Vengeance, Philosophy, and Football...

Hello again everybody. It's been a little while since I word-raped Harry Potter in my last blog, but - save for the every day stuff like contemplating what chairs would look like if our knees bent the other way - there has not been too much on my mind since. Then, just like that - skidoosh! - a whole bunch of shit started happening that caused the sarcastic whirlwind that is my psyche to start whipping around, and so here I am again, ready to inform, entertain, offend, and stir up whatever other thoughts and feelings you get while reading this shit. Alright, let's get it on...

I. STARTING OFF WITH SOMETHING HEAVY

I find it keenly intriguing/curious that perhaps the best way to tell that someone really cares about you is if he or she can shatter your heart and soul with what he or she says. In this sense, closeness and vulnerability become almost synonymous. Not a ground-breaking revelation I realize, just an interesting thought. Maybe this is why they say it's good to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer; because this way, theoretically, you can crush your enemies without ever having to touch them. Can you think of a more empowering feeling than that? I can't. So, for those of you burgeoning psychopaths out there who just now immediately thought of that one awful person on your hit list who makes your goosebumped skin crawl and your blood sizzle, perhaps this idea will inspire you to settle for the consolatory satisfaction that will come when you rip out his or her figurative heart instead of the handcuffs and lifetime jail sentence that would come if you ripped out his or her physical, blood-pumping one. And hey, if you manage to psychologically damage this person enough to the point where he or she commits suicide, well then consider it a bonus, then give me a call and we'll go pour his or her actual blood into crystal chalices as we toast his or her swift demise, not to mention your freedom. ('You REALLY gotta stop watching 'Dexter' and 'TrueBlood.' Ok, maybe you're right... but the main idea here before the gruesome stuff is still a fascinating one!...And a valid one, too!)

('Ummmmm, asshole, wouldn't keeping your enemies closer also result in them being close to you, and therefore having the ability to rip YOUR heart out?" Ummm, no. Not at all, but nice try. Allow me to explain). The only way to keep those whom you truly detest close to you, or to even draw them to you in the first place, is to put on a front around them, or a facade that masks your general distaste (think any boss : underappreciated worker still desperate for a promotion type relationship ever). Doing this not only reels in your prey, but it also keeps them at more than arm's length ('Sooo, like an arm plus a hand holding a kitchen knife's length?' Yes. Precisely. And quite appropriately) from ever really knowing the real you. And as you've probably guessed, if they don't really know you, they can't really hurt you. All of the sudden, advantage (quick, point to yourself with your thumbs..) this guy! The only real problem with all of this is that acting fake/putting up a front/whatever you want to call it just kinda sucks. Everyone hates fake people - even other fake people. But if vengeance/humbling someone in a supremely devastating manner is appealing to you - and let's be honest, it's an appealing concept to all of us because we're human - then, well, sacrifices need to be made, and nobody ever made an omelette without breaking a few eggs, as they say. Just be sure to leave that omelette sit out a while before serving it because vengeance...(wait for it...) is a dish best served cold! ('Reeeally?' I'm sorry, that was weak I know... 'I still just can't believe you started this paragraph with a parentheses.' Me neither. It's a flawed paragraph all over the place. Let's ust move on....)

II. VICK HATERS = TERRORISTS

Alright, so being an avid Philadelphia Eagles fan as well as just a stubborn and verbose human being, there's just no way I can write a blog without addressing the Michael Vick situation. Here's the point - if you seriously think that Michael Vick has no business playing in the NFL, so much so that you'd be willing to sell your tickets and/or outright boycott Philadelphia Eagles games (or all NFL games for that matter) because of it, then I feel nothing but pity, shame, and disgust for you. Why? - because you're a fucking moron. That's why. ('Oh, so now since he's playing for your team you're okay with what he did?' Is that what I said? No. Stop making bitter assumptions).

I'm going to put it as simply as I can. If you don't believe in giving Michael Vick a "second chance" as I've been hearing it phrased so frequently as of late, then what you're really saying is that you don't believe in possibility of his rehabilitation. And if you're shunning the concept of rehabilitation, then you're essentially condemning one of the cornerstones of our legal/justice/prison system. And if you condemn justice, you condemn the American way. This makes you a terrorist. ('Well that's an incredibly juvenile explanation.' Yeah, well, no more juvenile than your immature and naive take on things).

