11/22/63 by Stephen King

I am and I'm not a big Stephen King fan. Some books I absolutely love (Under The Dome, The Stand, Insomnia, Bag Of Bones) and some I just can't even finish (Tommyknockers). So it's hit or miss on if I'll pick up a King book. This one sounded interesting. And it was. I wouldn't even call it a horror story. The official description reads:

On November 22, 1963, three shots rang out in Dallas, President Kennedy died, and the world changed. What if you could change it back? Stephen King’s heart-stoppingly dramatic new novel is about a man who travels back in time to prevent the JFK assassination—a thousand page tour de force. Following his massively successful novel Under the Dome, King sweeps readers back in time to another moment—a real life moment—when everything went wrong: the JFK assassination. And he introduces readers to a character who has the power to change the course of history. Jake Epping is a thirty-five-year-old high school English teacher in Lisbon Falls, Maine, who makes extra money teaching adults in the GED program. He receives an essay from one of the students—a gruesome, harrowing first person story about the night 50 years ago when Harry Dunning’s father came home and killed his mother, his sister, and his brother with a hammer. Harry escaped with a smashed leg, as evidenced by his crooked walk. Not much later, Jake’s friend Al, who runs the local diner, divulges a secret: his storeroom is a portal to 1958. He enlists Jake on an insane—and insanely possible—mission to try to prevent the Kennedy assassination. So begins Jake’s new life as George Amberson and his new world of Elvis and JFK, of big American cars and sock hops, of a troubled loner named Lee Harvey Oswald and a beautiful high school librarian named Sadie Dunhill, who becomes the love of Jake’s life—a life that transgresses all the normal rules of time. A tribute to a simpler era and a devastating exercise in escalating suspense, 11/22/63 is Stephen King at his epic best.

This was a good book. I really enjoyed it. King does a great job of describing the time from 1958 to 1963. He doesn't hold back either. It's there in all it's glory as well as it's shadows.

When I first held the book I was surprised at how thick it was. I couldn't imagine how King could make such a big book out of the premise. It seemed pretty cut and dry. But this is Stephen King and this book shows just how good of a writer he really is.

Surprisingly the parts of the book I liked best were the parts about Jake just living in that time. The parts with him and Sadie. The book seemed to bog down at the Oswald parts, where Jake spied on him and did his research.

The parts about Jake living? Good stuff. It was all good, but the "side" stuff, the stuff not involving the main part (stopping Oswald) was the best.

And since it was King, there is a horror element to it. It tells us that sometimes things happen for a reason and well it might have seemed a major mistake, it might have been the best alternative.

There's a neat little surprise in here for fans of It, as King revisits Derry briefly. I definately got a kick out of it and I like these little touches that show off King's "shared" universe.

King fans will enjoy this and non-King fans should check it out as well.

Classless At The Draft

Why is the NFL draft at Radio City Music Hall in New York every year? After the disrespect that the fans there have showed for the game, it should be moved. Make it rotating around all 32 NFL cities. Why can't this happen? Booing the commissioner? Why? Booing other teams? Why? When Troy Brown got booed when he read the Patriots 2nd round pick, I think he should have flashed his Super Bowl ring. Shut those Jets fans right up. It's a serious sign of disrespect to the sport to boo like that. Way to show class New York.

18 Games? Yes Please!

I love football. I miss football. I live on the couch watching football all days on Sunday during the season. If there are plans, my girlfriend knows to not schedule them during Patriots games.

I understand that it's a violent game. People get injured and it's being discovered that there are long term affects from playing the game.

The NFL wants to add 2 more games to the schedule, making it 18 total. As a compromise they'll take away 2 of the preseason games. Right now there are 20 games total and with the new proposal there will still be 20 games total.

Yes, preseason games are not real football games, they're live action try-outs for back-ups, new schemes, new players, etc..

Those opposed to the 18 games keep citing injury and call the NFL hypocrites for on one hand saying they want to promote player safety and on the other hand wanting two more games that would be two more additional times for players to get hurt.

I fail to see where the hypocrisy lies. Why can't the game be made safer and at the same time add a couple more?

Of course it's about money. That's why the owners own the teams and thats why the players play. Money.

The hypocrisy angle makes no sense. If you make the game safer to play, then the risk of injury in the two additional games is lower. There will always be a risk of injury in football, it's a violent game.

That will never change.

But the players CHOOSE to play the game. They understand the risks. They have always understood the risks. But they still choose to play the game. I know what the risk is when I speed or climb up onto the roof and jump into the pool like I did as a kid. But I chose to take those risks, the consequences are on me.

Football players choose to play this very violent game. They know what can happen and they still choose to play. So they know what can happen when they get older. They are choosing to face those risks.

I know what can happen when go on a construction site. I choose to accept those risks.

So I just don't understand the "more injury" angle. So? They take that risk in the 16 games now. Will 2 more really be tempting fate that much? Probably not. Career ending injuries happen off the field all the time (Robert Edwards). I don't see how 2 more games will really cause that many more injuries ESPECIALLY if you end up making the game safer in the first place.

