Heavy on the Testosterone

Over the weekend, I had occasion  to watch a classic film I had somehow never seen before.  The movie was the 1962 classic Lawrence of Arabia.  The movie won numerous awards, including 7 Academy awards, the most prominent of them being awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score.  It is a LONG movie, running 216 minutes. 

While it was not particularly noticeable as I watched the movie, as I reflected back on the movie during the closing credits, I was struck by the fact that despite the movie's length, I could not recall seeing even one woman on the screen during the entire movie.  Certainly not anyone in a significant role, but not even a walk-on.  When I checked on-line resources, it turns out that there was a woman who played a nurse.  But her appearance on screen was so brief and unremarkable, I did not even remember seeing her. 

That prompted me to consider whether this was an anomoly or whether there were other prominent movies that were similarly male dominated if not exclusively male.  Turns out, some of my favorite movies from years gone by fall into that category. 

For other Academy award winning (or nominated) movies, consider Treaure of Sierra Madre (1948).  Two women made brief appearances as uncredited extras.  In The Caine Mutiny (1954) two women also had brief insignificant roles.  In Patton (1970) the only women to appear were uncredited walk-ons who were part of a women's group General Patton was speaking to.  Saving Private Ryan (1998) featured a few women on screen (most memorably the woman playing Ryan's wife in the scene years after the war where he visits his fallen comrades in the cemetary) but there are no significant female roles.  In Bridge Over the River Kwai (1957) no woman is credited, but there were a few native women assisting the men treking in to blow the bridge who had non-speaking roles. 

While not nominated for an Academy award, a favorite movie from my youth was The Great Escape (1963).  It too was entirely devoid of female credited, or speaking roles. 

What all of these movies have in common (save Treasure of the Sierra Madre) is a story set during war.  I am not asserting the fact that these popular movies lack female participation sheds any great light on Hollywood or its audience.  I just thought it might be interesting to consider my reflections on this theme of "macho" male movies. 

Where Should Ball Carry the Ball?

Later today it appears likely Montee Ball will announce his decision to return to Wisconsin and pass up the NFL draft.  Is it a good decision? Will his stock be higher THIS year, or NEXT year entering the draft?

This year, he tied a long standing and honored record held by Barry Sanders (total touchdowns in a season) that ought to make NFL front office types sit up and take notice.  He was in New York and part of the discussion for the Heisman trophy.  Over the 13 game regular season, Ball carried the ball an average of 24 times per game with an average of 6.3 yards per carry.  His total yards rushing of 1,923 works out to an average of 148 yards per game.  He capped it off by scoring two more touchdowns in the Rose Bowl while gaining 164 yards on 32 carries averaging 5.1 yards per carry.  Ball is one of only 4 runners to have rushed for at least 100 yards in consecutive Rose Bowls.  The others are O.J Simpson, Ron Dayne and Vince Young.  Simpson was an NFL star (as was Barry Sanders) Young was a very high draft pick, and Ball is significantly fleeter of foot than Ron Dayne.  That is a pretty good resume. 

Now, consider what Ball faces if he returns to Wisconsin.  His quarterback will be replaced by one with almost no experience.  At least two of his offensive linemen will be gone (Zeitler & Olesby) and there is a good chance a third will also be gone (Konz).  Since Al Toon will also be gone - and it appears the back-ups likely to take his spot don't seem to be barn burners - defenses won't have to be as respectful of the passing game and are likely to be able to clamp down more against the run at a time when the Badger offensive line will be relatively inexperienced.  On top of that, the Badgers have lost their long time and highly respected offensive coordinator AND offensive line coaches.  This does not suggest a great year for a Badger running back.
  

What I fear is that Ball is set up to have a significantly less impressive senior campaign than the junior one he just completed.  In addition, he should expect an additional 350 carries where he might experience a significant injury that could also drive him down on draft lists, and (given the conventional wisdom that running backs are only good for a finite number of carries before they wear down and become injury prone) that another season of being a college workhorse will make him less attractive a pick even without being injured.

I saw the Journal Sentinel article that suggests Ball is probably only the 6th rated running back in the draft, but I find that questionable (although I don't watch enough college football that does not include the Badgers to have a valid opinion).  Based on that, the projection is that if Ball was in the draft this year, he would probably be the first running back off the board in the third round.
 

