seems like a front running offense good with the lead, questionable without it.  But Cutler and the offense proved me wrong and came through in the end of a game which the Bears should not have won.      

Last week, I said, "I don't think we'll learn much more against the 1-5 Panthers.  We'll hopefully only learn that the Bears are a veteran team that will take care of the games they are supposed to win." That was mostly true, but if we did learn something out of this stinker, it is that the offense can win a game in the end.  In the greater scheme of the game, the offense did not win the game, in fact it merely saved a game it almost threw away, but the offense, led by Cutler, was able to muster the necessary points in the 4th quarter; first with a TD then with Robbie Gould's game winning field goal as time expired. 

Bears v. Lions

I should be happier about a win, but I just can seem to get over the fact that we now know what kind of team this is.  It's as if the Lions game confirmed everything I suspected about this team.  This is a team that will be limited by its offense and defined by its defense.  Its a team that is led by defense and supported by offense.  In the spirit, but not the quote, of a former Cardinals/Vikings coach, "They are who we thought they weren't, and they almost had us hooked".  I feel like a broken record, but the expectations for this team were supposed to be blossoming offense and a defense which is holding the dam together.  Instead, the offense struggles with consistency and the defense has nearly proven the Lovie Smith "Bend, but not break" theory of sound defense.    

Bears Defense

Let's face it, this defense is good.  Currently, the Bears lead the league in points per game (13.9), takeaways (21), defensive TDs (5),  and rushing defense (71 yards per game).  7 points and 4 turnovers, pretty much tell the story, but the Bears still gave up 340 yards (see Bend, not break theory). In first quarter the Bears dominated on both sides of the ball.  For the rest of the game, they were able to stop the Lions on defense whenever ever they got close to the endzone.  One time literally at the endzone.   The defense played spectacular bend, but not break, however it would have been a different story if the Lions weren't so fumble happy and were able to put in a few field goals to make it more interesting at the end of the game.  

Bears Offense

Let's just call it enough at this point.  The Bears are decent in the run game, but underperforming in scoring.  It seems like they can move the ball by running, but tend to falter before the end zone or Gould-kicking zone.  

296 yards against the Lions isn't bad and with a solid run game of the 171 yards on the ground, the Bears did enough to win the time of possession battle 34:25 to 25:25.  It would be nice to see Cutler have more than 150 yards passing.  Right now this is a team that will beat you, but it won't stomp on you.  The reason for that is an offense which can't throw the final punch.  The defense provided plenty of opportunities  for the offense to put it a way with a TD, but the Bears had to settle for Robbie Gould field goals instead.  I get the feeling like the this team is underperforming when it comes to putting points on the board.

I don't think we'll learn much more against the 1-5 Panthers.  We'll hopefully only learn that the Bears are a veteran team that will take care of the games they are supposed to win.  The Bears just need to focus and put this one in the win column so we can take a commanding lead in the NFC North

Driving from NY to Boston

2001 Bears

One of my favorite Bears teams was the 2001 Bears.  The 2001 season was a magical season where everything seemed to bounce the Bears way.  The most memorable moments are the Mike Brown games where Brown returned inceptions for touchdowns in consecutive overtime games against the 49ers and Browns at Soldier Field. There's more on these comeback games later on at the bottom of the post and check down there, because these clips are even more remarkable when watched in the context of the rest of the game.  I posted the following video last week, but the best thing is to watch the fans.  I can only imagine how great it would have been to be there and how much the old Soldier Field was rockin'.  

There was also the Keith "Tractor" Traylor interception return, which was a pretty funny play, but also an extremely smart, athletic play by Traylor.  First, he recognizes the screen.  Then, he has the ability to tip the ball and catch it, while falling backwards.  Next, he breaks two tackles and the rest, well is not too athletic, and probably is the slowest interception return in history.

After looking closer and trying to remember those games, it's clear 2001 was a season of change.  The 2001 season was the last season in front of the colonnades, before the spaceship landed in the middle of the current Soldier Field.  2001 was also the last season of the old NFC Central and the loss of the Buccaneers as a division rival.  2001 was the beginning of the current Patriots dynasty, with Tom Brady taking over for an injured Drew Bledsoe.  He would lead the underdog Patriots all the way to the Super Bowl and past the heavily (extremely heavily) favored Rams.  2001, of course, was also when 9-11 happened, which set a different tone for the entire country and delayed Week 2 games.