It seems more of a win/win. Players get two additional games of income. Owners get two additional games of income. Fans get two more games to watch.

One of the things that I love about Football over Hockey, Baseball and Basketball is that Football only has the 16 (18) games. Every single game counts. The Red Sox are 1 and 5 right now but it's not panic time just yet, it's a long season. Not in football. In the NFL, 1 and 5 means you're most likely missing the playoffs, your season is essentially over.

Every game counts.

Two more games won't adversely affect that. It would actually make it more interesting, making the middle of the season more intriguing becuase those two extra games means more teams will have a shot at the playoffs for longer.

Players getting worn out? There's a solution for that that would benefit the league and the fans in the long run.

The solution? Add more players.

Have teams make the decision to play their starters for all 18 games or borrow something from baseball and have the back-ups play a couple games mid-season or near the end. Why wouldn't that work?

The benefit? The back-up QB, for example, gets meaningful playing time which lets him develop a bigger body of work and makes him more interesting to team's looking at him as a potential starter. Matt Flynn got a big payday off 2 games performances. What would have happened if he had had more visible playing time?

The players have more players on the field in more meaningful playing time. Now instead of a back-up being a space filler, the back-up would need to play a couple of games and be good enough to really win. That makes them more valuable and means more money for them and the player's union.

This carries over to every position. That means more players in the League.

For the fans? I can't be the only one that isn't a star-watcher. I don't just watch football to see Brady throwing the ball to Welker. I love watching them, but I love watching football more. I'd still watch every game even if it was Ryan Mallett throwing to Donte Stallworth for two or three games.

And from a Fantasy Football standpoint? Things get infinitely more interesting. Now when drafting you have to take into account that players won't play all the games, instead of just byes, and you wouldn't necessarily know when that would be so would have to plan on it. Fantasy just got more interesting and challenging and fun.

I just can't see a negative to going to 18 games.

Fans get more football and more players to watch.
Owners get more football and more income.
Players get more income, more time off (less injury) with others playing meaningful games, and there are more people playing football.

What's the problem?

NFL Draft: The Biggest Crapshoot In The World

The NFL draft gets alot of attention. Not sure if it's deserving or not. I tend to just randomly check throughout the day (night now) and see who picked when and where and really pay attention to who the Patriots pick.

In the grand scheme of things it's a complete guessing game. No one know what is going to happen when these players play in their first NFL game. There's no way to tell.

Sure a player could be graded high, but if he goes to a crappy team who doesn't know how to use him right, he'll end up sucking and could be considered a bust.

So much about what makes a player good is who they're playing for, who they're playing with, what scheme they are playing under, etc.. That's why there are so many free agents that end up playing better with their new team and so many that end up playing worse.

There is just too much that goes into a player's development that it's impossible to guess how well they will do. So the draft is the world's biggest crapshoot. It's all guesswork and hopes and prayers. Would Tom Brady, a 7th round pick and the 1st or 2nd best QB in the league, be as good if he played for a different team?

That's what makes the draft rehashes such a waste of time. Sure we can look back and see what mistakes were made, but it's pointless to substitute players by looking at what we know now. There's still no gurantee that the player would be as good as they are now.

Mock drafts are funny. So much of it is guesswork and more often then not, even the experts like Mel Kiper, end up being wrong. Very wrong. Predicting who 32 teams will pick? Impossible.

But mocking what their needs are? That's fairly doable.

The Patriots pick 27th and 31st. Their biggest needs are Defensive Line, Linebacker and Cornerback. I'd like to see them trade out of the 27th spot and pick up more 2nd round picks (where I think the best value in the draft usually is) and another 1st for next year. The 31st pick should go DE, then 2nd round should be nothing but CBs.

Last year was very odd. They picked a couple of running backs and tight ends, and they already had Gronkowski and Hernandez. So the drafted TEs were more then likely never going to play. So why bother drafting them?

It was a waste of a draft.

Right now the Pats have 2 1s, 2 2s, 1 3 and 1 4. They should be able to get some good talent with those picks.

I'd like to see one of the 1st be traded and pick up another 2nd for this year. So would be 1 1, 3 2s, 1 3 and 1 4. DE, CB, CB, OL, RB, DE.

That's my hope.

The draft may be a major crapshoot, but at least it provides for a ton of reading material during the offseason.

A Touch Too Much?

A couple months ago Fox premiered a new show, Touch, starring Kiefer Sutherland. The basic premise of the show is that Kiefer is a single dad (wife died in the Towers on 9/11) and he has an autistic son. His son can see the patterns of the world, lives intertwined and crossing, as a series of numbers. Using those numbers he gets his dad (Kiefer) to help some situations come together the way they were meant to.

The first episode was good. As a wanna-be writer I can see how difficult it would be to make the various situations all come together in a way that works and still relate to the numbers that Jake (the son) gives Kiefer. I liked the first episode,it was well crafted, but was a bit worried about how well it would translate to a regular series.

