1) Cahal
Total Points: 268
Points This Week: 58
New York Jets: 11
Tennessee: -4
Chicago: 21
Philadelphia: 30
2) Adam
Total Points: 264
Points This Week: 136
Miami: 46
St. Louis: 46
Kansas City: 30
Cincinnati: 14
3) Ben
Total Points: 201
Points This Week: 73
Jacksonville: 1
Minnesota: 11
Tampa Bay: 34
Carolina: 27
4) Colleen
Total Points: 154
Points This Week: 9
Cleveland: 20
Oakland:10
Buffalo: 0
Baltimore: -21
5) Bryan
Total Points: 92
Points This Week: 26
Arizona: 0
Seattle: 5
Washington: 1
San Francisco: 20
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
My Overall Reactions To The 2012 Emmys
EDITOR'S NOTE: Please excuse any spelling or grammatical errors you see during this post. Not only is it pretty late and I'm kind of drowsy but due to the necessary nature of the timing of this post it needs to go up now. Enjoy!
- Holy cow am I freaking awful at predicting Emmy award winners. I went 2/10 tonight for a whooping 20%. I'm pretty sure Adam Dunn's batting average is higher than my prediction ability.
- Wow, what a crazy night for Homeland. Claire Danes won for Best Actress (Drama) which was expected but Damien Lewis won for Best Actor (Drama) and the show won the big prize for best Drama Television Show which were both unexpected.
- Let's first start with Lewis who beat out the two Goliath's Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) and Jon Hamm (Mad Men). Here's the thing, if you asked me which actor had the best season: Lewis for Season One of Homeland, Cranston for Season 4 of Breaking Bad or Hamm for Season 5 of Mad Men I would say Lewis had the better single season so I'm not too upset that he won. I just really want to see Jon Hamm win an Emmy. Don Draper is one of the best characters ever on television and I hope one day his talents get recognized.
- Last night on Facebook, a friend of mine and I compared the Best Actor (Drama) nominees (Hamm, Cranston, and Lewis) to the three best movies of 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump). We were saying that while all three are excellent and we can not make any disparaging remarks about any of the nominees, one was clearly better. We determined that Jon Hamm was Shawshank, Bryan Cranston was Pulp Fiction, and Damien Lewis was Forrest Gump. Lewis is Gump because it's the clear #3, Cranston is Pulp Fiction because it's the clear mainstream #1 and when we look back on this award in 20 years everyone will say Cranston deserved to win it, and Hamm is Shawshank because while it is the mainstream #2, it is my personal #1 and in 20 years I will argue with everyone else than Hamm/Shawshank deserved the award and not Cranston/Pulp Fiction (as great they each are). With Damien Lewis actually winning the award, like Forrest Gump, this analogy becomes that much more amazing.
- Now on to Homeland as a show overall. Homeland's rookie season was great and was better than Season Two of Downton Abbey (which was boring as hell), Season Five of Mad Men (boring for most of the season), and Season Two of Game Of Thrones (really good but too many characters and plot lines diluted the overall season). But it was not even close to Season Four of Breaking Bad (which is without hyperbole) the greatest single season of television ever. I take that back, Season Three might be better. But that's it. As great as Homeland was (which it was) it was not even close to B.B.
- Another huge night for Modern Family. This is no surprise but what was the surprise was the specific winners. Modern Family won for Best Comedic Television Show (to the surprise of no one) but Eric Stonestreet (who plays Cameron Tucker) and Julie Bowen (who plays Claire Dunphy) each repeated as Best Supporting Actor (Comedy) and Best Supporting Actress (Comedy), respectively. These repeats were huge surprises to me- especially considering Sophia Vergara, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and Ed O'Neill do not have Emmy wins. None of the six adult actors on Modern Family separate themselves from each other (they are all at a really high level) so it legitimately shocked me that the Emmy voters made a statement saying two of the actors are above everyone else.
- Seasons 1 and 2 of Modern Family were excellent. Season 3 was just sub par. Let's stop suckling at the teet of Modern Family. Parks and Recreation is by far and away the best comedy on television right now. Let's start creating a bandwagon for them.
- Can we please stop giving away Emmys to Julia Louis-Dreyfus like their free samples?! All the credit in the world goes to HitFix's Dan Feinberg for predicting this one correctly. She won a ton of Emmys for both Seinfeld and on the awful The New Adventures of Old Christine. It was really obvious to the world that she would win again for her performance on the critically acclaimed Veep.
- Maggie Smith (Downton Abbey) defeated my predicted Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad) for Best Supporting Actress (Drama). This was by far and away my worst selection because it was obvious by the crap ton of nominations that the Emmy voters really like Downton Abbey. This award was so up in the air and Maggie Smith is excellent on the show that of course she was going to win. My bad.
- An actor from Breaking Bad won the Emmy for Best Supporting Actor (Drama). Right show, wrong person. As amazing as Aaron Paul was during Season 4 of Breaking Bad (and he was truly excellent and Paul did some of his best work during Season 4) he didn't come close to the excellence that was Giancarlo Esposito as Gustavo Fring. Paul already has an Emmy win and Esposito can never win again for Breaking Bad. Not only was Esposito's performance better than Paul's but he just deserved it more.
- Jon Cryer (Two And A Half Men) defeated the powerhouse that was Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) for Best Actor (Comedy). The Emmy's couldn't give Steve Carell an Emmy for his Farewell Tour on The Office (which was excellent. Again, an example where Carell not only had the better performance but deserved it more because Parsons has already won an Emmy up to that point and Carell had never won one for portraying Michael Scott) but we can award Jon Cryer one because we still feel sorry for the (perceived) way Charlie Sheen treated him and the show?! What! If you're gonna proclaim that Parsons was the best actor last year then you need to pull a James Spader and just give the damn thing to him every year. Neither Parsons not Cryer deserve this award though.
- Some dude from Boardwalk Empire won the Emmy for Best Director (Drama). I have no idea how Neil Marshall didn't even get nominated for directing "Blackwater", the penultimate episode from Season Two of Game Of Thrones. It was the best episode that aired during this Emmy nominated period.
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Holy cow am I freaking awful at predicting Emmy award winners. I went 2/10 tonight for a whooping 20%. I'm pretty sure Adam Dunn's batting average is higher than my prediction ability.
- Wow, what a crazy night for Homeland. Claire Danes won for Best Actress (Drama) which was expected but Damien Lewis won for Best Actor (Drama) and the show won the big prize for best Drama Television Show which were both unexpected.
- Let's first start with Lewis who beat out the two Goliath's Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) and Jon Hamm (Mad Men). Here's the thing, if you asked me which actor had the best season: Lewis for Season One of Homeland, Cranston for Season 4 of Breaking Bad or Hamm for Season 5 of Mad Men I would say Lewis had the better single season so I'm not too upset that he won. I just really want to see Jon Hamm win an Emmy. Don Draper is one of the best characters ever on television and I hope one day his talents get recognized.
- Last night on Facebook, a friend of mine and I compared the Best Actor (Drama) nominees (Hamm, Cranston, and Lewis) to the three best movies of 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump). We were saying that while all three are excellent and we can not make any disparaging remarks about any of the nominees, one was clearly better. We determined that Jon Hamm was Shawshank, Bryan Cranston was Pulp Fiction, and Damien Lewis was Forrest Gump. Lewis is Gump because it's the clear #3, Cranston is Pulp Fiction because it's the clear mainstream #1 and when we look back on this award in 20 years everyone will say Cranston deserved to win it, and Hamm is Shawshank because while it is the mainstream #2, it is my personal #1 and in 20 years I will argue with everyone else than Hamm/Shawshank deserved the award and not Cranston/Pulp Fiction (as great they each are). With Damien Lewis actually winning the award, like Forrest Gump, this analogy becomes that much more amazing.
- Now on to Homeland as a show overall. Homeland's rookie season was great and was better than Season Two of Downton Abbey (which was boring as hell), Season Five of Mad Men (boring for most of the season), and Season Two of Game Of Thrones (really good but too many characters and plot lines diluted the overall season). But it was not even close to Season Four of Breaking Bad (which is without hyperbole) the greatest single season of television ever. I take that back, Season Three might be better. But that's it. As great as Homeland was (which it was) it was not even close to B.B.
- Another huge night for Modern Family. This is no surprise but what was the surprise was the specific winners. Modern Family won for Best Comedic Television Show (to the surprise of no one) but Eric Stonestreet (who plays Cameron Tucker) and Julie Bowen (who plays Claire Dunphy) each repeated as Best Supporting Actor (Comedy) and Best Supporting Actress (Comedy), respectively. These repeats were huge surprises to me- especially considering Sophia Vergara, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and Ed O'Neill do not have Emmy wins. None of the six adult actors on Modern Family separate themselves from each other (they are all at a really high level) so it legitimately shocked me that the Emmy voters made a statement saying two of the actors are above everyone else.
- Seasons 1 and 2 of Modern Family were excellent. Season 3 was just sub par. Let's stop suckling at the teet of Modern Family. Parks and Recreation is by far and away the best comedy on television right now. Let's start creating a bandwagon for them.
- Can we please stop giving away Emmys to Julia Louis-Dreyfus like their free samples?! All the credit in the world goes to HitFix's Dan Feinberg for predicting this one correctly. She won a ton of Emmys for both Seinfeld and on the awful The New Adventures of Old Christine. It was really obvious to the world that she would win again for her performance on the critically acclaimed Veep.
- Maggie Smith (Downton Abbey) defeated my predicted Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad) for Best Supporting Actress (Drama). This was by far and away my worst selection because it was obvious by the crap ton of nominations that the Emmy voters really like Downton Abbey. This award was so up in the air and Maggie Smith is excellent on the show that of course she was going to win. My bad.
- An actor from Breaking Bad won the Emmy for Best Supporting Actor (Drama). Right show, wrong person. As amazing as Aaron Paul was during Season 4 of Breaking Bad (and he was truly excellent and Paul did some of his best work during Season 4) he didn't come close to the excellence that was Giancarlo Esposito as Gustavo Fring. Paul already has an Emmy win and Esposito can never win again for Breaking Bad. Not only was Esposito's performance better than Paul's but he just deserved it more.
- Jon Cryer (Two And A Half Men) defeated the powerhouse that was Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) for Best Actor (Comedy). The Emmy's couldn't give Steve Carell an Emmy for his Farewell Tour on The Office (which was excellent. Again, an example where Carell not only had the better performance but deserved it more because Parsons has already won an Emmy up to that point and Carell had never won one for portraying Michael Scott) but we can award Jon Cryer one because we still feel sorry for the (perceived) way Charlie Sheen treated him and the show?! What! If you're gonna proclaim that Parsons was the best actor last year then you need to pull a James Spader and just give the damn thing to him every year. Neither Parsons not Cryer deserve this award though.
- Some dude from Boardwalk Empire won the Emmy for Best Director (Drama). I have no idea how Neil Marshall didn't even get nominated for directing "Blackwater", the penultimate episode from Season Two of Game Of Thrones. It was the best episode that aired during this Emmy nominated period.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Saturday, September 22, 2012
2012 Emmy Predictions: Drama Series
And the nominees are:
- Mad Men
- Breaking Bad
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- Downton Abbey
- Boardwalk Empire
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Season 4 of Breaking Bad (the nominated season) is one of the greatest single seasons ever produced on television. The only thing that is probably better than Season 4 was Season 3 of Breaking Bad. I say this without hyperbole or exaggeration that Breaking Bad is the greatest television show ever made. It's just fucking awesome. If you disagree with me then you just haven't watched the show yet... Season 5 of Mad Man (the nominated season) was probably one of the worst seasons the show has ever had. It started off slow, then got good for a few moments, then it took a HUGE dip in quality, then the problem arose with Lane Pryce, and then the show ended on a really high note. That being said, a "bad" season for Mad Men is still better than 99% of the crap (and good stuff) put out there... Season 1 of Homeland was just excellent. Despite the show being run by a couple of people from 24, Homeland had amazing characters and character development. We saw the story and lives of two damaged people (one from genetics [Claire Danes] and one from external forces [Damian Lewis]) and they came together so beautifully to unwind and solve a (possible, maybe) terrorist plot.... Season 2 of Game Of Thrones (the nominated season) was very, very good but just wasn't as good as its first season. The main problem GOT had was that a) they were trying to cram too many characters and way too many plot points into an entire season and b) they did a more worse job explaining things to audiences like me
who did not read the book. This is a television show and as such it should be judged as a television show. That being said, the penultimate episode of the season, "The Battle Of Blackwater" was probably the single greatest episode that aired during this Emmy eligible period. [SPOILER ALERT FOR GOT] At some point I need the White Walkers/whatever lies North of The Wall and Dany and her fucking dragons to actually invade Westeros. I've invested two seasons around Dany and Jon Snow and there's been a looming threat of war for two seasons now and it just hasn't come. When I first began to watch GOT I was worried it would be too plot-driven with little characters and while the show is plenty plot driven it turned out to have some amazing characters that I've grown fond of (in particular Tyrion Lannister) but Season 2 moved away from that to focus more on the potential and upcoming wars. [END OF GOT SPOILER ALERT]... Season Two of Downton Abbey was extremely boring with the writers doing a terrible job by dragging on plot points FOR-EV-ER (think The Sandlot). The Emmy voters are full of old people who love this sort of crap but it's not for everybody- mainly everybody under the age of 55. Season One of D.A. started off super slow but then it really picked up in the second half. The last episode of Season One added an amazing plot point which I thought would make for an amazing Season Two. Oh, how I was proven wrong... Unfortunately I didn't get around to watching Boardwalk Empire but I'm sure it's great. And let's face it, anything's better than what Season 2 of Downton Abbey was.
If I Had An Emmy Ballot:
- Breaking Bad
- Mad Men
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- White Collar
- Justified
MAJOR SNUBS:
Truthfully, I am proclaiming I would vote for Justified mainly just because I saw it. I'm sure if I also saw Boardwalk Empire then it would take Justified's place. Justified's Season Two was amazing but Season Three added too many characters which diminished the overall quality. I know many critics loved Season 3 and would claim it is a snub but I have no problem that it was left off of the list. Being typically me, I am being too critical of Justified because, like Mad Men, a bad season of it is still really, really good.
WHAT WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN:
What Will Win: Breaking Bad
What Should Win: Breaking Bad
For the past four years Mad Mad has won the Emmy for Best Drama Series. If you were a betting man you should bet on past winners being a repeat winner, but Mad Men already set the record for the most Best Drama Emmy's won by a television show ever when it won its fourth Emmy in 2011. If Mad Men wins for a 5th straight year it would be beyond unprecedented. This is absolutely a bit of a bold call by me but I just feel Mad Men finally loses out on the big prize.
If Mad Men does lose then I think Breaking Bad wins it. I'm probably discounting the Emmy love for Downton Abbey (I mean a vast majority of the Emmy voters are old white dudes which is Downton Abbey's ONLY demographic) but I just think Breaking Bad is so good and has been continuously good that it finally gets his due. Season 4 of Breaking Bad is just so much better than every nomination that I believe its quality will win out. This is probably just wishful thinking but that is my pick.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mad Men's 4 Emmy wins is tied for the most ever won by a television show. If they win this year they will set the record. Still don't think they do it.
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Mad Men
- Breaking Bad
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- Downton Abbey
- Boardwalk Empire
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Season 4 of Breaking Bad (the nominated season) is one of the greatest single seasons ever produced on television. The only thing that is probably better than Season 4 was Season 3 of Breaking Bad. I say this without hyperbole or exaggeration that Breaking Bad is the greatest television show ever made. It's just fucking awesome. If you disagree with me then you just haven't watched the show yet... Season 5 of Mad Man (the nominated season) was probably one of the worst seasons the show has ever had. It started off slow, then got good for a few moments, then it took a HUGE dip in quality, then the problem arose with Lane Pryce, and then the show ended on a really high note. That being said, a "bad" season for Mad Men is still better than 99% of the crap (and good stuff) put out there... Season 1 of Homeland was just excellent. Despite the show being run by a couple of people from 24, Homeland had amazing characters and character development. We saw the story and lives of two damaged people (one from genetics [Claire Danes] and one from external forces [Damian Lewis]) and they came together so beautifully to unwind and solve a (possible, maybe) terrorist plot.... Season 2 of Game Of Thrones (the nominated season) was very, very good but just wasn't as good as its first season. The main problem GOT had was that a) they were trying to cram too many characters and way too many plot points into an entire season and b) they did a more worse job explaining things to audiences like me
who did not read the book. This is a television show and as such it should be judged as a television show. That being said, the penultimate episode of the season, "The Battle Of Blackwater" was probably the single greatest episode that aired during this Emmy eligible period. [SPOILER ALERT FOR GOT] At some point I need the White Walkers/whatever lies North of The Wall and Dany and her fucking dragons to actually invade Westeros. I've invested two seasons around Dany and Jon Snow and there's been a looming threat of war for two seasons now and it just hasn't come. When I first began to watch GOT I was worried it would be too plot-driven with little characters and while the show is plenty plot driven it turned out to have some amazing characters that I've grown fond of (in particular Tyrion Lannister) but Season 2 moved away from that to focus more on the potential and upcoming wars. [END OF GOT SPOILER ALERT]... Season Two of Downton Abbey was extremely boring with the writers doing a terrible job by dragging on plot points FOR-EV-ER (think The Sandlot). The Emmy voters are full of old people who love this sort of crap but it's not for everybody- mainly everybody under the age of 55. Season One of D.A. started off super slow but then it really picked up in the second half. The last episode of Season One added an amazing plot point which I thought would make for an amazing Season Two. Oh, how I was proven wrong... Unfortunately I didn't get around to watching Boardwalk Empire but I'm sure it's great. And let's face it, anything's better than what Season 2 of Downton Abbey was.
