Super Bowl Pick and Other Gems

Well, based on the last words written in this space as it applies to predicting winners of playoff football games, why should you listen to me about anything, right?

Indeed, I whiffed on both NFL conference championship game picks. Nothing like the 'oh-fer' statistic, as in 'oh-fer-2' on my picks. Let me say this - all week leading up to the Bears-Packers NFC Championship game, I was definitely feeling Green Bay as the winner (as were most). Then, I pulled the switcharoo at the last second, because I just got a funny feeling. You know how that happens sometimes. It just seemed too easy to pick the Packers beating the Bears in a close one, yet that's exactly what happened. Sometimes the obvious pick is the right pick. However, I'm not sure if the result would have turned out the same if:

1) the Bears didn't suck so badly

2) Jay Cutler didn't seemingly give up so easily (Cutler's ineffectiveness was a large contributing factor to point number one. It infected the whole rest of the team like some kind of evil succubus).

Yeah, I know, MCL problems are no fun to deal with. But I just feel like there are certain players, certain QBs especially, that would have had to be literally driven off the field on a stretcher in order to keep them out of a conference championship game. It was also Cutler's body language on the sideline thereafter. Sulking, sullen-looking, standing by himself, staring blankly at the field rather than appearing positive, engaged or helping out his team in ANY way. I'm pretty sure I could have stood there on crutches eyeballing the field and not communicating with anyone around me too. Oh well. I've said in the past Cutler will never be a Super Bowl winning quarterback, and I stand by that statement (until I'm proven wrong).

As for the other game, yeah I was confident about the Jets' chances, but definitely not surprised Pittsburgh won. It's just such a shame New York had such a Godawful first half of football. Even considering that, they still almost pulled out the comeback win. But the more I think about it, why exactly did I think the Jets would beat a model organization like the Steelers for the second time in less than 6 weeks, when that second game is the AFC Championship game AT Heinz Field in Pittsburgh? Probably should have seen that coming. Again - oh well.

So what's likely to happen in Super Bowl XLV, kicking off in about two hours? Good gravy, I've heard this game dissected, put together, disassembled and reassembled five ways 'til Tuesday in the past two weeks. There is no matchup, no strategy, no "This is likely to happen" plot-point that I haven't consumed and digested in some way. But what it so often comes down to in games like these isn't so much about the X's and O's as it is about preparation, team chemistry, and the mental aspect of being at your best performance level. Also minimizing mistakes. It's no secret that the team usually committing fewer penalties and turnovers is often the winning one.

Having put that out there, there are definitely some matchup angles that favor Green Bay over Pittsburgh, and the Packers are about a 3-point favorite in this game, despite their inferior record and No. 6 seed out of the NFC vs. the Steelers' better record and No. 2 seed out of the AFC. It's also been pointed out repeatedly that both of these teams overcame massive injury problems to get here this year. This has to be a Super Bowl matchup record for most number of players injured from start of season until conclusion amongst the two final teams. But younger guys stepped up all around and made names for themselves. Pretty powerful stuff.

So why is Green Bay favored? And why do I agree that they are probably going to win? (By the way, I do). Well, it does sound counter-intuitive. The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the previous five seasons before this one. They have 6 Super Bowl titles, more than any other team. They are generally the standard to which a franchise should aspire from the ownership committee, to the GM, on down to the coaching staff and players they draft (Ben Roethlisberger's character issues aside, of course). Green Bay has its own storied history, as we all know.

But the wave of momentum the Packers have been riding for weeks now just seems unstoppable. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh let both Baltimore and the Jets hang around in those games, never feeling as though it was salted away until the final ticks ran off the clock. When you look at what the Packers did in the playoffs, they only seemed to get better with each passing performance, although their dominant win over the Falcons in Atlanta might have been their best game. It never felt as though they were in danger of losing any of those games, perhaps with the exception of the too-close-for-comfort 21-16 win in Philadelphia to open the playoffs (Michael Vick's last-second desperation pass intended for Riley Cooper in the end zone was picked off by Tramon Williams).