Assuming that is accurate, what are the odds Ball would go HIGHER after another year at UW?  In addition, you also have to factor in that waiting a year will likely cause Ball's total NFL career to be 1 year shorter if he stays in college than it would be if he left for the NFL now (meaning he will have a year less of NFL income he can never replace) not to mention that if he went to the NFL NOW, he would be completing his rookie contract at a year younger in age than he would if he waited and thus would be a younger running back with less "tread off the tire" when seeking that second contract (which is where NFL running backs have a chance to really cash in).
  

If he decides to come back I LOVE the decision as a Badger fan.  However, it Ball was my client, I would have to advise him to leave. 

The Undefeated is Now Just Another John Wayne Movie

Well, the Packers are no longer undefeated, but are still a lock to beat my predicted 12 - 4 season record.  Still, there were some troubling signs on Sunday other than the mere fact of a loss. 

1.  The press focused on the absence of Greg Jennings as the reason for the Packer's offensive malaise yesterday, but I do not.  Aaron Rodgers is no longer playing "lights out" football.  I am NOT saying he is the reason for the loss, but his play yesterday was not good enough to overcome the problems leading to the loss (as it has sometimes been in the past).  In fact, based on my view of recent games, Rodgers is on a 3 game slump from the unbelievable standard he set for himself early in the year.  Many of his passes yesterday were off the mark.  Not off the mark like Donavon McNabb, but not where his receivers are used to them being either.  He looked nervous in the pocket even before Bulaga and Sherrod were injured and his performance suffered because of it.

2.  Although Rodgers WAS off, the Packer offense MIGHT have been able to avoid the defeat if Jermichael Finley had not ALSO picked yesterday to have a terrible game.  Early in the game, it became apparent the Packer offensive game plan with Jennings missing emphasized two factors.  First, to increase the run opportunities, and second, to increase the involvement of Jermichael Finley.  Ryan Grant's carries were more frequent, particularly early in the game.  The run game was not an overwhelming success, but it was not a disaster either.  Finley was targeted on 10 pass plays during the game, most of them in the first half.   Problem was, Finley's early performance was a disaster.  He had 4 passes that will probably be classified as "drops' (passes off the hands of a receiver that subjectively should have been caught) and another that while not officially a "drop" could have been caught.  If Finley had been catching the ball as his oversized ego and reputation would suggest he should, the Packer offense might not have been misfiring as bad as it was.  Jordy Nelson had a bad day, James Jones was almost invisible, and Donald Driver just doesn't seem athletic enough to get good separation regularly anymore.  The only bright spot - but not bright enough - was the play of Randall Cobb.

3.  But, the entire blame cannot rest with the Packer offense.  The offense is just an easier target because its mishaps have been so uncommon otherwise this year.  Unfortunately, the Packer defense is incapable of bailing out the offense.  While I don't have the stats, I suspect the Chiefs had a remarkably high conversion rate on 3rd down.  I can't count the number of times the defense played pretty well on 1st and 2nd down, only to allow Chief drives to continue with lapses on 3rd down.  [Actually, the Chiefs were only 4 of 14 on 3rd down conversions while the Pack was 6 of 14, but it didn't seem that way to me.]  To emphasize how poorly the Packer defense played overall, consider the Chiefs have only gained 400+ yards on offense one other time this season - against the (until Sunday) winless Indianapolis Colts. 

It has frequently been the case this year, and again on Sunday, that the Packer defense appears disinterested or to not care about playing hard consistently until the other team is within the "red zone."  Against the Chiefs, you could narrow it down further to being lackadaisical until the Chiefs got within the 10 yard line.  The defense has to start playing with the same intensity and urgency as soon as the opponent gets the ball.  Perhaps the most obvious difference with the defense on Sunday was the 0 in the line describing total turnovers by the Chiefs.  On numerous occasions this year the Pack has been able to shrug off poor defensive play by focusing in on game changing turnovers (usually interceptions) by the defense.  The problem is it is unrealistic to be able to expect to generate turnovers consistently.  Sooner or later, you will come up dry.  That later became sooner yesterday.  I think it is naive to believe it is a coincidence the Packers experienced their first loss of the season on the same day the defense was unable to get even one turnover.
 

While the Pack started out looking strong against the run, as the game wore on, it was clear the Pack had a REAL problem with runs to the right side of its defense.  Time after time, Chief running backs would bounce out to their left (against the Packer defensive right) and take a run out wide for big yardage.  Several big screen pass plays were also successful to the same side.  Defensive end Erik Walden was the patsy for this problem most of the game.  However, after Walden got pulled from the game late in the 2nd half due to continued poor performance, Frank Zombo was playing the same end with the same results on the Chief's final drive when the Pack was trying to get the ball back late in the game after the onside kick.