The regular series (months after the first episode appeared) finally aired. We watched the second episode (the first being a rerun of the premiere from months ago) the other night.

It's still a well crafted show. It takes alot of work to make those divergent people all cross paths in the way needed and still provide motivation for why/how they get to where they are. Like the premiere, some of the connections feel forced, but it still comes across decently.

The show has potential, but not if it ends up being the same thing over and over. But I don't see what can be added to keep the show fresh.

It has some comparasions to Alcatraz. That show has the same plot ('63 returns to present day, must stop them) but there's some mysteries throughout and most of the episodes end up answering part of the questions or adding a new question. So it keeps the repeat premise fresh.

Touch needs that, but I can't see where/how it will come from. And any potential aspect added will only come across as forced. Which won't help the show at all.

Also, Kiefer is annoying. He says the same things over and over and over. Big negative.

The Sad Part Of TV Watching

What is the sad part? It's the time when all your shows are on hiatus. You've just watched a bunch of season finales and now have nothing but repeats to look forward to.

Months and months of repeats.

Yeah, occasionally you'll find the rare show that starts at this time of year and is decent. But that's rare.

I'm not a big tv watcher. For years would barely have it on. The most work it would get would be football Sundays. But recently, we (my girlfriend and I) have found some shows we actually enjoy. We'll DVR 'em and watch when we get a chance.

And as of last night, all our shows are on hiatus until the new season starts this fall. Now this does't include "fall back" shows, shows that we'll put on and watch but don't care if watch in order or on time. These are shows that will put on and watch if there's nothing else on.

What do we like for shows? Here's a quick run-down:

The Walking Dead
Alcatraz
Person Of Interest
Grimm
Lost Girl
The River
Touch (This is one of the rare shows that starts this time of year. First two episodes have been okay, but not sure if this will end up making the cut. The premise is quirky and I'll go into more depth on it in another post.)

The fall-back shows:
Storage Wars
Any of the housing shows (House Hunters, Property Virgins, etc..) on HGTV
Tosh.0
Duck Dynasty

The girlfriend also watchs Sons Of Anarchy, but because it was so far along in seasons, I won't be watching it unless we start getting it a season at a time. She also watched Dexter as well.

I'm hoping to be able to get ahold of A Game Of Thrones and watch the first season soon.

If you haven't been able to tell, we're not into the "one and done" kind of shows, the periodicals like CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc...

And we especially don't get into sitcoms.

We like the fantasy/action/adventure shows. We like shows that have depth. We like shows that are quirky. Basically the shows that not that many other people do.

Aside from Touch, which just started, only one of our shows is guranteed to be coming back next season: The Walking Dead.

We're both big fans of Firefly. Which of course only lasted one season. We keep hoping one of our favorite shows will become the next Lost or Buffy, lasting for awhile. It kind of sucks knowing we only have one show to look forward to next season. Can only hope we'll have more.

So this time of the year is now doubly sad for us.

Manning Should Have Been A Titan

People are talking about the Titans and 49ers as being the losers in the Manning sweepstakes, and they are, but it's not like they would have been huge winners if had gotten Manning.

The 49ers would be in the same boat as the Broncos, but not as badly. They wouldn't have been able to keep Alex Smith, and it looks like he's pissed at them for even looking at Manning and leaving anyways. But at least they had a back-up in place already, Colin Kaepernick. And their team was the closest to reaching the Super Bowl. Manning could have been the piece to put them over the bar.

Now they have to find a starting QB because the run at Manning will cost them Alex Smith.

The ones that would have gotten an almost equal cost vs gain ratio from signing Manning (and losing) are the Titans.

Signing Manning would have led to the release of Hasselbeck, and an 85% Manning is a slight upgrade to Hasselbeck. Jake Locker? He's not the starter to begin with and the Coach could always say "use it as an Aaron Rodgers situation". Rodgers sat behidn Favre for a couple of years before exploding onto the scene as a starter. Don't think Locker wouldn't have wanted to learn from Manning before pulling a Rodgers?

Now, the Locker situation still exists, but he's behind Hasselbeck again. Hasselbeck isn't going anywhere. Tennessee is a perfect situation for him, even if they did go after Manning.

For Manning, the better options would have been:

1- 49ers
2- Titans
3- Broncos

If he wanted to go to a team that would have the best shot at getting to the super bowl.

The Losers In The Manning Sweepstake? The Broncos

But wait, how can that be? They signed Manning.

Sure, but at what gain versus what cost?

The gain? A 4 time MVP/Pro Bowl quarterback who has been on a steady decline (look up the stats, they back this up) and is coming off of 4 neck surgeries. His old team let him go because they weren't sure he'd be able to play at the level he had before, play a full season or even play at all.

Sure, an 85% Manning is better then Tebow or Brady Quinn (who is no longer with the team). So would think it would end up being a gain right?