If I Had An Emmy Ballot:
- Breaking Bad
- Mad Men
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- White Collar
- Justified
MAJOR SNUBS:
Truthfully, I am proclaiming I would vote for Justified mainly just because I saw it. I'm sure if I also saw Boardwalk Empire then it would take Justified's place. Justified's Season Two was amazing but Season Three added too many characters which diminished the overall quality. I know many critics loved Season 3 and would claim it is a snub but I have no problem that it was left off of the list. Being typically me, I am being too critical of Justified because, like Mad Men, a bad season of it is still really, really good.
WHAT WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN:
What Will Win: Breaking Bad
What Should Win: Breaking Bad
For the past four years Mad Mad has won the Emmy for Best Drama Series. If you were a betting man you should bet on past winners being a repeat winner, but Mad Men already set the record for the most Best Drama Emmy's won by a television show ever when it won its fourth Emmy in 2011. If Mad Men wins for a 5th straight year it would be beyond unprecedented. This is absolutely a bit of a bold call by me but I just feel Mad Men finally loses out on the big prize.
If Mad Men does lose then I think Breaking Bad wins it. I'm probably discounting the Emmy love for Downton Abbey (I mean a vast majority of the Emmy voters are old white dudes which is Downton Abbey's ONLY demographic) but I just think Breaking Bad is so good and has been continuously good that it finally gets his due. Season 4 of Breaking Bad is just so much better than every nomination that I believe its quality will win out. This is probably just wishful thinking but that is my pick.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mad Men's 4 Emmy wins is tied for the most ever won by a television show. If they win this year they will set the record. Still don't think they do it.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Friday, September 21, 2012
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Lead Actor In A Drama Series
And the nominees are:
- Jon Hamm (Don Draper) in Mad Men
- Bryan Cranston (Walter White) in Breaking Bad
- Damian Lewis (Sgt. Nicholas Brody) in Homeland
- Michael C. Hall (Dexter Morgan) in Dexter
- Steve Buscemi (Nucky Thompson) in Boardwalk Empire
- Hugh Bonneville (Robert Crawley, Lord of Grantham) in Downton Abbey
MY REACTIONS TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Where to begin? Let's start with one of my favorite characters on television: Don Draper. Don Draper has changed since his cheating and smooth ways of Season One. Don Draper is still one badass mofo and does whatever he wants to whomever he wants. But for the past two seasons we have seen a subdued version of Don Draper. But that doesn't diminish Hamm's amazing acting abilities, it's just really frustrating and it's 100% creator and head writer Matthew Weiner's fault. But my final point is that Jon Ham is awesome and can no wrong... Bryan Cranston has won this award every year he's been eligible and he deserves every award that comes his way. Breaking Bad is the best show on television and a lot of it has to do with the amazing performance of Cranston. The show could not work without him... I loved the first season of Homeland and while Claire Danes (deservingly so) has garnered all the acting buzz and all of the awards from Homeland, I think Damien Lewis did a much better acting job than Danes. I thought Lewis was superb and I hope he wins every award he's nominated for... Hugh Bonneville didn't do a horrible job on Downton Abbey and he is a very good actor but like most of the actors who have earned acting Emmy nominations from Downton Abbey, they didn't really sparkle on the screen like many other actors who were nominated. If I had to chose one actor from Downton Abbey for this category I would have chosen Dan Stevens as Matthew Crawley because he was one of the few people on the show who's performance and acting stood out above the rest... While I stopped watching Dexter after Season 4, I find it hard to believe that Michael C. Hall and Dexter did anything *that* much different in Season 6 than in the first four seasons. I think it's safe to assume I can judge Hall based on his past performances and while his character is good, I think the field has caught up to Dexter and Hall... I have no excuse to why I haven't seen Boardwalk Empire. I would have much rather seen B.E. than Downton Abbey. Feel free to pelt me with rocks.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Jon Hamm (Don Draper) in Mad Men
- Bryan Cranston (Walter White) in Breaking Bad
- Damian Lewis (Sgt. Nicholas Brody) in Homeland
- Timothy Olyphant (Raylan Givens) in Justified
- Matt Bomer (Neal Caffrey) in White Collar
- Dan Stevens (Matthew Crawley) in Downton Abbey
(NOTE: I'm sure once I see Boardwalk Empire I'll put Buscemi ahead of Stevens but I don't want to take anything away from Stevens because he was excellent)
EDITOR'S UPDATE: Now that I have seen 11 out of the 12 episodes of Season Two of Boardwalk Empire, I feel I can accurately reflect upon the show and about Steve Buscemi's perfromance. Buscemi is great always put his performance both in Season 2 and in Season 1 were nothing spectacular and the real star of the show is Michael Pitt as Jimmy Darmody. I wish Pitt made himself eligible in this category but sadly he was only eligible for a Supporting Emmy. Since Buscemi's Nucky Thompson is the only character eligible for the Lead Emmy nomination, I'm fine with my original selection and with leaving Buscemi off of my "If I Had An Emmy Vote" list and leaving Dan Stevens on.
MAJOR SNUBS:
Um, how about Mr. Beautiful Timothy Olyphant! While I thought Season 3 of Justified took a huge step backwards from both Season 2 AND Season 1, that doesn't mean Olyphant wasn't great as always. Raylan Givens is one of the best characters on television and Olyphant deserves a nomination every year no matter what.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Bryan Cranston
Who Should Win (In General): Jon Hamm
Who Should Win (Solely Based Upon The Nominated Season): Damian Lewis
Last year Breaking Bad was not eligible to be nominated which means Jon Hamm did was not forced to go head-to-head with Bryan Cranston. This looked like a guaranteed lock for Hamm to finally win a Best Actor Emmy. But then this cocksucker named Kyle Chandler from Friday Night Lights comes along and because it was his last eligible season he wins the award. I guess Hamm will just have to accept his Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy for his (hilarious and legit deserves to win for this one performance) cameo on the live episode of 30 Rock this year or wait two more years when Mad Men is on Season 7 and Breaking Bad has stopped airing new episodes. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Hamm lost the Best Guest Performance In A Comedy to Jimmy Fallon last week. WTF Emmys?!]
If you are just looking at the six, actual nominations and ask me who deserves to win, it's Jon Hamm because it's insane he will never win a Best Actor Emmy for playing probably the greatest character in the history of television (seriously, Don Draper is amazing and this is not a hyperbole). But if you're asking me to choose who deserves to win by solely looking at how Hamm acted in Season 5 of Mad Men versus how Damien Lewis acted in Season 1 of Homeland, I'll take Lewis ten times out of ten.
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Jon Hamm (Don Draper) in Mad Men
- Bryan Cranston (Walter White) in Breaking Bad
- Damian Lewis (Sgt. Nicholas Brody) in Homeland
- Michael C. Hall (Dexter Morgan) in Dexter
- Steve Buscemi (Nucky Thompson) in Boardwalk Empire
- Hugh Bonneville (Robert Crawley, Lord of Grantham) in Downton Abbey
MY REACTIONS TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Where to begin? Let's start with one of my favorite characters on television: Don Draper. Don Draper has changed since his cheating and smooth ways of Season One. Don Draper is still one badass mofo and does whatever he wants to whomever he wants. But for the past two seasons we have seen a subdued version of Don Draper. But that doesn't diminish Hamm's amazing acting abilities, it's just really frustrating and it's 100% creator and head writer Matthew Weiner's fault. But my final point is that Jon Ham is awesome and can no wrong... Bryan Cranston has won this award every year he's been eligible and he deserves every award that comes his way. Breaking Bad is the best show on television and a lot of it has to do with the amazing performance of Cranston. The show could not work without him... I loved the first season of Homeland and while Claire Danes (deservingly so) has garnered all the acting buzz and all of the awards from Homeland, I think Damien Lewis did a much better acting job than Danes. I thought Lewis was superb and I hope he wins every award he's nominated for... Hugh Bonneville didn't do a horrible job on Downton Abbey and he is a very good actor but like most of the actors who have earned acting Emmy nominations from Downton Abbey, they didn't really sparkle on the screen like many other actors who were nominated. If I had to chose one actor from Downton Abbey for this category I would have chosen Dan Stevens as Matthew Crawley because he was one of the few people on the show who's performance and acting stood out above the rest... While I stopped watching Dexter after Season 4, I find it hard to believe that Michael C. Hall and Dexter did anything *that* much different in Season 6 than in the first four seasons. I think it's safe to assume I can judge Hall based on his past performances and while his character is good, I think the field has caught up to Dexter and Hall... I have no excuse to why I haven't seen Boardwalk Empire. I would have much rather seen B.E. than Downton Abbey. Feel free to pelt me with rocks.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Jon Hamm (Don Draper) in Mad Men
- Bryan Cranston (Walter White) in Breaking Bad
- Damian Lewis (Sgt. Nicholas Brody) in Homeland
- Timothy Olyphant (Raylan Givens) in Justified
- Matt Bomer (Neal Caffrey) in White Collar
- Dan Stevens (Matthew Crawley) in Downton Abbey
(NOTE: I'm sure once I see Boardwalk Empire I'll put Buscemi ahead of Stevens but I don't want to take anything away from Stevens because he was excellent)
EDITOR'S UPDATE: Now that I have seen 11 out of the 12 episodes of Season Two of Boardwalk Empire, I feel I can accurately reflect upon the show and about Steve Buscemi's perfromance. Buscemi is great always put his performance both in Season 2 and in Season 1 were nothing spectacular and the real star of the show is Michael Pitt as Jimmy Darmody. I wish Pitt made himself eligible in this category but sadly he was only eligible for a Supporting Emmy. Since Buscemi's Nucky Thompson is the only character eligible for the Lead Emmy nomination, I'm fine with my original selection and with leaving Buscemi off of my "If I Had An Emmy Vote" list and leaving Dan Stevens on.
MAJOR SNUBS:
Um, how about Mr. Beautiful Timothy Olyphant! While I thought Season 3 of Justified took a huge step backwards from both Season 2 AND Season 1, that doesn't mean Olyphant wasn't great as always. Raylan Givens is one of the best characters on television and Olyphant deserves a nomination every year no matter what.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Bryan Cranston
Who Should Win (In General): Jon Hamm
Who Should Win (Solely Based Upon The Nominated Season): Damian Lewis
Last year Breaking Bad was not eligible to be nominated which means Jon Hamm did was not forced to go head-to-head with Bryan Cranston. This looked like a guaranteed lock for Hamm to finally win a Best Actor Emmy. But then this cocksucker named Kyle Chandler from Friday Night Lights comes along and because it was his last eligible season he wins the award. I guess Hamm will just have to accept his Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy for his (hilarious and legit deserves to win for this one performance) cameo on the live episode of 30 Rock this year or wait two more years when Mad Men is on Season 7 and Breaking Bad has stopped airing new episodes. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Hamm lost the Best Guest Performance In A Comedy to Jimmy Fallon last week. WTF Emmys?!]
If you are just looking at the six, actual nominations and ask me who deserves to win, it's Jon Hamm because it's insane he will never win a Best Actor Emmy for playing probably the greatest character in the history of television (seriously, Don Draper is amazing and this is not a hyperbole). But if you're asking me to choose who deserves to win by solely looking at how Hamm acted in Season 5 of Mad Men versus how Damien Lewis acted in Season 1 of Homeland, I'll take Lewis ten times out of ten.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Lead Actress In A Drama Series
And the nominees are:
- Kathy Bates (Harry Korn) in Harry's Law
- Claire Danes (Carrie Mathison) in Homeland
- Glenn Close (Patty Hewes) in Damages
- Michelle Dockery (Lady Mary Crowley) in Downton Abbey
- Elisabeth Moss (Peggy Olson) in Mad Men
- Julianna Margulies (Alicia Florrick) in The Good Wife
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Despite all the sexism in Mad Men, the show is one of the best feminist, pro-women shows ever on television. The 1960's was an amazing time in our country not only for Blacks but also for women and Matthew Weiner sure as hell puts that on display throughout his show. The symbolism for the woman's movement is shown through Peggy Olson and, as always, Elisabeth Moss delivers another amazing season... What can I say about Claire Danes for her amazing performance as Carrie Mathison? Mathison suffers from bi-polarism and boy howdy does she play both manic and depressive and everything in between as the lead in Homeland. A great rookie year for all in the show and a great year for Danes.... Despite how boring and dreadful I thought Season Two of Downton Abbey was there were some really great performances. Michelle Dockery as Mary Crowley gets the most screen time as if you like the show you have to credit a lot of that to her. Truthfully, I never watched Dockery on screen and thought to myself, "Wow, she's just amazing" but in a truly weak category she really is one of the best. However, she's a far #3 behind Danes and Moss... I do not watch Damages or Harry's Law. But then again neither do Emmy voters or the rest of America... I don't have an excuse why I don't watch The Good Wife, except that I'm not a middle aged woman. From what I've heard The Good Wife is the best cable drama on television but that doesn't mean anything considered how amazing the programming on AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, and others are... Like the movies, there are just very few roles for women and that shows in television and this category as well. If you look at the eligible nominations for this category you will notice that this category as a lot less candidates than most of the other candidates.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Elisabeth Moss (Peggy Olson) in Mad Men
- Michelle Dockey (Lady Mary Crawley) in Downton Abbey
- Elizabeth McGovern (Cora, Countess of Grantham) in Downton Abbey
- Claire Danes (Carrie Mathison) in Homeland
MAJOR SNUBS:
While I watch a crap ton of T.V. and (at least what I think) a crap ton of good T.V. it just so happens that I do not watch a ton of shows with good leading ladies. Or really any leading ladies. Believe me, this is not because I'm sexist but it is because most of the best shows have men in the leading role or if the show does star a female then the show is just not very good. If Lena Headey actually wanted to get an Emmy nomination it would be best for her to throw her name with the big boys (or "girls" shall I say), but since she is only eligible for Outstanding Actress in a Supporting Role she's not a snub (for this category this year) Same could be said about Anna Gunn. (Although Gunn might win a Emmy this year)
Also, I'm extremely glad that Jessica Pare (who played Megan Calvet) in Mad Men did NOT get a nomination. I know the blogosphere was HUGE on Megan this season and adored her but I thought the weakest episodes and story lines of the season surrounded Megan and I don't think it was a coincidence that when Megan's role diminished the show got better. It seems that the Emmy voters agreed with me on this one as she was one of the only actors from Mad Men to NOT earn an acting nomination.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO DESERVES TO WIN:
- Who Will Win: Claire Danes
- Who Deserves To Win: Claire Danes
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Kathy Bates (Harry Korn) in Harry's Law
- Claire Danes (Carrie Mathison) in Homeland
- Glenn Close (Patty Hewes) in Damages
- Michelle Dockery (Lady Mary Crowley) in Downton Abbey
- Elisabeth Moss (Peggy Olson) in Mad Men
- Julianna Margulies (Alicia Florrick) in The Good Wife
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Despite all the sexism in Mad Men, the show is one of the best feminist, pro-women shows ever on television. The 1960's was an amazing time in our country not only for Blacks but also for women and Matthew Weiner sure as hell puts that on display throughout his show. The symbolism for the woman's movement is shown through Peggy Olson and, as always, Elisabeth Moss delivers another amazing season... What can I say about Claire Danes for her amazing performance as Carrie Mathison? Mathison suffers from bi-polarism and boy howdy does she play both manic and depressive and everything in between as the lead in Homeland. A great rookie year for all in the show and a great year for Danes.... Despite how boring and dreadful I thought Season Two of Downton Abbey was there were some really great performances. Michelle Dockery as Mary Crowley gets the most screen time as if you like the show you have to credit a lot of that to her. Truthfully, I never watched Dockery on screen and thought to myself, "Wow, she's just amazing" but in a truly weak category she really is one of the best. However, she's a far #3 behind Danes and Moss... I do not watch Damages or Harry's Law. But then again neither do Emmy voters or the rest of America... I don't have an excuse why I don't watch The Good Wife, except that I'm not a middle aged woman. From what I've heard The Good Wife is the best cable drama on television but that doesn't mean anything considered how amazing the programming on AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, and others are... Like the movies, there are just very few roles for women and that shows in television and this category as well. If you look at the eligible nominations for this category you will notice that this category as a lot less candidates than most of the other candidates.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Elisabeth Moss (Peggy Olson) in Mad Men
- Michelle Dockey (Lady Mary Crawley) in Downton Abbey
- Elizabeth McGovern (Cora, Countess of Grantham) in Downton Abbey
- Claire Danes (Carrie Mathison) in Homeland
MAJOR SNUBS:
While I watch a crap ton of T.V. and (at least what I think) a crap ton of good T.V. it just so happens that I do not watch a ton of shows with good leading ladies. Or really any leading ladies. Believe me, this is not because I'm sexist but it is because most of the best shows have men in the leading role or if the show does star a female then the show is just not very good. If Lena Headey actually wanted to get an Emmy nomination it would be best for her to throw her name with the big boys (or "girls" shall I say), but since she is only eligible for Outstanding Actress in a Supporting Role she's not a snub (for this category this year) Same could be said about Anna Gunn. (Although Gunn might win a Emmy this year)
Also, I'm extremely glad that Jessica Pare (who played Megan Calvet) in Mad Men did NOT get a nomination. I know the blogosphere was HUGE on Megan this season and adored her but I thought the weakest episodes and story lines of the season surrounded Megan and I don't think it was a coincidence that when Megan's role diminished the show got better. It seems that the Emmy voters agreed with me on this one as she was one of the only actors from Mad Men to NOT earn an acting nomination.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO DESERVES TO WIN:
- Who Will Win: Claire Danes
- Who Deserves To Win: Claire Danes
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Thursday, September 20, 2012
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Supporting Actor In A Drama Series
And the nominees are:
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Giancarlo Esposito (Gustavo Fring) in Breaking Bad
- Aaron Paul (Jesse Pinkman) in Breaking Bad
- Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister) in Game Of Thrones
- Jared Harris (Lane Pryce) in Mad Men
- Jim Carter (Mr. Carson) in Downton Abbey
- Brendan Coyle (Mr. Bates) in Downton Abbey
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
I'm pleased to report that I have seen all four of these shows and their respective nominated seasons so I can accurately judge all of them... Gustavo Fring is one of the best T.V. villains of all time and probably one of the best villains in media period. Esposito was fantastic being the focal point of Season 4 of Breaking Bad and was both menacing at one point and then charming as a mofo in the next. He was just fantastic... Normally I am not a big fan of perennial guys like Aaron Paul to be favorites to win these kinds of awards because after a certain point, a character is what he is, but not Paul in Season 4 of Breaking Bad. Jesse devolved into chaos after the ending events of Season 3 and become detached and then re-attached to society throughout Season 4. His performance was great... God I love Tyrion Lannister and Peter Dinklage. The guy is just so charming and you can't help but root for him no matter what endeavor he attempts or how vile it is. Dinklage showed great range and depth of emotion in Season Two. He could go into a monologue about how shitty his family was to him one minute (where all you wanted to do was give him a hug) to plotting and scheming for King's Landing in the next. I love Dinklage's performance... I loved Harris' performance of Lane Pryce this year on Mad Men and as much as I love Roger Sterling in general as well as his acid trip, I feel Harris deserving earned the "Mad Men spot" this year over John Slattery. The show was in a huge lull and it didn't pick up until the end of the season once Lane Pryce starting having his problems... I really like Brendan Coyle and his portrayal of Mr. Bates but holy shit was his story line in Season 2 awful and it dragged on forever- most of it off screen. It's hard to blame the actor for poor writing, but then again we credit the actor for good writing (see: Breaking Bad)... Jim Carter had a lot more to do as Mr. Carson this season but his performance seemed like a dime a dozen... If I *had* to choose one person from Downton Abbey I would choose Rob James-Collier as Thomas Barrow- but for seem reason he's not even eligible.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Giancarlo Esposito (Gustavo Fring) in Breaking Bad
- Aaron Paul (Jesse Pinkman) in Breaking Bad
- Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister) in Game Of Thrones
- Jared Harris (Lane Pryce) in Mad Men
- John Slattery (Roger Sterling) in Mad Men
- Mandy Patinkin (Saul Berenson) in Homeland
NOTE: I really wanted to nominate Bob Odenkirk (Saul Goodman) in Breaking Bad, Vincent Kartheiser (Pete Campbell) in Mad Men, and Walton Goggins (Boyd Crowder) in Justified but holy crap is the field super deep this year. EDITOR'S UPDATE: After watching Season 2 of Boardwalk Empire I really want to put Michael Pitt (who plays Jimmy Darmody) on this list. The problem is that this category is so damn deep I don't know who I would remove. In an ideal world this category would allow for seven actors to get nominated like they did this year with Best Supporting Actress (Comedy). I also want to give a shout out to Jack Huston who plays the creepy and wonderful Richard Harrow. The show realized what a gem they found in Season 1 and I'm glad they added depth to him in Season 2. He's great.
