For those following the debate about Josh McDaniels' call on Monday night, Guy has posted video of the kick.  He claims the video shows the kick was long enough, thus justifying McDaniels.  I'm not sure the angle is clear enough to say the kick was long enough, but it was clearly a kick that would have been good from a few yards closer, thus illustrating what stupid decision McDaniels made to run a sneak instead of a real play.

Your thoughts?

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

Let me begin my brief movie review of District 9 by apologizing for the title of the post.  I doubt that referencing the Postal Service is really the most appropriate way to introduce a sci-fi film, but it's late and it's the best I could do at 12:20.  For that I apologize.  I'm also sorry that I went to the movies instead of taping 18 Plays.  We'll correct that tomorrow night.

As for the movie, it's better than I had hoped...and I expected good things.

In brief, District 9 is the story of what happens when an alien spaceship inexplicably lands over Johannesburg.  The aliens, nearly a million shrimp like creatures, are herded into a giant ghetto and subjected to inhumane conditions.  As is obvious from what I just wrote, there are clearly and intentional parallels to Apartheid to made.  The good news is that while they add resonance to the story, the movie does not use them as a crutch.  It paints a rather bleak portrait of human nature and the future which reminded me of the excellent Children of Men.  It is true science fiction in the Shellian sense.  The morality play at work enriches the story of Wikus the Government Pawn as he becomes, well Wikus the Alien Prawn.  The character of Wikus around whom the plot unfolds reminded me eerily of Murray, the New Zealand Consol.

The movie was well acted and directed.  When I first heard that it was shot documentary style, I envisioned Blair Witch meets Cloverfield.  Instead it was more Saving Private Ryan meets Aliens.  This is a good thing.  It would have been easy to make a bad movie that combined South African politics with documentary style shooting, but fortunately, Peter Jackson didn't direct the film, he only signed the checks.  The result is a horrifying and engaging tale that entertains as it pricks the conscience.  While there are certain leaps of logic required (why didn't anyone bother to talk to the aliens and find out what their deal was), ultimately, the story and the motivations are believable.

But suppose for a moment, that you don't give a crap about science fiction and don't want to waste Friday night being preached at.  This is your movie.  It is full of wonderfully violent shoot outs that are actually exciting as opposed to boring.  There is plenty of cool alien tech and lots of heads get blown off in spectacular ways.  In fact, the action sequences reminded me of Transformers...only, you know...interesting, because there is actually something at stake.

Everything about this movie exceeded my expectations.  If you want to see an exciting movie where stuff gets blown up and dudes get shot...go see this film.  If you want a smart morality tale about human nature...go see the film.  If you are a sci-fi purist who enjoys the creation of other worlds, species, and cultures, go see this film.  If you want a tragic tale of love, loss, and being the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time...go see this film.

If you heard something about District 9 that made you think it might be lame or trite, be assured, it is neither.  It is easily one of the best films I've seen this year, and one of the best pure science fiction films of the decade.

Yep.  He wore a Manning jersey to a public function.  This smacks of Costanza.  Perhaps Fisher is angling for a job as the director of Scouting for the Mets... or Colts.

Props to JMV for pointing this story out via the Jackson and Bullitt show.  Both players were fairly astounded by the story.  I know Fisher's appearance was for a worthy cause, but still, this is pretty nuts.  This sort of reminds me of a quote by another crazy coach we once knew.  Apparently Jeff Fisher just trying to relax and enjoy it. 

For the record, if I needed a coach, Fisher would be one of my first phone calls.  He has won a lot of games with average talent.  Not every coach gets to have Peyton Manning under center.  Remember:  The Titans blew the third overall pick three years ago.  Now they are paying the price.  Think this team would like a do-over with Vandy product Jay Cutler?  That was a popular rumor at the time.  Would they be 0-6?  I doubt it.  There is no way to know for sure, but it is a well known-fact that Fisher didn't want Vince Young.         

The Rams have no wins.

Their fans are desperate to unload tickets.  They can be had for less than $50 a seat.

St. Louis is just four hours away.

Here's a map.  It's time for a road trip, Colts' fans. If you've wanted to see the Horse in action this year, but you can't get cheap tix to the Luke, head down I-70 all the way to Saint Louis.  Let's fill their dome and force at least one false start on their offense by the crowd noise.  This is the perfect road trip destination.  The drive is easy.

View Larger Map

Fill it up.