2001 was a season of change inside the Bears too.  Personnel director Mark Hatley left and Bears President Ted Philips hired Jerry Angelo, who would remake the team.  In 2000, the Bears offense featured Cade McNown at QB, James Allen and Curtis Enis at running back, and Marcus Robinson at wide receiver.  Brian Urlacher and Mike Brown were promising rookies.  In 2001, the Bears offense featured the QB tandem of Shane Mathews and Jim Miller, the Rookie of the Year Anthony Thomas (a Hatley pick), and a new deep threat in Marty Booker who had 100 catches after only 47 the year before.  The defense was literally anchored by Ted Washington and Keith Traylor.  The immovable wall, listed at 365 and 340 respectively, shut down the inside of the line and allowed linebackers Brian Urlacher (90 tackles), Roosevelt Colvin (10.5 sacks), and Warrick Holdman (95 tackles) to move unblocked throughout the field.  

The previous season, the Bears had trudged through a 5-11 season and most people didn't expect much better out of this team.  But the 2001 Bears, somehow finished 13-3, behind a remarkable defense, a rookie running back (A-Train 1183 yards), a new offensive threat in Miller to Booker, and a never give up attitude.  Here's a good recap from I assume NFL Films.  It's long, but a good trip down memory lane.

Improbable Comebacks:
Below are clips from ESPN from each of the comeback games.  It's notable both games started with an sack/fumble recovery by the 49ers/Browns for a TD and ends with a Mike Brown TD in overtime.  Be sure to watch the Browns game which is truly remarkable.  The Bears pull off a miracle after being down 21-7 with under a minute left in the game.  The Bears came back with a Marty Booker touchdown with 33 seconds left, a onside recovery, and a Shane Matthews Hail Mary to James Allen which is caught after being tipped.  Of course, in overtime Mike Brown would return an interception for a touchdown.

San Francisco Game (It's great watching TO miss the ball fearing an Urlacher hit, which results in Brown's interception)

Cleveland Game

Bears v. Jaguars

I didn't see most of the Cowboys game and I only caught the last ten minutes or so because I was traveling back to Boston, so I didn't write a review last week.

I saw all of the Jaguars game on Sunday and it looked like Bears outplayed the Jaguars for 3 of 4 quarters.  The 1st Quarter the Bears seemed to be the more dominate team, but the score just didn't show it.  They were able go on a 6-minute drive to the Jacksonville 14, but could only manage a Robbie Gould field goal.  At the end of the 1st Quarter and in the 2nd Quarter, the Jaguars had some success driving the ball and were able to get into Bears territory twice.  One ended up in a field goal, the 2nd time was saved by a Corey Wootton forced fumble.  (I was thinking the bend not break worked again).  At the end of the first half, I gave 1st Quarter to the Bears and the 2nd Quarter to the Jags.  The offense seemed to able to run the ball well and Cutler was finding an open Kellen Davis in a couple key situations, but the offense seemed unable to finish any drive.  The defense seemed to be giving up too much yardage, and it didn't seem like they could get off the field in 3rd Down situations.  In the two long drives the Jaguars had in the 1st Half, Jacksonville went 5 for 6 on 3rd Down.  That being said the score at halftime was still 3-3.

The tone was set by the offense on the first drive which lasted 9 minutes, 17 plays, and only resulted in a field goal, but had to take some toll on the Jaguars' defense in the 100 degree heat (which is hard to imagine this time of year).  At the time a 6-3 lead seemed tenuous, especially since MJD had gone off for a couple nice runs in the 1st half.  Charles Tillman changed that with a repeat performance, taking a QB-WR miscued interception to the end zone.  It was disastrous beginning to the 2nd half as the Jaguars' first two possessions consisted of 2 penalties, 1 interception, 1 sack, 1 incompletion, and 1 completion for 5 yards.

After the Tillman pick, the tide had clearly turned.  The Bears, after another uninspired Jags drive, were able to ram it down the field behind Michael Bush and ended up with Alshon Jeffrey TD.  The next Bears possession, it was Forte's turn as he nearly single-handedly drove the Bears down the field for a Brandon Marshall TD.  At this point, it was pretty much game over, but Lance Briggs put an exclamation mark on it by returning another interception for a TD.  It was the first time in NFL history where teammates return TDs in consecutive weeks.  Of course, I was thinking Mike Brown from 2001 in consecutive weeks.

Of course, that was a lot more exciting because of how and when it happened.  After the Briggs TD, the only highlights left was the Armando Allen TD.          

