The Roustabout: Next

Armageddon has many meanings. However, one of its meanings is most definitely not, “a game between two teams in Week 9 of a football season.” It’s already a bit preemptive to think that football could ever exhibit Armageddon-onical qualities, but for the sake of argument, let’s just say that it could. Even in this world I’ve created Armageddon could not happen in the middle of the season. So, why am I even mentioning this, right? I mean, who has called this Patriots-Colts game Armageddon. The answer; every sportswriter in the football world. They’ve all over-inflated the importance of this game. I mean, it’s going to be a good game, but its still just a regular season contest, you know. There are a lot of reasons this game isn’t the end-time (one being that the Catholic Tom Brady has yet to turn into the anti-Christ), but I think the clearest reason is semantic.

So what does Armageddon mean, exactly.

Any mention of it in the Bible has to do with the place where the final battle between good (God) and evil (the anti-christ) occurs. In the parlance of our times, it means something a little different if still very similar; a decisive and catastrophic conflict. So, is this Sunday Armageddon? In the biblical sense, no? In the football sense, though? The answer is still no.

The winner of this game will play another game next week. The Patriots will have seven more games left and the Colts eight. That is, literally, contrary to decisive. Hell, both of these teams are universally seen as the class of the NFL. In all likelihood, they’ll be playing again in late January for the right to go onto the Super Bowl and demolish whoever the NFC decides to send to the slaughterhouse. Perhaps, in late January, when Tom Brady has been revealed as the anti-Christ and it is revealed that the only path to enlightenment is to trust in Peyton Manning, perhaps then we can talk a bit about Armageddon, but for now I’d like to live in ignorance of the end-time for a bit longer.

Onto the write-ups of the worthy games. As always, the picks are Chigozie’s and the write-up is mine. If I think that chocolate face is being a damn fool, you’ll know.

Washington -3.5 At NY Jets

Green Bay +2.5 At Kansas City

Did you know that Brett Favre loves football. There’s a lot of things that I didn’t know. Apparently every year he goes and speaks the gospel at the Wailing Wall. He’s a modern day Micah. This sis something to remember when rooting for this game. If Brady is the anti-christ; Favre has been telling us about him for years and all of us pagans just overlooked it.

At Tampa Bay -3.5 Arizona

At Tennessee -4 Carolina

At Atlanta -3 San Francisco

I cannot believe I’m going to write this, but San Francisco is going to win this game. How do I know this, you ask. Because I heard it on the radio. The Niners’ cornerback, Nate Clements, guaranteed a victory, and the Falcons just don’t have the gumption or know-how to make him a liar.

At New Orleans -3.5 Jacksonville

Don’t tell Chigozie, but we have Drew Brees starting on our team this week. I’m back on the Brees-wagon, and there’s still some space available.

On another note, I peruse wayyyyyyyyyyy too many fantasy football magazines. Did you know, that Brees’ footwork looked atrocious in the beginning of the season, but that now he looks much more comfortable in the pocket? Really, that’s true? I haven’t even seen him play yet this year, but I feel like I’ve watched every snap. Thank you free time.

At Detroit -3 Denver

Cincinnati PK At Buffalo

San Diego -7 At Minnesota

San Diego ran 40 plays last week and scored 35 points. That’s the sort of information, you need to know.

At Cleveland -1 Seattle

New England -5.5 At Indianapolis

The winning quarterback of this game is the Anti-Christ because Gregg Easterbrook said so. And I think the chances of me ever writing that sentence were about the same as me writing this sentence: Chigozie Amadi has relations with a supermodel.

At Oakland -3 Houston

Dallas -3 At Philadelphia

You know what, there are a lot of good games this week. In this one I see Donovan McNabb as a beautiful bird who will throw passes that fly away from the Cowboys. The only problem is that McNabb is a California Condor and the Cowboys are power lines. This game is not going to end well.

At Pittsburgh -9 Baltimore

Losers becoming winners in the 21st Century or Things Are Looking Up For Me

I wrote this in my younger and more formative years. It was the quicket thing I've ever written (I think it took me about 20 minutes), and I never even really gave it another look. It was originally published at elevationmag.com, but seeing as the best American sport is in the nascent stage of its current season, I thought it was an opportune time to put it on the web log.

When Did Losing Become Acceptable?