MAJOR SNUBS:
With a super deep class it's hard to say anyone is a snub but to me I can't believe Mandy Patinkin didn't get nominated. Homeland's first season was excellent and it was in large part due to him. Downton Abbey is good but it is no Homeland. With Damian Lewis, Claire Daines, and the show itself all garnering nominations, it is a shame the seasoned veteran got nothing.
WHO WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Giancarlo Esposito
Who Should Win: Giancarlo Esposito
Aaron Paul won this award two years ago and with Breaking Bad not eligible last year Peter Dinklage won it last year. Normally the Emmy voters will continue to vote the previous winner but not only did the voters make major, unexpected changes (which was a great thing) with the nominations this year but with Margo Martindale winning the Best Supporting Actress Emmy last year for her fantastic performance as the evil and sly Mags Bennett for Justified I think Emmy voters are not afraid to vote for amazing short-term villains. All Emmy voters watch Breaking Bad and I think they will notice and recognize Esposito's performance. If for some reason Esposito does not win the award then Dinklage will.
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
I'm pleased to report that I have seen all four of these shows and their respective nominated seasons so I can accurately judge all of them... Gustavo Fring is one of the best T.V. villains of all time and probably one of the best villains in media period. Esposito was fantastic being the focal point of Season 4 of Breaking Bad and was both menacing at one point and then charming as a mofo in the next. He was just fantastic... Normally I am not a big fan of perennial guys like Aaron Paul to be favorites to win these kinds of awards because after a certain point, a character is what he is, but not Paul in Season 4 of Breaking Bad. Jesse devolved into chaos after the ending events of Season 3 and become detached and then re-attached to society throughout Season 4. His performance was great... God I love Tyrion Lannister and Peter Dinklage. The guy is just so charming and you can't help but root for him no matter what endeavor he attempts or how vile it is. Dinklage showed great range and depth of emotion in Season Two. He could go into a monologue about how shitty his family was to him one minute (where all you wanted to do was give him a hug) to plotting and scheming for King's Landing in the next. I love Dinklage's performance... I loved Harris' performance of Lane Pryce this year on Mad Men and as much as I love Roger Sterling in general as well as his acid trip, I feel Harris deserving earned the "Mad Men spot" this year over John Slattery. The show was in a huge lull and it didn't pick up until the end of the season once Lane Pryce starting having his problems... I really like Brendan Coyle and his portrayal of Mr. Bates but holy shit was his story line in Season 2 awful and it dragged on forever- most of it off screen. It's hard to blame the actor for poor writing, but then again we credit the actor for good writing (see: Breaking Bad)... Jim Carter had a lot more to do as Mr. Carson this season but his performance seemed like a dime a dozen... If I *had* to choose one person from Downton Abbey I would choose Rob James-Collier as Thomas Barrow- but for seem reason he's not even eligible.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Giancarlo Esposito (Gustavo Fring) in Breaking Bad
- Aaron Paul (Jesse Pinkman) in Breaking Bad
- Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister) in Game Of Thrones
- Jared Harris (Lane Pryce) in Mad Men
- John Slattery (Roger Sterling) in Mad Men
- Mandy Patinkin (Saul Berenson) in Homeland
NOTE: I really wanted to nominate Bob Odenkirk (Saul Goodman) in Breaking Bad, Vincent Kartheiser (Pete Campbell) in Mad Men, and Walton Goggins (Boyd Crowder) in Justified but holy crap is the field super deep this year. EDITOR'S UPDATE: After watching Season 2 of Boardwalk Empire I really want to put Michael Pitt (who plays Jimmy Darmody) on this list. The problem is that this category is so damn deep I don't know who I would remove. In an ideal world this category would allow for seven actors to get nominated like they did this year with Best Supporting Actress (Comedy). I also want to give a shout out to Jack Huston who plays the creepy and wonderful Richard Harrow. The show realized what a gem they found in Season 1 and I'm glad they added depth to him in Season 2. He's great.
MAJOR SNUBS:
With a super deep class it's hard to say anyone is a snub but to me I can't believe Mandy Patinkin didn't get nominated. Homeland's first season was excellent and it was in large part due to him. Downton Abbey is good but it is no Homeland. With Damian Lewis, Claire Daines, and the show itself all garnering nominations, it is a shame the seasoned veteran got nothing.
WHO WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Giancarlo Esposito
Who Should Win: Giancarlo Esposito
Aaron Paul won this award two years ago and with Breaking Bad not eligible last year Peter Dinklage won it last year. Normally the Emmy voters will continue to vote the previous winner but not only did the voters make major, unexpected changes (which was a great thing) with the nominations this year but with Margo Martindale winning the Best Supporting Actress Emmy last year for her fantastic performance as the evil and sly Mags Bennett for Justified I think Emmy voters are not afraid to vote for amazing short-term villains. All Emmy voters watch Breaking Bad and I think they will notice and recognize Esposito's performance. If for some reason Esposito does not win the award then Dinklage will.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Supporting Actress In A Drama Series
And the nominees are:
- Christina Hendricks (Joan Harris) in Mad Men
- Anna Gunn (Skylar White) in Breaking Bad
- Maggie Smith (Violet Crowley) in Downton Abbey
- Joanne Froggatt (Anna Smith) Downton Abbey
- Archie Panjabi (Kalinda Sharma) in The Good Wife
- Christina Baranski (Dianne Lockhart) in The Good Wife
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
I hate Skyler White. I hate her so much. I hate her face, I hate her personality, and I hate that she is trying to stop Walter White. I'm pretty sure that means that Anna Gunn is a great actress but it's hard for me to even root for Anna Gunn because I hate Skylar so much... Maggie Smith is amazing at everything she does and in a huge cast that (to me) doesn't distinguish themselves from one another, Maggie Smith is one of the few people who actually deserves a nomination for her role on the show. She's great... Sticking with Downton Abbey let's talk about Joanne Froggatt. I feel the same way about her as I did about Jim Carter's portrayal of Carson's, I have nothing against it but I feel like it didn't stick out either... Now on to the last of the performance whose performance I have actually seen and that's Christina Hendricks as Joannie. God, I love Joannie. Who doesn't? Hendricks is great against anyone who she is playing off of and in Season Five of Mad Men we got the rare Don Draper/Joan Harris scene where they drunkenly flirt together. Joan was a major part of Mad Men's 5th season and she was excellent dealing with both her terrible marriage as well as doing some terrible things at work... I don't watch The Good Wife or pretend to know anything about it.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Christina Hendricks (Joan Harris) in Mad Men
- Kiernan Shipka (Sally Draper) in Mad Men
- Lena Headey (Cersei Lannister) in Game of Thrones
- Maisie Williams (Arya Stark) in Game of Thrones
- Morena Baccarin (Jessica Brody) in Homeland
- Jennifer Carpenter (Debra Morgan) in Dexter
MAJOR SNUBS:
I don't know if there are major snubs this year but if I had to pick one I'd pick Kiernan Shipka. The conventional view is that Lena Headey is the biggest snub and I wouldn't fight you to hard on that but for the sake of talking about someone no one is talking about, I'll go with Sally Draper. Nothing against Headey and she was excellent in Season Two of Game of Thrones going from wildly deceitful, plotting, and mean to being surprisingly thoughtful and generous and pulling off both. That being said, the emphasis on Sally Draper and how a youth is being affected by the changing and wild 1960's was some of the best stuff on an average season of Mad Men. Shipka's been great since becoming a full time Mad Men regular and I think she deserves to get praised for her great work.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Anna Gunn
Who Should Win (Nominated): Christina Hendricks
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Morena Baccarin
This is probably the pick I feel weakest about. Margo Martindale won this award last year but she neither was nominated nor eligible to win for her amazing performance of Mags Bennett in Justified this year. Archie Panjabi won this award two years ago so that would lead one to believe she's a favorite to win it this year but with Emmy voters shocking everyone by bucking their own trend of consistency and actually mixing things up with the nominations, I think voters will mix things up as well by awarding this award to Gunn. This is surprisingly Gunn's first Emmy nomination and with Season 4 of Breaking Bad being as amazing as it is (the season Gunn is nominated for) and with BB coming off of an amazing Season Five I think the support goes to Anna Gunn.
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Christina Hendricks (Joan Harris) in Mad Men
- Anna Gunn (Skylar White) in Breaking Bad
- Maggie Smith (Violet Crowley) in Downton Abbey
- Joanne Froggatt (Anna Smith) Downton Abbey
- Archie Panjabi (Kalinda Sharma) in The Good Wife
- Christina Baranski (Dianne Lockhart) in The Good Wife
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
I hate Skyler White. I hate her so much. I hate her face, I hate her personality, and I hate that she is trying to stop Walter White. I'm pretty sure that means that Anna Gunn is a great actress but it's hard for me to even root for Anna Gunn because I hate Skylar so much... Maggie Smith is amazing at everything she does and in a huge cast that (to me) doesn't distinguish themselves from one another, Maggie Smith is one of the few people who actually deserves a nomination for her role on the show. She's great... Sticking with Downton Abbey let's talk about Joanne Froggatt. I feel the same way about her as I did about Jim Carter's portrayal of Carson's, I have nothing against it but I feel like it didn't stick out either... Now on to the last of the performance whose performance I have actually seen and that's Christina Hendricks as Joannie. God, I love Joannie. Who doesn't? Hendricks is great against anyone who she is playing off of and in Season Five of Mad Men we got the rare Don Draper/Joan Harris scene where they drunkenly flirt together. Joan was a major part of Mad Men's 5th season and she was excellent dealing with both her terrible marriage as well as doing some terrible things at work... I don't watch The Good Wife or pretend to know anything about it.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Christina Hendricks (Joan Harris) in Mad Men
- Kiernan Shipka (Sally Draper) in Mad Men
- Lena Headey (Cersei Lannister) in Game of Thrones
- Maisie Williams (Arya Stark) in Game of Thrones
- Morena Baccarin (Jessica Brody) in Homeland
- Jennifer Carpenter (Debra Morgan) in Dexter
MAJOR SNUBS:
I don't know if there are major snubs this year but if I had to pick one I'd pick Kiernan Shipka. The conventional view is that Lena Headey is the biggest snub and I wouldn't fight you to hard on that but for the sake of talking about someone no one is talking about, I'll go with Sally Draper. Nothing against Headey and she was excellent in Season Two of Game of Thrones going from wildly deceitful, plotting, and mean to being surprisingly thoughtful and generous and pulling off both. That being said, the emphasis on Sally Draper and how a youth is being affected by the changing and wild 1960's was some of the best stuff on an average season of Mad Men. Shipka's been great since becoming a full time Mad Men regular and I think she deserves to get praised for her great work.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Anna Gunn
Who Should Win (Nominated): Christina Hendricks
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Morena Baccarin
This is probably the pick I feel weakest about. Margo Martindale won this award last year but she neither was nominated nor eligible to win for her amazing performance of Mags Bennett in Justified this year. Archie Panjabi won this award two years ago so that would lead one to believe she's a favorite to win it this year but with Emmy voters shocking everyone by bucking their own trend of consistency and actually mixing things up with the nominations, I think voters will mix things up as well by awarding this award to Gunn. This is surprisingly Gunn's first Emmy nomination and with Season 4 of Breaking Bad being as amazing as it is (the season Gunn is nominated for) and with BB coming off of an amazing Season Five I think the support goes to Anna Gunn.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Comedy Series
The nominees are:
- 30 Rock
- The Big Bang Theory
- Curb Your Enthusiasm
- Modern Family
- Veep
- Girls
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
While I'm a huge television watcher and I watch a disproportionate amount of comedies than dramas, this year I seem to be out of the loop when it comes to the laughs. Out of the six nominations I have only seen two out of the six seasons: 30 Rock and Modern Family... I saw the pilots to both Girls and Veep and was not impressed with either of them. I know they both have gotten a lot of critical buzz and I should know better than to judge a comedy by its pilot (because comedies usually need a few episodes, if not an entire season to actually get to their sweet spot) but alas I have... I always say I can't watch Curb Your Enthusiasm because while I like Seinfeld I could never watch a Seinfeld but with George being the main character and that is what I feel Curb is. But that being said I have watched a handful of episodes from the latest Curb and they're all hysterical... I hate what The Big Bang Theory has become. I know it's super popular and people love Sheldon but a) not only can I not stand Sheldon anymore but b) I absolutely hate that they essentially added female Sheldon with Amy Farrah-Fowler. I really think the show have Jumped The Shark for me... I love Modern Family and it's first two seasons but it had a pretty down season in this Emmy nominated 3rd season. After the season ended I wanted to say it shouldn't win the Best Comedy Show Emmy but considering this field, I wouldn't have a problem with it.... The first two season of 30 Rock were so good that I think I had unfair expectations for its Season 6 but overall it was a really solid season. Although I said this at the time, I'm kind of upset the way the show treated Jack and Liz when Liz started dating Criss. I'm inherently fine with comedies not developing their main characters (most notably Seinfeld) but the way Liz always wanted to change and the way Jack was always trying to make her change, I'm upset that change didn't happen. Nevertheless, in a weak year for long-standing comedies, 30 Rock was one of the season's best.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Parks And Recreation
- New Girl
- 30 Rock
- Modern Family
- It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Community
MAJOR SNUBS:
To me, the two biggest snubs are Parks and Recreation and New Girl... Parks and Recreation is not only the best comedy on television right now but you can make the argument that it's the best television show out right now. The cast is great and funny and sweet and just overall amazing. Considering that Parks and Rec have been nominated before AND gets other Emmy nominations I'm completely surprised that it didn't get an nomination this year... I love New Girl. it's got a great and simple concept with a small cast that you grow to love. While the advertisements leading up to the show was all about Zooey Deschanel, the show realized it's bread and butter was to focus on Nick and Schmidt. It had a great pilot, some on and off episodes in the beginning, but a great second half to the season. I think it's a really fantastic show... Just one final note, while It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia has always been really good but it's last season was excellent and one of its best. Parks and Rec is clearly the Best Comedy show out there right now but New Girl and It's Always Sunny are both just a nose behind it.