Here's what's been bugging me in lieu of actual Colts football:

• Just before halftime last night, the Denver Broncos made one of the single worst play calls I've ever seen.  They had 2nd and 10 from the 39 with :06 seconds left (and a time out).  Instead of throwing a quick pass, they ran a QB sneak for 3 yards.  It set up a 54 yard field goal which ended up being short.  This was horrifically stupid.  They had time to gain the extra 5-10 yards they probably needed to have a makeable attempt.  Instead, they plowed into the line for 3 meaningless yards.  To make it worse, Jaworski and Gruden PRAISED McDaniels effusively for such a 'heady' call.  IT WAS STUPID. It was bone jarringly stupid.  McDaniels has his team off to an incredible start, and he should be praised for that, but in this instance, he cost his team a credible shot at a field goal.  Awful coaching moment.

• Alex Rodriguez's post season numbers are:  .288, .378 (OB), .535 (slugging), .913 OPS with 11 HR and 26 RBIs.  Over a full season that would be a 41 HR, 96 RBI season.  His regular season numbers are .305, .390, .576, .965.  Now there's a small dip there, which is to be expected considering the better pitchers and colder weather involved in the playoffs, but hopefully we can finally cram all this 'choker' crap.  I'm no ARod fan (the roids made that impossible), but I hate it when people cherry pick a handful of games and make them mean more than they do.

• Bob Kravitz set me off yesterday with this video (at the :55 second mark)
  

and then repeated his sentiments in his column today.  He says:

As for Johnson's surprising dismissal and the reasons behind it, call me mildly cynical. Sadly, history has taught us we can't always take the Colts at their word. It was only last year that they continued to deny -- or "refuse to address" -- reports that quarterback Peyton Manning had a second knee procedure.

This bothers me because I thought Kravitz was supposed to be a 'reporter'.  He doesn't take the Colts at their word about Ed Johnson.  Fair enough.  Do some research.  Make some calls.  Watch some film.  PROVE THEM WRONG.  Instead, Kravitz just tosses around accusations.  His reasoning is that last year they wouldn't answer questions about Manning's knee.  So what?  That's not analysis.  Here's what bothers me so much about the "there must be something more going on here" position:  there's no evidence for it.  We have four games worth of tape on Ed Johnson.  If a serious reporter thinks there is something phony about the Colts' decision to cut Ed Johnson he has avenues the rest of us don't.  He can make calls to agents, players, he can go to Ed's house and try and get a quote.  Moreover, he has access to what fans have as well:  the tape.  Comb over the tape and illustrate what a fine job Ed Johnson did.  Show that the Colts' claims don't make sense.

Even the dirty bloggers did more work on this story than Bob Kravtiz.  After 'Preston's' tape review, I rewatched the Titans game and came to the same conclusion:  Ed didn't play well (I'm saving my commentary on this for tomorrow night's 18 Plays).  Last night Polian gave a lengthy, logical answer about Ed Johnson.  It sounds sane and reasonable to me.  It sounds much more reasonable than suggesting the Colts are covering some thing up (which they have zero motivation to do).  Instead, Kravitz implies that Jim Caldwell is a liar, but gives precious little justification for his belief saying only:

I wondered, if Johnson was so bad, why was he still starting and getting so many snaps just two weeks ago at Tennessee? Why not demote him, as the Colts have with Tony Ugoh, or have him share time, as with Mike Pollak and Kyle DeVan?

"The feeling was it wouldn't do any good to demote him," Polian said.

Hm-m-m.

Again, Kravitz doesn't suggest who else the Colts should have cut.  He doesn't contradict the logic of cutting a guy who was on his last chance with the team, but was slowly getting fat and lazy.  He doesn't address the fact that a guy who is on a tight leash, but is letting his weight go becomes a serious conduct risk even before he does anything wrong.  And he does nothing to prove that Johnson deserved to be playing.  He just wants to imply the Colts are hiding something, but won't do the work to prove it.  The insinuation that the Colts' are hiding something doesn't bother me.  But for a reporter to make that claim without providing any support for it doesn't make sense to me.

Seems like a weenie move to me.

As I picked over the still warm corpse of the Steelers/Browns game yesterday, I thought, "Could anything be more miserable than Bye week Sunday?".

The answer, "Yup.  Bye week Monday".

Normally on Monday, there's a bevy of fun recap articles to read.  There's analysis to criticize.  There's articles to link.  There's something to do...