No. And this is the same thing that affected the other teams in the Manning hunt.

They get Manning, it's all in and have to hope he plays at 85% and manages to stay healthy. They lose Manning, they've undermined their organization. They even get Manning and they have to trade/cut some valuable players. Well, it depends on if you think Tebow is valuable.

I'll get to the Titans (who would have made out the best by getting Manning but also make out the best out of the losers), 49ers and Miami later. For now let's look at the Broncos.

If you have Manning as your starter, you can't have Tebow as your backup. It just doesn't work. Two wildly different styles. For Tebow to be effective, you have to scheme around his strengths. And those aren't the same as Manning.

The Broncos would have been better with Brady Quinn as the back-up, but he's gone now. And they'll have to trade Tebow (I wouldn't expect Tebow to go somewhere as the back-up. He'll either be the starter, Miami, or a pure situational player, Patriots).

Manning goes down, for all we know it could be just one hit that knocks him out of the game for good, and who do you have behind him? No one.

Even if the Broncos draft a 1st round QB, which they absolutely should no matter what, would you really want to throw the QB into the deep end if Manning goes down?

The Broncos have to pray that Manning stays healthy and plays at an 85% level.

I don't think it'll be worth the 90 million they'll have to pay. I think the results for the Broncos will be the same as if they still had Tebow under center.

By the way, I hope the Patriots pick up Tebow and use him as Belichek originally wanted: situational player. How dangerous would the offense be with Brady at the helm, Gronkowski/Hernandez/Welker receiving and Woodhead/Tebow in the backfield?

Will Tebow go out and catch? Run like a fullback? Take the snap and pass? Will he pass short or will he pass deep? Play him as a Tight End sometimes, as a fullback other times (like they did with Hernandez some last year) and a wildcat QB. And unlike most wildcats, can have him line-up as running back, Brady take the snap and hand off.

That's not a scary offense that will give defenses nightmares?

Real Steel

Watched this over the weekend and it was because of the word-of-mouth reviews.

When first saw the previews I had no interest in it. A movie about robots boxing just didn't work for me. And I was surprised that Hugh Jackman was "slumming" for it. Even having Evangeline Lilly wasn't enough to tempt me.

Then I heard the line "It's Rocky with Robots" and that got me interested enough to learn more. And I'm glad I did.

It's not a great movie, but it is damn good. The boxing robots is actually the subplot really, the background. Instead of Rocky think of another Stallone movie: Over The Top, and you have what Real Steel is.

It's the story of a down-on-his-luck loser of a father trying for redemption with the son he barely knows. There's even the rich family that will care for the boy when Dad passes him on. It's been years since seen Over The Top, so not sure how many story beats are the same, but there's enough.

That's not to say that Real Steel is a total carbon copy. It's just similar. And similar movies can exist on their own as their own entities.

The strength of Real Steel is in Jackman's work, but especially in the actor that plays his son, Dakota Goyo. Both carry the story and lift it beyond the confines of a "robot boxing movie" and make it heartwarming and emotional.

My girlfriend had tears.

The only thing I didn't like was the ending. It ends with them in their "victory" (I won't spoil it, but the "victory" was perfect for this movie and ending it the other way would just have ruined the whole thing) and I really wanted to know what happens to Charlie and Max after this. What is their relationship like?

This movie, unlike so many others in the same vein (parent finding an unknown/forgotten child), actually made you buy the growing relationship between the two. After all, all Max wanted was for Charlie to fight for him, and all Charlie needed was something to fight for.

4 out of 5

Designing an MMORPG or Why Skyrim Got Boring

Not that long ago I was singing Skyrim's praises. And deservedly so. It's nearly a perfect game, at least for me. But nearly isn't close enough. It's reached the wall now where it's just repeat, repeat and repeat. The same quests over and over. I haven't even finished the main quests because I got bored with everything else.

My favorite kind of game to play is an MMORPG. I started with Ultima Online, went to Final Fantasy XI, onto World of Warcraft and dabbled in Lord of the Rings, City of Heroes, Tabula Rasa and lots of others.

I love the community aspects of them. I love all that there is to do. I love being able to level up to a new zone and have a new look, new quests, etc...

What I don't like is the grinding aspects of it and the repeating of the questing.

I solo a lot in those games. But I still love the community aspects. I just hit a wall when I run out of solo stuff to do and have to group. It's a grind to find the groups and get the goals accomplished. Same with reputation quests. Repeating the same quest every single day is obnoxious.

WoW has made some strides in this, giving their raid dungeons (which can be fun, don't get me wrong) different group sizes and levels, which yield different loot.

Why can't we take this to it's end?

Make all dungeons soloable. Obviously there would be vastly different loot. The solo stuff wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the raid stuff, but it would be able to stand on it's own.

Also make every experience different. I'll make a new race character to explore the starting zones but when gotta get into the same areas as before, it gets boring and I give up.