Bears Defense

Obviously, the defense came up big again only letting up 3 points, 189 yards, and with 2 TDs of their own.  Anytime your defense outscores your opponent's offense its going to be a pretty good day.  If I am to nitpick, the defense probably would have wanted to get to Gabbert more often during the game and improve on their 3rd Down percentage in the first half.  

The defense also provided momentum changing plays.  The first was the sack-fumble by Wootton.  At the time the Jaguars were driving, well into field goal range, on the Bear 21.  It was their 2nd drive of the half that they had come the length of the field.  With only 2 minutes left, the Bears faced the possibility of going into halftime down 6-3 after a made field goal.  Corey Wootton made sure it didn't happen.  

In the 2nd half, after a Bears field goal making the score 6-3, Tillman comes up big with a pick-6, making the score 13-3, and beginning the rout.    

Bears Offense

As in past games, the Bears running game was effective, setting the stage for later success through the air.  Forte rushed for 107 yards, averaging 4.9 yards per carry, while Michael Bush rushed for 26 yards on 4 carries.  Brandon Marshall had huge day with 12 receptions for 144 yards and 1 TD.  Cutler went to Kellen Davis early in the game, but didn't connect after that.  Alshon Jeffery had a nice TD reception late in the game on a slant where Jeffery got the inside position by sealing the corner from the ball and making the TD a slam dunk.  The offensive line performed well, opening up holes for Forte and Bush, while also providing sufficient pass protection.  Carimi seemed to have a bad game however, getting called for multiple penalties and giving up a sack.  

My one thought on the offense, is that they don't seem to be able to carry the team.  In the past two weeks, the offense has been unable to capture the lead until the defense has provided the momentum shift.  After the Bears have captured the lead, it seems that the offense gets on track and everything starts clicking.  This is a front running offense, we saw last week against Dallas.  In St. Louis, it was a 13-6 game until a Major Wright interception blew it wide open.  It would be nice, and it would greatly improve my confidence in this team, to see the offense take the lead without the defense providing the game changing lift.      

Next week's a bye, but I might have an idea for a Bears post next week.  

Bears v. Rams

Well after a long absence I'm back and this time from Boston.  I'm hoping to write a bunch more so check back often.

First off, this was my first Bears game in Boston.  Luckily, I found a bar around the corner that plays every NFL game.  It was actually kinda exciting being in a bar with so many people watching different games.  You'd hear cheers and shouts randomly and glance over to see the Redskins, Colts or Bills make good on a play.  It made me wonder if how much excitement is happening across the country at any one moment as a reaction to a play.  Its incredible to stop and think of millions of fans watching in separate homes and cities having the same emotional, shared response at the same time.   Now onto the game.

There were no huge moments in this game compared to the other games around the NFL this week.  (Packers, Lions)  The Bears won this game the old-fashioned way or at least the old-fashioned Lovie Smith way; with great defensive play and a serviceable offense.  The Bears defense kept them in this game while the offense did just enough not to lose.  This is a familiar storyline that was not supposed to be replayed again this season.  But after two below average to dismal games for the Bears passing attack, its a replay of the Lovie Smith Bears.  The excitement is now gone, but the potential is still there.    We are hanging for dear life on to that offensive attack the Colts which produced 314 yards and 2 TDs through the air.  

Bears Defense

Let's start with the good.  The defense won this game for the Bears.  In the 1st half, they played according to plan.  The Bears let up small gains and closed out the Rams on 3rd downs.  The Rams were 3 for 13 on 3rd Down.  They were also able to get consistent pressure on Bradford.  Particularly, Okoye had a nice sack in the 1st quarter where he clearly beat his man on a four-man rush.  Besides Okoye, its seemed like the rotation of D-Linemen got the job done from Peppers to Paea to the rookie McClellin to Idonije.  By the way, I could have sworn a I saw a play were McClellin played standing up in a more linebacker position at the end of the half, but I could be wrong.  Briggs had another solid game, including a play where he shed a lineman's block to make a stop.

I'm also launching my official Tim Jennings Pro Bowl campaign.  By my count he has 4 interceptions and 2 deflections for interceptions.   Obviously there's still a lot of football to be played, but he gets my pick for Pro Bowl right now.  On an odd note, Peppers had an uncharacteristic personal foul penalty which extended the drive.  If it wasn't Peppers I'd be angry, but Peppers has been so good its hard to remember he's a Bear.  I guess I just have an assumption that all-star free agent pickups are supposed to fail for the Bears.

