Back from celebrating Christmas with Lori's family in Dallas ... couple of things to mention:
- Titans eek-ed out a victory against the Jets on Sunday, setting the stage for a Sunday Night Football showdown in Indianapolis against the Colts. The Titans win, and they're into the playoffs. If they lose, they're out, regardless of what Cleveland does. On the other hand, Indy has absolutely nothing to play for, so they'll be resting starters at different points in the game.
This game is for all the marbles. Titans really need to get VY and the other young guys on the team some true playoff experience, even if it means facing a resurgent Chargers team (which we should've beaten a week or two ago in the first place). Titans are equipped, roster-wise, to beat either San Diego or Pittsburgh, so let's hope they get in and get to face one of those teams.
It's also the end of the line for my predictions. I predicted 10-6, and a playoff berth, so this game means everything for whether my predictions end up correct.
Both the Tennessean sportswriters as well as the Titans blogosphere (primarily MusicCityMiracles.com) are aware of my predictions as well as my statistical methods backing them up. In fact, the Tennessean ran an interesting article this morning on FootballOutsiders.com, a site that uses Monte Carlo simulations and an interesting theoretical framework to evaluate the true strengths and weaknesses of teams and individual players, very similar to how I constructed my predictions prior to meeting with Fisher.
In the end, all I really care about is the Titans making the playoffs. I have done a new analysis of the game and predict the Titans will need 28 points to win the ballgame, with Peyton and his 1st-team scoring 17 and Jim Sorgi and 2nd-team scoring another 10. The Titans offense can generate this many points, but let's hope I'm wrong and they don't have to.
- I'm taking time off of work and from the iTest for the rest of the year. I'm initiating a new project or two, getting my New Year's resolutions in order, figuring some things out with the iTest, and basically lounging around for a while. This break comes at a good time.
- This marks the first Christmas and New Year's for me and Lori in our new house. Lori, despite her work hours, managed to decorate our house very, very well for Christmas and it was great to enjoy that.
- I'm closing in on 200 blog posts. That's a lot of rambling!
That's it for now until I return one more time to post a year-end blog with New Year's Resolutions. See you then...
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Titans just threw the game in the garbage against the Chargers, allowing them to come from 14 points down in the fourth quarter to force overtime, where they then proceeded to score a game-winning touchdown with LaDainian Tomlinson.
I don't really consider this good news, but my predictions remain on target as a result of today's Titans letdown. Excerpted from my aforementioned 2007 Titans Predictions which I gave to Jeff Fisher on July 24:
Week 14 (San Diego) – LOSS: San Diego defense forces season-high 3 INT from VY
Prediction: 7-6 heading into Week 15.
Vince Young only threw 2 picks (along with 0 touchdowns) and had as many rushing yards in the game as the injured Philip Rivers (who is pretty immobile even when he's not hurt).
Seriously.
I've been spot on throughout the entire season, maybe switching up a game or two, but trending the season with complete accuracy and modeling out the Titans' overall strengths and weaknesses right on the money.
The funny thing is that the Titans could have been a 9-4 team or even a 10-3 team right now. They've got the talent.
Unfortunately, their gameplan of running LenDale White like a battering ram at the opponent, playing Schottenheimer-esque over-conservative offense, and waiting for defensive turnovers to happen, is just not the right formula for winning ballgames at this point.
Why?
1) The Titans' CBs are not physically equipped to force turnovers in the passing game. Nick Harper did have a nice pick today, but only because Rivers sucked. There's plenty of data here.
2) The Titans are resting on their laurels by making the bad assumption that just because you CAN get pressure with your front four, you shouldn't rush anyone else. You've got to change it up and be as unpredictable as reasonably possible. This is quickly becoming a critical error in the team's strategy.
3) Vince Young is either unable or unwilling to run for first downs anymore. If he can't run, and run for first downs consistently like he did down the stretch last year, he is actually worse than Kerry Collins from a predicting future performance point-of-view and should therefore not even be playing. Vince Young needs about 50 yards a game and 3-4 rushing first downs a game to open up other opportunities with his arm.
4) The Titans seem to think that allowing LenDale White to rush for 2-3 yards per carry in the first half leads to 4-6 yards per carry averages by White in the second half.
This could not be more wrong. The Titans need to be rushing Chris Brown more in the first half (or the shifty Chris Henry once he returns from suspension) and then bringing White in the second half to pound through tired defenses...not tolerating his inability to escape and break tackles throughout the first half, all the while keeping the other team in the ballgame.
5) In a similar line of reasoning to why you keep your offense and defense as unpredictable as you can, so you don't put yourself at unnecessary risk, you also don't do the same thing on special teams. A special teams fake at some point in the middle of a ballgame would be advisable. We haven't tried one all year, and it's costing us as much as 8 yards in field position every punt.