Guys; from the day that we understand random grunts in succession have meaning our fathers ingrain into our domes that we are meant to be virtuous. We are to pull chairs out for women, to pay for them, and to listen to them talk about shoes. We learn the difference between right and wrong, and good and bad. We are taught to win with grace and lose with dignity (And that losing sucks). In short, we are taught the meaning of nobility. A few years later we will forget all of it until (I presume; as I don’t, in fact, have a son) our own son is born and we teach him a bunch of things he’ll forget until (I presume) his son is born. Still, most rational people have a basic understanding of nobility and of its generally beneficial properties. My question is why do people seem more noble in defeat?

After Michael Jordan scored 63 in a losing effort, against the Celtics, Larry Bird said, “That was God disguised as Michael Jordan out there…”I guess, since the Celtics won, Larry Legend was implying that the 1986 Celtics could beat the all-powerful creator, but aside from that, Michael Jordan’s team LOST. Jordan is (perhaps) the greatest competitor to ever lace up a pair of sneakers and, obviously, the 63 points is not his iconic gift to the game, but it may be his most stunning singular feat. He scored 63 points against, maybe, the third best team ever assembled. (Definitely a top 5 pantheon team), and he lost the game. This brings me to another question: When did losing become acceptable? The thing is; I know it wasn’t acceptable to Jordan, but as time wears on it seems to have become acceptable to everyone else. Writers, pundits and fans remember it as one of the greatest games ever played in a losing effort. I’m sure Jordan sees it as a missed opportunity and a learning experience. Perhaps it was both but the question is; why do we care? I can’t answer the question, but I’d bet it relates to Clint Eastwood crying, metrosexuality and the continued marginalization of the All-American man.

To this day, when people (my dad) look back on Jordan’s 63 they always say it was one of the most amazing performances they have ever seen (It probably was). But his team still lost. Why is it that when a person leaves everything on the playing surface only to come up short, people suddenly martyr him? Did losing while scoring gobs of points actually enhance his legend? What if he had won? What would people say then? Would they have said Larry Legend and the Celtic 5 left it all out on the floor? Would the Celtics have then been sympathetic? More importantly, why does 63 points in a losing effort add to the lore and allure of Michael Jordan? I think something deeper is going on here. There is something sacrilegiously beautiful about human excellence coupled with human failure. That’s why people, in their minds, are actually happy when professional golfers chunk a shot…or they nod knowingly—and say they knew it was going to happen—when Donavon McNabb loses another close playoff game. It humanizes a group of people who, for all intensive purposes, are inhuman. For most of us, going an entire round without a chunky shot is impossible and the way Donavon reads a defense is both beautiful and infuriating; it is inhuman. But the fact that he loses on the biggest stage and in the most spectacular ways possible (the fact that he chokes) that is something we can all relate to. We crave excellence but revel in its failure precisely because they are doing things we can only dream about. But maybe there’s something more to this because the thing is Michael Jordan is now a winner whereas Donavon McNabb is not.

Perhaps Jordan’s 63 only add to his lore because of what he went on to do with his career. Six World Titles later the 63 against the Celtics was a happy afterthought. It was one singular game where his greatness was more apparent than ever before. But this is counterfactual engineering. What if Jordan had never won a title (Also counterfactual engineering)? At the time of his post-season scoring record, he had not yet won one. Would his career then have been remembered similarly to that of Dominique Wilkins’? Maybe he would have just been remembered as a no holds-barred gunner forever.

The thing is, he did win six titles so we can remember the game fondly, but my question still remains; why do we look back fondly on a game in which the greatest basketball player ever played his best and couldn’t manage to win? I think there are two possible answers to this query. It could be that as we look back on his career and we ruminate over his legacy it becomes more and more apparent that, in his prime, he was not human. If he hadn’t retired the first time he may have won eight straight world titles, but the fact that at one point in history he had given it his all and it hadn’t been enough reminds everyone that failure is okay as long as through failure one reaches greater heights than before. I wish this was true, but I know that its not. In truth, it probably reminded people of their own failures (especially) in athletics, probably in high school, when they just hadn’t had enough or weren’t good enough to win. Perhaps this is what Jordan’s failure showed America. The greatest basketball player in the world played as well as he could. And he lost. It must be okay to lose. Actually it’s not, but it does almost make losing seem more noble.

Rockie Fan v Eagles Fan

Sitting in the Denver bowling ally this past weekend I had a flashback to PHILLY. Home of SMOKES! The World Series had just ended and Rockie fan (my friends) had a split second of disgust and disappointment in their eyes. It reminded me of being in the sports bar in Philly when the Eagles had just lost the Super bowl because McNasty had managed the clock like a five year old learning how to tell time.