Keep all the community aspects, the raid dungeons for those that like to do it, but make everyone soloable and get rid of the problem of doing the same quests over and over for reputation. Make sure there are some repeatable but make more standard quests.

It can be done.

The first MMMORPG that has those things will get me back into online gaming again.

Superbowl Fallout: Jackass fans and media

I'm a Patriots fan. I bleed Pats red, white & blue. I love my Pats, even during the Pete Carroll/Drew Bledsoe years.

I was disappointed they didn't win the Superbowl. Just like everyone else. But the amount of hate I've seen from fans and non-fans alike is just ridiculous. Even the media is in on it, looking for any story they can get.

I don't remember ever seeing this much hate against the losing team. EVER.

It's pathetic in a way.

The Giants won. Congrats to them. Replay the game 10 times, they probably would only win 2 or 3 of those times. Any real fan of football will realize how much luck had to do with that game. Luck plays a part in every win, to some degree, usually pretty minor. But this game? Luck was huge.

They lucked out with Welker dropping the ball. They lucked out on the Manningham catch (out of 10 times, he drops that ball 8 out of the 10 times). And they definately lucked out on the fumble recovery.

But what really has me going is the stuff that's been happening since. Let's list it out:

1) That guy that dropped the butterfingers, with a note for Welker, in Copley Square?

You are a jackass.

There is no other word to describe you. I am ashamed that you are a Patriots fan. To do that is unbelievably pathetic.

I hereby kick you out of Patriots Nation. We have no need for morons (and that's an insult to morons, including you with them) like you.

2) Saying Brady's legacy is tarnished?

What are you people smoking? So he lost 2 superbowls. In a couple years when he's a first ballot hall of famer, no one will really care. Jim Kelly lost 4 superbowls, in a row, and it's just a footnote in his legacy.

Brett Favre won one superbowl his entire career and played for awhile after that (1995 to 2010 or 2009 whenever he finally called it quits). He never made it to the big game again. Does that tarnish his legacy?

I know it's a slow time now for football news, but seriously?

3) Mrs. Tom Brady's comments. Gisele was heckled by Giants fans leaving her suite and she yelled out that "my husband can't f-ing throw the ball and catch it at the same time".

And this is a big deal why?

First off, those Giants fans are jackasses for bothering her. Want to heckle other fans? Go for it. The players? Go for it? The players wives and kids?

GROW UP!!

As for Gisele? Doesn't bother me in the slightest. She was frustrated. Tom Brady didn't play his best game, throws could have been better, but there were balls that should have been caught and if so, the Patriots would have won. There really is no denying that.

Should she have made the comments? No. Because of the media reacting how they did. If the media weren't such jackasses, this would have just blown over.

Ridiculous.

4) Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski partying it up the night after the loss. These video/photos, which were shot from a private Patriots party (what jackass decided to send this out, not a real fan huh?), show the two having a good time after the game.

People are complaining that they shouldn't have been that happy, or having a good time.

Why?

How do you blow off steam after a big loss or bad day? Do you wallow in it? No. Everyone says that you have to put it behind you.

So guess what they did.

And it's wrong why?


I'm just glad that in another day or two this will all blow over.

Bring on the draft!

Super Bowl 46 Analysis

I'm a Patriots fan through and through. I watch them religiously (when first started dating Kat I told her that on Sundays I watch football, but other things can come up or take place, but that I will not miss the Pats).

But don't expect this to be a "Giants shouldn't have won" review.

The best team, of the night, did win. The Giants receivers made the catches when they had to and the Patriots receivers didn't (Welker, I love watching you play was even more excited you joined the team than Randy Moss and I know you're killing yourself over it, but you had to make that catch).

It's one of those "out of 10 games" kind of things. I think the Patriots would have won 8 out of the 10 games. This just happened to be the Giants night.

Both teams played tough. This was a nail biter up until the final minute. Which a good Super Bowl game should be. It needs the tension and excitement to get the fans fully into the game, especially if your team isn't playing.

Tough game. Nail biter.

The Giants made the plays when they had to. The Patriots didn't.

Of course, recovering those fumbles really helped out too. That was the lucky part of the Giants night. If even one of those had been recovered by the Patriots, the outcome would have been different.

But that's the fun of sports. There's always a little bit of luck involved.

Congrats Giants from this Patriots fan. It was a great Super Bowl.

Dragonrim: The Perfect Game

I've been playing Skyrim alot lately and loving it. I absolutely loved all three Dragon Age (Dragon Age: Origins, DA: Awakenings, DA2), as well as the DLCs. But neither game is perfect.

First things first, I don't like FPS. Not a fan. I like RPGs. I like the immersivness of them, the epic feel of the stories. Combat is way down on my list of things a great game has to have. Well it has to have combat, but I'm fine with fairly simple set up like Skyrim (although playing a rogue in DA2 was AWESOME!!).

Like I said, neither game is perfect. But combine the two? Now we're talking.