For those of you (and there are many I'm sure, and I hate you all) who still see things the other way, let me ask you a few questions: Is it wrong to EVER let a person who was convicted of raping another human being out of prison? Should he have to stay there forever, with no exceptions? And if he is released, is it wrong to let him try to contribute to society by re-establishing himself in the trade in which he's trained and proven? Getting more specific/relevant now - if you hate Michael Vick so much, do you also hate all of China since they eat dogs? (Don't try and tell me they don't). Do you detest everyone in those countries in which cock-fighting (chickens, not penises) is an accepted and popular custom/activity? Or do you, the animal loving saint that you are, really only care about the animals that are domesticated, or more bluntly, the ones you think are "cute"? (Don't answer that one even in your head, we all know the answer). Do you ever hold conversations/debates about animal rights during a steak dinner? I bet you do, you fucking hypocrite.

(Fun little side story so you can get an extreme/exaggerated example of the types of mindless people I'm talking about: I once heard someone, an ostensible animal rights uber-zealot, say that she stood for the rights of ALL animals. She said this as she was stirring the shrimp cooking in her frying pan. When I called this, ummm, ironic situation into question, she said that it was okay because....drum-roll please...."shrimp aren't REAL animals." I then stood there for a while with a look on my face that said only, "What the fuck are they then - fungi?".... Yes, folks, these people exist. Alright, getting back on track now...)

Ya know, Michael Vick spent his best athletic years in a cell for engaging himself in an institution - an admittedly disgusting one - that was and probably still is an unfortunate blemish on the face of southern culture, yet was and is part of the culture nonetheless. In other words, he honestly probably didn't even know any better. And while this unfortunate naivete certainly does not excuse his actions, I think it does make them at least a tad more potentially forgiveable. And he paid for it with three years of his life, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in salary and potential endorsement deals during the time. That's a hell of a financial and psychological debt that he has paid, people. Still, now that he's out and working in Philadelphia, he's already begun to collaborate with the Humane Society. So he's doing what he can. When he's not dealing with his bankruptcy issues, he's doing the job to which he has been properly trained as a professional in an effort to put his life back together, and he's doing what he must to ensure nobody else endures the misfortune that he did for the same stupid reasons. Can you really ask for more than that? If so, what the hell will it take for you? If your answer is "there's nothing he can do in my mind," then, yeah, you're an ignorant fuck, and I hope someone sicks a rabid pit bull on you....

Maybe when this all eventually blows over (I'm guessing by November) and I'm at an Eagles tailgate party with the erstwhile protestors and boycotters all dressed in their green and silver best, we can switch our attention to all the rapists/sexual assaulters (Roethlisberger), murderers (Ray Lewis), and drug addicts (everyone else) rampant in the NFL. But only when we finish with this dog thing, because that's way, WAY more important....right?


III. THE BRAVID FRASELHOFF HYBRID MAN

If you watch any television at all, chances are that you've come across the new commercial campaign for "The Golden Corral" restaurant chain. If you haven't - well, even if you have - check out this link real quick, and be sure to take particular note of the customer sitting down at the booth placing the order: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaAIbXEmLFc . I apologize that the quality is kinda weak and apparently someone has been playing around with the footage in the video in a feeble effort to make it funny, but as long as you got a good look at the customer, I don't care. My point is this: that guy looks like an EXACT physical combination of Brendan Fraser and David Hasslehoff. He has Fraser's eyes and goofy facial expressions (like when he smirks and says "big problem..." while looking at the camera), but he has the Hoff's ('Baywatch' years particularly) hair and overall structure.

It's amazing how quickly this idea shot into my head the very first time I saw the commercial. Usually you can look at someone on tv or in person and say, "Wow, that person really resembles (fill in name)!" I've never (until now) seen it happen where you can look at a person once and immediately determine that they look not just a little bit like two different people, but that they look exactly like the hypothetical lovechild of the two references in mind. I actually managed to blow my own mind with this one....Go ahead. Watch the video again. It's astounding. And try not to laugh next time you see the commercial...

