The blogging problem.
I like to read blogs, but with no internet at home, I rely on my office computer. Many bloggers enjoy posting pictures of skimpily clad women. I don't ogle them in my office, but I often like to read the content posted next to the pictures. My office is tucked into a far corner, and rarely do students come to visit me, so this is rarely a problem. However, today a student came to visit me while I was reading this deadspin post. I felt quite awkward about it all.
Am I the only internet user who likes Peyton and Eli Manning?
I intensely dislike Brett Favre; I've always especially disliked the way announcers apologize for his mistakes and generally act like he's perfect. I used to seethe with this opinion, and Dr. Z was the only mainstream writer who expressed this similar opinion. Then I discovered blogs, and it was clear that lots of people share that opinion.
Lots of people all over the internet also intensely dislike Peyton and Eli Manning. I understand the reasons (overexposure, sense of entitlement, announcers' fawning, etc.). But I have to admit: I love watching both Peyton and Eli play football. If the Vikings aren't on, the Colts are the team I'd most rather watch.
I like them because THEY ARE FUN TO WATCH. They are both in offenses in which they take a lot of shots downfield (I've been a fan of the vertical passing game ever since Tecmo Bowl). Unless they are playing the Vikings, I generally wish them both success. They generally seem pretty likeable, they don't get into off-the-field trouble, and they make games fun to watch. I like them and I wish them the best (when they're not playing the Vikings).
According to this Star Tribune column by Judd Zulgad,
"One principle of the Tampa-2 defense calls for the front four to apply pressure without much blitzing. But by Sharper's estimate, the Vikings blitzed about 60 percent of the time Sunday, including on nearly every third-down situation. That was about 20 percent more than they had blitzed in their Week 1 victory at Washington. Carolina ended up 3-for-14 (21 percent) on third downs. Washington had gone 4-for-13 (31 percent) on third down."
According to this report, it looks like the Vikings were very successful blitzing, especially on 3rd down. Now if in tomorrow's TMQ column, Gregg Easterbrook uses one of those 3 successful Carolina conversions to argue that teams shouldn't blitz much, especially on 3rd down when it's expected, I will stick my head in the freezer, lest it explode.
Washington is bad.
Without Clinton Portis, Washington has a VERY bad offense. There are no consistent playmakers left on the roster. In 2005 Santana Moss had a career year with 1,483 yards and 9 TDs, but he actually only had 5 100 yard games and 5 games in which he scored a TD. Antwaan Randle El has never shown the ability to make more than a few good plays in a game. I'm of the opinion that Mark Brunell just isn't that good (last year Washington needed a career high 23 TD passes from Brunell to win 10 regular season games). The backup running backs aren't very good.
But Clinton Portis is, by any standard, a stud. He has always been a consistent producer. Washington will only crawl back to respectability if Portis comes back healthy and soon; if he doesn't, they will lose to the Texans.