Random Thoughts

Offensive line -  Might Thompson give a call to Mark Tauscher to add depth to a depleted tackle corps?  He is rested and certainly knows the system and blocking assignments.  Who else is available who could fill in as seamlessly if necessary?  Will Bulaga be ready to play Sunday night?  Given how he looked on the sidelines, maybe.  How far away from returning is Chad Clifton?  If neither of them is able to play, I fear for Aaron Rodgers.  In that event, look for the Pack to go to quicker pass plays with less deep drops and less deep routes from the receivers. If they get a significant lead over the now toothless Bears, look for Matt Flynn to play earlier than would otherwise be the case to minimize the chances of an injury to Rodgers.

Defensive line - Jarius Wynn played many more snaps on Sunday than did Mike Neal.  I found that to be curious and somewhat ominous.  I expected Neal to provide a pick up to the defensive line play when he finally got healthy.  If the coaching staff thinks Wynn is better, that does not bode well.  I certainly hope Ryan Pickett will be back in the line up from his concussion next Sunday.  The Pack had absolutely NO pass rush on Sunday (no sacks and precious few hits or hurries) since the Chiefs were so free to double team the outside linebackers because the Packers interior linemen were toothless. 

Idle speculation -  Any day now we are supposed to get a report on whether Nick Collins will be medically cleared to return to play next season, or whether his injury is such he will be forced to retire.  If he can return, great.  But, let's suppose for a moment he can't (which I fear is more likely).  If that happens, look for the long rumored move of Charles Woodson from cornerback to safety to be implemented next season.  I think Woodson does not have the same recover speed and "shut down" cover skills he had before.  Nevertheless, he remains one of the better tacklers and his ball instincts would make him a formidable threat to ball hawk from the safety position.  As a safety, he could still blitz off the corner to good effect.

Finally, while I haven't checked out what the odds makers say, I would not be surprised if the odds of the New Orleans Saints getting to the Super Bowl were slightly better than the odds of the Packers returning at this point.  When pondering that heresy, consider the Packers have only beat 4 teams this year that currently have a winning record (New Orleans, Detroit, Atlanta & Denver), that the Pack is ranked 31st (that is second to last) in defense, and that Drew Brees is on a pace to beat Dan Marino's record for passing yards in a season. 

Favre v. Rodgers

The emergence of Aaron Rodgers as a premier NFL quarterback has resulted in there being frequent questions raised about whether he - or Brett Favre - is/was the better quarterback.  In my opinion, it isn't a close call.  Rodgers is clearly superior.  While Favre may actually end up with greater CAREER numbers for many records, that will be due to his longevity and his durability rather than his quarterbacking prowess.  As a relatively well informed fan observer (which I use to descibe myself to separate me from the more experienced professional prognositcators) Rodgers gives a team ALL of the upside Brett Favre brought to the table as a quarterback, but NONE of the downside.

What is the downside?  The refusal to accept what you see when you see someone covered and try to force the ball in anyway.  The annoyingly predictable practice of throwing a ball "up for grabs" where it is almost certain to be intercepted at LEAST once every game.  The significant number of fumbles when hit in the pocket.  To sum up, Brett Favre hold the NFL record for most interceptions thrown by a quarterback.  How about Aaron Rodgers?

Fewest Interceptions at Time of 100th Career Pass TD, NFL History

Quarterback	Int	Date of 100th TD
Aaron Rodgers	34	Sunday
Philip Rivers	43	Dec. 13, 2009
Dan Marino	44	Sept. 7, 1986
Source: Elias Sports Bureau

Badger First Impressions

Interesting season opener between the Wisconsin Badgers and the University of Las Vegas Running Rebels. 
 

The Badger offense looked great.  Of course, given how terrible UNLV's defense was supposed to be, it remains to be seen how that will translate to other games.  The offensive line again looks to be the strength of the team. 

Running back James White looked as good as he did last year and (to my eye) Montee Ball looked significantly BETTER.  I think his decision to drop 25 lbs gave him that extra boost of speed that will make all the difference.  Last year I thought he looked like a plodder.  This year, he seemed to have an extra gear. 

Quarterback Russell Wilson looked to be exactly what he was advertised to be.  His ability to avoid the rush and turn broken plays into huge gains by running the ball will add a very difficult to defend dimension to the Badger offense.  On the other hand, I felt his accuracy in passing when passing on the run left a bit to be desired.  He missed several wide open receivers.  The wide receivers and tight ends had a good night too (when they got a chance), although I am not sure about depth at the wide receiver position.  If either Toon or Abredaris goes down with an injury, it could hurt.  Depth at quarterback is a SIGNIFICANT issue.  If they lose Wilson, they are in BIG trouble.