Dragon Age has the immersive story and character interaction that I love. You grow to depend/feel for the followers in DA. Their stories develop as yours does. Your decisions affect them, even to the point that you may lose them as a followers. Walking around town, they interact with eachother.

But Dragon Age was linear in it's zones. You couldn't just wander the countryside. Even though there were choices in how to play, it was still fairly rigid.

Skyrim on the other hand is HUGE and open. I've been playing for 100 hours and I'm not even 1/2 way through the main quest. There is just so much to do. Almost too much to do. But the interaction with the NPCs is pretty thin, even the ones that you can have as companions. Skyrim is lacking in that regards.

But Dragon Age isn't. Dragon Age is lacking in the size/openness of the world.

But Skyrim isn't.

So take the two games, mash 'em together and you have my perfect game.

Amalur: Reckoning And The Gold Demo

So they recently released the demo for Kingdoms Of Amalur: Reckoning. I went on XBox Live to download it. Wanted to check it out, see if the game would be worth picking up.

Turns out that the demo is Xbox Live Gold memberships only.

Seriously?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard.

Reckoning is not a multiplayer game. There is no online component (beyond potential DLC similar to Skyrim and Dragon Age).

So why the hell is the demo exclusive to Gold members only?

I have 0 need to pay for Xbox Live. I don't go online with my Xbox.

This just pisses me off.

Stupid.

I can't think of any reason to make a non-multiplayer game's demo exclusive to Xbox Live Gold members only.

i-heart-radio Not Being Loved?

So back before the new year, couple months before, kept hearing ads (on the radio) for this new app called i-heart-radio. I'm sure you've all heard about them by now right? Anyways, the free radio app (which is basically Pandora) was going to be "ad free" until the end of the year. Was meant to let people try it out before they would either have to deal with ads or pay for it.

Well, started hearing the other day new ads for the app. Now it's saying "ad free until the end of April".

I don't think they got enough subscribers.

Come May, will it now say "ad free until the end of August"?

Podcast Are The Devil

I don't like podcasts. I haven't listened to a single one.

I'm old school in that I like reading. I don't mind staring at a computer screen and reading an article (which is kind of funny since I'm against e-readers). Bill Simmons is my favorite sportswriter but I'm so disappointed that he went to doing alot of podcats. I loved reading his stuff but now it's so few and far between, but he does a weekly podcast. I just won't listen to it.

He puts an article up, I'm all over it, even if it's Basketball which I don't relaly follow.

But a podcast? Easy Skip.

The other thing that I don't like is video news on the internet. I'm fine with YouTube videos and that kind of thing, but if I see a news article and I click on it and get a video, I'm not even bothering to read it.

The other day on Yahoo, saw a headline about a picture, so I clicked on it to see the picture. The link brought me to a video of a newscaster talking about the picture, so I had to watch the video for it to come up.

Hate that.

I love technology. I love the internet. But I like to read. Watching is for movies. Listening is for music. Articles are for reading.

Brees Was A Good Trade For Chargers. Sproles Was Not.

In a recent Snap Judgments on CNNSI.Com, Don Banks asked "and when will Smith's decision to go with Philip Rivers over Brees at quarterback in 2006 rightly go down as one of the worst personnel calls in league history?"

The answer?

Never.

Drew Brees is on of the top four QBs in the league, NOW, there's no doubting that (Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning pre-neck surgery, have to wait and see what happens when he returns). Rounding out the Top 5 would be Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. That same Rivers that Banks is saying was such a downgrade from Brees.

We have to remember some things about the decision to jettison Brees:
1- He was coming off major shoulder surgery and no one was sure if he would be the same (similar to what is being questioned about Manning now).
2- He wasn't the QB he is now back then.

Look at his numbers with the Chargers:
2002: 76.9 rating, 17 TD, 16 INT (his first full year), 8-8 record (4th in division)
2003: 67.5 rating, 11 TD, 15 INT, 4-12 record (4th in division)
2004: 104.8 rating, 27 TD, 7 INT, 12-4 record (1st in division)
2005: 89.2 rating, 24 TD, 15 INT, 9-7 record (3rd in division)

Decent. A year that showed what he was capable of, but not Top 3 QB numbers or results. During his time with the Chargers he led them to one playoff game and lost in the Wild Card round to the Jets. Where was the evidence to A.J. Smith that Drew Brees would someday break Dan Marino's passing record? Where wsa the evidence that this was a guy that would lead the Chargers to the Super Bowl?

GMs aren't fortune tellers. They can't see what the future will bring. All Smith can do is go off of the evidence before him. With the shoulder surgery, Brees not having been the greatest during his Chargers time, the availability of Rivers in the draft. What was Smith to do?

History will show that Brees is better then Rivers, at least right now, who knows what the future holds for Rivers. But really, there is no gurantee that if Brees had stayed with the Chargers the results would still have been the same. There might not have been a Super Bowl victory. There might not have been the passing record. None of that is guranteed

This deal wasn't the greatest trade in the history of the NFL. But it wasn't anywhere near being "one of the worst personnel calls in league history". Not even close.