WHAT SHOULD WIN / WHAT WILL WIN
What Will Win: Modern Family
What Should Win (Nominated): 30 Rock
What Should Win (Not Nominated): Parks and Recreation
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- 30 Rock
- The Big Bang Theory
- Curb Your Enthusiasm
- Modern Family
- Veep
- Girls
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
While I'm a huge television watcher and I watch a disproportionate amount of comedies than dramas, this year I seem to be out of the loop when it comes to the laughs. Out of the six nominations I have only seen two out of the six seasons: 30 Rock and Modern Family... I saw the pilots to both Girls and Veep and was not impressed with either of them. I know they both have gotten a lot of critical buzz and I should know better than to judge a comedy by its pilot (because comedies usually need a few episodes, if not an entire season to actually get to their sweet spot) but alas I have... I always say I can't watch Curb Your Enthusiasm because while I like Seinfeld I could never watch a Seinfeld but with George being the main character and that is what I feel Curb is. But that being said I have watched a handful of episodes from the latest Curb and they're all hysterical... I hate what The Big Bang Theory has become. I know it's super popular and people love Sheldon but a) not only can I not stand Sheldon anymore but b) I absolutely hate that they essentially added female Sheldon with Amy Farrah-Fowler. I really think the show have Jumped The Shark for me... I love Modern Family and it's first two seasons but it had a pretty down season in this Emmy nominated 3rd season. After the season ended I wanted to say it shouldn't win the Best Comedy Show Emmy but considering this field, I wouldn't have a problem with it.... The first two season of 30 Rock were so good that I think I had unfair expectations for its Season 6 but overall it was a really solid season. Although I said this at the time, I'm kind of upset the way the show treated Jack and Liz when Liz started dating Criss. I'm inherently fine with comedies not developing their main characters (most notably Seinfeld) but the way Liz always wanted to change and the way Jack was always trying to make her change, I'm upset that change didn't happen. Nevertheless, in a weak year for long-standing comedies, 30 Rock was one of the season's best.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Parks And Recreation
- New Girl
- 30 Rock
- Modern Family
- It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Community
MAJOR SNUBS:
To me, the two biggest snubs are Parks and Recreation and New Girl... Parks and Recreation is not only the best comedy on television right now but you can make the argument that it's the best television show out right now. The cast is great and funny and sweet and just overall amazing. Considering that Parks and Rec have been nominated before AND gets other Emmy nominations I'm completely surprised that it didn't get an nomination this year... I love New Girl. it's got a great and simple concept with a small cast that you grow to love. While the advertisements leading up to the show was all about Zooey Deschanel, the show realized it's bread and butter was to focus on Nick and Schmidt. It had a great pilot, some on and off episodes in the beginning, but a great second half to the season. I think it's a really fantastic show... Just one final note, while It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia has always been really good but it's last season was excellent and one of its best. Parks and Rec is clearly the Best Comedy show out there right now but New Girl and It's Always Sunny are both just a nose behind it.
WHAT SHOULD WIN / WHAT WILL WIN
What Will Win: Modern Family
What Should Win (Nominated): 30 Rock
What Should Win (Not Nominated): Parks and Recreation
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Lead Actor In A Comedy Series
And the nominees are:
- Alec Baldwin (Jack Donaghy) in 30 Rock
- Louis C.K. (Louie) in Louie
- Don Cheadle (Marty Kaan) in House of Lies
- Jon Cryer (Alan Harper) in Two And A Half Men
- Larry David (Larry David) in Curb Your Enthusiasm
- Jim Parsons (Sheldon Cooper) in The Big Bang Theory
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Another "we hate Charlie Sheen and feel sorry to anyone he hurt" nomination for Jon Cryer. I'm sure there is nothing different than Cryer did in whatever season Two And A Half Men is on versus any other series... Although the same can be said for Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock but the difference between Cryer and Baldwin is that a) Baldwin is a legit movie star b) 30 Rock is far superior than Two And A Half Men and c) Baldwin's character was always better than Cryer's. Yeah, I like Baldwin a lot... I stopped watching Louie after Season One because I assumed the show would be funny. But it's not meant to be funny nor is it meant to have a cohesive story line. I've seen bits and pieces from Season 2 of Louie and truthfully Louie C.K. deserves every nomination just for this scene with himself and Dane Cook... I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll say it now: I really dislike the character of Sheldon Cooper (and also female Sheldon Cooper). I dislike how his autism negatively affects his friends (especially Leonard) and I dislike that the show has centered more on him than on Penny and Leonard. I completely understand that Sheldon tested so well and that all of America is in love with Sheldon so the show has shifted to what American wants but I can't stand it and don't like it. Truthfully, my anger should probably be directed at Chuck Lorre and not at Jim Parsons because I bet its hard to play that character. But that being said, I don't like the character... Don't watch Curb but I'm sure Larry David is very good. Although I did see his amazing Emmy selected episode. ... I also don't watch House of Lies but let's face it, neither do you or anyone you know.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Alec Baldwin (Jack Donaghy) in 30 Rock
- Joel McHale (Jeff Winger) in Community
- Adam Scott (Ben Wyatt) in Parks and Recreation
- Rob Lowe (Chris Traeger) in Parks and Recreation
- Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter) in The Big Bang Theory
- Louis C.K. (Louie) in Louie
MAJOR SNUB:
To go along with the Parks and Rec theme of these posts my major snub is Adam Scott. Despite the fact that he doesn't consider himself funny and claims he doesn't know comedy and despite the fact that he often plays the straight man, he IS funny and he IS great on Parks and Rec. Some of the funniest and sweetest moments happened because of Adam Scott.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Jim Parsons
Who Should Win (Nominated): Alec Baldwin
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Adam Scott or Joel McHale
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Alec Baldwin (Jack Donaghy) in 30 Rock
- Louis C.K. (Louie) in Louie
- Don Cheadle (Marty Kaan) in House of Lies
- Jon Cryer (Alan Harper) in Two And A Half Men
- Larry David (Larry David) in Curb Your Enthusiasm
- Jim Parsons (Sheldon Cooper) in The Big Bang Theory
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
Another "we hate Charlie Sheen and feel sorry to anyone he hurt" nomination for Jon Cryer. I'm sure there is nothing different than Cryer did in whatever season Two And A Half Men is on versus any other series... Although the same can be said for Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock but the difference between Cryer and Baldwin is that a) Baldwin is a legit movie star b) 30 Rock is far superior than Two And A Half Men and c) Baldwin's character was always better than Cryer's. Yeah, I like Baldwin a lot... I stopped watching Louie after Season One because I assumed the show would be funny. But it's not meant to be funny nor is it meant to have a cohesive story line. I've seen bits and pieces from Season 2 of Louie and truthfully Louie C.K. deserves every nomination just for this scene with himself and Dane Cook... I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll say it now: I really dislike the character of Sheldon Cooper (and also female Sheldon Cooper). I dislike how his autism negatively affects his friends (especially Leonard) and I dislike that the show has centered more on him than on Penny and Leonard. I completely understand that Sheldon tested so well and that all of America is in love with Sheldon so the show has shifted to what American wants but I can't stand it and don't like it. Truthfully, my anger should probably be directed at Chuck Lorre and not at Jim Parsons because I bet its hard to play that character. But that being said, I don't like the character... Don't watch Curb but I'm sure Larry David is very good. Although I did see his amazing Emmy selected episode. ... I also don't watch House of Lies but let's face it, neither do you or anyone you know.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Alec Baldwin (Jack Donaghy) in 30 Rock
- Joel McHale (Jeff Winger) in Community
- Adam Scott (Ben Wyatt) in Parks and Recreation
- Rob Lowe (Chris Traeger) in Parks and Recreation
- Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter) in The Big Bang Theory
- Louis C.K. (Louie) in Louie
MAJOR SNUB:
To go along with the Parks and Rec theme of these posts my major snub is Adam Scott. Despite the fact that he doesn't consider himself funny and claims he doesn't know comedy and despite the fact that he often plays the straight man, he IS funny and he IS great on Parks and Rec. Some of the funniest and sweetest moments happened because of Adam Scott.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Jim Parsons
Who Should Win (Nominated): Alec Baldwin
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Adam Scott or Joel McHale
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
2012 Bad Quarterback League Update: Week Two
1) Cahal
Total Points: 210
Points This Week: 122
New York Jets: 27
Tennessee: 11
Chicago: 78
Philadelphia: 6
2) Colleen
Total Points: 145
Points This Week: 16
Cleveland: 4
Oakland: -4
Buffalo: 6
Baltimore: 10
3) Adam
Total Points: 128
Points This Week: -6
Miami: 0
St. Louis: -4
Kansas City: 4
Cincinnati: -6
3) Ben
Total Points: 128
Points This Week: 100
Jacksonville: 70
Minnesota: 15
Tampa Bay: 10
Carolina: 5
5) Bryan
Total Points: 66
Points This Week: 37
Arizona: 17
Seattle: 16
Washington: -8
San Francisco: 12
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Lead Actress In A Comedy Series
And the nominees are:
- Tina Fey (Liz Lemon) in 30 Rock
- Zooey Deschanel (Jessica Day) in New Girl
- Amy Poehler (Leslie Knope) in Parks and Recreation
- Lena Dunham (Hannah Horvath) in Girls
- Julia-Louis Dreyfus (Selina Meyer) in Veep
- Melissa McCarthy (Molly Flynn) in Mike and Molly
- Edie Falco (Jackie Peyton) in Nurse Jackie
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
SEVEN NODS?! Really Emmys? This is a tad ridiculous... I enjoyed 30 Rock this season and Liz Lemon had some great moments (especially the episode where she "turns into" The Joker and Jack Donaghy as Batman/The Tuxedo) but my biggest frustration with Liz Lemon was not Fey's acting but the way Fey choose to write for her character. I would have liked to see her develop and change but for most of the season she did not... I love New Girl and while the show was at its best when it focused on Schmidt and Nick and less on Jess, Zooey Deschanel as Jessica Day was still really funny and Deschanel is always fun to watch. Even when being forced to watch "Yes Man"... Amy Poehler is just amazing and Leslie Knope is just amazing. Pick an awesome adjective and that describes Amy Poehler and Leslie Knope... While I did not consistently watch Mike and Molly this year I find it hard to believe that Melissa McCarthy and her character did anything better or worse than what she did throughout her entire show's run (this is based on the limited episodes I've seen of her this season and the type of show she is on). She was hilarious in Bridesmaids but I think that momentum will not go past this year. In fact, if she didn't win this award last year I don't think she would have been nominated this year... I've heard Girls is an amazing show and I probably should watch it but alas I did not. I guess a show entitled "Girls" about four early 20-somethings living in New York does not appeal to the heterosexual male in me... I also don't watch Nurse Jackie or Veep but I'm not going to make any excuses about it and I probably will never watch the shows.
If I Had An Emmy Ballot:
- Amy Poehler (Leslie Knope) in Parks and Recreation
- Tina Fey (Liz Lemon) in 30 Rock
- Zooey Deschanel (Jessica Day) in New Girl
- Lea Michelle (Rachel Berry) in Glee
- Martha Plimpton (Virginia Chase) in Raising Hope
- Christina Applegate (Reagan Brinkley) in Up All Night
MAJOR SNUBS:
Another category where the list of eligible nominations is thin and weak (you'll see what I am talking about when I post my Lead Actress in a Drama Series post). I don't think there are any snubs but I do like Martha Plimpton and Christina Applegate in Raising Hope and Up All Night, respectively. While I do not particularly care for either of the shows, I do think both actresses are very funny in them.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Lena Dunham
Who Should Win: Amy Poehler
This I think is another tough category to predict. Edie Falco won this award two years ago, but I think that was more of a "you were awesome on The Sopranos and while we didn't see Nurse Jackie you're probably good in it" pick and I don't think she'll ever win again for Nurse Jackie. Melissa McCarthy won this award last year but she was coming off of an amazing, Oscar-nominated performance in "Bridesmaids" and since the Emmy's have Little Brother Syndrome to the Oscars and movies and general, Melissa won based off of her movie role and not her T.V. role. But I don't think she repeats. With the quality of T.V. and new T.V. getting better, I think the Emmys are catching up to that. "Girls" is not only extremely well received but Dunham also received an Emmy nominations for both writing and directing Girls and I think her talent will (at least) be rewarded in this category. Although if the Emmys continue to have Little Brother Syndrome (which I don't think they will this year) then Deschanel as this award locked down and its not close.
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Tina Fey (Liz Lemon) in 30 Rock
- Zooey Deschanel (Jessica Day) in New Girl
- Amy Poehler (Leslie Knope) in Parks and Recreation
- Lena Dunham (Hannah Horvath) in Girls
- Julia-Louis Dreyfus (Selina Meyer) in Veep
- Melissa McCarthy (Molly Flynn) in Mike and Molly
- Edie Falco (Jackie Peyton) in Nurse Jackie
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
SEVEN NODS?! Really Emmys? This is a tad ridiculous... I enjoyed 30 Rock this season and Liz Lemon had some great moments (especially the episode where she "turns into" The Joker and Jack Donaghy as Batman/The Tuxedo) but my biggest frustration with Liz Lemon was not Fey's acting but the way Fey choose to write for her character. I would have liked to see her develop and change but for most of the season she did not... I love New Girl and while the show was at its best when it focused on Schmidt and Nick and less on Jess, Zooey Deschanel as Jessica Day was still really funny and Deschanel is always fun to watch. Even when being forced to watch "Yes Man"... Amy Poehler is just amazing and Leslie Knope is just amazing. Pick an awesome adjective and that describes Amy Poehler and Leslie Knope... While I did not consistently watch Mike and Molly this year I find it hard to believe that Melissa McCarthy and her character did anything better or worse than what she did throughout her entire show's run (this is based on the limited episodes I've seen of her this season and the type of show she is on). She was hilarious in Bridesmaids but I think that momentum will not go past this year. In fact, if she didn't win this award last year I don't think she would have been nominated this year... I've heard Girls is an amazing show and I probably should watch it but alas I did not. I guess a show entitled "Girls" about four early 20-somethings living in New York does not appeal to the heterosexual male in me... I also don't watch Nurse Jackie or Veep but I'm not going to make any excuses about it and I probably will never watch the shows.
If I Had An Emmy Ballot:
- Amy Poehler (Leslie Knope) in Parks and Recreation
- Tina Fey (Liz Lemon) in 30 Rock
- Zooey Deschanel (Jessica Day) in New Girl
- Lea Michelle (Rachel Berry) in Glee
- Martha Plimpton (Virginia Chase) in Raising Hope
- Christina Applegate (Reagan Brinkley) in Up All Night
MAJOR SNUBS:
Another category where the list of eligible nominations is thin and weak (you'll see what I am talking about when I post my Lead Actress in a Drama Series post). I don't think there are any snubs but I do like Martha Plimpton and Christina Applegate in Raising Hope and Up All Night, respectively. While I do not particularly care for either of the shows, I do think both actresses are very funny in them.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Lena Dunham
Who Should Win: Amy Poehler
This I think is another tough category to predict. Edie Falco won this award two years ago, but I think that was more of a "you were awesome on The Sopranos and while we didn't see Nurse Jackie you're probably good in it" pick and I don't think she'll ever win again for Nurse Jackie. Melissa McCarthy won this award last year but she was coming off of an amazing, Oscar-nominated performance in "Bridesmaids" and since the Emmy's have Little Brother Syndrome to the Oscars and movies and general, Melissa won based off of her movie role and not her T.V. role. But I don't think she repeats. With the quality of T.V. and new T.V. getting better, I think the Emmys are catching up to that. "Girls" is not only extremely well received but Dunham also received an Emmy nominations for both writing and directing Girls and I think her talent will (at least) be rewarded in this category. Although if the Emmys continue to have Little Brother Syndrome (which I don't think they will this year) then Deschanel as this award locked down and its not close.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Monday, September 17, 2012
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Supporting Actress In A Comedy Series
And the nominees are:
- Julie Bowen (Claire Dunphy) in Modern Family
- Sophia Vergara (Gloria Delgado-Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Mayim Bialik (Amy Farrah-Fowler) in The Big Bang Theory
- Kathryn Joosten (Karen McCluskey) in Desperate Housewives
- Merritt Wever (Zoey Barkow) in Nurse Jackie
- Kristen Wiig (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
The same feeling I had about the four males dominating the Best Supporting Actor category is the same feeling I have about the two Modern Family ladies here. What really separates Julie Bowen from Sophia Vergara expect that Vergara is hotter and more famous? Also, what makes the adults "better" than Sarah Hyland (Haley Dunphy) or Ariel Winter (Alex Dunphy)?... I hate, hate, hate Bialik's character on The Big Bang Theory. I think I'm alone on an island on this one but I can not stand her. I really dislike the relationship she has with Penny and I was never a big fan of Sheldon to begin with so having a female Sheldon really annoys me... Friend of the blog Dan Bennett *hates* Kristen Wiig with a passion and hates her so much that he even refused to see Bridesmaids. I can see where he is coming from because Wiig's over-the-top, larger-than-life characters can really get annoying but Wiig is supremely talented and when gets a low key role or a toned down role (like her character in Bridesmaids) she can be really good and really funny. Despite the fact that she is considered SNL's leading lady I don't think she is the most talented female cast member on her own show (see below)... I don't claim to watch Desperate Housewives and I wouldn't be caught dead watching it. Also, I don't watch Nurse Jackie. I make no apologies for either.
