This blog would have been done last week, but a few other topics caught my eye a lot more. Major League Baseball has four players heading into the Hall of Fame in July. Two of which seemed like obvious choices and the other two with question marks.
The biggest is Mariano Rivera, the first unanimous choice. He was a starter for the Yankees back in 1995, became a set up relief pitcher in 96 and became the full time closer in 97. The stats are through the roof. With over 650 saves, just above 2 runs given up a game and a multitude of many stats, he really shined. Obviously, there are some bad moments, but that's a given. He had a very lethal cutter pitch and he was about as lights out in the playoffs as you can get. You can see why he was worthy of unanimous.
Mike Mussina is more stat based and longevity, but it works. A 1991 rookie, he spent 18 years, climbing his way to some pretty good numbers as an Oriole and Yankee. He could get you out in many ways. Consistent, and very reliable, he became crucial to key moments, mainly his time with the Yankees. He put up 270 wins, over 2,800 strike outs, and over 3,500 innings. The 3.68 career earned run average might be a little high, but consider who he had to deal with during the 90s and 2000s. He was in the later years of eligibility, but the timing was right for him to get in.
Roy Halladay is someone I really question. And I hate to disparage the late pitcher, but his stats don't scream Hall of Fame. After a rough four years to begin his career in 1998, he started to show what he was made of 2003. Other than a few years with injury, the next seven years were special for the Toronto Blue Jays. He had a few years in Philadelphia following the 09 season and started off strong and then faded away around 2012 and 13. The Cy Young awards help a bit. His no hitter in the 2010 playoffs gets him a few extra points. One thing you do have to give credit is the 67 complete games. Otherwise his numbers aren't anywhere impressive. He's comparable to Pedro Martinez, but way worse than Martinez. Winning 203 games, over 2,100 strike outs, over 2,700 innings pitched. I think it was a tough sell, but his sudden death over a year ago, could be a bit of a factor. I don't know. I can't judge on what the writers were thinking, but Halladay's numbers are not anywhere impressive.
Designated hitters are something that is questioned on Hall of Fame credibility. Edgar Martinez had to live with that stigma. After a few years of not playing much, he showed up with decent numbers in 1990 and enjoyed the next three years before a bad injury in 93. After the strike year of 94, he would enjoy a good seven year run, crushing the ball and being a big contributor to the Seattle Mariners. He would struggle a little bit in his later years, but showed his worth until finishing in 2004. The numbers don't strike as impressive, but I think his later years are what I see as the reason for the Hall of Fame. Overall, it's over 2,200 hits with just over 300 home runs. He always found ways to get on base and either get RBI's or score himself. He certainly is one of those guys who people will be split on whether he's worthy. However, I think it will pave the way for designated hitters getting a chance. David Ortiz in a few years will make people's heads spin, and he has a lot more better stats than Martinez.
Even with my criticism of Halladay and Martinez, it's still not a bad class. All four had their chances to be in the spotlight for many moments in their careers. No doubt, this will be a big crowd. But I got a feeling next year will bring even more people.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Busting Feel Good?
Only in the last few days have I heard about this, and it's interesting to see this as something to come out. The neighborhoods are going to be strange as a new Ghostbusters movie is looking to be ready. The expectation is for it to release in the summer next year. Potential hype could be through the roof as it is set within the ones released in the 80s.
It's being done by Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, who directed the 80s ones. Within a 15 year period, he has done at least three movies with screenwriter Diablo Cody with various amounts of success. He's written a few himself that have been moderate to huge hits. Whether he can turn Ghostbusters around is another story. The mere fact about this one has pissed off the 2016 star, Leslie Jones. Regarding the trailer, it's just a teaser and it doesn't really reveal much. Unless I'm missing something, here's a few things on why the 2016 one isn't getting a sequel.
First, expectations were very low. Even a year before it, Ghostbusters 2016 was met with a lot of hate. From the casting to what they were aiming for, it turned off more than just geeks. Second, even though it was well received by critics, it ultimately has been turned off by lots of audiences despite making 128 million domestically. That cast overall is not a crowd pleaser. Last was the amount of money it lost. It had a 144 million dollar budget. Advertising and the low amount of box office worldwide at just below 230 mil certainly didn't make executives pleased.
People have been begging for a third Ghostbusters movie for a long time. Now, the 2009 video game is that, but an actual movie was far from reality. Too many delays, casting, and a few other issues kept coming into play. It's hard to judge now since we haven't heard anything yet. I got a feeling we will see a full trailer sometime in the fall or winter to get audiences hyped. The name can be a money maker when treated right. Has 30 plus years been too long? It could be. For now, all we can do is speculate. Too early to make a judgement call like Jones is and too early to know if this film will even come out next year. An actual trailer will put those doubts to rest when that day comes.
It's being done by Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, who directed the 80s ones. Within a 15 year period, he has done at least three movies with screenwriter Diablo Cody with various amounts of success. He's written a few himself that have been moderate to huge hits. Whether he can turn Ghostbusters around is another story. The mere fact about this one has pissed off the 2016 star, Leslie Jones. Regarding the trailer, it's just a teaser and it doesn't really reveal much. Unless I'm missing something, here's a few things on why the 2016 one isn't getting a sequel.
First, expectations were very low. Even a year before it, Ghostbusters 2016 was met with a lot of hate. From the casting to what they were aiming for, it turned off more than just geeks. Second, even though it was well received by critics, it ultimately has been turned off by lots of audiences despite making 128 million domestically. That cast overall is not a crowd pleaser. Last was the amount of money it lost. It had a 144 million dollar budget. Advertising and the low amount of box office worldwide at just below 230 mil certainly didn't make executives pleased.
People have been begging for a third Ghostbusters movie for a long time. Now, the 2009 video game is that, but an actual movie was far from reality. Too many delays, casting, and a few other issues kept coming into play. It's hard to judge now since we haven't heard anything yet. I got a feeling we will see a full trailer sometime in the fall or winter to get audiences hyped. The name can be a money maker when treated right. Has 30 plus years been too long? It could be. For now, all we can do is speculate. Too early to make a judgement call like Jones is and too early to know if this film will even come out next year. An actual trailer will put those doubts to rest when that day comes.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Quick Super Bowl LIII Thoughts
Another Super Bowl. This is going to be very quick as I don't think there is much in terms of advantage.
As a whole, both the LA Rams and New England Patriots have big ground games. Backs that can also play receiver quite well. The receiving corps on both sides will compliment the quarterbacks quite well and the lines will protect and create those holes tremendously. On defense, I think it's a different story.