Bears Offense

Again, lets start with the good.  I thought Michael Bush and the offensive line played well when rushing the ball.  It seemed like they had early success running the ball, but went away from it.  Early in the game the Bears seemed to barely string together drives and were able to put up a less than inspiring 3 points.  It seemed like the Bears realized that they should have been running the ball more and finally ran the ball and used screens in a 7 minute drive in the 2nd quarter.  This helped them when the time of possession game in the first half.   It's hard to believe Bush only had 55 yards on 18 carries, because the running game seemed much more effective.  The Bears also made good use of a couple screens and rookie Evan Rodriguez seemed to make some key blocks like he did Week 1.

That leaves the bad which is pretty much the passing game.  Both Cutler and the receivers deserve blame here.  Cutler was off the mark all day and the receivers dropped ball when the should have been caught.

Game Thoughts

This game seemed closer than it should have been against a sub par opponent.  So who is this team after three games.  Well, better than average, but not elite yet.  The Dallas game will tell us more.  

As for this week, the team relied too much on the defense.   It looked as though the Rams could win the game by defensive attrition when they were down 10-6, but the defense was able to seal the victory with a couple late interceptions and sacks.  Like they had all game, the defense gave up some small gains, but in the end were able to make the key plays when it mattered.    

     

Iowa

I've been a bit busy recently so I haven't really thought of what to do for a post, but I was in Iowa this weekend so here's a bunch of Iowa stuff.   If you're interested, here's a bunch of places I was at this weekend.  Des Moines Farmer's Market.  Celebrasian.  Machine Shed Restaurant.

This was kinda of cool too.  Read the article.  This happened last month.  

Iowa fight song for a certain somebody I know.  

Here's a list of famous Iowans.  Herbert Hoover, John Wayne, Ashton Kutcher, Elijah Wood, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Glenn Miller headline the list.  

Here's a list of historical events in Iowa.  As you can see nothing too historical has ever taken place in Iowa. 

How did come to this?

That's the question I asked myself during the closing minutes of Game 3 as I watched everyone clear the lane waiting for John Lucas III to breakdown the 76ers defense.  How did the season get to the point where playoff aspirations are put on the back of a 5-11 third string point guard?  This is how you lose to the eight seed when you are the one seed.  Just last week I still expected the Bulls to advance to the conference finals.  Now that seems like a pipe dream.

The Players
Last week I said we need to see Deng and Watson step up.  Well they haven't.  In Game 2, Deng had 8 points and Watson had 12.  In Game 3, Watson was scoreless and Deng had 5 points.  In Game 4, Watson came alive in the 2nd half to score 17, while Deng still had only 11.  Boozer stepped up in Game 4, with 23 points, but couldn't convert when it was needed.  (Well then there's this too.)    Noah upped his game in Game 2 and 3 until he got hurt and never should came back into the game.  Neither Korver or Lucas has provided that much of a spark off the bench.

The Games 
Here's just a quick recap of why I think the Bulls have lost the last three games:
Game 2 - Horrible 3rd Quarter, not really sure why they came out so flat
Game 3 - Nobody stepped up at the end of the game when they needed somebody to start hitting shots down the stretch
Game 4 - Fought well, but again nobody made shots down the stretch when they needed it.  The Bulls also got hosed on the foul calls at the end of the game.  (Short rant - Boozer gets hit with some pretty severe contact when he was taking it to the rim with about a minute left.  On the next play down, a foul is called on a questionable bump on Jrue Holiday.  Next the Bulls try and intentionally foul, but nothing is called until there is a call on Asik as the shot clock is expiring.  While there was probably a foul on Asik with the body, it was less of a foul than on Boozer and the refs didn't give the Bulls an intentional foul earlier in the possession.  Anyways, rant over.)

Bottom line is nobody stepped up in the crunch.  So this is where we are, facing elimination without our MVP and starting center.  Beyond that, they lack any confidence.  The regular season Bulls would have reeled teams in if they fell behind or beat them up my halftime.  This seems like a team which looks lost on the offensive end.  It's a team looking for someone instead of being that someone.  The only good signs have been that Watson seemed to come alive at the end of the game after being completely lost the last 6 quarters or so and the defense has been there in the past two games.  The Bulls just need to get a few baskets down the stretch or its "wait 'til next year" time.