IV. ISOLATION = REVELATION??

Lots of guys often say that they do their best thinking while sitting on the toilet. I realize that many times this is probably said in jest because it's a solid default joke that probably averages a 50-55% rate of return on laughter/polite giggling, but still, it wouldn't be said quite so often if there wasn't at least an inkling of truth to it. This occurred to me earlier today (8/25/09) as I was enjoying the euphoric sorcery that is french vanilla coffee after a long 40 or so hours of working and selling while sitting in a eerily quiet Dunkin' Donuts in the heart of the city that everyone knows of, but nobody ever really ever feels compelled to visit - Rochester, NY. And actually, the thinking-while-on-the-toilet thing is not the first idea that occurred to me. Instead, my initial thought was really more of a realization; I knew that because I was alone, and because there was essentially nothing of remote interest within a 20 mile radius of me, that I was inevitably a mere moment or two away from engaging in some deep, contemplative thought. With nobody to talk to and nothing to do but drink my coffee, my mind was going to start racing and there was nothing I could do about it. I didn't mind. In fact, I've come to enjoy those quiet moments a bit. I just found the apparent direct correlation between isolation and profound thought interesting.

For a considerable amount of time - say, half an extra large cup's worth (I would provide an actual time period here, but when I say there was nothing around me, I mean seriously nothing, and that includes the ticking of a clock) - my mind didn't stray too far from that very idea. Specifically, I began to wonder if this is an innate and involuntary reaction to being alone - not just thinking, but thinking deeply/philosophically/contemplatively. More interestingly, I began to wonder if this could be a decent litmus test judge someone's intelligence and/or intuition...Wait, let me word that thought in the same manner in which it occurred to me... More interestingly, I began to wonder if this would be a fun way of seeing if someone is retarded. ('Real nice, asshole. Thought you actually were on to something provocative here, but nooooo! - just another premise for making fun of people.' Can't it be both?). Seriously, consider that for a moment. Imagine if you locked someone - he or she knowing full well that this was solely a test and that he or she was not being abducted or imprisoned or anything like that, for such a context would cause him or her to think mainly of means of escape/survival, and that's not what we're after - for five hours in a room completely empty except for one folding chair. Bare walls. No windows. No nothing. Just empty. Then, after the five hours expired, you entered the room and asked the person point blank, "Giving as much detail as possible, what did you think about these last five hours?" If the person genuinely responds with "Seriously, nothing," "Just how bored I was," or something similar, I dare say that person would be retarded, or at least on par with Forrest Gump... I guess essentially my question is this: is it possible for a person of normal/respectable intellect to be alone for an extended period of time without having his or her mind pry into itself and eventually conjuring up some legitimately profound thoughts? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I can't imagine being alone for a long time and not thinking heavily upon something, and I think that if you can pull off thinking of nothing, then really your mind is empty. And if your mind is empty, you're a fuckin' retard in my book.

If that last paragaph seemed a bit loaded/convoluted, etc. (and I admit it even seemed so while writing it), maybe I can better express my thoughts with a more readily identifiable example. Alright, here goes: you know who's definitely not retarded: Raymond Stantz of the Ghostbusters (played by Dan Aykroyd). You know how I know? - because when Peter Venkman told him to empty his head and think of nothing or else his thoughts would materialize and come to destroy them all, Ray could not help but immediately think of something. The fact that he thought of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is irrelevant. The point is that when faced with a situation whereby only an empty mind would yield success, he failed. And I would hope that all of you would fail if placed in a similar situation. ('Are you implying that the other three Ghostbusters are all retarded then since they didn't think of anything in that scene?' No, just the black guy...Kidding. No, I'm just saying that Ray thought of something first) Hopefully this makes my idea a little clearer.

But wait, there's more. I realize that there is such a thing as "intelligent conversation," whereby the kinds of conjured profound thoughts I've been talking about can develop from actually holding a substantial dialogue with another person or more other people. In other words, I'm not saying that truly deep thought is exclusive to being alone, just that it's more likely. I say that because when you're with other people, you can choose to alter the trajectory of a conversation. When shit gets too heavy, you can change the subject to something lighter if you want, and the dialogue will then shift your mind's focus in a new direction. When you're alone, you really can't do that. When your mind is on a roll, you're pretty much helpless to stop it. Some kind of tangible distraction is needed. And with nothing and nobody in that Dunkin' Donuts, I had no such distractions, and so naturally, the deeper I plunged...