I believe the edge goes to the Rams. They have the ability to figure things out and then put up a much better job in the second half than they do early on. Even with the Patriots having a strong offense, that defense has been putrid in the 4th quarter this postseason. That doesn't mean they are capable of playing defense, but they will have their hands full with the handfuls of playmakers the Rams have.
My thought: Rams win 30 to 24. Both teams will get plenty of points. Who do you think has the edge?
As a whole, both the LA Rams and New England Patriots have big ground games. Backs that can also play receiver quite well. The receiving corps on both sides will compliment the quarterbacks quite well and the lines will protect and create those holes tremendously. On defense, I think it's a different story.
I believe the edge goes to the Rams. They have the ability to figure things out and then put up a much better job in the second half than they do early on. Even with the Patriots having a strong offense, that defense has been putrid in the 4th quarter this postseason. That doesn't mean they are capable of playing defense, but they will have their hands full with the handfuls of playmakers the Rams have.
My thought: Rams win 30 to 24. Both teams will get plenty of points. Who do you think has the edge?
Friday, January 25, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
New Orleans v. NFL
While the AFC game could change how overtime goes, the NFC game of the NFL has reached boiling points and higher. Referees being moved from their hotel to another location. A city in shellshock and quite the anger that the Louisiana governor sent a letter to Roger Goodell. And now a lawsuit.
There is a rule in the NFL handbook that allows a game to be re-done at a certain point if the circumstances are worthy of that. Goodell could have the power to do that. On the one hand, it did sort of affect the outcome. For New Orleans, they could have had a chance to burn the clock a lot and kick a field goal, leaving the LA Rams very little time. On the other side of the equation, never underestimate that a team can win with 20 seconds left on the clock and force overtime.
Obviously, that pass interference that could have been was a huge missed call for the Saints. I feel bad a little bit for them. Unfortunately, they got the ball first in overtime, something people are forgetting. The refs didn't make Drew Brees throw that costly interception that led to the Rams game winner to go to the Super Bowl.. If the Saints won, we wouldn't be hearing a tenth of the venom we're seeing now. There's probably a few other things, but ultimately, this lawsuit is not going to stick.
I'll be surprised if anything happens, but the Saints have nothing to blame but themselves outside of that penalty. Their running game didn't show up. Brees didn't exactly have a great game. They blew an early 13 point lead. They didn't come prepared to win it all and make a stance like they did against Philadelphia. Louisiana and New Orleans fans can cry all they want. This is not going to materialize and the way the fans have been about the refs have got to stop. We can be critical, but let's not get to the point where they feel threatened.
There is a rule in the NFL handbook that allows a game to be re-done at a certain point if the circumstances are worthy of that. Goodell could have the power to do that. On the one hand, it did sort of affect the outcome. For New Orleans, they could have had a chance to burn the clock a lot and kick a field goal, leaving the LA Rams very little time. On the other side of the equation, never underestimate that a team can win with 20 seconds left on the clock and force overtime.
Obviously, that pass interference that could have been was a huge missed call for the Saints. I feel bad a little bit for them. Unfortunately, they got the ball first in overtime, something people are forgetting. The refs didn't make Drew Brees throw that costly interception that led to the Rams game winner to go to the Super Bowl.. If the Saints won, we wouldn't be hearing a tenth of the venom we're seeing now. There's probably a few other things, but ultimately, this lawsuit is not going to stick.
I'll be surprised if anything happens, but the Saints have nothing to blame but themselves outside of that penalty. Their running game didn't show up. Brees didn't exactly have a great game. They blew an early 13 point lead. They didn't come prepared to win it all and make a stance like they did against Philadelphia. Louisiana and New Orleans fans can cry all they want. This is not going to materialize and the way the fans have been about the refs have got to stop. We can be critical, but let's not get to the point where they feel threatened.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019
NFL Championship Controversy 2019
No doubt, the Championship games for the NFL were thrilling, but at a cost. On the NFC side, one blatantly missed call made the outcome a lot worse. The AFC one is where the rules are being criticized and potentially called for bias. These are going to be discussed through the year until September.
New Orleans found themselves with a very good team this year. I thought this was going to be the team representing the NFC for the Super Bowl. Last year, it was on them for the whiff against Minnesota. A missed call on the LA Rams very late in the game changed how the Rams were able to tie and eventually win. The refs admit they blew it, and the city of New Orleans is very steamed. There are small calls that are often missed, but this is why refs are more criticized by not just fans, but players. That is evident in baseball with guys like Angel Hernandez and Joe West. Regardless, there probably will be talk about how to handle penalties. Error or no error, we can't see this determine the fate of two teams.
I'd say the AFC had a few missed calls, but nothing to the level of the NFC. However, rules can be looked in regards to overtime. For a match up of the ages and for one to live up to the hype, Kansas City not getting the ball is a travesty. And I think that's why people are peeved about the coin toss determining who wins. I'd say the same would apply if New England didn't get the ball. It's a lose lose situation. Fans are going to be split on how things should go. A reason it's getting criticized now because it's a one sided affair. With a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, it shouldn't be determined by a coin toss.
The rules will be looked at. Here's how I think they should do overtime. At least in the playoffs. You have to treat it somewhat like college football. Both teams get a chance to have possession. I'd keep the field goal stuff the same. Both score three points, the next score wins. I would apply that to the touchdowns. Both score equal points barring missed extra points, it becomes sudden death with the next score ending the game. I think there should be exceptions. A safety, interception, or fumble where the defense gets points or the opposing team scores on the drive following the turnover, ends the game. Missed extra points end the game if the score isn't equaled. Blocked kicks on field goals and punts where they score ends it.
There's a lot to it, but I believe the league will look into the overtime rules. We could see change heading into next season. As far as the New Orleans situation, there's not much that can be done. Maybe an attempt to have quick judging on what is a penalty, but that would frustrate fans and broadcasters with numerous delays. The games were exciting, but the backlash will amount, regardless of who wins the Super Bowl.
New Orleans found themselves with a very good team this year. I thought this was going to be the team representing the NFC for the Super Bowl. Last year, it was on them for the whiff against Minnesota. A missed call on the LA Rams very late in the game changed how the Rams were able to tie and eventually win. The refs admit they blew it, and the city of New Orleans is very steamed. There are small calls that are often missed, but this is why refs are more criticized by not just fans, but players. That is evident in baseball with guys like Angel Hernandez and Joe West. Regardless, there probably will be talk about how to handle penalties. Error or no error, we can't see this determine the fate of two teams.