And because this game is in Dallas, indoors, don't think Green Bay won't utilize its athletes and speed like crazy on that fast track. They're kind of built like a '99 Rams type of team, but had to play a lot of their late season games in cold weather that neutralized that dynamic to a considerable degree. Overall they seem faster and more athletic than Pittsburgh, and that very well could show through in this indoor stadium.

Finally, when it comes to the matchups, it's been widely reported that stalwart Steelers' rookie center Maurkice Pouncey, the glue that has helped hold together a shaky Pittsburgh offensive line all season, will sit this game out due to an ankle injury. Of all the positions on the offensive line, this is one of the most detrimental ones to have disrupted in a game of this magnitude. I'm not saying Pittsburgh is doomed because of this, but it certainly won't make things easy on them. Green Bay defensive lineman B.J. Raji will be setting up a tent and camping gear in that Steeler backfield today. He'll be getting more penetration than Peter North. Okay, come on now, this is a family show.

What I'm getting at is the fact that Pittsburgh's offensive line troubles will only be highlighted by the late fill-in at the center position, and Green Bay's defense will try to do whatever it can to take advantage of this. The Packers need to keep Steelers QB Roethlisberger inside the pocket as well, as he's proven to be dangerous when he gets into the open field either running for a first down or throwing on the run. As much as he doesn't get credit for it, Big Ben is a playmaker when, as a defense, you give him time to be one.

On the other side of the ball, Pittsburgh's run defense is stellar, having given up 100-plus yards in a game only a handful of times this year. But their pass defense is a bit more vulnerable. This is precisely why Aaron Rodgers needs to have an awesome performance if Green Bay is going to have a real shot at winning.

Likely a close game, but I'm going with the Cheese-heads in a tight one. If the Steelers were to prevail with their big-game experience and Big Ben's "always-finds-a-way-to-win" intangibles, I don't think any of us will be shocked. But the Packers feel like a team of destiny, to be sure. As viewers, it's likely that WE won't feel like losers, which is perhaps most important of all.

It'll all unfold soon enough. And then we'll wait until March 4th to confirm what many of us believe is going to happen (the inevitable lockout) - causing us to hold our breath anxiously until just days before next season is supposed to begin (at which time the owners and players will hopefully find a solution to their current financial dispute).

Enjoy the commercials and Black Eyed Peas halftime show (I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy either). Can we get Jay-Z for a halftime show one in the not-too-distant future? Maybe for the New Jersey Super Bowl in a few years.

----------

A MOVIE THAT KIND OF PISSED ME OFF

It almost pains me to devote any space to this, but I saw a movie last night called "Animal Kingdom" and it just sort of annoyed the crap out of me. When I did some research after seeing it and found out that it's received all sorts of critical adulation and high user ratings on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, it pissed me off even more.

It's an Australian crime film that hasn't had a whole lot of attention state-side, but Jacki Weaver has scored a 'Best Supporting Actress' Oscar nomination for her performance in it (she definitely won't win), and the flick came highly recommended through one of my wife's co-workers, so we decided to check it out via Netflix.

If you're prepared to be thoroughly unimpressed, disbelieving at a lot of what goes on and questioning things like "when the hell is this movie supposed to be taking place" then check it out. But if you're expecting it to be on the same level as such outstanding genre-similar pictures from 2010 such as "Winter's Bone" or "The Town" - which a lot of "Animal Kingdom's" supporters claim are inferior to this movie on IMDB message boards - then prepare to be super let down.

The movie had a distinct, unique flavor and kept you wanting to know how it was all going to turn out by virtue of the heavily lopsided "sympathetic protagonist vs. several really mean antagonists" dynamic. However, I can also say with certainty that it did quite poorly at explaining many important aspects that would have been helpful to know, such as:

* The family depicted in the film is based - loosely, as it turns out - on a notoriously bad-ass crime family from Melbourne in the 1980s known as the Pettingills. Google them for details, but these were NOT nice people. And that would have been fine if the movie made it clear in any way, shape or form that the Pettingill family had any sort of influence in the making of this movie. But nowhere was that to be found. I only found it out myself by some post-movie watching internet searching to find out the general consensus on this mediocre work that has somehow piled up a boatload of critical acclaim.