Defense was another story.  I found the defensive performance VERY troubling.  A competent offense would have scored significantly more points than UNLV.  The defensive front got very little push and applied not nearly enough pressure.  I thought the linebackers lined up too close together and did not make good quick decisions on where to go or what to do.  The defensive ends did not hold the corners well on runs, and tackling was poor by everyone. 

On the other hand, the announcers claimed the Badgers used very simple defensive schemes and did little if any blitzing.  They seemed to think that was an intentional decision to stay bland because they did not need to do anything fancy to beat UNLV and they wanted to avoid showing their defensive hand to future opponents.  If so, fine.  I HOPE that is the case.  I also heard some of the defensive players talking after the game that they did not know UNLV was going to use the "pistol" offense and that they were unprepared for it. 

If Wisconsin WAS unprepared for it (as the players claimed after the game) that might help explain the poor showing of the defense.  On the other hand, it makes me VERY wary of - and disappointed in - our new defensive coordinator.  Here is an article from the Las Vegas Review Journal newspaper from March 5, 2011.

By any name, pistol figures in Rebels' plans

Because rival UNR invented the pistol offense, UNLV football coach Bobby Hauck would rather call the formation by a different name -- if only he could think of something else. Until then, Hauck might simply refer to it as "that offense."  The Rebels have incorporated the Chris Ault Special -- OK, that name might not work -- into their offense during this spring session.  "We'll have to see after spring ball how we like it," Hauck said. "It doesn't change the run game a whole bunch, but it changes some of the angles and some of the tempo. The people that are doing it are having great success in the run games."  That's something a coach like Hauck, who believes strongly in a powerful run game, would love to have. UNLV averaged just 3 yards per carry and 103.3 per game last season.

In the pistol, the quarterback lines up between the center and running back rather than the typical 5- to 7-yard drop next to the ball carrier in a shotgun formation.  "When it first came out, I didn't know what to think of taking the shotgun snap at that depth," Hauck said. "I thought that would be a problem, and it hasn't been."

Given that publicity, why WASN'T the Badger defense prepared for the "pistol?" 


Generally speaking, special teams looked good.  Our placement will get better once Welch returns from his injury.  The returners ran well.  Once they started playing back-ups there were too many penalties, but I suspect that will get cleaned up. 

Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

As a criminal defense attorney, I occasionally read court decisions on what are called "condition of confinement" cases involving whether or not conditions in a jail are so deplorable they violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."  At least one United States Supreme Court decision from 1981 (Rhodes v. Chapman) considered whether a district court was correct in deciding inmates were being subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" by being subjected to being doubled up in cells that provided each inmate with less than the 50 to 55 sq. ft. recommended by prison designers (NOTE - the court found they were not). 

With that background in mind, consider Clark Tyler.  Mr. Tyler is an architect living in the Hells Kitchen area of Manhattan in New York City.  Mr. Tyler (voluntarily) lives in what he euphemistically calls "an apartment" that totals 78 square feet in size.  He shows off his $800 per month rental in video here. 

The "apartment" is a single room (with 78 sq. ft. you expected more than one room?).  Although the dimensions of the rental are not given, it appears to be about 6 1/2 ft. wide by 12 ft. long.   There is no kitchen and there isn't even a bathroom.  He shares a bath that is down the hall with three other such "apartments."  If that isn't enough to convince you Mr. Tyler is the model of efficiency, it turns out his "apartment" is also his "office" since he works from home.

Concealed Carry Comes to Wisconsin

Last week, Governor Walker signed a law causing Wisconsin to join 48 other states in allowing people in Wisconsin (residents and non-residents) to legally carry firearms that are concealed.  While this practice is common in other states, Wisconsin's new law leaves Illinois as the only state not allowing some form of legal concealed carry. 

Between now and November 1, 2011 - when the law takes effect - people desiring to exercise their new right to concealed carry, not to mention businesses and other places open to the public where such persons might frequent, need to understand what the law allows and does not.  Unfortunately, the details are too complicated for this post. 

While I encourage you to contact one of the attorneys at Moen Ehrsam & Kroner for advice particular to your specific situation, general information about the law from the State Bar of Wisconsin can be reviewed here.  The National Rifle Association also provided a bit more detailed summary of the law here