I'd say the AFC had a few missed calls, but nothing to the level of the NFC. However, rules can be looked in regards to overtime. For a match up of the ages and for one to live up to the hype, Kansas City not getting the ball is a travesty. And I think that's why people are peeved about the coin toss determining who wins. I'd say the same would apply if New England didn't get the ball. It's a lose lose situation. Fans are going to be split on how things should go. A reason it's getting criticized now because it's a one sided affair. With a trip to the Super Bowl on the line, it shouldn't be determined by a coin toss.
The rules will be looked at. Here's how I think they should do overtime. At least in the playoffs. You have to treat it somewhat like college football. Both teams get a chance to have possession. I'd keep the field goal stuff the same. Both score three points, the next score wins. I would apply that to the touchdowns. Both score equal points barring missed extra points, it becomes sudden death with the next score ending the game. I think there should be exceptions. A safety, interception, or fumble where the defense gets points or the opposing team scores on the drive following the turnover, ends the game. Missed extra points end the game if the score isn't equaled. Blocked kicks on field goals and punts where they score ends it.
There's a lot to it, but I believe the league will look into the overtime rules. We could see change heading into next season. As far as the New Orleans situation, there's not much that can be done. Maybe an attempt to have quick judging on what is a penalty, but that would frustrate fans and broadcasters with numerous delays. The games were exciting, but the backlash will amount, regardless of who wins the Super Bowl.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Easier or Harder: Getting Into YouTube
I've been doing YouTube videos for the last eight years. Six from the channel I have now. In that time span, I have seen a lot of stuff happen. Some great things, some terrible ones. Would it be easy now these days to get into doing videos? Or is it a lot tougher now for the content I and others do?
For one thing, Content ID is not as big of a hassle compared to what it was. Now these days, I don't have to worry about some bogus company flagging a video because of music. In 2013, I had just about every Medal of Honor Underground video getting flagged because of the music of Michael Giacchino. Outside of a few companies, (Nintendo in particular) Content ID is nothing to worry about.
However, finding an audience is a tough one. Even some channels that have been around way longer than me have started to decline in viewership. Part of it is content. Old games now these days are not a big interest anymore. There is exceptions, but overall, a lot of focus in new games is the main draw. Personalities as well. Specifically the ones that are more "energetic" and more "emotionally driven" than others who act normal. Even ones that support their channel may not always have it easy. They could be as normal as anyone else in the world with a job and maybe a family.
In my case, a reason I believe I draw views from certain games is because no one is doing them or there aren't as many videos about a certain game. Or maybe a specific thing like a demo of Tekken 2. Or uploading a soundtrack like Pebble Beach Golf Links. What I do is rather niche, but I've carved out an audience that at times like the videos you don't typically see. Especially with sports games.
I would say it's harder to get into YouTube today, but I would try to give it a year or two before either pulling the plug or continuing on. Find what you think an audience would like and get it ready as a video for upload. Don't rush. Be thorough and be sure they are ready for your content.
For one thing, Content ID is not as big of a hassle compared to what it was. Now these days, I don't have to worry about some bogus company flagging a video because of music. In 2013, I had just about every Medal of Honor Underground video getting flagged because of the music of Michael Giacchino. Outside of a few companies, (Nintendo in particular) Content ID is nothing to worry about.
However, finding an audience is a tough one. Even some channels that have been around way longer than me have started to decline in viewership. Part of it is content. Old games now these days are not a big interest anymore. There is exceptions, but overall, a lot of focus in new games is the main draw. Personalities as well. Specifically the ones that are more "energetic" and more "emotionally driven" than others who act normal. Even ones that support their channel may not always have it easy. They could be as normal as anyone else in the world with a job and maybe a family.
In my case, a reason I believe I draw views from certain games is because no one is doing them or there aren't as many videos about a certain game. Or maybe a specific thing like a demo of Tekken 2. Or uploading a soundtrack like Pebble Beach Golf Links. What I do is rather niche, but I've carved out an audience that at times like the videos you don't typically see. Especially with sports games.
I would say it's harder to get into YouTube today, but I would try to give it a year or two before either pulling the plug or continuing on. Find what you think an audience would like and get it ready as a video for upload. Don't rush. Be thorough and be sure they are ready for your content.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Movie + Parkland = Release Date?
Universal has been on a huge tear with horror films the last couple of years. You got the Purge films, Get Out, and a few others. Happy Death Day could be one of their newer franchises. As it ventures on with 2U, it's release date was for Valentine's Day. However, it's been pushed back a day.
It all has to do with last year's Parkland Shooting down in Florida. A gunman killed 18 people at a high school. The most prominent thing out of it was moron David Hogg, and now these days of questioning what could have been done by the cops. A father of one of the victims asked for Universal to change the date for 2U's release. The studio looked at the situation, and Parkland in general. Not only did they move the date a day back, but that area is not going to get it in theaters.
I'm not going to go out of my way to berate the father, but this is kind of stupid. I understand losing his daughter. It was a tragedy, but so was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929. This will be painful to him for the rest of his life, but to be frustrated over a god damn movie's release date? People have forgotten about Parkland and it will be forgotten except for certain anniversaries of the attack. Movies are made for entertainment. It's a way to blow off a couple of hours and forget about your troubles. And the trailer makes it off as a serious version of Groundhog Day, but with little humor in certain scenes.
I do think playing it smart with moving the date is the smart call, however. But people do need to understand holidays and special days will always have tragedies, large or small. A little overreaction if you want my take, but it is something that should not happen every time a massacre occurs.
It all has to do with last year's Parkland Shooting down in Florida. A gunman killed 18 people at a high school. The most prominent thing out of it was moron David Hogg, and now these days of questioning what could have been done by the cops. A father of one of the victims asked for Universal to change the date for 2U's release. The studio looked at the situation, and Parkland in general. Not only did they move the date a day back, but that area is not going to get it in theaters.
I'm not going to go out of my way to berate the father, but this is kind of stupid. I understand losing his daughter. It was a tragedy, but so was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929. This will be painful to him for the rest of his life, but to be frustrated over a god damn movie's release date? People have forgotten about Parkland and it will be forgotten except for certain anniversaries of the attack. Movies are made for entertainment. It's a way to blow off a couple of hours and forget about your troubles. And the trailer makes it off as a serious version of Groundhog Day, but with little humor in certain scenes.
I do think playing it smart with moving the date is the smart call, however. But people do need to understand holidays and special days will always have tragedies, large or small. A little overreaction if you want my take, but it is something that should not happen every time a massacre occurs.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
The Upside Review
Looking at trailers for The Upside, I was expecting along the line of a comedy that was very down to earth. With it's two leads having big runs in non-serious TV shows and films, you would think it a little bit. It has its funny bits, but the core of this is a drama, which some call a dramedy. This has been on the backburner for almost a year because of being bought by Harvey Weinstein and his scandals. All that aside, it's surprsingly good despite it's leads.