But now that you obviously know WHY my mind was wandering, I'll stop explaining it. Instead, I'll just share the chain reaction of thoughts upon which I dwelled for anywhere between one sip's worth and the remaining half-cup's worth of french vanilla coffee:

- I wonder if it's possible not to think deeply when you're alone.
- If you can manage not to do this, or to actually think of nothing at all, I wonder if that means that you're stupid/retarded, because it seems inevitable/involuntary to me.
- If all that is true, I wonder if the reverse is also true: if your isolation typically leads to mind-blowing or ground-breaking revelations, then that means you're either a genius or at least a fantastic philosopher/sage.
- I would like it if both extremes were true, because I like it when things work out neatly or formulaically...which makes me wonder yet again why I don't like math/algebra because working things out formulaically is what they're all about.
- Maybe I like when things work out formulaically because there is a sense of safety or security in that concept. "Knowing things will all work out in the end" has gotta be one of the most comforting phrases in the world, doesn't it?
- I'm intriguing myself. I should blog about this when I get back to my hotel. I hope all this doesn't seemed forced/contrived when I write about it because I don't want all 9 people who read it to be unentertained...haha, I'm gonna write that down.
- I wonder if people like Socrates and Plato and shit spent most of their lives alone, and that's why they had such involved ideas about life. Wasn't it Plato who explained shit using "the allegory of the cave"? If it wasn't him, it was someone else who typically gets lumped into that great philosopher discussion I think... Either way, I wonder if the idea of a "cave" seemed appropriate because he kinda lived in a proverbial one where he did all his thinking.
- It was funny in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" when Ted (Keanu Reeves), consistently failing to understand how Socrates spelled his name/is pronounced, says to Bill, who is holding an encyclopedia, "Look up Socrates (pronounced correctly). He's listed under socrates (pronounced 's-oh-cr-ates')."
- But that idea seems unlikely, because it just seem irrational that someone could possibly derive thoughts about life without ever really experiencing it, and that would be the case if they were alone all the time.
- Maybe they did get out and about, get drunk, have sex, bet heavy on the Lakers, and do whatever else normal people did in ancient Greece, but they were just a bit more naturally discerning or curious, and so whenever they happened to be alone, they found themselves thinking longer and harder about what they witnessed than anyone else.
- Maybe they did this when they were on the crapper because that's where you're typically by yourself the most, and maybe that's where that saying really started...
- I'm surprised I do as much of this deep thought stuff as I do because I crap, at most, three times a week.
- I like irony.

There were other, smaller thoughts sprinkled in there too, but I was focusing on the main chain of linking isolation to thought to shitting... ('Well Deej, thanks for wasting my time with your bullshit. Can we get back to fun stuff now?' Ummm, yeah. You got it. Enough is enough. On to something else)...

V. A QUICK THOUGHT

Everyone can look sexier with sunglasses on. And it has nothing to do with the sunglasses themselves. It has everything to do with not giving anything away with your eyes. As gay as that sounds, its true. Sunglasses can more than adequately hide the emotions that your eyes can easily give away. (Another movie example: You think James Cameron made Arnold Schwarzenegger wear sunglasses in Terminator 2 for his fuckin' health? No. He did so because not being able to see anything in Aaaahnold's eyes made it impossible to see even subtle emotional cues he otherwise may have mistakenly been exhibiting- which is clearly not something you want when portraying a robot). And not being able to read what someone's feeling/thinking makes them more mysterious. And mysterious = intriguing. And intriguing = sexy. ('Wait, are you suggesting that Arnold Schwarzenegger as a homicidal robot is sexy?' Are you suggesting that it isn't?).

VI. TEN BOLD NFL PREDICTIONS

I love the fact that football is back. Everything about it is exciting. The game itself is a fantastic one, and for many reasons. But the reason I enjoy the most is that because moreso than any other major sport in America, football requires every element of a team to fire on all cylinders to be successful. In other words, if an offensive scheme breaks down in the NBA, it's okay if you live in Cleveland or Los Angeles because LeBron or Kobe can just single-handedly take on an entire team. In baseball, a team may put up one run in a game, but it still may win if the pitcher is lights out that night. In hockey, all you need is a hot goalie (just ask anyone on the New Jersey Devils in the mid-late '90's). But in football, though there are some exceptions, said exceptions occur much more infrequently than in the other three sports. Rarely can a running back dominate a game unless his blockers are also playing well. A quarterback will have a hard time taking over if his receivers can't get separation. Defensive ends can typically only wreak havoc if someone else is getting double-teamed. I could go on and on, but you should have the idea by now. Football is an incredibly demanding game of dependance/reliance. If there's one weak link, the entire chain is useless. I think many people - "experts," "pundits," and "analysts" chief among them (Mark Schlereth and Merrill Hoge, I'm lookin' at you) - often forget this. And that's why to them (and to some of you), my predictions here might seem...ummmm....brazen. Every team has exposable weaknesses. I just happen to think some of them are more likely to be exploited than others. With that general idea in mind, here are 10 things that will/will not happen during the 2009 NFL season:

10. The Atlanta Falcons will not make the playoffs - Everyone seems way too high on this team, and I don't really know why. Matt Ryan had a great rookie campaign last year, sure. But since when is one year good enough to galvanize anyone/bank on them as a sure thing? He has sophomore slump written all over him, especially considering there's no guarantee that Roddy White wasn't a flash in the pan last season, and now that he has a new, gigantic contract, he isn't putting up the same effort/numbers as last year. No way. Also, thinking that the addition of an old Tony Gonzalez is the missing piece needed for a Super Bowl run is ridiculous. They'll get bottled up, Michael Turner is going to get overused/run into the ground, and New Orleans and Carolina are going to pounce on them.

9. The fine folks of Chicago will realize that their wish for a franchise QB has still not been fulfilled - Let's make one thing abundantly clear - and I'll do so by unnecessarily punctuating what should be one sentence with periods after each word - Jay. Cutler. Stinks. ('You know he made the Pro Bowl right?' You know the Pro Bowl rosters are bullshit almost every year, right?). This guy had a three game lead in the worst division in football last year with three games to play, and he lost them ALL! And in those games - the most meaningful ones of his career considering he's yet to even make the playoffs - he threw a total of two touchdowns. TWO! He threw 23 td's in the other 13 games last season, but during those biggies at the end....two. Oh, and four interceptions during that time as well. Way to go Bears - you gave away awesome draft picks for an overrated cry-baby with no significant wins under his belt.

8. The Dallas Cowboys will finish 4th in the NFC East - This might not seem quite as "bold" a prediction as the others when considering how superior their in-division competition in New York and Philadelphia is going to be, but I'm saying the Cowgirls are going to fall flat on their stupid faces. I say they finish two full games behind the boringly mediocre Redskins. Their coach is - to use one of Philly's favorite colloquialisms - a bum, Romo is as bad as Cutler down the stretch, their best receiving threat is gone, and their defense is receiving a mini-renovation. All this, and they don't have a single solid draft choice to showcase this year. They better hope Marion Barber and Felix Jones can carry them. But I don't. They're fucked. New York and Philly are gonna smack them around like the little faggoty bitches they are, so thats four losses right there. After that, I say they lose at least five more.

7. The Seattle Seahawks will win the NFC West - If you don't believe in the Super Bowl hangover (that awful curse whereby the previous year's runner-up inevitably stinks the following season), I don't know what to tell you. It's legit. This century alone, it's happened to Philly, Seattle, Oakland, Carolina, St Louis, and probably someone else I'm forgetting. And it'll happen to the Cardinals, too. The Cards might be more fortuante than the other runners-up in the win-loss columns because the NFC West is so bad, but their hangover coupled with the Rams putridity and the 49ers lack of legit QB (who will not have unsigned rookie receiver Michael Crabtree at his disposal) will pave the way for a ressurgence in Seattle. No reason to think Hasselbeck can't come back strong, they added a quality possession receiver in TJ Houshmanzadeh (Howshmazode! Championship!), the RB tandem of Julius Jones and newly acquired Edgerrin James - who showed surprising vitality during the Cards playoff run last year - is nothing to sneeze at, and maybe a young energetic coach like Jim Mora (the sniveling little cocksucker that he is) at the helm might just provide them the shot of adrenaline they didn't get with a tired Mike Holmgren.

6. The Houston Texans will make the playoffs - We've been waiting for this team to come around for a long time. I say this is the year. They're average everywhere except receiver, where Andre Johnson alone makes them way above average, but the rest of their division I think is going down the tubes. Jacksonville is a non-factor as far as I'm concerned. Kerry Collins had a nice little swan song last year, but they're nuts in Tennessee if they think he can duplicate that season he had in 2008. He'll choke, and Vince Young is not lighting anyone's world on fire either. They're in trouble there, I'm tellin' ya. And Indy lost Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison in the off-season, which are both huge losses. Houston has always played Indy tough, and this year more than ever before, there is a chink in that armor, and the Texans are finally going to get past them.