I flash backed to a time when that disgust permeated the whole city and collectively leads to an extreme ruckus: Kicking trashcans, fighting (retarded) Pats Fan in pats gear; getting arrested; walking home. The look in Rockie fan’s eye reminded me of something I had grown to forget in the land of the angel, passion. But then it disappeared as quickly as it came and Rockie fan went on with their day. “It’s alright they said, we didn’t even expect to get to the World Series anyways. Maybe next year”

WHHHAAAT!! Maybe this reaction was confined to my location on the 16th Street Mall; I had to get closer to the stadium. But alas, I passed hordes and hordes of Rockies fan and they all had the same look in their eyes. Content, the team had given its all and has exceeded expectation. It wasn’t the end of the world or nothing; Rockie fan was going to sleep well that night.

The rest of the trip provided strict contrast to everywhere I had ever been. JW ranted on womanese (he promised the blog is coming). I once again succeeded in surviving the experience of Illegal Pete's, a dude bought me a drink on a plane and I discussed the return of my blog brother.

Life is good in Denver Colorado.

Update: I spent Halloween weekend in Denver and I had the best costume ever! I was "chocolate face". Apparently they had never seen anything like that before and I won the costume contest for the most originality. I thought my costume was ok, but I really like the slut costume that most of the girls had on. Too bad it wasn't that original! Basically almost every girl had it on. Even though I had a "costume" and I approve of the common slut costume (only for girls) I still think that anyone over eight who dresses up is a loser and you can't tell me otherwise.

NBA PREVIEW Part II

Big Ticket and Company (The Big Three)

Is there any other story in the NBA more exciting than this? A once proud franchise fell on hard times last year. A cache of young players tanking for a chance to play with Oden or Durant, and then they fell in the draft lottery. All was lost in Boston and then a ray of hope came on draft day. Allen was coming to team with Pierce. But the team was a mismatch of youth and experience and the prospects for the season still did not look good. Seeing enough promise for a championship, KG agreed to a trade to Boston and the Big Three was formed.

Stylistically these three players seem to mesh well, and we all know that they have the fire. What is going to stop them from winning the east and playing for the championship? The common answer, supporting cast. However I do not think this will be the case and I think they will roll through the The eastern conference playoffs. Final eastern projections will come in the subsequent weeks

Updates, the Big three have looked good. So far they are 3-0 and have looked rather dominant.

NBA PREVIEW Part I

Been slacking on the blog recently but I have a couple of post coming soon. Lucky for all of you, I am “that” guy and can whip out an NBA season preview in the matter of minutes. The NBA season is upon us suddenly and if you didn’t take time to prepare I can give you a quick update.

Top NBA Story lines (notice I didn’t say that I would choose 10, I think that is clichéd and it leads to writers and commentators reaching for additional story lines.)

K. O. B. E.

Let me throw this out there, Kobe WILL be traded. For who? For what? I think it is pretty obvious that Laker’s will not trade him within the conference unless they receive an offer they can not refuse (i.e. Amare and Nash for Kobe or Dirk and Josh Howard for Kobe). That brings us to the Eastern Conference. The team that has been garnering the most attention has been the Chicago Bulls (“Get a bulls jersey fellas”) and for good reason. It is one of the locations in which Kobe would approve a trade and also has the necessary cache of young talent and matching contracts. Well I can stop those thoughts right now that trade will not happen. First of all besides the fact that LA is not a Luol Deng city (insert Napoleon Dynamite “dang”). The two player’s that LA would need to get to approach fair value for Kobe, Deng and Ben Gordan have both refused 5 year $50 million dollar extensions within the last week. Why would the Laker’s trade for guys that they might not be able to keep? Also Chicago has a reluctance to include Deng in the deal which I for one am pretty confused by, Luol Deng or Kobe, Deng or Kobe. Tough Choice. I understand Deng has “TUP” and they are in love with his defense, “length” and “wingspan” but cmon. LA will not complete a trade with chicago with out Deng (insert Napoleon Dynamite “dang”).

If not Chicago then who? I didn’t think it could ever happen

The trade, Kobe to the pistons for Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince and Jason Maxiel and 2 first round draft picks. Why this will work. Kobe is sent out of the western conference and they Lakers are able to obtain some solid value for Bryant and get some young pieces. Think what you will but that’s just the way I see it. Issue number two of the NBA season will be discussed tomorrow.