In the oddest castings, it pairs Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston. Hart is Dell Scott, a con who has spent serious time in jail. He can't do squat and his ex-wife and son don't want anything to do with him. Finding jobs ain't great, either. Needing signatures, he finds himself at an apartment complex and meets Philip LaCasse, a writer who can't move at all and needs assistance. Dell's out of touch and it makes Philip consider hiring him, which ultimately happens and the two have one of the strangest friendships and relationships from a working point of view.
From what I understand, it's based on a movie called The Intouchables, but I won't go into that since there's so much stuff that gets Americanized and vice versa. At first, it starts off rather goofy with Dell not paying too much attention with taking care of Philip. You see this in a number of comedies. After a while, he gets better at his job, and the two start sharing a bond and shooting the breeze. While his caretaker helps, Philip also has his issues beyond not moving. He has nightmares and some health problems, especially when it comes to his late wife, Jenny. Deep down, him and Dell need each other to get through their good, bad, and tough times.
The editing is to the point and even though it's almost two hours of a runtime, it doesn't feel slow. Hart is surprising in this role. It's not award winning, but to transition to dramatic scenes is worth noting. I'd say the opposite applies to Cranston, though more so with a few jokes and quips. However, he still puts on a solid performance and gives off quite a few emotions. The only other big role of the film is Philip's assistant, Yvonne, played by Nicole Kidman. Don't let her early scenes make you judge her quick. Yvonne is kind of a bitch early on, and rightfully so, but they ease the tension as Dell continues to work and help Philip. Other than that, the rest of the cast is well thought and play to the strengths of Hart and Cranston.
It has that suburban type feel with the cinematography. You get the sense of both Dell and Philip's worlds with where they are throughout the film. They make it a little gritty, but also a down to earth despite both character's situations. This also reflects in the script, and the struggles they endure. There are a couple scenes that are either cringe like or they take a little longer than usual, but there's not much else to talk about. The Upside is not as bad as you would expect. This will surprise you in certain ways. There aren't too many movies of this type for adults at the moment, so this is one you might have to make due with until there's more dramedies.
Score: 7 out of 10
In the oddest castings, it pairs Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston. Hart is Dell Scott, a con who has spent serious time in jail. He can't do squat and his ex-wife and son don't want anything to do with him. Finding jobs ain't great, either. Needing signatures, he finds himself at an apartment complex and meets Philip LaCasse, a writer who can't move at all and needs assistance. Dell's out of touch and it makes Philip consider hiring him, which ultimately happens and the two have one of the strangest friendships and relationships from a working point of view.
From what I understand, it's based on a movie called The Intouchables, but I won't go into that since there's so much stuff that gets Americanized and vice versa. At first, it starts off rather goofy with Dell not paying too much attention with taking care of Philip. You see this in a number of comedies. After a while, he gets better at his job, and the two start sharing a bond and shooting the breeze. While his caretaker helps, Philip also has his issues beyond not moving. He has nightmares and some health problems, especially when it comes to his late wife, Jenny. Deep down, him and Dell need each other to get through their good, bad, and tough times.
The editing is to the point and even though it's almost two hours of a runtime, it doesn't feel slow. Hart is surprising in this role. It's not award winning, but to transition to dramatic scenes is worth noting. I'd say the opposite applies to Cranston, though more so with a few jokes and quips. However, he still puts on a solid performance and gives off quite a few emotions. The only other big role of the film is Philip's assistant, Yvonne, played by Nicole Kidman. Don't let her early scenes make you judge her quick. Yvonne is kind of a bitch early on, and rightfully so, but they ease the tension as Dell continues to work and help Philip. Other than that, the rest of the cast is well thought and play to the strengths of Hart and Cranston.
It has that suburban type feel with the cinematography. You get the sense of both Dell and Philip's worlds with where they are throughout the film. They make it a little gritty, but also a down to earth despite both character's situations. This also reflects in the script, and the struggles they endure. There are a couple scenes that are either cringe like or they take a little longer than usual, but there's not much else to talk about. The Upside is not as bad as you would expect. This will surprise you in certain ways. There aren't too many movies of this type for adults at the moment, so this is one you might have to make due with until there's more dramedies.
Score: 7 out of 10
Monday, January 14, 2019
Who is Cyntoia Brown?
The start of the new year brought forth a compelling release given by the governor of Tennessee. In one of his final moments last week, Bill Haslam commuted a sentence for Cyntoia Brown, who had been in prison for roughly 15 years. A lot of attention was given over the past year about whether she would be released. Even a few celebrities chimed in on it. Come August, she will be a free person. What makes stand out?
Reading the articles, Brown was a teenager when she went to jail in 2004. As a 16-year old, she was a sex slave who was bought by a sex trafficker. It resulted in her shooting and killing the guy. She was brought to court and was given a 51 year sentence for murder. There was a documentary about her eight years ago. That same filmmaker involved, Daniel Birman, is still around and kept eye on all the events happening then and now.
While some will cheer, Tennessee is not giving her a slap on the wrist. They are giving Brown a strict parole sentence. She will be under that supervised for a good length of time. You can't blame them for what they are doing. I do think a 50 year sentence is too much, but the ultimate question is this. Will she go on the right path or will she become a common and career criminal? That's where the lengthy parole comes into play. I wouldn't think she would kill anyone again, but it could happen.
This case will be looked at for years to come. It will be an example of people expressing their thoughts on crimes that either too harsh or were worthy or not worthy of jail. It can also be a case of whether everything was looked at thoroughly and judges' thoughts on it. Not every judge is equal, and there was skeptical thoughts about Brown's time before killing the trafficker. That will be the question that remains until she is gone; cold blood or self defense.
But, let's wait and see until August. I got a feeling we haven't seen the last of Cyntoia Brown.
Reading the articles, Brown was a teenager when she went to jail in 2004. As a 16-year old, she was a sex slave who was bought by a sex trafficker. It resulted in her shooting and killing the guy. She was brought to court and was given a 51 year sentence for murder. There was a documentary about her eight years ago. That same filmmaker involved, Daniel Birman, is still around and kept eye on all the events happening then and now.
While some will cheer, Tennessee is not giving her a slap on the wrist. They are giving Brown a strict parole sentence. She will be under that supervised for a good length of time. You can't blame them for what they are doing. I do think a 50 year sentence is too much, but the ultimate question is this. Will she go on the right path or will she become a common and career criminal? That's where the lengthy parole comes into play. I wouldn't think she would kill anyone again, but it could happen.