For comparasion let's look at Rivers numbers:
2006: 92.0 rating, 22 TD, 9 INT, 14-2 (1st in division, lost to Patriots in Divisional round)
2007: 82.5 rating, 21 TD, 15 INT, 11-5 (1st in division, lost to Patriots in Conference Championship)
2008: 105.6 rating, 34 TD, 11 INT, 8-8 (1st in division, lost to Steelers in Divisional round)
2009: 104.4 rating, 28 TD, 9 INT, 13-3 (1st in division, lost to the Jets in Divisional round)
2010: 101.8 rating, 30 TD, 13 INT, 9-7 (2nd in division)
2011: 88.7 rating, 27 TD, 20 INT, 8-8 (2nd in division)

So where has Rivers been so awful? Four division titles is bad? Sure any GM would trade a Super Bowl victory for 4 division titles. But like I said before, there's no gurantee that Brees would have won a Super Bowl with the Chargers.

Let's look at Brees numbers when he joined the Saints:
2006: 96.3 rating, 26 TD, 11 INT, 10-6 (1st in division, lost to Bears in Conference Championship)
2007: 89.4 rating, 28 TD 18 INT, 7-9 (3rd in division)
2008: 96.3 rating, 34 TD, 17 INT, 8-8 (4th in division)
2009: 109.6 rating, 34 TD, 11 INT, 13-3 (1st in division, won the Super Bowl)
2010: 90.9 rating, 33 TD, 22 INT, 11-5 (2nd in division, lost to Seahawks in Wild Card round)
2011: 110.6 rating, 46 TD, 14 INT, 13-3 (1st in division, playing 49ers in Divisional Round this weekend)

Brees has become one of the top 3/4 (if Manning is playing) QBs in the league. But really how far off from Rivers is he? Like I said, there's no gurantee the same thing would have happened if he had stayed with the Chargers.

Using Banks logic that trading Brees away was so bad, it stands to reason that if he had gone to Miami that the same thing would have happened. He would have won a Super Bowl, he would have passed Marino's record.

Does anyone really believe that?

Now if Brees had done what he had done in New Orleans and Rivers had pulled a Vince Young in San Diego, then it would have been a bad move. But how much of the Chargers not advancing is to blame on Rivers?

Brees is damn good. Rivers is good. Calling the Brees trade one of the worst personal moves in League history is just dumb.

And I usually like what Banks said, but this one was just so crazy I had to comment.

Now the trade of Darren Sproles? That was dumb.

(the difference is that the evidence was there in San Diego that Sproles was capable of doing what he did this year with the Saints, trading him away was just stupid)

The reason the GMs for the Bears and Colts Got Fired? T.J. Yates

T.J. Yates is the 3rd string quarterback for the Houston Texans. He had a 2-3 record in the games he played and he won the most important game in Texans history, their first playoff game on Saturday (last night).

So what does that have to do with the Indy Colts and Chicago Bears? Both teams fired their GMs but kept their coaches. This is important because it means the owners think/realize that the coaches did their best with the pieces they were give. And who gives the coaches those pieces? The GMs.

Back to Yates. Texans' GM Rick Smith drafted Yates in the 5th round. Was it to be a pure back-up or possible starter is unknown, but it is known that Smith assumed/thought that Yates would be able to play and win games for them. No one ever thinks they'll be that far down the depth chart due to injury, but have to be prepared for it to happen.

Indy lost Peyton Manning for the season and all they had was Curtis Painter. They didn't show the confidence in Painter right from the beginning, they went out and signed Kerry Collins to be their starter. And when he went down to injury, it was the Painter era and that had disastrious results.

Chicago lost Jay Cutler to injury and turned to Caleb Hanie, and the talking head opinion at the time was that Hanie would be just good enough to limp the Bears into the playoffs, since they were already set up well by Cutler. That never happened and it took the Bears GM awhile to give up on Hanie.

It's the GMs job to provide the pieces to field a winning team. The back-up shouldn't be as good as the starter but needs to be capable of winning games (see Patriots with Matt Cassel and Green Bay with Matt Flynn). It's the responsiblity of the GM to prepare the team's personal for the day the starter goes down. That means they need to provide the team with a back-up that will and can win games.

Both Indy's GM, Bill Polian (and son Chris Polian) and the Bear's GM, Jerry Angelo, failed to do that. That's the biggest reason they lost their jobs. The Indy situation was worse then the Bears. Indy's defense went down. This was a team built around Manning and what he was capable of doing. When he went down, the team wasn't the same. That's the fault of the GM.

You might say "But Kansas City had a similar situation. Matt Cassel went down and Tyler Palko was horrible". And you would be correct in mentioning that. The difference between KC and Indy/Chicago is that KC's GM is newer. Angelo and the Polians have been in their jobs for years, Pioli is on year 4. That gives him a little bit of leeway, but not much. There is no excuse for Polians and Angelo.