If I Has An Emmy Vote:
- Aubrey Plaza (April Ludgate) in Parks and Recreation
- Alison Brie (Annie Edison) in Community
- Vanessa Bayer (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
- Kaitlin Olson (Dee Reynolds) in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Naya Rivera (Santana) in Glee
- Jane Krakowski (Jenna Maroney) in 30 Rock
MAJOR SNUBS:
Again, I don't think any of my picks are "major" snubs and MUST be selected but I am, as always, disappointed by the anti Parks and Rec and Community bias.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Mayim Bialik
Who Should Win (Nominated): Sophia Vergara
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Aubrey Plaza
The Big Bang Theory and Mayim Bialik have swept this country by storm. The Big Bang Theory is one of, if not THE, most popular comedy in American right now and the people love Sheldon as well as female Sheldon. It also helps Bialik that she is not a complete newcomer considering she was the star of Blossom a few years back as the Emmy's seem to feel you have to "earn" your way into stardom before winning an Emmy (see: Eva Longoria's Emmy nomination snub during the first season of Desperate Housewives when Marcia Cross, Teri Hatcher, and Felicity Huffman ALL got nominations but Longoria did not)
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Julie Bowen (Claire Dunphy) in Modern Family
- Sophia Vergara (Gloria Delgado-Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Mayim Bialik (Amy Farrah-Fowler) in The Big Bang Theory
- Kathryn Joosten (Karen McCluskey) in Desperate Housewives
- Merritt Wever (Zoey Barkow) in Nurse Jackie
- Kristen Wiig (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
MY REACTION TO THE NOMINATIONS:
The same feeling I had about the four males dominating the Best Supporting Actor category is the same feeling I have about the two Modern Family ladies here. What really separates Julie Bowen from Sophia Vergara expect that Vergara is hotter and more famous? Also, what makes the adults "better" than Sarah Hyland (Haley Dunphy) or Ariel Winter (Alex Dunphy)?... I hate, hate, hate Bialik's character on The Big Bang Theory. I think I'm alone on an island on this one but I can not stand her. I really dislike the relationship she has with Penny and I was never a big fan of Sheldon to begin with so having a female Sheldon really annoys me... Friend of the blog Dan Bennett *hates* Kristen Wiig with a passion and hates her so much that he even refused to see Bridesmaids. I can see where he is coming from because Wiig's over-the-top, larger-than-life characters can really get annoying but Wiig is supremely talented and when gets a low key role or a toned down role (like her character in Bridesmaids) she can be really good and really funny. Despite the fact that she is considered SNL's leading lady I don't think she is the most talented female cast member on her own show (see below)... I don't claim to watch Desperate Housewives and I wouldn't be caught dead watching it. Also, I don't watch Nurse Jackie. I make no apologies for either.
If I Has An Emmy Vote:
- Aubrey Plaza (April Ludgate) in Parks and Recreation
- Alison Brie (Annie Edison) in Community
- Vanessa Bayer (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
- Kaitlin Olson (Dee Reynolds) in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Naya Rivera (Santana) in Glee
- Jane Krakowski (Jenna Maroney) in 30 Rock
MAJOR SNUBS:
Again, I don't think any of my picks are "major" snubs and MUST be selected but I am, as always, disappointed by the anti Parks and Rec and Community bias.
WHO WILL WIN / WHO SHOULD WIN:
Who Will Win: Mayim Bialik
Who Should Win (Nominated): Sophia Vergara
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Aubrey Plaza
The Big Bang Theory and Mayim Bialik have swept this country by storm. The Big Bang Theory is one of, if not THE, most popular comedy in American right now and the people love Sheldon as well as female Sheldon. It also helps Bialik that she is not a complete newcomer considering she was the star of Blossom a few years back as the Emmy's seem to feel you have to "earn" your way into stardom before winning an Emmy (see: Eva Longoria's Emmy nomination snub during the first season of Desperate Housewives when Marcia Cross, Teri Hatcher, and Felicity Huffman ALL got nominations but Longoria did not)
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
2012 Emmy Predictions: Best Supporting Actor In A Comedy Series
And the nominees are:
- Ty Burrell (Phil Dunphy) in Modern Family
- Ed O'Neill (Jay Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Eric Stonestreet (Cam Tucker) in Modern Family
- Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Mitchell Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Max Greenfield (Schmidt) in New Girl
- Bill Hader (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
As expected all four adult actors get nominations in Modern Family. First, what separates these four actors? The show is great, all four actors get their episodes, and nothing in Season Three really elevated one actor over another. Secondly, what makes the adults so much better than the kids? Rico Rodriguez (Manny) and Nolan Gould (Luke) do just as good work as their adult counterparts and just because they're kids should not diminish their work. In fact, if you forced me to pick one actor from Modern Family that deserves a nomination I would choose Nolan Gould because Luke was great in Season Three... Is there anything Bill Hader can't do? His impressions are spot on, he has phenomenal comedic timing, and his characters are always the bright spot on a dragging show. I know exactly what Stefon is going to say but because it's Bill Hader I always laugh hysterically at it. Plus, Hader's reoccurring character of Herb Welch (the old television reporter) is one of the only reoccurring characters that's enjoyable... New Girl had a great rookie season and a large part of that had to do with Schmidt. Greenfield plays the character with such heart and emotion and even though he says so many inappropriate things and is such a douchebag you still can't help but love him. Greenfield's nomination was a surprise but a great one at that.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Nick Offerman (Ron Swanson) in Parks and Recreation
- Chris Pratt (Andy Dwyer) in Parks and Recreation
- Neil Patrick Harris (Barney Stinson) in How I Met Your Mother
- Glenn Howerton (Dennis Reynolds) in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Jake Johnson (Nick) in New Girl
- Donald Glover (Troy Barnes) in Community
MAJOR SNUBS:
Parks and Rec is the greatest comedy on television and a huge part of that is Ron Effing Swanson. Nick Offerman's dead pan comedy and low energy work great off of Amy Poehler's Leslie Knope. Swanson is such a great character and has become such a cultural icon that I can't believe he gets screwed out of nominations every year. It's a shame Modern Family has to dominate this category... I just want to make a quick apology to Aziz Ansari because I love Parks and Rec but I didn't give him any love. I love Ansari's stand up performances, I love Ansari as an actor, but I just don't think he's as good as Pratt and Offerman on the show. It's truly not meant to be a knock on Ansari but he plays in a deep field.
WHO WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN
Who Will Win: Jesse Tyler Ferguson
Who Should Win (Nominated): Bill Hader
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Nick Offerman
Predicting this category is tough because you know someone from Modern Family will win it but you just do not know who. Last year Ty Burrell won it and two years ago Eric Stonestreet won it. My thinking is that Emmy voters will continue with their Modern Family love and will try to honor someone who they haven't yet and I feel the odd one out of the bunch so far is Ferguson (O'Neil got plenty of love during his Married...With Children days).
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
- Ty Burrell (Phil Dunphy) in Modern Family
- Ed O'Neill (Jay Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Eric Stonestreet (Cam Tucker) in Modern Family
- Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Mitchell Pritchett) in Modern Family
- Max Greenfield (Schmidt) in New Girl
- Bill Hader (Various Characters) in Saturday Night Live
MY THOUGHTS ON THE NOMINATIONS:
As expected all four adult actors get nominations in Modern Family. First, what separates these four actors? The show is great, all four actors get their episodes, and nothing in Season Three really elevated one actor over another. Secondly, what makes the adults so much better than the kids? Rico Rodriguez (Manny) and Nolan Gould (Luke) do just as good work as their adult counterparts and just because they're kids should not diminish their work. In fact, if you forced me to pick one actor from Modern Family that deserves a nomination I would choose Nolan Gould because Luke was great in Season Three... Is there anything Bill Hader can't do? His impressions are spot on, he has phenomenal comedic timing, and his characters are always the bright spot on a dragging show. I know exactly what Stefon is going to say but because it's Bill Hader I always laugh hysterically at it. Plus, Hader's reoccurring character of Herb Welch (the old television reporter) is one of the only reoccurring characters that's enjoyable... New Girl had a great rookie season and a large part of that had to do with Schmidt. Greenfield plays the character with such heart and emotion and even though he says so many inappropriate things and is such a douchebag you still can't help but love him. Greenfield's nomination was a surprise but a great one at that.
If I Had An Emmy Vote:
- Nick Offerman (Ron Swanson) in Parks and Recreation
- Chris Pratt (Andy Dwyer) in Parks and Recreation
- Neil Patrick Harris (Barney Stinson) in How I Met Your Mother
- Glenn Howerton (Dennis Reynolds) in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Jake Johnson (Nick) in New Girl
- Donald Glover (Troy Barnes) in Community
MAJOR SNUBS:
Parks and Rec is the greatest comedy on television and a huge part of that is Ron Effing Swanson. Nick Offerman's dead pan comedy and low energy work great off of Amy Poehler's Leslie Knope. Swanson is such a great character and has become such a cultural icon that I can't believe he gets screwed out of nominations every year. It's a shame Modern Family has to dominate this category... I just want to make a quick apology to Aziz Ansari because I love Parks and Rec but I didn't give him any love. I love Ansari's stand up performances, I love Ansari as an actor, but I just don't think he's as good as Pratt and Offerman on the show. It's truly not meant to be a knock on Ansari but he plays in a deep field.
WHO WILL WIN / WHAT SHOULD WIN
Who Will Win: Jesse Tyler Ferguson
Who Should Win (Nominated): Bill Hader
Who Should Win (Not Nominated): Nick Offerman
Predicting this category is tough because you know someone from Modern Family will win it but you just do not know who. Last year Ty Burrell won it and two years ago Eric Stonestreet won it. My thinking is that Emmy voters will continue with their Modern Family love and will try to honor someone who they haven't yet and I feel the odd one out of the bunch so far is Ferguson (O'Neil got plenty of love during his Married...With Children days).
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Welcome To Emmy Week!
Welcome to Emmy Week here at The Cover 3!
This upcoming Sunday is the 64th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards so all week I will have posts relating to the ten main categories at the Emmy's:
- Outstanding Drama Series
- Outstanding Comedy Series
- Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
I will start off with the Comedy Series posts first and then do the Drama Series next. The main reason for this is because I need to touch up and redo my Drama Series posts as they relate to Downton Abbey. When I wrote my initial posts I had (stupidly) assumed that all the nominations that related to Downton Abbey were for Season One. You see, the Emmy's do not outright tell you which season is being nominated and the main way to tell (at least for me) is by looking at which episodes the actors get nominated from. But Downton Abbey is dumb and they name each episode based upon when that episode is aired during the season. For example, the first episode of Season One is just titled "Episode One" and the first episode of Season Two is also titled "Episode One". Now it's my own idiocy that I assumed Season One and not Season Two but needless to stay I still wrote all my analysis based upon Season One. I have started Season Two and I am hoping to finish watching the series before I post the Drama Series... Nevertheless, my Comedy Series reviews will be posted first for that reason.
DISCLAIMER: I have not seen every single television series nominated and because of that, some of my reviews will be biased. I am not a professional T.V. critic so I do not have time to watch everything that is out there. However, I do watch a crap ton of television and I have seen a large majority of the television shows nominated.
I feel that I have watched most of the shows necessary to comment on the Emmy Awards but I will fully admit there are three shows that I have not seen that I probably should have seen. Those shows are: Boardwalk Empire, Girls, and Veep. Those shows, mainly Girls, probably deserve to get a lot of credit from me but will unfortunately get the shaft just because I do still have *some* life outside of watching television and blogging. (NOTE: Could also, possibly put The Good Wife on this list. However, not only do I not have any desire to see the show, I never will see the show).
Here are the following shows that I *HAVE SEEN* during this Emmy nominated period:
- Breaking Bad
- Mad Men
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- Parks and Recreation
- 30 Rock
- The Office
- Up All Night
- Community
- Archer
- It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Unsupervised
- Justified
- How I Met Your Mother
- Glee
- New Girl
- Modern Family
- Saturday Night Live
- Suits
- White Collar
- The Big Bang Theory
- Downton Abbey (hopefully)
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
This upcoming Sunday is the 64th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards so all week I will have posts relating to the ten main categories at the Emmy's:
- Outstanding Drama Series
- Outstanding Comedy Series
- Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
- Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
I will start off with the Comedy Series posts first and then do the Drama Series next. The main reason for this is because I need to touch up and redo my Drama Series posts as they relate to Downton Abbey. When I wrote my initial posts I had (stupidly) assumed that all the nominations that related to Downton Abbey were for Season One. You see, the Emmy's do not outright tell you which season is being nominated and the main way to tell (at least for me) is by looking at which episodes the actors get nominated from. But Downton Abbey is dumb and they name each episode based upon when that episode is aired during the season. For example, the first episode of Season One is just titled "Episode One" and the first episode of Season Two is also titled "Episode One". Now it's my own idiocy that I assumed Season One and not Season Two but needless to stay I still wrote all my analysis based upon Season One. I have started Season Two and I am hoping to finish watching the series before I post the Drama Series... Nevertheless, my Comedy Series reviews will be posted first for that reason.
DISCLAIMER: I have not seen every single television series nominated and because of that, some of my reviews will be biased. I am not a professional T.V. critic so I do not have time to watch everything that is out there. However, I do watch a crap ton of television and I have seen a large majority of the television shows nominated.
I feel that I have watched most of the shows necessary to comment on the Emmy Awards but I will fully admit there are three shows that I have not seen that I probably should have seen. Those shows are: Boardwalk Empire, Girls, and Veep. Those shows, mainly Girls, probably deserve to get a lot of credit from me but will unfortunately get the shaft just because I do still have *some* life outside of watching television and blogging. (NOTE: Could also, possibly put The Good Wife on this list. However, not only do I not have any desire to see the show, I never will see the show).
Here are the following shows that I *HAVE SEEN* during this Emmy nominated period:
- Breaking Bad
- Mad Men
- Homeland
- Game Of Thrones
- Parks and Recreation
- 30 Rock
- The Office
- Up All Night
- Community
- Archer
- It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia
- Unsupervised
- Justified
- How I Met Your Mother
- Glee
- New Girl
- Modern Family
- Saturday Night Live
- Suits
- White Collar
- The Big Bang Theory
- Downton Abbey (hopefully)
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Friday, September 14, 2012
Contenders For The End Of Season MLB Awards
"Miguel Cabrera is in the conversation for who should win the AL MVP." I hate the phrase "in the conversation", especially in the specific case of Miguel Cabrera. For certain races, mainly the AL MVP race, there should not be conversation. The AL MVP should be Mike Trout and that's it. There should be no more conversation than that. There are certain races this year where there are players "in the conversation" but only because there is no clear cut winner. But when there is a clear cut winner, there should be no "conversation". I understand if you're an ESPN baseball writer who needs to write *something* besides the New York Yankees in September so you write an article saying Miggy should be the AL MVP but I really dislike fabricating arguments for the sake of filing time.
At the end of the 2011/12 NFL season, there were many debates on Around The Horn, Pardon The Interruption, and SportsCenter about who should win the MVP: Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees? I understand that Drew Brees set the the record for most passing yards in a single season but the answer was Aaron Rodgers and it was not close. It did not deserve to be debated. Aaron Rodgers was just a better quarterback than Drew Brees in 2011 and was in the best player in football. But because ESPN needed something to talk about, this debate was had.
As I mentioned earlier, there are some races in MLB that are not yet decided and there are certain players that are legitimately "in the discussion" and this post is dedicated not only to weed out who "is in the discussion" and who is not but also for me to declare who I think should win each race at this time. Since the baseball season is not yet over, my view is subject to change but I also don't want to see a Dustin Pedroia win an MVP just because a Josh Hamilton or a Carlos Quentin got injured within the last month of a season as opposed to the first month (I don't freaking care when a player gets hurt. Game 1 carries the same weight towards a team's win/loss record as does Game 162).
So let's start with Miguel Cabrera and the AL MVP race:
AL MVP
Winner: Mike Trout (LAA)
In The Conversation: Nobody
Grantland's Andy Greenwald said this about Justified not getting an Emmy nomination in 2012 for Best Outstanding Drama, "...Some will kvetch over the absence of Justified, but where would you put it? It's no longer an insult to suggest something might be the seventh- or eighth best hour on TV." Greenwald is saying that being a runner up is not a bad thing and is implying that Justified did not deserve a nomination because when you can only nominate six television shows and you are the seventh best television show, you're not snubbed by not being nominated.
That's the way I feel about Miguel Cabrera. Miguel Cabrera is the second best player in the American League right now. He is having an amazing season and he is an amazing player and I do not mean to take anything away from him but being 2nd best isn't good enough to deserve to win the award.
According to Fangraphs.com, Mike Trout has the best WAR (overall value in terms of both offense and defense) in baseball, the best wOBA (total offensive value) in baseball, and is the 5th best defensive player in the American League. Miguel Cabrera is not even a top 30 defender in the AL. In 2012, Mike Trout has displayed all five tools and is elite at them. Trout can hit (his .333 AVG leads the AL), he can hit for power (he is 9th in the AL in ISO), he can field (see his fielding above), and he can steal bases (not only does Trout have the best Spd and BsR score in the AL according to Fangraphs but he also leads all of baseball in stolen bases with 45 and has only gotten caught stealing 4 times for an incredible 92% success rate). OK, that was only four out of the five but I don't care about Trout's throwing arm because he is elite at everything else.
Miguel Cabrera is third in the AL in terms of WAR (also behind Robinson Cano), second in wOBA, and is a bad defender (he has a negative 7.5 Fld rating and a negative 10.7 UZR/150). The only aspect of Miggy's game that is better than Trout's is in terms of power. Cabrera has the 5th best ISO but only 25 points higher than Trout's.
While you can argue to your heart's content that Miguel Cabrera is the second best player in the American League (and truthfully that fact is not set in stone) he is not in the conversation to defeat Mike Trout for AL MVP.
NL MVP
Winner: Ryan Braun (MIL)
In The Conversation: David Wright (NYM), Andrew McCutchen (PIT)
I will say that this race is not completely Braun's for the taking but I believe Braun should repeat as the NL's MVP and I say this with no reservation (versus last year where I did have reservation with Braun vs. Matt Kemp) that Ryan Braun is the best player in the National League. He has the best WAR and the best wOBA (according to Fangraphs) in the NL and has been consistent all year. Wright is 2nd in the NL in terms of WAR and McCutchen is 3rd (also according to Fangraphs). While Wright is by far the best defender out of the three (McCutchen has negative defense) and plays at a more premium position, the combination of both offense and defense favors Braun over Wright. Braun's 7.1 WAR is by far and away better than Wright's 6.4 and McCutchen's 6.2.
According to ESPN, Andrew McCutchen has the best WAR in the NL with 6.4, David Wright has the 2nd best with 6.1, and Ryan Braun is tied for 5th best with 5.8. To be honest I don't know how ESPN created their own WAR statistic and why there is such a huge discrepancy with Braun (maybe ESPN has a steroid user equation in their algorithm and Fangraphs does not?) but I will put my faith in Fangraphs over ESPN 1000 times out of 100 when it comes to advanced statistics. That being said, I'm sure ESPN has super smart baseball people working for them and if they say McCutchen is better than Braun this year then at minimum there is an argument to be made that Andrew McCutchen deserves the NL MVP.