This case will be looked at for years to come. It will be an example of people expressing their thoughts on crimes that either too harsh or were worthy or not worthy of jail. It can also be a case of whether everything was looked at thoroughly and judges' thoughts on it. Not every judge is equal, and there was skeptical thoughts about Brown's time before killing the trafficker. That will be the question that remains until she is gone; cold blood or self defense.
But, let's wait and see until August. I got a feeling we haven't seen the last of Cyntoia Brown.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
No Fault. Chicago Was Bad
With the game almost a week since it was played, some criticism is still shed on the Chicago Bears' kicker, Cody Parkey. He ultimately missed on a field goal that was muffed. A Philadelphia Eagle got his hand on the ball and it hit the upright, the crossbar and then back on the field. While the Bears were not angry, a lot more on social media and fans were quick to shun and berate him. The team had more than enough chances to score more than 15 points and to have touchdowns instead of field goals.
Let's not forget either that the run game was dreadful. When your star running back can only muster 35 yards rushing, you sure as hell ain't going to win games. Playoff inexperience is a thing. Mitch Trubisky had a good debut with over 300 yards passing and a touchdown. However, some of these throws did affect the outcome. Some of it on him, some on the receivers. While fans might scream foul on that catch and fumble towards the end of the first half, the refs followed an obscure rule accurately. Trubisky was lucky to not throw interceptions, but a few could have happened.
And there's only so much the defense can do. Surely it is a given that they can rise up to the occasion and what the Bears did was no exception. Unfortunately, you leave them out there for such a long time, fatigue comes into play. Penalties occur, which was what killed the team on one defensive drive. This is mostly the offenses' fault. Even if you're 100 percent, you won't always be 100 percent. And ultimately, that's why Parkey should not be blamed for one play.
It already is a long off-season for Parkey. Chicago fans will not forgive him. They should look at their offensive woes first before even making any shed of criticism.
Let's not forget either that the run game was dreadful. When your star running back can only muster 35 yards rushing, you sure as hell ain't going to win games. Playoff inexperience is a thing. Mitch Trubisky had a good debut with over 300 yards passing and a touchdown. However, some of these throws did affect the outcome. Some of it on him, some on the receivers. While fans might scream foul on that catch and fumble towards the end of the first half, the refs followed an obscure rule accurately. Trubisky was lucky to not throw interceptions, but a few could have happened.
And there's only so much the defense can do. Surely it is a given that they can rise up to the occasion and what the Bears did was no exception. Unfortunately, you leave them out there for such a long time, fatigue comes into play. Penalties occur, which was what killed the team on one defensive drive. This is mostly the offenses' fault. Even if you're 100 percent, you won't always be 100 percent. And ultimately, that's why Parkey should not be blamed for one play.
It already is a long off-season for Parkey. Chicago fans will not forgive him. They should look at their offensive woes first before even making any shed of criticism.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Amazon Drained... In Alimony
The modern Internet has been around for roughly 25 years, more or less. There's still a few companies that have been there from the start. Amazon is one of those examples. Jeff Bezos founded it in 1994 started off small, and it has grown to extremely high levels of success. It is worth billions, especially with all the stuff they have been doing for the last 10 years, trying to be ahead of competition. That could change with the recent divorce announcement.
Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, are going to be getting their divorce. The speculation on why this happened is up in the air. There is thought on some sites that Jeff was cheating and being with a television anchor, Lauren Sanchez. Sanchez was married to Patrick Whitesell a top man at Endeavor Talent Agency. That's a tough thing to discuss right off the bat. It wouldn't stun me if cheating was involved. At the same time, I've read things from time to time about MacKenzie not caring for certain Amazon stuff and having competitor products. Maybe the focus on business was too much for her. Either way, this is a guessing game, so we're going to hear something rather soon in the next 24 hours to possibly a week.
How does this affect Amazon? There could be position changes. It won't be as bad as Papa John's Pizza the last two years, but a shakeup could happen. A lot of settlement stuff is likely to be discussed. I got a feeling MacKenzie will want some of that Amazon money and some of the properties that she and Jeff owned together. As far as company ownings, it could mean millions of shares go to MacKenzie, and that could be a huge effect on the stock.
I'm sure we'll hear more about this. It's funny seeing what Bill Gates has done for the past 25 years with his wife Melinda. Those two have a deep love for each other and the work they do to provide to needy people and to change the world. Even if there is cheating involved, something tells me that there was a rift between Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos before having an affair. Even very long marriages can unravel into a messy separation.
Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, are going to be getting their divorce. The speculation on why this happened is up in the air. There is thought on some sites that Jeff was cheating and being with a television anchor, Lauren Sanchez. Sanchez was married to Patrick Whitesell a top man at Endeavor Talent Agency. That's a tough thing to discuss right off the bat. It wouldn't stun me if cheating was involved. At the same time, I've read things from time to time about MacKenzie not caring for certain Amazon stuff and having competitor products. Maybe the focus on business was too much for her. Either way, this is a guessing game, so we're going to hear something rather soon in the next 24 hours to possibly a week.
How does this affect Amazon? There could be position changes. It won't be as bad as Papa John's Pizza the last two years, but a shakeup could happen. A lot of settlement stuff is likely to be discussed. I got a feeling MacKenzie will want some of that Amazon money and some of the properties that she and Jeff owned together. As far as company ownings, it could mean millions of shares go to MacKenzie, and that could be a huge effect on the stock.
I'm sure we'll hear more about this. It's funny seeing what Bill Gates has done for the past 25 years with his wife Melinda. Those two have a deep love for each other and the work they do to provide to needy people and to change the world. Even if there is cheating involved, something tells me that there was a rift between Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos before having an affair. Even very long marriages can unravel into a messy separation.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Welcome To Marwen Review
With the holidays the last couple of weeks, I haven't had much time to see any films in the theater, but this was on my radar. Welcome to Marwen came off to me as an interesting movie, part of it thanks to Robert Zemeckis. I've loved a number of the director's films that includes Back to the Future, Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump and a few others. It's a surprisingly well made movie that has flopped in theaters. Very unfortunate because Zemeckis' idea of visual effects is done in a way to have a story within a story.
Based on a true story, Steve Carell plays Mark Hogancamp, a man who was brutally attacked by five guys to within an inch of his life. He has no recollection of his past and it's a struggle every day now living in upstate New York. That being said, he does have friends of his own, mostly in women who understand his pain. One thing he has been into is a town he has created called Marwen. A fictional town in Belgium during World War II, he has a version of himself who fights Nazis along with a handful of women, all based on ones he knows personally or during his time recuperating from his attack. He takes pictures to capture what he envisions and has a very active imagination in what he sees out of his piece of paradise.