I'm done with all this. I'm tired of worrying about a team that seems more interested in falling backwards into any playoff opportunities than grabbing it by the throat.
The Titans should have contacted me by now. Since they haven't, let's hope the rest of my predictions come true. Bear in mind, like I predicted, the Colts will not have anything to gain by winning in Week 17, and will therefore be resting a number of their key starters, allowing the Titans to win that game much easier than it might have been otherwise.
4) Easy part of schedule to finish up year: @ Kansas City, NY Jets, @ Indy
Prediction: Titans win all three of these games, blowing out Chiefs away and seizing revenge against Jets for early ’06 loss and Indy for early ’07 loss at home. Finish season 10-6 and enter playoffs as #5 seed.
I don't really consider this good news, but my predictions remain on target as a result of today's Titans letdown. Excerpted from my aforementioned 2007 Titans Predictions which I gave to Jeff Fisher on July 24:
Week 14 (San Diego) – LOSS: San Diego defense forces season-high 3 INT from VY
Prediction: 7-6 heading into Week 15.
Vince Young only threw 2 picks (along with 0 touchdowns) and had as many rushing yards in the game as the injured Philip Rivers (who is pretty immobile even when he's not hurt).
Seriously.
I've been spot on throughout the entire season, maybe switching up a game or two, but trending the season with complete accuracy and modeling out the Titans' overall strengths and weaknesses right on the money.
The funny thing is that the Titans could have been a 9-4 team or even a 10-3 team right now. They've got the talent.
Unfortunately, their gameplan of running LenDale White like a battering ram at the opponent, playing Schottenheimer-esque over-conservative offense, and waiting for defensive turnovers to happen, is just not the right formula for winning ballgames at this point.
Why?
1) The Titans' CBs are not physically equipped to force turnovers in the passing game. Nick Harper did have a nice pick today, but only because Rivers sucked. There's plenty of data here.
2) The Titans are resting on their laurels by making the bad assumption that just because you CAN get pressure with your front four, you shouldn't rush anyone else. You've got to change it up and be as unpredictable as reasonably possible. This is quickly becoming a critical error in the team's strategy.
3) Vince Young is either unable or unwilling to run for first downs anymore. If he can't run, and run for first downs consistently like he did down the stretch last year, he is actually worse than Kerry Collins from a predicting future performance point-of-view and should therefore not even be playing. Vince Young needs about 50 yards a game and 3-4 rushing first downs a game to open up other opportunities with his arm.
4) The Titans seem to think that allowing LenDale White to rush for 2-3 yards per carry in the first half leads to 4-6 yards per carry averages by White in the second half.
This could not be more wrong. The Titans need to be rushing Chris Brown more in the first half (or the shifty Chris Henry once he returns from suspension) and then bringing White in the second half to pound through tired defenses...not tolerating his inability to escape and break tackles throughout the first half, all the while keeping the other team in the ballgame.
5) In a similar line of reasoning to why you keep your offense and defense as unpredictable as you can, so you don't put yourself at unnecessary risk, you also don't do the same thing on special teams. A special teams fake at some point in the middle of a ballgame would be advisable. We haven't tried one all year, and it's costing us as much as 8 yards in field position every punt.
I'm done with all this. I'm tired of worrying about a team that seems more interested in falling backwards into any playoff opportunities than grabbing it by the throat.
The Titans should have contacted me by now. Since they haven't, let's hope the rest of my predictions come true. Bear in mind, like I predicted, the Colts will not have anything to gain by winning in Week 17, and will therefore be resting a number of their key starters, allowing the Titans to win that game much easier than it might have been otherwise.
4) Easy part of schedule to finish up year: @ Kansas City, NY Jets, @ Indy
Prediction: Titans win all three of these games, blowing out Chiefs away and seizing revenge against Jets for early ’06 loss and Indy for early ’07 loss at home. Finish season 10-6 and enter playoffs as #5 seed.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
I'm not real interested in having a second-straight political post in this blog, but I pretty much have to after seeing Oprah's endorsement of Barack Obama today.
Two key excerpts:
“There are times that I even worry about what happens to our country,” Winfrey said, standing on a small stage before a sea of people in the 100,000-square-foot hall. “That is why for the very first time in my life I feel compelled to stand up and speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.”
“Over the years, I have voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats,” Winfrey said — one line that didn’t draw applause in the partisan crowd. “This isn’t about partisanship for me. This is very, very personal. I’m here because of my personal conviction about Barack Obama and what I know he can do for America.”