Today, however, my excitement was limited to waiting for the Monday Morning Hangover to come out.  That was only exciting because I wrote the part about Baltimore having a terrible defense, which is a point I've been making to every thing that moved since week 1, but only just now got the chance to hammer home to a wider audience.

If anything, yesterday just taught us a bunch of crap we already knew:  The Pats will win the East, the Steelers are still the best team in the Central North (though not as good as a year ago), the Saints are for real, and the Titans are the most done team in the history of football.

I admire BBS's enthusiasm over the trade market.  I have to confess I'm too beat down by that slate of clunkers yesterday to generate any myself.  Well, that and it doesn't feel like a trade kind of year.  Everything BBS says is true:  the Colts often make a minor deal, Cribbs or Rudd would add something for sure, Polian has to think this team is right on the cusp of something huge so making a move would make sense.  Even so, my hopes are low just because my mood is.  It would be great just have something to say.

Instead, my team has back to back bye weeks.  Oh I know there's a game this Sunday, but let's be real.  I'm better off analyzing Tom Brady than worrying about the Rams.  By the way, I'm utterly unfazed by that beating he gave the Titans.  I said a couple of weeks ago that Brady looked fine to me.  Now after one game against the league's worst team, his numbers are back to normal.  His YPA is normal, his completion % is actually high for him (64%), his TD % is a little high (but essentially normal), his pick % is a little low, and his rating is a little high.  He's on pace for the second best year of his career, but that will level off now that the Titans game is behind him. He'll wind up with a typical Tom Brady year:  28-30 TDs, a completion % around 63%, a rating of 90 and a YPA of 6.8.  That's who he is.  That's who he's always been. Yawn.

See what I've been reduced to?

Sigh.

I hate the bye week.

1.  Rough week for the NFL.  Some really tough games to watch, with few exceptions.  Hopefully the primetime games will be more entertaining.

2.  OT against the Rams?  My goodness.  The Jaguars find new ways to wow me each week.

3.  The Patriots are going to win the AFC East.  I've been saying it for several weeks, but Mark Sanchez isn't any good yet.  Actually he's pretty bad. 

4.  The Pats love running up the score.  Not exactly a newsflash.  It is good for the league to have Moss, Belichick, and Brady (listed in order of importance) relevant again.

5.  Tennessee is the worst team in the league by a wide margin.  Just not a lot to say about them right now.  Fisher and Collins need to go.  Scapegoats?  Yes, but they still need to go.

6.  Oakland has two wins?  How?

7.  I said it last week, but Houston is going to win more than people think.  I'll amend that slightly by adding:  Houston is going to the playoffs. 

8.  The Saints deserve the hype, and they are welcome to it.  The more the media focuses on Brees and Favre, the happier I'll be.  Expect the Colts and Manning get ignored in the weeks leading up to the Pats game. 

9.  That's another heartbreaking loss for the Ravens.  Three in a row.  They're still in the thick of the AFC North race, but at some point you have to beat a good team.  And play a little defense. 

10.  Bye weeks suck.  Actually I already knew that, but watching Fitzpatrick and Sanchez slop around in overtime has reaffirmed it.

While I'm thrilled the Colts have this bye week to get back to close to full strength, I does make for a bland Sunday of football.  If you are so inclined to watch the NFL tomorrow, here's a quick look at what will help the Horse.

Houston @ Cincinnati

Personally, I have to go with the Texans here.  Indy already has three games in hand over Houston, and while a loss would only create more distance between the Colts and the second best team in the division, at this point, I'm taking the division title for granted.  Let's lock in on the top two seeds by dropping the serious AFC contenders.  The Bengals have to be considered a serious contender, and while I find the odds of them finishing with a better record than the Colts remote, it's mathematically possible.  So in order to keep the tiebreakers from getting weird, let's pull for the Texans.

Again, NFC/AFC games are easy calls.  Grab some horns, glue them to your head, and you are covered for both teams.  If the Rams beat Jacksonville, Del Rio doesn't last the week.

Titans @ New England

You don't need me to tell you what to do here.  Hate away.  It's surprising that this game suddenly feels so unimportant.

Cleveland @ Pittsburgh

Woof, woof, as they say, woof.

Buffalo @ NY Jets

Again, not that easy a call.  Do we really want the Pats in the playoffs? I know the Jets are 'contenders' but with two games in hand on them, I'm inclined to pull for them just to keep New England in second place.