Zemeckis and Caroline Thompson create these two stories to get the sense of what Hogancamp was feeling at times and what he had with what went on in Marwen. They bring a lot of emotions to the guy. Marwen is his way of coping and making sure no one is to ever get hurt. At the same time, it also brings out the worst as it gives Hogancamp nightmares and painful memories. Almost, it comes off as hallucination with some of the scenes. Also, it does come off as PTSD. Not just when doing things with his fictional town, but having to deal with his attackers in court and hearing about the incident. They don't sugar coat it. They create a deep amount of fear and being scared.
Visually, it doesn't go overboard. It is probably one of Zemeckis' biggest use of special and visual effects in any of his live action efforts since Roger Rabbit and Back to the Future Part II. This isn't used as an excuse. Much like Back to the Future, it adds to the story and makes it less of a popcorn flick. Carell is excellent as Hogancamp. Much of the cast did a great job as well. There is a little bit of comedy every once in a while with the Marwen scenes, but this is purely a drama. And they get their points across without dragging on.
There isn't much to complain about. It may come off as being a little childish, but it's Hogancamp's way of coping and doing other stuff since being attacked. Maybe it's a bit corny at times in the Marwen scenes, but it may or may not be for everyone. If this is still playing in theaters, I would try to see it before they pull it out. Very solid, and I'd say a must watch.
Score: 7.5 out of 10
Based on a true story, Steve Carell plays Mark Hogancamp, a man who was brutally attacked by five guys to within an inch of his life. He has no recollection of his past and it's a struggle every day now living in upstate New York. That being said, he does have friends of his own, mostly in women who understand his pain. One thing he has been into is a town he has created called Marwen. A fictional town in Belgium during World War II, he has a version of himself who fights Nazis along with a handful of women, all based on ones he knows personally or during his time recuperating from his attack. He takes pictures to capture what he envisions and has a very active imagination in what he sees out of his piece of paradise.
Zemeckis and Caroline Thompson create these two stories to get the sense of what Hogancamp was feeling at times and what he had with what went on in Marwen. They bring a lot of emotions to the guy. Marwen is his way of coping and making sure no one is to ever get hurt. At the same time, it also brings out the worst as it gives Hogancamp nightmares and painful memories. Almost, it comes off as hallucination with some of the scenes. Also, it does come off as PTSD. Not just when doing things with his fictional town, but having to deal with his attackers in court and hearing about the incident. They don't sugar coat it. They create a deep amount of fear and being scared.
Visually, it doesn't go overboard. It is probably one of Zemeckis' biggest use of special and visual effects in any of his live action efforts since Roger Rabbit and Back to the Future Part II. This isn't used as an excuse. Much like Back to the Future, it adds to the story and makes it less of a popcorn flick. Carell is excellent as Hogancamp. Much of the cast did a great job as well. There is a little bit of comedy every once in a while with the Marwen scenes, but this is purely a drama. And they get their points across without dragging on.
There isn't much to complain about. It may come off as being a little childish, but it's Hogancamp's way of coping and doing other stuff since being attacked. Maybe it's a bit corny at times in the Marwen scenes, but it may or may not be for everyone. If this is still playing in theaters, I would try to see it before they pull it out. Very solid, and I'd say a must watch.
Score: 7.5 out of 10
Vice (Movie) Review
Back a few years ago, Adam McKay made an adaptation of The Big Short, a story about the housing crisis in the mid 2000s. It was not the biggest hit, but it garnered awards. Vice is making that same kind of impact, though with lesser success critically and commercially. I think it's the subject matter, and with a film on politics and targeting conservatives, you can see where McKay was going.
The whole movie is centered around Dick Cheney. Outside of a brief scene of dealing with September 11th, the first half focuses on the pre-2000 days of him. McKay portrays him as a complete idiot who partied too much and needing to shape up for his wife, Lynne. After that, they show parts of his time being involved with Republicans in the White House. They don't explain too much, and I don't know if either McKay's liberalism is the reason or they didn't go through and see what made Cheney such a figure in being around Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The third be because it's such a long movie, there was some cuts that were made. Either way, they make it out as Cheney working hard and following the ideals of Republicans, particularly with Donald Rumsfeld. A little humor at a few spots, but otherwise, it's serious.
For the second half, it goes on about Cheney being George W. Bush's Vice President. I don't know how accurate Vice is as McKay and company don't know the exact details. He goes in a direction that isn't too surprising. Cheney asks for a bit of power and Bush agrees. Most of the focus is on September 11th and the Iraq war. A couple other things, but overall, those two examples are what they go after. I get Bush was not too great of a President in the eyes of many, but I don't feel like I learned anything about Cheney's power. It feels like they had to rush through some of the parts of the 2000s, trying to cover all the big moments within an allotted time. They make him out as this big monster who could do anything he want. However, some of the stuff and reading some articles, is accurate in some ways.
Throughout the film, there is narration from a normal person and there is a lot of reliance on good and bad images and footage. I guess it's to paint the picture on life and how things go in certain situations. I do think McKay was trying to get the story out there on what Cheney was like. It's a mix of both what actually happened and a bit of a bias on his part. More of the bias being shown in the second half of it, though as mentioned, a bit of it being accurate. Thinking about it now, it does feel like an excuse a little bit to bash Donald Trump. Whether that's intentional, I don't know. I don't blame the mixed reception. It's rather hard to make a political film in today's world.
Christian Bale does a great job portraying Cheney. Amy Adams is fantastic as wife Lynne. Sam Rockwell does a good George Bush in appearance and voice. One strange casting choice is Steve Carell as Rumsfeld. He comes off as a goofball in most of his scenes. I understand Carell is more of a comedy guy doing tons of movies and television shows, but I think they could have done better in finding another person unless they made it that way. Another weird choice is Tyler Perry as Colin Powell. The few scenes of him are very meh.
Vice dances on that fine line of at worst being an okay film and at best, decent to good. It's far from horrible, but the cast made the best of the questionable script. It also dances on that line of being accurate but also having a bit of bias from McKay. Your mileage will vary. If you think it's worth watching, go check out it. If not, then you're not missing too much.
Score: 6 out of 10
The whole movie is centered around Dick Cheney. Outside of a brief scene of dealing with September 11th, the first half focuses on the pre-2000 days of him. McKay portrays him as a complete idiot who partied too much and needing to shape up for his wife, Lynne. After that, they show parts of his time being involved with Republicans in the White House. They don't explain too much, and I don't know if either McKay's liberalism is the reason or they didn't go through and see what made Cheney such a figure in being around Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. The third be because it's such a long movie, there was some cuts that were made. Either way, they make it out as Cheney working hard and following the ideals of Republicans, particularly with Donald Rumsfeld. A little humor at a few spots, but otherwise, it's serious.