AL Cy Young
Winner: Justin Verlander (DET)
In The Conversation: Felix Hernandez (SEA)
This race actually and legitimately deserves a conversation because both King Felix and Verlander have the same WAR: 5.8 and because everyone has automatically decided that Hernandez is the front runner- a fact I do not agree with. I have always been a huge Felix Hernandez fan (as evidenced by an old GOI post I wrote entitled My Bromance With King Felix) and I like him a lot, but I do not believe he deserves the Cy Young this year over Verlander.
I understand that Hernandez has been absolutely phenomenal and lights out for the past month or two but this award is not about who has had the best month of even the best half. This award is about who has had the best year. I undoubtedly answer that question with Justin Verlander. Hernandez was pretty bad to average during the first half of the year and before his Perfect Game there were many fantasy analysts (mainly Matthew Berry) who publicly stated to trade away Felix for pennies on the dollar because he did not believe he was the same pitcher. While this is just an anecdote about fantasy baseball and normally would not have any bearing on who should win an actual baseball award, in a race this close and with an opinion like that which was supported by evidence on the field, it is a deciding factor to place Verlander over Hernandez. You should never say "trade this player away because of his poor pitching performance" about ANY Cy Young winners during any point in his season.
I understand that Verlander has been bad in his last few starts and that he's second to King Felix in terms of FIP but if you ask me who has been the most consistent in his elite-ness in 2012 I would say it is Verlander and it is not close. Hernandez's apex in 2012 might be better than Verlander's but it's not by much and Hernandez's floor is much farther down than Verlander's.
NL Cy Young
Winner: Clayton Kershaw (LAD)
In The Conversation: Gio Gonzalez (WAS)
Maybe you can make the argument to also include Johnny Cueto in this discussion but that would go against everything this post stands for.
Kershaw has the best WAR among pitchers in the NL with 5.1 and Gonzalez is 2nd with 4.9. Gonzalez has the K/9 edge over Kershaw. Gonzalez is 2nd in the NL with 9.48 (First is his teammate Stephen Strasburg with a K/9 over 11) and Kershaw is 6th with a 8.97 K/9. Clayton Kershaw leads all National Leaguers with 206 strike outs compared to Gonzalez's 191 (4th best in the NL). Normally I would say that K/9 is a better stat than strike outs but Kershaw has 25 1/3 more innings pitched than Gio while only starting one more game than Gio.
I think looking at total innings pitched is important when comparing K/9 vs. SO but it is also just a good statistic in general. Kershaw pitches an average of 6.89 innings per start versus Gonzalez's 6.25 innings per start. Going deeper into games is a skill (and frankly one Kershaw did not possess early in his career) because it not only puts less tension on your bullpen but it means you can be effective for longer. Kershaw leads all major league pitchers in inning pitched. Gonzalez is 12th. (NOTE: IP is a factor that is taken into account in WAR).
Another factor to include is this debate is FIP. First is Strasburg but second is Gonzalez with 2.85 and third is Kershaw with 2.94. That being said, WAR is still the better overall metric and WAR takes into account FIP.
I don't think the argument between Kershaw and Gonzalez is as close as the argument between Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander but I still think it's razor close nonetheless. There are many great points you can make for Gio and they are all valid but I believe WAR conquers all.
AL Rookie Of The Year
Winner: Mike Trout (LAA)
In The Conversation: Are you kidding me? Did you really ask this question?
The guy is the best player in the American League and is a rookie. Obviously he's the hand down Rookie of the Year. I apologize for writing so many words about this.
NL Rookie Of The Year
Winner: Bryce Harper (WAS)
In The Conversation: Wade Miley (ARI)
"Wade who? The the f*** is Wade Miley? Plus, I don't know any young pitchers for the Diamondbacks not named Tyler Skaggs or Trevor Bauer." All legitimate questions and points random every day baseball fan I just made up for the purposes of this post. The reason Wade Miley deserved to be in the conversation is because Wade Miley (4.3) has an outright better WAR than Harper (3.7). Wade Miley has been the 7th best pitcher in the NL this year. Bryce Harper has been the 24th best position player in the NL this year. Harper is guaranteed to win this award but as I'm writing this post I'm questioning my decision to say Harper even deserves the award.
Despite the fact that Miley has the WAR advantage, I asked The Hardball Times' Jeffrey Gross why Bryce Harper deserves the NL ROY over Miley and this is what he sent me (via text so ignore the grammar):
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
At the end of the 2011/12 NFL season, there were many debates on Around The Horn, Pardon The Interruption, and SportsCenter about who should win the MVP: Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees? I understand that Drew Brees set the the record for most passing yards in a single season but the answer was Aaron Rodgers and it was not close. It did not deserve to be debated. Aaron Rodgers was just a better quarterback than Drew Brees in 2011 and was in the best player in football. But because ESPN needed something to talk about, this debate was had.
As I mentioned earlier, there are some races in MLB that are not yet decided and there are certain players that are legitimately "in the discussion" and this post is dedicated not only to weed out who "is in the discussion" and who is not but also for me to declare who I think should win each race at this time. Since the baseball season is not yet over, my view is subject to change but I also don't want to see a Dustin Pedroia win an MVP just because a Josh Hamilton or a Carlos Quentin got injured within the last month of a season as opposed to the first month (I don't freaking care when a player gets hurt. Game 1 carries the same weight towards a team's win/loss record as does Game 162).
So let's start with Miguel Cabrera and the AL MVP race:
AL MVP
Winner: Mike Trout (LAA)
In The Conversation: Nobody
Grantland's Andy Greenwald said this about Justified not getting an Emmy nomination in 2012 for Best Outstanding Drama, "...Some will kvetch over the absence of Justified, but where would you put it? It's no longer an insult to suggest something might be the seventh- or eighth best hour on TV." Greenwald is saying that being a runner up is not a bad thing and is implying that Justified did not deserve a nomination because when you can only nominate six television shows and you are the seventh best television show, you're not snubbed by not being nominated.
That's the way I feel about Miguel Cabrera. Miguel Cabrera is the second best player in the American League right now. He is having an amazing season and he is an amazing player and I do not mean to take anything away from him but being 2nd best isn't good enough to deserve to win the award.
According to Fangraphs.com, Mike Trout has the best WAR (overall value in terms of both offense and defense) in baseball, the best wOBA (total offensive value) in baseball, and is the 5th best defensive player in the American League. Miguel Cabrera is not even a top 30 defender in the AL. In 2012, Mike Trout has displayed all five tools and is elite at them. Trout can hit (his .333 AVG leads the AL), he can hit for power (he is 9th in the AL in ISO), he can field (see his fielding above), and he can steal bases (not only does Trout have the best Spd and BsR score in the AL according to Fangraphs but he also leads all of baseball in stolen bases with 45 and has only gotten caught stealing 4 times for an incredible 92% success rate). OK, that was only four out of the five but I don't care about Trout's throwing arm because he is elite at everything else.
Miguel Cabrera is third in the AL in terms of WAR (also behind Robinson Cano), second in wOBA, and is a bad defender (he has a negative 7.5 Fld rating and a negative 10.7 UZR/150). The only aspect of Miggy's game that is better than Trout's is in terms of power. Cabrera has the 5th best ISO but only 25 points higher than Trout's.
While you can argue to your heart's content that Miguel Cabrera is the second best player in the American League (and truthfully that fact is not set in stone) he is not in the conversation to defeat Mike Trout for AL MVP.
NL MVP
Winner: Ryan Braun (MIL)
In The Conversation: David Wright (NYM), Andrew McCutchen (PIT)
I will say that this race is not completely Braun's for the taking but I believe Braun should repeat as the NL's MVP and I say this with no reservation (versus last year where I did have reservation with Braun vs. Matt Kemp) that Ryan Braun is the best player in the National League. He has the best WAR and the best wOBA (according to Fangraphs) in the NL and has been consistent all year. Wright is 2nd in the NL in terms of WAR and McCutchen is 3rd (also according to Fangraphs). While Wright is by far the best defender out of the three (McCutchen has negative defense) and plays at a more premium position, the combination of both offense and defense favors Braun over Wright. Braun's 7.1 WAR is by far and away better than Wright's 6.4 and McCutchen's 6.2.
According to ESPN, Andrew McCutchen has the best WAR in the NL with 6.4, David Wright has the 2nd best with 6.1, and Ryan Braun is tied for 5th best with 5.8. To be honest I don't know how ESPN created their own WAR statistic and why there is such a huge discrepancy with Braun (maybe ESPN has a steroid user equation in their algorithm and Fangraphs does not?) but I will put my faith in Fangraphs over ESPN 1000 times out of 100 when it comes to advanced statistics. That being said, I'm sure ESPN has super smart baseball people working for them and if they say McCutchen is better than Braun this year then at minimum there is an argument to be made that Andrew McCutchen deserves the NL MVP.
AL Cy Young
Winner: Justin Verlander (DET)
In The Conversation: Felix Hernandez (SEA)
This race actually and legitimately deserves a conversation because both King Felix and Verlander have the same WAR: 5.8 and because everyone has automatically decided that Hernandez is the front runner- a fact I do not agree with. I have always been a huge Felix Hernandez fan (as evidenced by an old GOI post I wrote entitled My Bromance With King Felix) and I like him a lot, but I do not believe he deserves the Cy Young this year over Verlander.
I understand that Hernandez has been absolutely phenomenal and lights out for the past month or two but this award is not about who has had the best month of even the best half. This award is about who has had the best year. I undoubtedly answer that question with Justin Verlander. Hernandez was pretty bad to average during the first half of the year and before his Perfect Game there were many fantasy analysts (mainly Matthew Berry) who publicly stated to trade away Felix for pennies on the dollar because he did not believe he was the same pitcher. While this is just an anecdote about fantasy baseball and normally would not have any bearing on who should win an actual baseball award, in a race this close and with an opinion like that which was supported by evidence on the field, it is a deciding factor to place Verlander over Hernandez. You should never say "trade this player away because of his poor pitching performance" about ANY Cy Young winners during any point in his season.
I understand that Verlander has been bad in his last few starts and that he's second to King Felix in terms of FIP but if you ask me who has been the most consistent in his elite-ness in 2012 I would say it is Verlander and it is not close. Hernandez's apex in 2012 might be better than Verlander's but it's not by much and Hernandez's floor is much farther down than Verlander's.
NL Cy Young
Winner: Clayton Kershaw (LAD)
In The Conversation: Gio Gonzalez (WAS)
Maybe you can make the argument to also include Johnny Cueto in this discussion but that would go against everything this post stands for.
Kershaw has the best WAR among pitchers in the NL with 5.1 and Gonzalez is 2nd with 4.9. Gonzalez has the K/9 edge over Kershaw. Gonzalez is 2nd in the NL with 9.48 (First is his teammate Stephen Strasburg with a K/9 over 11) and Kershaw is 6th with a 8.97 K/9. Clayton Kershaw leads all National Leaguers with 206 strike outs compared to Gonzalez's 191 (4th best in the NL). Normally I would say that K/9 is a better stat than strike outs but Kershaw has 25 1/3 more innings pitched than Gio while only starting one more game than Gio.
I think looking at total innings pitched is important when comparing K/9 vs. SO but it is also just a good statistic in general. Kershaw pitches an average of 6.89 innings per start versus Gonzalez's 6.25 innings per start. Going deeper into games is a skill (and frankly one Kershaw did not possess early in his career) because it not only puts less tension on your bullpen but it means you can be effective for longer. Kershaw leads all major league pitchers in inning pitched. Gonzalez is 12th. (NOTE: IP is a factor that is taken into account in WAR).
Another factor to include is this debate is FIP. First is Strasburg but second is Gonzalez with 2.85 and third is Kershaw with 2.94. That being said, WAR is still the better overall metric and WAR takes into account FIP.
I don't think the argument between Kershaw and Gonzalez is as close as the argument between Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander but I still think it's razor close nonetheless. There are many great points you can make for Gio and they are all valid but I believe WAR conquers all.
AL Rookie Of The Year
Winner: Mike Trout (LAA)
In The Conversation: Are you kidding me? Did you really ask this question?
The guy is the best player in the American League and is a rookie. Obviously he's the hand down Rookie of the Year. I apologize for writing so many words about this.
NL Rookie Of The Year
Winner: Bryce Harper (WAS)
In The Conversation: Wade Miley (ARI)
"Wade who? The the f*** is Wade Miley? Plus, I don't know any young pitchers for the Diamondbacks not named Tyler Skaggs or Trevor Bauer." All legitimate questions and points random every day baseball fan I just made up for the purposes of this post. The reason Wade Miley deserved to be in the conversation is because Wade Miley (4.3) has an outright better WAR than Harper (3.7). Wade Miley has been the 7th best pitcher in the NL this year. Bryce Harper has been the 24th best position player in the NL this year. Harper is guaranteed to win this award but as I'm writing this post I'm questioning my decision to say Harper even deserves the award.
Despite the fact that Miley has the WAR advantage, I asked The Hardball Times' Jeffrey Gross why Bryce Harper deserves the NL ROY over Miley and this is what he sent me (via text so ignore the grammar):
Wade Miley's xFIP, tERA, and Sierra are all 3.8+ versus a 3.1 FIP. I suspect some HR and LD luck is at play, 6.7% HR/FB. Mediocre K% but good control. Harper has only played 2/3 of the season and has essentially been as valuablePersonally, I think the "luck" argument that advanced statisticians argue has gone a little but too far and sometimes playing in more games is a skill that needs to be taken into consideration, but if I had a vote for NL ROY I would probably vote for Harper. However, I think the fact that you would not be "wrong" if you voted for Wade Miley means he actually is in the conversation.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Grading The Summer Season Of 2012 Television Shows
You can read my previews for the best shows of the 2012 spring season here
Breaking Bad (AMC) Season 5, Part I
Grade: A+
Sundays 10/9c
NOTES: Breaking Bad is not only the greatest show on television right now, but it is the greatest show ever to be made for American television. I do not mean this as a hyperbole or an exaggeration. This is just fact. There are four television shows that can be considered as the greatest television show ever: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, and The Sopranos... and Breaking Bad blows them all out of the dust. Seasons 3 and 4 of B.B. are some of the single greatest television series ever to be made. With that being said and with the explosive finish to Season 4, Season 5 had a hard bar to climb. And Season 5 failed to even come close to that bar.
Yeah, that's right, Season 5, Part I of Breaking Bad was not even close to how good the previous two seasons were and you can make the argument that this was probably its worst season. And *even still* this season of Breaking Bad was excellent and some of the best stuff on television.
I always thought the show really started to pick up steam in Season 2 when Walter and Jesse first meet Saul Goodman and really start interacting with him. The show is really heavy and I remember watching Seasons 1 and 2 on Netflix and having to watch some How I Met Your Mother in between episodes because the tension and drama was too high. But Saul Goodman infused some much needed comic relief to make a great show even better. But Season 5 barely had any Saul in the show which "lessened" the quality of the show. Breaking Bad is obviously still great but the more Saul Goodman there is, the better.
Also, many critics felt the compact 8 episode season this year (versus the normal 13 episode season) ruined the quality and forced the show to gloss over or not spend as much time on characters and/or plot points as they could have in a "full season". While I agree that's true to an extent but sometimes, even with an amazing and powerful show like Breaking Bad, critics just need to get out of their own way. Could the show have been made better by a 13 episode season? Sure it could have but Season 5 is still excellent and amazing just the way it is.
EMMY NOTES: [SPOILER ALERT. DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN SEASONS 1-4 OF BREAKING BAD] In a year where there is no Gustavo Fringe and where there is very little of Jesse, I would replace Aaron Paul and Giancarlo Esposito's 2012 Emmy nominations with Jonathan Banks (Mike) and Dean Norris (Hank) for 2013 for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama. I know it seems sacrilege to not include Aaron Paul ever when Breaking Bad was eligible but a) The guy already has an Emmy win so I don't feel bad for him and b) Dean Norris has been amazing not only in Season 5 but throughout the show's run that I truly believe he deserves "Paul's spot" more.
Workaholics (Comedy Central) Season 3
Grade: A-
Tuesdays 1030/930c
NOTES: Workaholics is not a good show. There are no literary qualities to the writing or directing and there are no nuances to the performances. But hot damn is this show entertaining as sh**. The show follows the lives of three stoners who live in the same house and work at the same telemarketing firm. The show is stupid, and silly, and at times gross, but it's always funny. While I have not yet seen every episode in Season 3 the quality from what I have seen has not diminished from its first two seasons. Listen, this show is not for everyone and no you absolutely do not need to be stoner to enjoy this show (me case in point) but if you enjoy It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and how dark it is then Workaholics is right up your alley
Suits (USA) Season 2
Grade: B+
Thursdays 10/9c
NOTES: Wow. What an incredible and unexpected season for Suits. The show's first season tended to follow the typical USA model with an extremely lighthearted tone where the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose every week and every week is a new case and new story line with a little bit of the overarching story line lightly sprinkled in throughout the show, mainly towards the end of the episode. But Season 2 mixed it up in a good way. For starters, the show mainly focused on one overarching story line and the weekly and different story lines were barely there. The show followed the Season 2 Justified model where the beginning had different story lines but the ending was just one main story line.
The season started off really strong with its first two episodes setting the stage for the series long battle between Harvey and Jessica versus Daniel Hardman played by Breaking Bad alum David Costabile as well the the love affair between Mike Ross and Rachel. With the first two episodes I thought we were seeing a Justified-esque jump in quality but alas, the show's USA-ness rubbed off on it as it had many missteps as the season dragged on.