There are other examples, but very few I can get into without giving away some stuff via spoilers. Just trust me when I say that a lot of elements go unexplained, and many scenes that should receive more in-depth exploration (or ANY exploration at all) were not given the proper treatment. And the acting was decent by some, mediocre by others and even weak by a few. Character development was also weak. You had good people or bad people, with very little in between and no character subtlety. That always bugs the crap out of me. Almost every character in this movie is unlikeable in some way, and completely stupid to boot. If this is based on real cops-and-robbers events in Australia in the 1980s, I'm happy as a pig in shit that I wasn't living in Melbourne, Australia in the 1980s. Either that, or it's a poor translation.

Finally, the movie is based on events that happened in the 80s but is set in present day, which makes for many confusing moments. There are cultural elements of the 80s stamped all over the film (cheesy mustaches, Air Supply videos on ancient-looking TV sets, and the apparent ability for law enforcement officials to get away cleanly with unprovoked murder in crowded, public areas in broad daylight), but it's clear from the cell phones, newer-model cars and occasional LCD TVs that it's taking place within the last few years.

Overall, if you want to watch something that's dumb in many ways, yet has elements and potential of being a slick, smartly executed crime flick if many aspects were handled differently, then you should absolutely watch this movie. Mostly, if you want to be pissed off and annoyed at everyone that makes an appearance in a film (plus the writers and director), also absolutely watch this movie.

Oh and there's no elements of humor either. Way too heavy-handed and serious. Come on people, there's humor in everything, even the most dire of situations. Some works of art could take themselves a little less seriously.

That's about all I have to say about "Animal Kingdom." Also, many of its supporters hail it as one of the best, brightest Australian crime flicks ever, which is roughly akin to me saying that the last episode of American Idol with the brand new judges cast was the best episode of American Idol with the brand new judges cast ever. In other words, the bar was set kind of low to begin with.

It's intriguing and an experience all its own to be sure. If you feel like you've seen all the Oscar-worthy flicks that you care to and don't know what to turn to next, go ahead and give this a shot. You'll definitely come away with an opinion, for sure.

----------

FOOD FOR HIP HOP THOUGHT

Last time in this space, I wowed you with a Grandmaster Flash remix, a 7-plus minute marathon of early 80s, instrumental, turntable wizardry. I sincerely hope you enjoyed.

I want to give you all some more listening pleasure as it applies to some true, timeless, classic hip hop. And when I say timeless, I mean the type of track that's going to pop whether it's 1989, 1995 or 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfKMIdoJL0

This video, my friends, is a link to a 1995 Radio Freestyle by Jay-Z (right before he blew up and started taking over the hip hop world) and Big L, one of the greatest of all time that nobody knows about because of his tragic murder in February of 1999. He was 24 years old, and by the accounts of many true hip hop heads, one of the absolute best lyricists and microphone controllers ever. Born and raised in Harlem, he could straight up battle rhyme with the best of them. His wordplay and metaphors are sick, nasty, vicious. Just listen to the freestyle and see if you don't agree.

Perhaps best of all, Big L kind of slays Jay on this track, and I say that as someone with the utmost respect for the Jigga Man. But Big L had already been rapping on records for about 3-4 years when this freestyle dropped, while Jay was still honing his style, and was still far from his peak as an MC. As for L, '95 up until the day of his untimely slaying was his time to shine. His 1995 LP "Lifestyles of da Poor and Dangerous" is an underground classic. His 1998 follow-up "The Big Picture" was still strong, but the debut is held in higher regard. He has unreleased tracks and freestyles all over the internet though, and he's all heavy on the "Diggin' in the Crates" artists' tracks from the early 90s (Lord Finesse, Fat Joe, Diamond D, O.C., Showbiz and AG, etc).

Hope you enjoy, and look up some more Big L tracks if you like the East Coast battle rapping style of the 90s. The lyrical content is rough stuff, but it's an honest expression of his background and youthful experiences. I'm usually the first to de-cry gangster posturing if it's not done artfully or with any sort of flair or style, but Big L can kill microphones with or without curse words and tales of violence, believe that.