For the second half, it goes on about Cheney being George W. Bush's Vice President. I don't know how accurate Vice is as McKay and company don't know the exact details. He goes in a direction that isn't too surprising. Cheney asks for a bit of power and Bush agrees. Most of the focus is on September 11th and the Iraq war. A couple other things, but overall, those two examples are what they go after. I get Bush was not too great of a President in the eyes of many, but I don't feel like I learned anything about Cheney's power. It feels like they had to rush through some of the parts of the 2000s, trying to cover all the big moments within an allotted time. They make him out as this big monster who could do anything he want. However, some of the stuff and reading some articles, is accurate in some ways.
Throughout the film, there is narration from a normal person and there is a lot of reliance on good and bad images and footage. I guess it's to paint the picture on life and how things go in certain situations. I do think McKay was trying to get the story out there on what Cheney was like. It's a mix of both what actually happened and a bit of a bias on his part. More of the bias being shown in the second half of it, though as mentioned, a bit of it being accurate. Thinking about it now, it does feel like an excuse a little bit to bash Donald Trump. Whether that's intentional, I don't know. I don't blame the mixed reception. It's rather hard to make a political film in today's world.
Christian Bale does a great job portraying Cheney. Amy Adams is fantastic as wife Lynne. Sam Rockwell does a good George Bush in appearance and voice. One strange casting choice is Steve Carell as Rumsfeld. He comes off as a goofball in most of his scenes. I understand Carell is more of a comedy guy doing tons of movies and television shows, but I think they could have done better in finding another person unless they made it that way. Another weird choice is Tyler Perry as Colin Powell. The few scenes of him are very meh.
Vice dances on that fine line of at worst being an okay film and at best, decent to good. It's far from horrible, but the cast made the best of the questionable script. It also dances on that line of being accurate but also having a bit of bias from McKay. Your mileage will vary. If you think it's worth watching, go check out it. If not, then you're not missing too much.
Score: 6 out of 10
Monday, January 7, 2019
College Sports Boring? Maybe
Another year, another Alabama college football team in the National Championship. The mere thought of them in the big game again might just be where people get sick of it. But it is also a ratings grabber since they are not always invincible. On the one hand, they do make the sport boring, but there is more excitement in the world of college football.
As far as regular season stuff goes, even the best get beaten. Duke in men's college basketball always has those years where they find themselves losing at least a handful of games and a number of times in the March Madness. There is always the upset that occurs and it drives it to even bigger excitement and intensity. That gut wrenching feeling knowing the impossible can happen and it is a feeling that can drive you to a health problem because of the outcome.
I think the problem lies when it comes to the championship games. That's where people get frustrated at any sport, pro or college or high school. Regardless, it drives viewers and fans away from that. Now, Alabama may be hated, but they get ratings. It's not like Uconn women's basketball where their dominance hurts ratings. Having games like the one against Clemson two years ago is a testament to people living it up in the hatred of Alabama. Look at the North Carolina teams for men's basketball. There is a hate for Duke, North Carolina and NC State. However, it's not like they are the only ones winning championships, and that is what I think helps that sport.
There is probably more sports that have the same problems, but it's much more noticeable in the examples I mentioned. Whether it's boring depends on where the season is and how the tournaments and playoffs go. It might get boring during that time, but never forget that excitement can come from other teams. And that is the drive that makes people enjoy college sports.
As far as regular season stuff goes, even the best get beaten. Duke in men's college basketball always has those years where they find themselves losing at least a handful of games and a number of times in the March Madness. There is always the upset that occurs and it drives it to even bigger excitement and intensity. That gut wrenching feeling knowing the impossible can happen and it is a feeling that can drive you to a health problem because of the outcome.
I think the problem lies when it comes to the championship games. That's where people get frustrated at any sport, pro or college or high school. Regardless, it drives viewers and fans away from that. Now, Alabama may be hated, but they get ratings. It's not like Uconn women's basketball where their dominance hurts ratings. Having games like the one against Clemson two years ago is a testament to people living it up in the hatred of Alabama. Look at the North Carolina teams for men's basketball. There is a hate for Duke, North Carolina and NC State. However, it's not like they are the only ones winning championships, and that is what I think helps that sport.
There is probably more sports that have the same problems, but it's much more noticeable in the examples I mentioned. Whether it's boring depends on where the season is and how the tournaments and playoffs go. It might get boring during that time, but never forget that excitement can come from other teams. And that is the drive that makes people enjoy college sports.
Friday, January 4, 2019
Thursday, January 3, 2019
YouTube Channels I Watch: The Nostalgia Mall
I've been watching YouTube for well over a decade. There have been channels during the time I have subscribed to and have or had grown interest in. One of these is the channel of The Nostalgia Mall, formerly known as Roadgeek. Creator Billy Coore's main focuses are on vintage computers and malls.
I can't pinpoint when I first started watching some of Coore's videos, but they were at least around the early part of this decade. One thing he has always had a love for other than the 90s and a mall that was near his home in Greensboro, North Carolina, is Packard Bell. I think it resonated with me a little bit. When I was a kid way back in 1995-96, the first computer I had (my family, more specifically) was a Packard Bell computer that ran Windows 95. It was our main computer up until 1999. Despite only being a few years younger than Coore, it felt nice to watch videos of some of those Packard Bell videos.
Two videos I'm glad to see that channel upload were the Kidstory games of Milly Fitzwilly's Mousecatcher, and The Pirate Who Wouldn't Wash. It's strange considering no one has done those other than The Nostalgia Mall. A lot of the videos are mostly computer related, a lot of it from between Windows 3.1 and XP with some modern ones. Christmas videos are a plenty with computer games, catalog videos, and a few other knick knacks. Some of his biggest videos include trying AOL in 2015, browsing the Internet via Windows 95 and talking Windows Millennium Edition without trying to bash it as much.
If I had to put a knock on Coore, it's that he is not everybody's cup of tea. Playing devil's advocate for a brief second, a number of the videos will follow a similar format all together. How much patience you have with length is another thing because they go for 20 minutes or longer typically. But here's this. The Nostalgia Mall fills in a niche of talking computers. It may not be Lazy Game Reviews quality, but there is always a bit of love for Packard Bell material.
Article on Retro Junk: https://www.retrojunk.com/article/show/3098/retroputing-packard-bell
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Who Wants to Coach? NFL 2019
As with all end of the season moments in the NFL, there are always the decision to fire a coach. Cleveland and Green Bay did theirs earlier, but add another six to the mix. Decisions will have to be made for Arizona, Denver, Miami, Cincinnati, the New York Jets, and Tampa Bay. Who is going to lead the charge and put those teams back into the glory they used to have.