The first major problem the show has is its predictability. The fact that the show is on USA not only means the good guy is still going to win but you know exactly how they are going to win. The predictability also showed up many times during the season (for the sake of spoilers I won't go into specifics). The other problem I had was (again, because it is a USA show) the show would often sacrifice characters in favor of plot points. While Season 2 surprisingly dealt much more into these characters lives (which was delightful) the show also had gimmicky episodes, like when the show did an episode where it went back five years into all these characters lives and instead of showing us something meaningful it was used solely for a plot point in the war of Pearson vs. Hardman (and a minor point at that).
EMMY NOTES: I would strongly consider (at least for me personally) nominating Rick Hoffman (who plays Louis Litt) for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama. While Hoffman is in a category where one nomination is guaranteed to go to Peter Dinklage (Game Of Thrones), two nominations are going to go to Breaking Bad (*at least* one), and one nomination is going to go to Mad Men [This nomination list is for both me and for the actual Emmy voters] it will be hard for anyone else to garner a nomination but I thought he was excellent in Season 2 and when I do my Emmy nomination prediction post for the 2013 nominations I will strongly consider putting Hoffman on my list.
Hoffman's character was the bad guy in Season 1 and therefore was portrayed in a typical cartoony USA-esque villiany light. But the writers actually made Louis a character in Season 2. Sure he was still a thorn in both Harvey's and Mike's side and sure he did some pretty sh**ty things but you actual emphasized with Louis many times and actually felt for him which is something you never would have said about him in Season 1. Hoffman's portrayal of Louis Litt was one of the best parts of Season 2 of Suits and he is the sole reason the show earns its "+".
White Collar (USA) Season 4
Grade: B-
Tuesdays 9/8c
NOTES: I hate to use the phrase "Jump The Shark". Especially on television shows I really enjoy. A show can Jump The Shark and still be good and many times the show has set its own expectations so high that we all unfairly expect that same level quality from the show. But that being said, as my friend and former Game Of Inches contributor Irwin Weiner (aka Cubsfanevr1) has said, White Collar has Jumped The Shark.
While this season is not yet over (there's one more episode left to go as of the writing of this post), I think I have to agree with my friend. For a show I still personally enjoy and still watch every week and a show I have consistently held in my top ten list for the best T.V. shows of the year, I have to come to grips that White Collar is not the same show anymore. While the show has always been the type of show that has a new problem in it during every given week with an overarching season-long problem sprinkled in throughout the series, that season-long problem seems to have been the glue that held the show together. (SIDENOTE: I think we need a new name for this type of show because hot damn is it really long and annoying to type out and read). Throughout the beginning of the series' run it was all about finding Kate/ the music box and during the latter half of the series it was about finding out about the conspiracy about Kate/the U-boat the music box led to. But when the season finale of White Collar's third season came and went all of those questions were fully answered. Therefore the show needed a new season and series long conflict. They created one revolving around Neil's dad, but it feels too little too late.
Despite all of that, the show still could have been successful in it's post-U-Boat run. The biggest problem is the writing of these mini-one-week plots. Ken Levine wrote a recent blog post about shows becoming too clever for its own good and the main example he used to illustrate his point was White Collar. Sure these one-week-plot-plots are fun and entertaining and predictable and very USA-y, but what sucked you into the show was the simplicity of it. I agree with Mr. Levine that the show got too clever for its own good and I hope the show corrects itself for Season 5. I really hope White Collar has not Jumped The Shark.
Anger Management (FX) Season One
Grade: D+
Thursdays 9/8c
NOTES: I am an American. And just like every other American I surprisingly and actually care about the television career of Charlie Sheen. I was one of the billions of people that tuned in to Ashton Kutcher's first episode post-Sheen of Two And A Half Men and I was one the millions of people who tuned in to watch Anger Management. Not only was I curious to see a new Charlie Sheen television show, but I am a huge FX fan. Here are some of the great shows that FX has produced over the years: Justified, Terriers, Lights Out, Archer, The League, Louie, and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. And that list only includes the shows I have seen and doesn't include: The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, and Rescue Me. So I had high hopes for Anger Management. And I was severely let down.
Anger Management is basically another version of Two And A Half Men. It has the same tone, the same widespread and generic jokes and situations, and I'm pretty sure they both were filmed in the same house. The show did well in the ratings and FX just ordered one hundred and seventy two more episodes so kudos to FX for finding a hit (which I feel they desperately needed) but the overall quality of this show is so poor that I would not recommend anyone to watch it.
BONUS REVIEW:
Since I lasted posted my review on 2012's spring TV edition I have seen both seasons of Game Of Thrones, Homeland, and the first two seasons of Dowton Abbey. The latter two shows aired seasons prior to 2012 and GOT's first season was in 2011. However, Game Of Thrones second season was in 2012 and should have gone in my Spring Edition column. So I'm here to rectify my mistake...
Game Of Thrones (HBO) Season Two
Grade: B+
Sundays 9/8c
NOTES: I normally hate things that are set during the 14th century or medieval times type things. I think The Lord Of The Rings are just "meh" films and I don't think I can ever bring myself to watch Braveheart- 4 hours of boring shit that I don't like. So I was extremely skeptical to watch Game Of Thrones. It was right in the genre and wheelhouse of things I don't like. To add to all of that I prefer character-driven shows over plot-driven shows. I'm probably the only person in the world that doesn't like Dexter because of that reason. I thought GOT was going to be extremely plot driven and be set during a period in which I don't like to watch. Yet I loved Season One of Game Of Thrones.
The main reason I liked it was because it was surprisingly character-driven. Despite its huge cast the show actually spent time on characters that I actually cared about week to week. The other reason I really enjoyed Season One was that it was a fairly simple and straight forward plot. Dany is coming from the East to take over Westeros, the White Walkers seem to be invading from the North and the Lannisters and the Starks were fighting from within. I was really getting in to Game Of Thrones. Then Season Two happened.
Again Season Two had a fairly simple plot: everybody was gunning for King Joffrey and King's Landing/Westeros. The Starks, Two Baratheons, and a Greyjoy to add to the White Walkers and Khalessi. But the extra characters in addition to the already ginormous cast was the straw that broke the camel's backs. I could handle and somewhat understand who was who in Season One but to add like ten more people and three more families to Season One not only diminished screen time and quality character time for everyone on the show prior but it made the show pretty confusing for the masses who had not read the book. Speaking of which and as Hitfix's Alan Sepinwall constantly points out, this is a television show first and not solely a physical representation of a beloved book. Because it is a T.V. show it has to explain things (mainly people) properly. You can not just say "Well it is in the book therefore the audience should understand these gaps". A television should not and does not work that way. But because Season Two worked that way (It was A LOT worse in Season 2 than in Season 1) I had to knock off a few grade points for the show.
One last final complaint about the show. For two seasons I have been told and/or led to believe that Dany and her fucking dragons and the things that are north of The Wall are scary and important and will eventually come into Westeros to destroy it all. I like the characters of Dany and Jon Snow and they're interesting but for two seasons I could have done without them. If you deleted every scene of the Targaryen siblings plot line and every scene with Jon Snow in it not only would that allow the audience to spend more times with characters who actually seem integral to the plot but the overall plot would not have changed in the slightest. At some point the show needs to actually give a reason why we are spending so much time with these characters and as Season Two dragged on these characters and plot line bored me more and more.
I know I just took a huge shit all over Game Of Thrones and that's sort of unfair. The show still is great, it's one of the four best dramas on television right now (behind Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and Homeland) and I am extremely excited for Season Three. Plus, The Battle Of Blackwater, the season's penultimate episode was one of the best things I have seen on T.V. But considering how high Season One of Game of Thrones set the bar, Season Two was in some respects a let down.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: At the time I wrote my 2012 Spring Edition of T.V. shows I gave Mad Men a grade of a solid B. While the show was not yet over the episodes I had seen were just flat out boring and it looked like the show had Jumped The Shark. But immediately after my review came out Mad Men finished on a VERY strong note- mainly centered around a major problem of Lane Pryce. The show's final 4 episodes were excellent and as such I have to give Mad Men a higher grade. I really want to give the show an "A-" because that's how good the last four episodes were but I can not discount just how painstakinglybad boring the middle (and frankly its first two episodes) were. As such I will now give the show a "B+".
MY "BEST OF" LIST SO FAR THIS YEAR:
1) Breaking Bad (AMC) Season 5
2) Parks & Recreation (NBC) Season 4
3) New Girl (FOX) Season 1
4) Workaholics (Comedy Central) Season 3
5) Game Of Thrones (HBO) Season 2
6) Mad Men (AMC) Season 5
7) Suits (USA) Season 2
8) Justified (FX) Season 3
9) Archer (FX) Season 3
10) 30 Rock (NBC) Season 6
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Grade: A+
Sundays 10/9c
NOTES: Breaking Bad is not only the greatest show on television right now, but it is the greatest show ever to be made for American television. I do not mean this as a hyperbole or an exaggeration. This is just fact. There are four television shows that can be considered as the greatest television show ever: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, and The Sopranos... and Breaking Bad blows them all out of the dust. Seasons 3 and 4 of B.B. are some of the single greatest television series ever to be made. With that being said and with the explosive finish to Season 4, Season 5 had a hard bar to climb. And Season 5 failed to even come close to that bar.
Yeah, that's right, Season 5, Part I of Breaking Bad was not even close to how good the previous two seasons were and you can make the argument that this was probably its worst season. And *even still* this season of Breaking Bad was excellent and some of the best stuff on television.
I always thought the show really started to pick up steam in Season 2 when Walter and Jesse first meet Saul Goodman and really start interacting with him. The show is really heavy and I remember watching Seasons 1 and 2 on Netflix and having to watch some How I Met Your Mother in between episodes because the tension and drama was too high. But Saul Goodman infused some much needed comic relief to make a great show even better. But Season 5 barely had any Saul in the show which "lessened" the quality of the show. Breaking Bad is obviously still great but the more Saul Goodman there is, the better.
Also, many critics felt the compact 8 episode season this year (versus the normal 13 episode season) ruined the quality and forced the show to gloss over or not spend as much time on characters and/or plot points as they could have in a "full season". While I agree that's true to an extent but sometimes, even with an amazing and powerful show like Breaking Bad, critics just need to get out of their own way. Could the show have been made better by a 13 episode season? Sure it could have but Season 5 is still excellent and amazing just the way it is.
EMMY NOTES: [SPOILER ALERT. DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN SEASONS 1-4 OF BREAKING BAD] In a year where there is no Gustavo Fringe and where there is very little of Jesse, I would replace Aaron Paul and Giancarlo Esposito's 2012 Emmy nominations with Jonathan Banks (Mike) and Dean Norris (Hank) for 2013 for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama. I know it seems sacrilege to not include Aaron Paul ever when Breaking Bad was eligible but a) The guy already has an Emmy win so I don't feel bad for him and b) Dean Norris has been amazing not only in Season 5 but throughout the show's run that I truly believe he deserves "Paul's spot" more.
Grade: A-
Tuesdays 1030/930c
NOTES: Workaholics is not a good show. There are no literary qualities to the writing or directing and there are no nuances to the performances. But hot damn is this show entertaining as sh**. The show follows the lives of three stoners who live in the same house and work at the same telemarketing firm. The show is stupid, and silly, and at times gross, but it's always funny. While I have not yet seen every episode in Season 3 the quality from what I have seen has not diminished from its first two seasons. Listen, this show is not for everyone and no you absolutely do not need to be stoner to enjoy this show (me case in point) but if you enjoy It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and how dark it is then Workaholics is right up your alley
Grade: B+
Thursdays 10/9c
NOTES: Wow. What an incredible and unexpected season for Suits. The show's first season tended to follow the typical USA model with an extremely lighthearted tone where the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose every week and every week is a new case and new story line with a little bit of the overarching story line lightly sprinkled in throughout the show, mainly towards the end of the episode. But Season 2 mixed it up in a good way. For starters, the show mainly focused on one overarching story line and the weekly and different story lines were barely there. The show followed the Season 2 Justified model where the beginning had different story lines but the ending was just one main story line.
The season started off really strong with its first two episodes setting the stage for the series long battle between Harvey and Jessica versus Daniel Hardman played by Breaking Bad alum David Costabile as well the the love affair between Mike Ross and Rachel. With the first two episodes I thought we were seeing a Justified-esque jump in quality but alas, the show's USA-ness rubbed off on it as it had many missteps as the season dragged on.
The first major problem the show has is its predictability. The fact that the show is on USA not only means the good guy is still going to win but you know exactly how they are going to win. The predictability also showed up many times during the season (for the sake of spoilers I won't go into specifics). The other problem I had was (again, because it is a USA show) the show would often sacrifice characters in favor of plot points. While Season 2 surprisingly dealt much more into these characters lives (which was delightful) the show also had gimmicky episodes, like when the show did an episode where it went back five years into all these characters lives and instead of showing us something meaningful it was used solely for a plot point in the war of Pearson vs. Hardman (and a minor point at that).
EMMY NOTES: I would strongly consider (at least for me personally) nominating Rick Hoffman (who plays Louis Litt) for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama. While Hoffman is in a category where one nomination is guaranteed to go to Peter Dinklage (Game Of Thrones), two nominations are going to go to Breaking Bad (*at least* one), and one nomination is going to go to Mad Men [This nomination list is for both me and for the actual Emmy voters] it will be hard for anyone else to garner a nomination but I thought he was excellent in Season 2 and when I do my Emmy nomination prediction post for the 2013 nominations I will strongly consider putting Hoffman on my list.
Hoffman's character was the bad guy in Season 1 and therefore was portrayed in a typical cartoony USA-esque villiany light. But the writers actually made Louis a character in Season 2. Sure he was still a thorn in both Harvey's and Mike's side and sure he did some pretty sh**ty things but you actual emphasized with Louis many times and actually felt for him which is something you never would have said about him in Season 1. Hoffman's portrayal of Louis Litt was one of the best parts of Season 2 of Suits and he is the sole reason the show earns its "+".
Grade: B-
Tuesdays 9/8c
NOTES: I hate to use the phrase "Jump The Shark". Especially on television shows I really enjoy. A show can Jump The Shark and still be good and many times the show has set its own expectations so high that we all unfairly expect that same level quality from the show. But that being said, as my friend and former Game Of Inches contributor Irwin Weiner (aka Cubsfanevr1) has said, White Collar has Jumped The Shark.
While this season is not yet over (there's one more episode left to go as of the writing of this post), I think I have to agree with my friend. For a show I still personally enjoy and still watch every week and a show I have consistently held in my top ten list for the best T.V. shows of the year, I have to come to grips that White Collar is not the same show anymore. While the show has always been the type of show that has a new problem in it during every given week with an overarching season-long problem sprinkled in throughout the series, that season-long problem seems to have been the glue that held the show together. (SIDENOTE: I think we need a new name for this type of show because hot damn is it really long and annoying to type out and read). Throughout the beginning of the series' run it was all about finding Kate/ the music box and during the latter half of the series it was about finding out about the conspiracy about Kate/the U-boat the music box led to. But when the season finale of White Collar's third season came and went all of those questions were fully answered. Therefore the show needed a new season and series long conflict. They created one revolving around Neil's dad, but it feels too little too late.
Despite all of that, the show still could have been successful in it's post-U-Boat run. The biggest problem is the writing of these mini-one-week plots. Ken Levine wrote a recent blog post about shows becoming too clever for its own good and the main example he used to illustrate his point was White Collar. Sure these one-week-plot-plots are fun and entertaining and predictable and very USA-y, but what sucked you into the show was the simplicity of it. I agree with Mr. Levine that the show got too clever for its own good and I hope the show corrects itself for Season 5. I really hope White Collar has not Jumped The Shark.
Grade: D+
Thursdays 9/8c
NOTES: I am an American. And just like every other American I surprisingly and actually care about the television career of Charlie Sheen. I was one of the billions of people that tuned in to Ashton Kutcher's first episode post-Sheen of Two And A Half Men and I was one the millions of people who tuned in to watch Anger Management. Not only was I curious to see a new Charlie Sheen television show, but I am a huge FX fan. Here are some of the great shows that FX has produced over the years: Justified, Terriers, Lights Out, Archer, The League, Louie, and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. And that list only includes the shows I have seen and doesn't include: The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, and Rescue Me. So I had high hopes for Anger Management. And I was severely let down.
Anger Management is basically another version of Two And A Half Men. It has the same tone, the same widespread and generic jokes and situations, and I'm pretty sure they both were filmed in the same house. The show did well in the ratings and FX just ordered one hundred and seventy two more episodes so kudos to FX for finding a hit (which I feel they desperately needed) but the overall quality of this show is so poor that I would not recommend anyone to watch it.
BONUS REVIEW:
Since I lasted posted my review on 2012's spring TV edition I have seen both seasons of Game Of Thrones, Homeland, and the first two seasons of Dowton Abbey. The latter two shows aired seasons prior to 2012 and GOT's first season was in 2011. However, Game Of Thrones second season was in 2012 and should have gone in my Spring Edition column. So I'm here to rectify my mistake...
Grade: B+
Sundays 9/8c
NOTES: I normally hate things that are set during the 14th century or medieval times type things. I think The Lord Of The Rings are just "meh" films and I don't think I can ever bring myself to watch Braveheart- 4 hours of boring shit that I don't like. So I was extremely skeptical to watch Game Of Thrones. It was right in the genre and wheelhouse of things I don't like. To add to all of that I prefer character-driven shows over plot-driven shows. I'm probably the only person in the world that doesn't like Dexter because of that reason. I thought GOT was going to be extremely plot driven and be set during a period in which I don't like to watch. Yet I loved Season One of Game Of Thrones.
The main reason I liked it was because it was surprisingly character-driven. Despite its huge cast the show actually spent time on characters that I actually cared about week to week. The other reason I really enjoyed Season One was that it was a fairly simple and straight forward plot. Dany is coming from the East to take over Westeros, the White Walkers seem to be invading from the North and the Lannisters and the Starks were fighting from within. I was really getting in to Game Of Thrones. Then Season Two happened.