Denver @ San Diego (Monday Night)

Numerically, it makes sense to root for the Chargers, but my Colts' fan genetic coding screams that Denver we can handle, and San Diego will be tough.  I usually love the math, but I'm bucking the trend.  I want the Chargers dead in the warm, soft, San Diego ground.  The last time Denver was all great with a super defense, it took Peyton Manning 4 quarters to expose them as utter frauds.  I'm sensing that's about to happen again this year.  No way I want to see San Diego in the mix.

Demond Sanders:  I like the Texans too.  They are a long shot for a wild card, and Cincy needs to drop a game.  The Bengals have a tough closing schedule, but they seem focused.  I'd rank them as the biggest threat for home field advantage.  But it is still early. 

I see a minimum of four losses for Denver left on the schedule and possibly five or six.  They have a tough final ten games.  San Diego has an easier slate with games left against the Chiefs (twice), Browns, Titan, Redskins, and Raiders.  This is a huge game for both teams.  The Chargers will be in wildcard mode if the lose.  I was initially pulling for San Diego, but after looking at the schedules... I'll agree with your reasoning on rooting for Denver.  I won't be sorry either way, obviously.

The Jets are going to lose their share of boneheaded games thanks to Mark Sanchez.  Like you say, we want them to stay in front of the Pats.  Their next 8 games look like this:  Buffalo, @Oakland, Miami, Jacksonville, @New England, Carolina, @Buffalo, @Tampa Bay.  That's a minimum of five wins, and possibly more.  Problem is New England has an equally easy slate of games.  I think the Pats are headed for the playoffs and probably the divisional title.  So I'll go with your reasoning.     

It's the bye week, and we've pretty much pounded every available issue into the turf this week.  That means it's time for me to make a small announcement.  Those of you who have been reading for awhile know that I've been working on a book for the last 10 months or so.  Well, it's done.  Done, done.  It's been written, rewritten, re-rewritten, and I've finally got it where I want it. And honestly, I'm proud of it.

I liked it.  My wife liked it.  My dad said, "Well, I haven't finished it yet, but I think you are a good writer.  You've got all that bulls**t in there that a book has to have if it's not going to be boring."

He has a way with words.  Apparently, I come by it honestly.

That means I've begun the soul killing process of seeking representation and publication.  As anyone who has ever shopped a book knows, writing is the easy part, selling it is the hard part.  I'll spend the next several months trying to find an agent to represent the book, but if all avenues come up dry, I'll self-publish.  So don't worry, if you are truly desperate to read it, you'll get your chance.  I promise.

For now, if anyone is or knows of an agent or publisher interested in a novel about Indiana high school basketball complete at 79,672 words entitled Invincible, Indiana, please contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .  I'll be happy to send you a query letter.

For the rest of you, the book is coming...some day.

You may all now bate your breath.

With no game this week to distract us, all we have to talk about is Ed Johnson.  What's interesting is how two of the primary sources for Colts information differ in their opinions of the move to release Big Ed.

First note how Oehser handles his surprise:

One thing that really wasn't discussed by Colts players or Caldwell were a couple of fairly obvious questions -- one being, 'If Johnson was playing poorly enough to be released why was he starting?' and the other being "Are there really four tackles on the roster better than Johnson?"

The cynics among us will believe that because of those questions there is more to the release than the Colts are saying, and perhaps that's true. But the reality is the Colts were up front in the wake of Johnson's release last season, and while the Colts aren't always as forthcoming on injuries as we in the media might like, Caldwell is absolutely not a liar. If he says production was the issue, I believe it.

What does trouble me is his reports about how the players feel about the move.  It sounds like this was not a popular move in the locker room:

“Obviously, it's very, very unfortunate," Freeney said. "You never want to see a guy who's been around not here with you. As players, we can't decide who's there and who's not. I'm sure upper management had their reasons for whatever they decided to do. We just have to line up on Sundays and whoever's there we have do deal with it regardless of what we feel about it."

Freeney went on to say, "I was surprised to see it happened. Obviously, he's here today and gone tomorrow. That's part of the NFL. It's unfortunate. He's a brother. He's one of us. Life moves on and when things move on, you have to carry on. That's why the upper management – everybody has their place. That's their job, to make those decisions. Our job is to go out on the field and make plays and help this team win. That's what we're going to focus on no matter who's there or not."