When you're discussing Oprah Winfrey, you're talking about someone who has pretty much re-written the rules of modern media in turning a daytime talk show into something approximating a social movement. Oprah's followers are as loyal as any demagogue's, and Oprah's endorsement alone carries immense weight. If she rejects you on the air, you're pretty much done.
It's the reward for a life full of risks and having as big of a heart as she has a brain. She may very well be the most powerful person in the United States, which is a remarkable thing to even consider.
Does Oprah's endorsement really mean anything, politically? Yeah, it means a WHOLE LOT.
Obama's Presidential chances receive a breath of fresh air and new momentum. Obama's chances of being a Vice-Presidential candidate, in the event he does not receive the Dems nomination, just got a whole lot better.
Oprah attacks the rip on Obama that he's too young, and that he's not experienced enough to be President. Of course, this 'inexperience' argument against Obama is laughable. If Presidents were able to run for a third term, would anyone be arguing that George W. Bush's eight years of Presidential experience means he's more fit for the job than someone with none? In plenty of cases, experience means little.
This is about ideas, potential, and upside. We've all witnessed situations where people with "experience" have no business moving forward or even being considered for positions or levels in which they simply don't fit.
Oprah's comments on how personal this election has become for her are very interesting to me. I'm not a big fan of the ridiculous games that pass for election tactics in this country and I really try to spend as little time as possible caring about elections at any level. But I am fascinated that someone as illustrious as Oprah Winfrey has now come out of the woodwork and sounded the alarm.
Good for Obama. This will help. With me personally, it automatically validates him and makes him someone I'll watch now, whereas before he was "just another candidate."
Bad for Bush. Here's the human form of charity and morality itself, essentially calling out the President as disgracing the country. Yeah, that's actually REALLY bad.
And good for Oprah. It takes courage and conviction to risk her almighty pedestal she sits on to come out and endorse a candidate for President, because this nation is just completely nuts regarding political issues and discourse.
I applaud the effort. Even people who aren't fans of Obama now have to stand up and pay attention to what's happened today.
Two key excerpts:
“There are times that I even worry about what happens to our country,” Winfrey said, standing on a small stage before a sea of people in the 100,000-square-foot hall. “That is why for the very first time in my life I feel compelled to stand up and speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.”
“Over the years, I have voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats,” Winfrey said — one line that didn’t draw applause in the partisan crowd. “This isn’t about partisanship for me. This is very, very personal. I’m here because of my personal conviction about Barack Obama and what I know he can do for America.”
When you're discussing Oprah Winfrey, you're talking about someone who has pretty much re-written the rules of modern media in turning a daytime talk show into something approximating a social movement. Oprah's followers are as loyal as any demagogue's, and Oprah's endorsement alone carries immense weight. If she rejects you on the air, you're pretty much done.
It's the reward for a life full of risks and having as big of a heart as she has a brain. She may very well be the most powerful person in the United States, which is a remarkable thing to even consider.
Does Oprah's endorsement really mean anything, politically? Yeah, it means a WHOLE LOT.
Obama's Presidential chances receive a breath of fresh air and new momentum. Obama's chances of being a Vice-Presidential candidate, in the event he does not receive the Dems nomination, just got a whole lot better.
Oprah attacks the rip on Obama that he's too young, and that he's not experienced enough to be President. Of course, this 'inexperience' argument against Obama is laughable. If Presidents were able to run for a third term, would anyone be arguing that George W. Bush's eight years of Presidential experience means he's more fit for the job than someone with none? In plenty of cases, experience means little.
This is about ideas, potential, and upside. We've all witnessed situations where people with "experience" have no business moving forward or even being considered for positions or levels in which they simply don't fit.
Oprah's comments on how personal this election has become for her are very interesting to me. I'm not a big fan of the ridiculous games that pass for election tactics in this country and I really try to spend as little time as possible caring about elections at any level. But I am fascinated that someone as illustrious as Oprah Winfrey has now come out of the woodwork and sounded the alarm.
Good for Obama. This will help. With me personally, it automatically validates him and makes him someone I'll watch now, whereas before he was "just another candidate."
Bad for Bush. Here's the human form of charity and morality itself, essentially calling out the President as disgracing the country. Yeah, that's actually REALLY bad.
And good for Oprah. It takes courage and conviction to risk her almighty pedestal she sits on to come out and endorse a candidate for President, because this nation is just completely nuts regarding political issues and discourse.
I applaud the effort. Even people who aren't fans of Obama now have to stand up and pay attention to what's happened today.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Mitt Romney's attention-getting speech regarding his religious beliefs was one of the most interesting and unusual events surrounding the upcoming election so far.