Again Season Two had a fairly simple plot: everybody was gunning for King Joffrey and King's Landing/Westeros. The Starks, Two Baratheons, and a Greyjoy to add to the White Walkers and Khalessi. But the extra characters in addition to the already ginormous cast was the straw that broke the camel's backs. I could handle and somewhat understand who was who in Season One but to add like ten more people and three more families to Season One not only diminished screen time and quality character time for everyone on the show prior but it made the show pretty confusing for the masses who had not read the book. Speaking of which and as Hitfix's Alan Sepinwall constantly points out, this is a television show first and not solely a physical representation of a beloved book. Because it is a T.V. show it has to explain things (mainly people) properly. You can not just say "Well it is in the book therefore the audience should understand these gaps". A television should not and does not work that way. But because Season Two worked that way (It was A LOT worse in Season 2 than in Season 1) I had to knock off a few grade points for the show.
One last final complaint about the show. For two seasons I have been told and/or led to believe that Dany and her fucking dragons and the things that are north of The Wall are scary and important and will eventually come into Westeros to destroy it all. I like the characters of Dany and Jon Snow and they're interesting but for two seasons I could have done without them. If you deleted every scene of the Targaryen siblings plot line and every scene with Jon Snow in it not only would that allow the audience to spend more times with characters who actually seem integral to the plot but the overall plot would not have changed in the slightest. At some point the show needs to actually give a reason why we are spending so much time with these characters and as Season Two dragged on these characters and plot line bored me more and more.
I know I just took a huge shit all over Game Of Thrones and that's sort of unfair. The show still is great, it's one of the four best dramas on television right now (behind Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and Homeland) and I am extremely excited for Season Three. Plus, The Battle Of Blackwater, the season's penultimate episode was one of the best things I have seen on T.V. But considering how high Season One of Game of Thrones set the bar, Season Two was in some respects a let down.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: At the time I wrote my 2012 Spring Edition of T.V. shows I gave Mad Men a grade of a solid B. While the show was not yet over the episodes I had seen were just flat out boring and it looked like the show had Jumped The Shark. But immediately after my review came out Mad Men finished on a VERY strong note- mainly centered around a major problem of Lane Pryce. The show's final 4 episodes were excellent and as such I have to give Mad Men a higher grade. I really want to give the show an "A-" because that's how good the last four episodes were but I can not discount just how painstakingly
MY "BEST OF" LIST SO FAR THIS YEAR:
1) Breaking Bad (AMC) Season 5
2) Parks & Recreation (NBC) Season 4
3) New Girl (FOX) Season 1
4) Workaholics (Comedy Central) Season 3
5) Game Of Thrones (HBO) Season 2
6) Mad Men (AMC) Season 5
7) Suits (USA) Season 2
8) Justified (FX) Season 3
9) Archer (FX) Season 3
10) 30 Rock (NBC) Season 6
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
2012 Bad Quarterback League Update: Week One
1) Adam
Total Points: 134
Points This Week: 134
Miami: 39
St. Louis: 18
Kansas City: 37
Cincinnati: 40
2) Colleen
Total Points: 129
Points This Week: 129
Cleveland: 87
Oakland: 0
Buffalo: 48
Baltimore: 4
3) Cahal
Total Points: 88
Points This Week: 88
New York Jets: 0
Tennessee: 15
Chicago: 19
Philadelphia: 54
4) Bryan
Total Points: 29
Points This Week: 29
Arizona: 17
Seattle: 16
Washington: -4
San Francisco: 0
5) Ben
Total Points: 28
Points This Week: 28
Jacksonville: 5
Minnesota: 5
Tampa Bay: 12
Carolina: 6
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Football Awards Predictions
I have to give this disclaimer for all of my prediction posts. Predictions do not mean anything. They are worthless and I am guaranteed to be wrong. But that being said we all love to read about predictions and I sure as hell love to write about predictions.
PLAYOFF STANDINGS (You can read my division by division standings here)
NFC:
1) San Francisco 49ers
2) Green Bay Packers
3) Atlanta Falcons
4) Philadelphia Eagles
5) Chicago Bears
6) Detroit Lions
NFC Champ: Chicago Bears
AFC:
1) New England Patriots
2) Houston Texans
3) Baltimore Ravens
4) San Diego Chargers
5) Buffalo Bills
6) Cincinnati Bengals
AFC Champ: Houston Texans
SUPERBOWL
Houston Texans def. Chicago Bears
DISCLAIMER: I do not feel strongly about who is going to emerge from either the NFC or AFC. At all. I still think the Packers are the best NFC team and the Patriots are the best AFC team but that doesn't mean anything. The Bears are a total homer pick and while I don't like Gary Kubiak or think he is a good coach, if Matt Schaub was healthy the Texans would have at least made it to the Superbowl last year. So why not. It's crazy that I've always been on the Texans bandwagon and now that they are good, I'm halfway off of it.
END OF SEASON AWARDS:
MVP:
Winner: Tom Brady (NE)
Runner Up: Aaron Rodgers (GB)
Dark Horse: Jay Cutler (CHI)
Offensive Rookie Of The Year:
Winner: Doug Martin (TB)
Runner Up: Robert Griffin III (WAS)
Dark Horse: Justin Blackmon (JAX)
Defensive Rookie Of The Year:
Winner: Bruce Irvin (SEA)
Runner Up: Morris Claiborne (DAL)
Dark Horse: Shea McClellin (CHI)
Sophomore Of The Year:
Winner: A.J. Green (CIN)
Runner Up: Patrick Peterson (ARI)
Dark Horse: Jake Locker (TEN)
Defensive Player Of The Year:
Winner: Patrick Willis (SF)
Runner Up: Jason Pierre-Paul (NYG)
Dark Horse: Julius Peppers (CHI)
Best Running Back:
Winner: Arian Foster (HOU)
Runner Up: LeSean McCoy (PHI)
Dark Horse: Jamaal Charles (KC)
Best Wide Receiver:
Winner: Larry Fitzgerald (ARI)
Runner Up: Brandon Marshall (CHI)
Dark Horse: Jordy Nelson (GB)
Coach Of The Year:
Winner: Greg Schiano (TB)
Runner Up: Bill Belichick (NE)
Dark Horse: Norv Turner (SD)
NOTE: The Coach of the Year award always goes to the coach whose team does well when nobody expected them to. Last year NOBODY expected the 49ers to do well and they won 13 games so the Niners head coach Jim Harbaugh won the Coach of the Year award. This year I think the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are going to be that team (and could potentially earn that 6th seed over the Lions) so that is why I picked Schiano.
However, I think the top two contenders of the CotY award should be given to the number one seeds in each division (and personally I would give the award to Belichick every year). Belichick and Mike McCarthy are unquestionably two of the three best coaches in football right now (the 3rd being Tom Coughlin) so why should they be "punished" because people expect them to succeed and they do succeed?
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
PLAYOFF STANDINGS (You can read my division by division standings here)
NFC:
1) San Francisco 49ers
2) Green Bay Packers
3) Atlanta Falcons
4) Philadelphia Eagles
5) Chicago Bears
6) Detroit Lions
NFC Champ: Chicago Bears
AFC:
1) New England Patriots
2) Houston Texans
3) Baltimore Ravens
4) San Diego Chargers
5) Buffalo Bills
6) Cincinnati Bengals
AFC Champ: Houston Texans
SUPERBOWL
Houston Texans def. Chicago Bears
DISCLAIMER: I do not feel strongly about who is going to emerge from either the NFC or AFC. At all. I still think the Packers are the best NFC team and the Patriots are the best AFC team but that doesn't mean anything. The Bears are a total homer pick and while I don't like Gary Kubiak or think he is a good coach, if Matt Schaub was healthy the Texans would have at least made it to the Superbowl last year. So why not. It's crazy that I've always been on the Texans bandwagon and now that they are good, I'm halfway off of it.
END OF SEASON AWARDS:
MVP:
Winner: Tom Brady (NE)
Runner Up: Aaron Rodgers (GB)
Dark Horse: Jay Cutler (CHI)
Offensive Rookie Of The Year:
Winner: Doug Martin (TB)
Runner Up: Robert Griffin III (WAS)
Dark Horse: Justin Blackmon (JAX)
Defensive Rookie Of The Year:
Winner: Bruce Irvin (SEA)
Runner Up: Morris Claiborne (DAL)
Dark Horse: Shea McClellin (CHI)
Sophomore Of The Year:
Winner: A.J. Green (CIN)
Runner Up: Patrick Peterson (ARI)
Dark Horse: Jake Locker (TEN)
Defensive Player Of The Year:
Winner: Patrick Willis (SF)
Runner Up: Jason Pierre-Paul (NYG)
Dark Horse: Julius Peppers (CHI)
Best Running Back:
Winner: Arian Foster (HOU)
Runner Up: LeSean McCoy (PHI)
Dark Horse: Jamaal Charles (KC)
Best Wide Receiver:
Winner: Larry Fitzgerald (ARI)
Runner Up: Brandon Marshall (CHI)
Dark Horse: Jordy Nelson (GB)
Coach Of The Year:
Winner: Greg Schiano (TB)
Runner Up: Bill Belichick (NE)
Dark Horse: Norv Turner (SD)
NOTE: The Coach of the Year award always goes to the coach whose team does well when nobody expected them to. Last year NOBODY expected the 49ers to do well and they won 13 games so the Niners head coach Jim Harbaugh won the Coach of the Year award. This year I think the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are going to be that team (and could potentially earn that 6th seed over the Lions) so that is why I picked Schiano.
However, I think the top two contenders of the CotY award should be given to the number one seeds in each division (and personally I would give the award to Belichick every year). Belichick and Mike McCarthy are unquestionably two of the three best coaches in football right now (the 3rd being Tom Coughlin) so why should they be "punished" because people expect them to succeed and they do succeed?
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
My Bad Quarterback Leagues
You can read exactly what a Bad Quarterback League (as created by Grantland.com) here and you can see my Bad Quarterback rankings here. But this post is not about that. This post is merely to proclaim to the world the two BQBL that I am in.
LEAGUE #1: The Original Bad Quarterback League
This is a 7 person league where you start two quarterbacks each week, bench two, yet you will still be able to get 24/7 points whether or not you started the quarterback's team. 5 of the 7 teams competed in this BQBL last year. This league does NOT allow for trading or add/drops. Here is how the draft went (and for the sake of privacy I will not disclose the team's last names)
DMITRY:
1) Washington Redskins
14) Indianapolis Colts
15) Denver Broncos
28) San Diego Chargers
JIM:
2) Arizona Cardinals
13) Dallas Cowboys
16) Baltimore Ravens
27) Carolina Panthers
MY TEAM:
3) New York Jets
12) Kansas City Chiefs
17) Cincinnati Bengals
26) New Orleans Saints
STEVEN:
4) Miami Dolphins
11) Tennessee Titans
18) Philadelphia Eagles
25) Detroit Lions
DANIEL:
5) Cleveland Browns
10) Seattle Seahawks
19) Buffalo Bills
24) Pittsburgh Steelers
WARREN:
6) Jacksonville Jaguars
9) Oakland Raiders
20) New York Giants
23) Houston Texans
IRWIN:
7) Minnesota Vikings
8) St. Louis Rams
21) Tampa Bay Buccaneers
22) San Fransisco 49ers
Undrafted Teams:
- New England Patriots
- Green Bay Packers
- Chicago Bears
- Atlanta Falcons
MY REACTION TO THIS LEAGUE:
- For starters, I couldn't believe that the Washington Redskins went first overall. I know Rex Grossman and John Beck were atrocious last year but come on, this is RG3! The Redskins didn't go until pick 12 in my five team league and not until pick 14 in Grantland's BQBL. I feel like we needed Matthew Berry's rankings in front of us
- I really wish I had taken a 24/7 team with one of my picks. I should have gone Philly in the 3rd round and they went right after I picked Cincy. I just wished Denver had somehow fallen to me.
- I can't believe how far the Cleveland Browns fell
- I'm shocked the Bears didn't get drafted in this deep of a league. Plus, it's not even *that* full of Chicago homers and last year when I had to start 4 teams *I* drafted the Bears with my last pick. I guess Jason Campbell is just that good.
LEAGUE #2: The Newbie League
This is a five person league I created when I posted on Facebook if anyone would like to join a BQBL with me. In this league you MUST start all four teams but we do allow for add/drops. We do not allow for trading. Here is how the draft went:
BEN:
1) Jacksonville Jaguars
10) Minnesota Vikings
11) Tampa Bay Buccaneers
20) Carolina Panthers
BRYAN:
2) Arizona Cardinals
9) Seattle Seahawks
12) Washington Redskins
19) San Francisco 49ers
CAHAL:
3) New York Jets
8) Tennessee Titans
13) Chicago Bears
18) Philadelphia Eagles
COLLEEN:
4) Cleveland Browns
6) Oakland Raiders
14) Buffalo Bills
17) Baltimore Ravens
MY TEAM:
5) Miami Dolphins
6) St. Louis Rams
15) Kansas City Chiefs
16) Cincinnati Bengals
MY REACTION TO THIS LEAGUE:
- Like in my other league, the Arizona Cardinals went second overall. Both league drafted after the news that John Skelton was named the starter. I'm not saying Skelton is good, not in the slightest (although he is apparently the only competent person since Kurt Warner who can get the ball to Larry Fitzgerald) but I think there are far worse QBs out there. Or I could just be flat out wrong about this.
- My fiance picked one spot ahead of me and picked solely based on uniforms. Stupid effing Browns for having awful uniforms to go along with their awful franchise and their awful quarterback.
- In a 7 team league where you only start two of your four QBs there Chicago Bears were not selected but in a 5 team league where you MUST start all four they were.
- When I created and posted my own rankings I had the Vikings at #6 and the Rams at #5 so when the wrap around came to me I chose the Rams. Immediately after I typed in "Rams" over 'Vikings" I regretted it and have since swapped the two teams in my rankings.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page
LEAGUE #1: The Original Bad Quarterback League
This is a 7 person league where you start two quarterbacks each week, bench two, yet you will still be able to get 24/7 points whether or not you started the quarterback's team. 5 of the 7 teams competed in this BQBL last year. This league does NOT allow for trading or add/drops. Here is how the draft went (and for the sake of privacy I will not disclose the team's last names)
DMITRY:
1) Washington Redskins
14) Indianapolis Colts
15) Denver Broncos
28) San Diego Chargers
JIM:
2) Arizona Cardinals
13) Dallas Cowboys
16) Baltimore Ravens
27) Carolina Panthers
MY TEAM:
3) New York Jets
12) Kansas City Chiefs
17) Cincinnati Bengals
26) New Orleans Saints
STEVEN:
4) Miami Dolphins
11) Tennessee Titans
18) Philadelphia Eagles
25) Detroit Lions
DANIEL:
5) Cleveland Browns
10) Seattle Seahawks
19) Buffalo Bills
24) Pittsburgh Steelers
WARREN:
6) Jacksonville Jaguars
9) Oakland Raiders
20) New York Giants
23) Houston Texans
IRWIN:
7) Minnesota Vikings
8) St. Louis Rams
21) Tampa Bay Buccaneers
22) San Fransisco 49ers
Undrafted Teams:
- New England Patriots
- Green Bay Packers
- Chicago Bears
- Atlanta Falcons
MY REACTION TO THIS LEAGUE:
- For starters, I couldn't believe that the Washington Redskins went first overall. I know Rex Grossman and John Beck were atrocious last year but come on, this is RG3! The Redskins didn't go until pick 12 in my five team league and not until pick 14 in Grantland's BQBL. I feel like we needed Matthew Berry's rankings in front of us
- I really wish I had taken a 24/7 team with one of my picks. I should have gone Philly in the 3rd round and they went right after I picked Cincy. I just wished Denver had somehow fallen to me.
- I can't believe how far the Cleveland Browns fell
- I'm shocked the Bears didn't get drafted in this deep of a league. Plus, it's not even *that* full of Chicago homers and last year when I had to start 4 teams *I* drafted the Bears with my last pick. I guess Jason Campbell is just that good.
LEAGUE #2: The Newbie League
This is a five person league I created when I posted on Facebook if anyone would like to join a BQBL with me. In this league you MUST start all four teams but we do allow for add/drops. We do not allow for trading. Here is how the draft went:
BEN:
1) Jacksonville Jaguars
10) Minnesota Vikings
11) Tampa Bay Buccaneers
20) Carolina Panthers
BRYAN:
2) Arizona Cardinals
9) Seattle Seahawks
12) Washington Redskins
19) San Francisco 49ers
CAHAL:
3) New York Jets
8) Tennessee Titans
13) Chicago Bears
18) Philadelphia Eagles
COLLEEN:
4) Cleveland Browns
6) Oakland Raiders
14) Buffalo Bills
17) Baltimore Ravens
MY TEAM:
5) Miami Dolphins
6) St. Louis Rams
15) Kansas City Chiefs
16) Cincinnati Bengals
MY REACTION TO THIS LEAGUE:
- Like in my other league, the Arizona Cardinals went second overall. Both league drafted after the news that John Skelton was named the starter. I'm not saying Skelton is good, not in the slightest (although he is apparently the only competent person since Kurt Warner who can get the ball to Larry Fitzgerald) but I think there are far worse QBs out there. Or I could just be flat out wrong about this.
- My fiance picked one spot ahead of me and picked solely based on uniforms. Stupid effing Browns for having awful uniforms to go along with their awful franchise and their awful quarterback.
- In a 7 team league where you only start two of your four QBs there Chicago Bears were not selected but in a 5 team league where you MUST start all four they were.
- When I created and posted my own rankings I had the Vikings at #6 and the Rams at #5 so when the wrap around came to me I chose the Rams. Immediately after I typed in "Rams" over 'Vikings" I regretted it and have since swapped the two teams in my rankings.
________________________________
If you would like to comment on this post, please visit our facebook page