It didn't surprise me when Cleveland fired Hue Jackson. They were horrible in his tenure, but whatever did after the firing, it worked. With a young group of people playing, they have the potential to be good, barring any setbacks. I though Mike McCarthy would be gone after the season, but a little stunned they did it a few weeks before the season ended. The Packers haven't had a run game in four years. Their receiving is garbage outside of Davante Adams. Defensively, it's a mis mesh of young and veteran players that haven't gelled yet. High standards do play a factor.
Unfair is what I would describe Adam Gase and Vance Joseph. For Gase, he had injury problems every year for the Dolphins. Ryan Tannehill was out half the tenure. Trading Jay Ajayi was a big mistake, though the injury bug got him in Philadelphia. Too many trades and too many issues despite a mediocre season this year. They should have given him one more year. Id probably say the same for Joseph for the Broncos. A questionable ground game, the quarterback carousel, and the health of some of their players have made them mediocre. Maybe whatever he had in mind made John Elway make an easy decision.
I'm hearing complaints of not having diversity by firing a number of these coaches. That's bullshit. Todd Bowles had every chance to make the Jets succeed. Too many issues killed his tenure. Even with the ten and six season 2015, they blew their chances for the playoffs that year. And that carried over into 2016 and the last two years. Marvin Lewis was bound to be gone sooner or later. It's amazing the Bengals kept him for that long. Yes, he revived the team after a 14 year stint of mediocrity, but the failure to get into the playoffs the last few years, could be described as bad. Not even winning a playoff game does not help his case.
Dirk Koetter tried to get Tampa Bay into a winning team. Either too many turnovers, bad running, and poor defensive play hurt his three seasons there. That franchise is very dysfunctional, and I don't know when they will become a playoff contender again. The only unfair one might be Steve Wilks He had a tough hill to climb with a rookie in Josh Rosen, David Johnson coming back from injury and a few replacements in wide receivers and the defense. That alone is not going to win ball games. It could be used as a lesson in order to improve. Instead, Arizona fires Wilks, and the criticism is loud about it. You put the guy in a tough environment and with a lot of adversity. What was Arizona expecting?
Either way, Miami, Denver, and Green Bay could rebound in the future. Cleveland is a question mark. I'm not sure about the Jets, Tampa, Arizona, and Cincinnati. Hopefully, some of them can make a name in 2019 and get back into the postseason.
It didn't surprise me when Cleveland fired Hue Jackson. They were horrible in his tenure, but whatever did after the firing, it worked. With a young group of people playing, they have the potential to be good, barring any setbacks. I though Mike McCarthy would be gone after the season, but a little stunned they did it a few weeks before the season ended. The Packers haven't had a run game in four years. Their receiving is garbage outside of Davante Adams. Defensively, it's a mis mesh of young and veteran players that haven't gelled yet. High standards do play a factor.
Unfair is what I would describe Adam Gase and Vance Joseph. For Gase, he had injury problems every year for the Dolphins. Ryan Tannehill was out half the tenure. Trading Jay Ajayi was a big mistake, though the injury bug got him in Philadelphia. Too many trades and too many issues despite a mediocre season this year. They should have given him one more year. Id probably say the same for Joseph for the Broncos. A questionable ground game, the quarterback carousel, and the health of some of their players have made them mediocre. Maybe whatever he had in mind made John Elway make an easy decision.
I'm hearing complaints of not having diversity by firing a number of these coaches. That's bullshit. Todd Bowles had every chance to make the Jets succeed. Too many issues killed his tenure. Even with the ten and six season 2015, they blew their chances for the playoffs that year. And that carried over into 2016 and the last two years. Marvin Lewis was bound to be gone sooner or later. It's amazing the Bengals kept him for that long. Yes, he revived the team after a 14 year stint of mediocrity, but the failure to get into the playoffs the last few years, could be described as bad. Not even winning a playoff game does not help his case.
Dirk Koetter tried to get Tampa Bay into a winning team. Either too many turnovers, bad running, and poor defensive play hurt his three seasons there. That franchise is very dysfunctional, and I don't know when they will become a playoff contender again. The only unfair one might be Steve Wilks He had a tough hill to climb with a rookie in Josh Rosen, David Johnson coming back from injury and a few replacements in wide receivers and the defense. That alone is not going to win ball games. It could be used as a lesson in order to improve. Instead, Arizona fires Wilks, and the criticism is loud about it. You put the guy in a tough environment and with a lot of adversity. What was Arizona expecting?
Either way, Miami, Denver, and Green Bay could rebound in the future. Cleveland is a question mark. I'm not sure about the Jets, Tampa, Arizona, and Cincinnati. Hopefully, some of them can make a name in 2019 and get back into the postseason.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Blog Plans for 2019
Welcome to the new year. For most like me, it's a day off until it's back to the routines we all have. A quick thanks to everyone who has been reading the blogs. For 2018, it was over 10,000 for the year and I hope for this to keep growing. December was the best month and it picked up quite well over the last two weeks. Here's what I'm thinking.
My focus has not changed. It's still film, video games, TV, and sports. I could be a little better with doing television blogs. The YouTube videos of mine that I do a blog of every Friday has grown lately and hopefully it keeps people interested.
Geeks and Jocks is still a work in progress, but I am still going to post about my podcast on this blog. I will be definitely working on trying to grow and audience on it. I do want to get back into doing some reviews. I would love to get into doing more of Seinfeld and doing some reviews of the early episodes of The Simpsons. Same with some game reviews. I definitely want to talk Crash Team Racing before the remaster comes out in June. A few other things, but overall, I expect big things for this blog.
Hopefully some understand my plans, and I hope to keep doing this and get strong numbers in views. Here's to a good 2019.
My focus has not changed. It's still film, video games, TV, and sports. I could be a little better with doing television blogs. The YouTube videos of mine that I do a blog of every Friday has grown lately and hopefully it keeps people interested.
Geeks and Jocks is still a work in progress, but I am still going to post about my podcast on this blog. I will be definitely working on trying to grow and audience on it. I do want to get back into doing some reviews. I would love to get into doing more of Seinfeld and doing some reviews of the early episodes of The Simpsons. Same with some game reviews. I definitely want to talk Crash Team Racing before the remaster comes out in June. A few other things, but overall, I expect big things for this blog.
Hopefully some understand my plans, and I hope to keep doing this and get strong numbers in views. Here's to a good 2019.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)