A 5th round, 3rd string QB cost two long-tenured GMs their jobs by highlighting how badly they had failed at it in recent years.

Lego Will Own My Soul

So I've gotten the Lego bug.

I loved Legos as a kid. One of my favorite toys. I had a ton of sets but the funnest was throwing all the pieces together and coming up with my own designs: houses, spaceships, cars, etc.. I'd even make bases for my G.I. Joes.

I've always figured that playing with Legos helped lead me to my career choice, architecture.

I stopped buying 'em when grew up, much like other toys, and have now come full circle again, much like other toys. I would always stop in the toy aisles and check out the Legos and always had the urge to buy them, but it wasn't until recently that I gave in.

At first, when I heard about the upcoming DC and Marvel sets, I wanted to get into the Lego City stuff and build a huge city for my super heroes to fight in. But I passed on that idea because there just wasn't enough buildings that I liked. So then I decided I'd do a huge Kingdoms display and have two armies battling it out. Saw alot of older sets I wanted. And picked up a couple Kingdoms sets (anyone want to buy 'em from me now?) to get me started.

But it was going to be so expensive. Legos are one of those things that I will lose myself in if I'm not careful. There's alot of other things I want and not enough money (or house space) to get all the Lego sets that I felt I would need for my Kingdoms (and it would include some Pirates of the Caribbean sets, Harry Potter sets, and older Castle themed sets that would all fit together).

So I was bummed because wasn't going to be able to do what I wanted the way I wanted (which happens alot with toylines I'm finding).

Then I saw the Creator and Modular sets and fell in love.

Creator Buildings
Modular Sets

And then there's the Winter Village stuff:
Winter Village

Now I've missed 3 or 4 Creator houses, 2 or 3 Modular (which cost ALOT in the aftermarket) and 1 of the Winter Villages. Technically I've missed all except the Log Cabin and Hillside House, since those are the only ones have currently.

Out of the Architecture Series I only am interested in the Farnsworth House, Robie House and Falling Water. Those would look awesome displayed on my desk at work.

So with cost being an issue and having to limit myself I finally nailed down what Lego lines I'm going to collect. The Creator houses are sweet and fall in line with my career. The Modular sets are just amazing. The Winter Village sets fall along the same lines.

So I was satisfied with what my limited Lego purchasing would be (limited in number of sets, not cost) and then I saw this video:



They will all be mine.

I'm already thinking of what additional sets and mini-figures I'll need to complete my Lord of the Rings sets.

Luckily the DC sets didn't really interest me. But haven't seen the Marvel sets yet.

So much for having my Lego obsession under control.

The new X-Wing and Y-Wing sets are looking great.

/sigh

Tebow Is The New Wildcat

Remember a couple of seasons (this is about football, the season spans multiple years) ago when the Miami Dolphins debuted the Wildcat to great success?

They demolished my beloved Patriots and used it to carry them to an AFC East title and the playoffs. The next year though, teams were ready for it and even drafting a "wildcat quarterback" (Pat White, who is out of the NFL now) didn't help. The wildcat has now become an occasional play used to try and surprise the defenses. Although how much of a surprise is it when the QB lines up in the slot (or is off the feed completely)?

So that brings us to Tebow and the success he's had since he took over as starter (although, the last couple of weeks have definately put a dent in that success and only helped reinforce why I think he's the new wildcat).

Tebow caught the other teams by surprise. He's a bad passer, worse then many of the back-ups that are out there (Tyler Palko, Caleb Hanie.. I'm looking at you). But he's just good enough that you have to pay attention to the possibility of a throw. His real threat is running. So when he first showed up behind center it was a surprise to the other teams and that's how he was able to lead the Broncos to victory. He was just good enough that the defense kept them in the games.

Not to take away from his obvious leadership abilities, which is what got his team to rally behind him. It caused the defense to play better and the offense as well.

But look whats happened the last couple of weeks. He's been stuffed. Teams are starting to figure out how to stop him. He's become one dimensional. They aren't fearing his passing abilities like they have to with Cam Newton and Michael Vick. Tebow is becoming the new wildcat. A fad, so to speak, that surprised people with how effective it was but once they figured it out, it wasn't as effective anymore.

During the draft hype leading up to Cam Newton being selected #1, I was pretty confused as to why Newton was #1 and Tebow was a shock that he got picked in the first round. To me, with what I knew going in (not a huge college football fan), they seemed the same type of QB.

But there is a difference. Cam Newton is a good passer. Tim Tebow is not.

The Fan Is Back

After a lengthy hiatus, The Practical Fan blog is back. Over at Kitty's Pryde, where I'm Editor-In-Chief/Content Coordinator, I've been spending alot of time on comic books but I have thoughts and opinions (oh, I have opinions) about alot of other things. So this is where I'll be talking about those.

Look for alot of posts real quick in the next day or so, about my big Hobbit kick that I'm on, what my ultimate video game would be, my renewed love of Legos and even Tim Tebow.