Make no mistake:

This was a tough day for Freeney. This was a tough day for many Colts players

On the other side of the fence is Phil B Wilson:

I can't deny the inclination, as others have suggested, that there's more to the Johnson release than what has been publicly stated. If Johnson failed a drug test, violated his probation or this had something to do with an off-field issue, I don't see why the team would want to publicize this. First, the team can't be thrilled about admitting it was wrong about the guy again, especially if he did something stupid. Second, we live in a world where it's all about political correctness as far as confidentiality stuff goes. If Johnson had an off-field misstep, it's not legally wise for the team to discuss details.

But the part that doesn't add up, as most have asked, is why start a guy for four games this season, and also why bring him back after he let the team down once before, then release him and say it was performance? If it truly was based on his play, do you mean to tell me that LT Tony Ugoh and CB Tim Jennings aren't on that short list, too? I could hear someone say, "Well, we're thin at offensive line and cornerback and can't afford to get rid of either guy, regardless of performance." Perhaps, but Moala had yet to see the field. They started a guy who supposedly wasn't getting it done instead of throwing a rookie into the fire to see what he's made of. Nope, it doesn't make sense...

The hunch is that we will have to wait a while before the rest of the story comes out. As another blogger suggested to me, if Johnson signs somewhere else, then maybe it was just performance. But if he doesn't get a sniff, then it's reasonable to surmise the guy had another off-field issue, was possibly going to get suspended again, and enough is enough.

I don't quite see Wilson's comparisons to Ugoh and Jennings.  Jennings struggles, sure.  He also works hard and makes plays.  As for Ugoh, I think he's hurt.  I don't think the team wants to cut him until they are sure he's useless.  He found a rhythm (before getting hurt again) on Sunday night.

On top of everything else is this report by PFT stating that a grievance filed by Johnson was the reason for the dismissal

Per a league source, the team only told Johnson that he weighed in at 320 pounds, three more than his target, and that the team was letting him go.

And so there's a belief that Johnson was dumped because of the grievance that he filed after being cut by the team in 2008 following an arrest for marijuana possession.  The grievance contends that the teams have no authority to discipline players for violations of the substance-abuse policy. 

Per the source, the Colts asked Johnson to drop the grievance when he was re-signed in May.  He refused, and we're told that the team wasn't happy about it.

So there could now be another grievance -- and that's why the Colts are pointing only to Johnson's performance as the reason for the decision.

Regardless of whether it really was.

Thanks Florio.  Too bad he never seems to know anything about the Colts and routinely accuses them of conspiracies.  Cutting Johnson because he was overweight and not playing well makes a lot of sense.  The part about the grievance makes no sense.  They asked him to drop it in May when they resigned him, but only now they cut him for not doing it?  That defies logic.  Why would they have ever signed him back in the first place if that was the case?  Secondly, why is there no report anywhere that a grievance was ever filed?  I can't find any record anywhere saying that Johnson filed a complaint about his dismissal.  If he had, wouldn't it have been resolved by now? Sounds like an agent made a phone call to help his player to me.

I've stated my point of view.  I'm taking this at face value for the following reasons:

1.  Ed hasn't played well.  The evidence for it is on the tape and in the numbers.  The Colts had a ready replacement for him who has battled some injuries and is now healthy (Moala).  Sometimes, things are what they are.  They needed the roster spot and took his.  Maybe when Gonzo comes back and they can cut Baskett we see Ed back.  Although if weight was sighted as the reason I doubt his time away will help him much.

2.  I don't see that why it would make the club look bad to admit they cut him due to behavior.  I think that it would have made the team look consistent and firm.  "We gave him a chance.  He blew it."  Giving someone a second chance that doesn't work out doesn't make you look bad for giving the chance. It makes the offender look bad for blowing it.  I see no reason for the Colts to cover up anything to save face.

3.  I don't think they would have covered up something to help Johnson.  A failed test, a run in with the law, whatever...those things would come out eventually if he signed somewhere else.  I don't know what would be gained for Ed by lying now.

4.  I think the whole "starter to cut" argument isn't important.  The Colts have played a rotation at DT all year.  The fact that Ed Johnson started didn't necessarily mean he was best player at the position or even that he was getting most of the snaps.  He was just the guy that fit into that particular rotational scheme.  People are making too big a deal out of that rather meaningless designation.  Remember that Robert Mathis only started 2 games last year.