Of course, the obvious question is why is Romney giving a speech on this topic in the first place. And, of course, the obvious answer is that people care about a lot more than just policy in electing a President. Religion, and it's importance to the individual leading our nation over a four-year period of time, apparently still matters to this country and it certainly matters to me.
Strangely, the failures of the US in Iraq - under Republican watch - have caused a general paranoia to set in that our country is in decline and that "God has turned his back on us as a nation." So, in other words, Bush's actions in Iraq will actually strengthen the likelihood of a Republican (who plays his cards right with religious issues) to return to the Oval Office in 2008.
The not-so-fun part is that the US is actually truly in noticeable decline. We have a weakening economy operating under the shadow of future governmental obligations - Social Security, health care, etc. - that we have no hope of delivering unless we take radical action and soon. We have a ridiculous tax system which is too complex for anyone to understand and does things like taxes people's money a second time upon their death. And let's not forget that we've created somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy by allowing our negligent, arrogant foreign policy to drive friends away and compel enemies to action.
While I've mentioned before that I believe Romney's robotic, corporate stature and demeanor won't translate well for the role as Commander in Chief, I have to think twice about that assessment when seeing the level of thought put into this recent speech. Specifically, this caught my attention:
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should
dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," Romney said.
If Romney keeps saying things like this, he should be fine. He probably needs Huckabee out of the race as quickly as possible, though, because no one will overlook Mr. Smith's Book of Mormon if there's an actual Baptist minister in the race. Without Huckabee in, Romney can seize the moral high ground over somebody like Giuliani.
I'm still hoping for Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee. But if Romney were the choice, I'd give him a hard look. So I suppose he might have accomplished his goal of settling the issue and preparing to move ahead. Romney's pro-active approach in confronting the issue early on simply confirms he has leadership skills that could be of use in repairing the damage that's been done to the Presidency over the past few years.
While I'm intrigued by the elevation of religion within the mainstream, it will take a lot to get me to actually vote in this election. I had two horrible choices in the last election from which to choose, and I continue to not appreciate the 'black and white' polarized type of discussions that pass as political discourse as we approach this next election.
The best thing of all in all of this is that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is elected, the President will be an upgrade. That's a good realization to have.
Oh, and in other news, Titans have a must-win this week against the Chargers. Unfortunately, I have them predicted to lose, but then go on and win the last 3 games before entering the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong!
Of course, the obvious question is why is Romney giving a speech on this topic in the first place. And, of course, the obvious answer is that people care about a lot more than just policy in electing a President. Religion, and it's importance to the individual leading our nation over a four-year period of time, apparently still matters to this country and it certainly matters to me.
Strangely, the failures of the US in Iraq - under Republican watch - have caused a general paranoia to set in that our country is in decline and that "God has turned his back on us as a nation." So, in other words, Bush's actions in Iraq will actually strengthen the likelihood of a Republican (who plays his cards right with religious issues) to return to the Oval Office in 2008.
The not-so-fun part is that the US is actually truly in noticeable decline. We have a weakening economy operating under the shadow of future governmental obligations - Social Security, health care, etc. - that we have no hope of delivering unless we take radical action and soon. We have a ridiculous tax system which is too complex for anyone to understand and does things like taxes people's money a second time upon their death. And let's not forget that we've created somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy by allowing our negligent, arrogant foreign policy to drive friends away and compel enemies to action.
While I've mentioned before that I believe Romney's robotic, corporate stature and demeanor won't translate well for the role as Commander in Chief, I have to think twice about that assessment when seeing the level of thought put into this recent speech. Specifically, this caught my attention:
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should
dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," Romney said.
If Romney keeps saying things like this, he should be fine. He probably needs Huckabee out of the race as quickly as possible, though, because no one will overlook Mr. Smith's Book of Mormon if there's an actual Baptist minister in the race. Without Huckabee in, Romney can seize the moral high ground over somebody like Giuliani.
I'm still hoping for Fred Thompson to be the Republican nominee. But if Romney were the choice, I'd give him a hard look. So I suppose he might have accomplished his goal of settling the issue and preparing to move ahead. Romney's pro-active approach in confronting the issue early on simply confirms he has leadership skills that could be of use in repairing the damage that's been done to the Presidency over the past few years.
While I'm intrigued by the elevation of religion within the mainstream, it will take a lot to get me to actually vote in this election. I had two horrible choices in the last election from which to choose, and I continue to not appreciate the 'black and white' polarized type of discussions that pass as political discourse as we approach this next election.
The best thing of all in all of this is that regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is elected, the President will be an upgrade. That's a good realization to have.
Oh, and in other news, Titans have a must-win this week against the Chargers. Unfortunately, I have them predicted to lose, but then go on and win the last 3 games before entering the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong!