5. Matt Cassell will not make a damn bit of difference in KC - I don't think he's a bad player, but he's certainly no savior. He did a good job last year filling in for Tom Brady, but here's the truth: Cassell benefited much more from being on the Patriots than the Patriots did from having Cassell. In other words, that team made him look better than he is. Remember AJ Feeley on that tough 2002 Eagles team? He looked awesome, and some wanted him to start the playoffs over McNabb. Then what happened? - the nincompoops in Miami started to salivate over Feeley, signed him in the off-season, and the next year Feeley stunk up the joint because he didn't have good players all around him like he did in Philly. He was released and eventually made his way back to Philly's bench, where he remains. The same is going to happen to Cassell. He's going to take a fucking beating in Kansas City, and everyone there will be scratching their heads by week 3....I'm now done my thoughts on this matter, though I'm still smiling very widely because I got to use the word nincompoop.

4. The Green Bay Packers will win the NFC North - This team was not nearly as bad as their 6-10 record made them look. Of the 10 games they lost, SIX of them were by margins of four points or less, and two of those were overtime games. This tells me that Green Bay was at least in most of their games. They could have won most of these. They were only a play or two away from winning most of them. So, at least in theory, they were about six or seven plays away from a winning record; certainly could have been worse. Also, you're crazy if you think Aaron Rodgers isn't the real deal. He'll take that team to the next level this year, the Pack will capitalize on their division rivals' AWFUL off-season decisions, and they'll take the division with 11 wins or so.

3. The Philadelphia Eagles will win the NFC East, and it will have absolutely nothing to do with Michael Vick - Barring injury to McNabb, Vick isn't going to play all that much. People are (understandably) very caught up in this whole ordeal just because it's Michael Vick, but make no mistake- he's just going to be the backup QB. He might come in on a handful of plays during the season to serve as a diversion or to line up at receiver maybe, but we're talking a maximum of 10 or so plays over the course of a whole season; plays that will likely not directly effect the Eagles' placement in the standings. They'd win the division without him. He's just a nice bonus and a fantastic backup quarterback to have just in case. That's how Andy Reid thinks. He places a substantial amount of stock in backups, and justifiably so considering how often people get hurt these days. To Andy, Michael Vick is an insurance policy. And he'll treat him as such.

2. The Minnesota Vikings will really regret adding Brett Favre - Best case scenario - Favre plays the entire season and gets you lots and lots of attention. But he's giving you one year at most. Certainly no more than that. And he's not taking you to the Super Bowl. Let me rephrase that - there's no fucking way in hell the Vikings have a chance to win the Super Bowl. Brett Favre just isn't good enough to expect that. Remember last year when he threw just as many interceptions as touchdowns (22)? And of his touchdowns, remember how many were bullshit heaves down the field (can't get a stat on that, but there were a handful)? Remember when he and the Jets had a stranglehold on the AFC East and choked it away to the fucking upstart Dolphins? Favre sucks. He's been sorely overrated since 2000. Realistically speaking, he's probably not going to make it through the year - the Packers get to try to break him in half TWICE, and I won't be surprised if they succeed - and even if he does, he doesn't bring all that much to the table anymore. On top of that, you've stunted the development of this team on this one-year wasted rental, pissing off the QB's you already had in the process. I know Jackson and Rosenfels aren't Super Bowl caliber either, but that doesn't make Favre a better choice. So stupid. SO stupid.

1. The Baltimore Ravens will win the Super Bowl - Alright, listen. It just wouldn't be fun to pick the Steelers or Patriots. You already know what I think of Indy, and everyone else in the AFC West is mediocre at best, including San Diego. Plus, I think the Steel City may finally take a step back. They can't win that division every year, right? So I like Baltimore. After New England, Pittsurgh, and I guess Indy, they're the consensus best team in the AFC anyway, right?... Also, Flacco showed lots of promise last year, and a sophomore slump isn't as much of a concern because he's simply not asked to do as much as someone like Matt Ryan in Atlanta. The Baltimore defense always gives him awesome field position - if they don't score touchdowns themselves - and so Flacco has only to quitely manage his team, not lead it. That's Ray Lewis's job. And he's good at it. The whole team is good. They're solid all over, and they're fuckin' scary too. Nobody likes playing this team. They CAN beat anyone. And I think this season, they will. Specifically, I think they're going to punish Tom Brady's face in the AFC Championship game, and they're going to humble McNabb and the Eagles in the Super Bowl ('Had to sneak a little Philly bias in there, didn't you...' Yer damn right. Go birds!)

Alright, that's all for now. Thanks for dropping by. 'Til next time,

DJ