Jason Brown a $37 million dollar bust?

So a fellow by the name of Andy Benoit who blogs for the New York Times, and is occasionally seen on NFL Films, decided to toss an incendiarist position at Ram-fans today. What was that position?

Upon further review of 2010 game footage, it turns out that Jason Brown was the weak link in the interior of the Rams' offensive line. The received wisdom that Jacob Bell is the flawed part just isn't factual. Bell is the stronger of the two. Brown is the weaker of the two. Ergo Brown is a $37 million bust. Bull Rushers drove him back, and stout run defenders locked him up.

Well, you're reading the blog of a highly observant dude who prides himself on his accuracy. While I can't say I have reviewed every down in detail, I can tell you that this ain't what I saw. What I saw was a really strong center, trapped between two weak guards.

I saw Jacob Bell get confused on plays against the Cardinals and head the wrong way. I saw Jason Brown diving in front of blitzers trying to cover, Bell's hole.

I saw cases where Brown & Goldberg were called upon to double team Ndamukong Suh, and it turned out badly several times. Suh chucked Goldberg and Brown had to try to stop him with just one shoulder. You ain't gonna get much stopping power with one shoulder. You need a full square front to block a guy like Ndamukong Suh. In these cases, I did see Brown driven back by a bullrush, but did you notice Goldberg getting up off the ground during that play? A solid double team, as called for in the blocking scheme, would have prevented that.

I would very much like to see some of this footage Benoit claims to have reviewed. If I am wrong, I would like to know about it. However, I don't think I'm wrong about this thing. Jason Brown is one of the few guys we've signed in free-agency who I really, really like. This is one of the few guys I actually trust.

However, Benoit's piece in the New York times is an excellent reminder of why Mike Pouncey was the Rams' correct choice in the 1st round of the 2011 Draft. Adding Pouncey would either have strengthened Brown's position by giving him a solid leftward partner, or it would allow Brown to return to Guard, where he made the Pro-Bowl twice.

Believe me, I am still fulminating over this rotten draft. I haven't calmed down yet. I swear fucking Devaney couldn't pick a receiver to save his life. If you're still pissed that he passed on DeSean Jackson to select Donnie Avery, I got special news for you: He did it twice over again in this year's draft.

I really hope this is not the prelude to some cheap-ass budget cutting special such as the one the Jets ran on Alan Faneca. That is still one of the most intensely pathetic salary dumps I've ever seen. The Jets tried to besmirch Faneca's 24-carrot gold reputation to save some money.

I hope we will not be so stupid as the Jets.

Andy Benoit's assessment is pretty bleak...

And rightfully so.

For those who keep tabs on the New York Times, you may have noted a rare assessment of the St. Louis Rams there. As a former fan, I was curious. What could make the New York Times interested in this team?

It was part of a garden variety off-season exercise in assessing the talent levels of teams around the league. Nothing more, and nothing less. Benoit worked on this piece. He didn't toss it off in record time, without consideration.

It would be good if the myopic Ram-homers of St. Louis would read and consider this piece carefully. They are far too quick to interpret accurate assessment as an attack. They are far too quick to disregard serious treatment of serious problems. They just want to be happy now... that it is the off season. Illusions help this present moment, but they will make the season more painful to false expectations.

The edge of the scalpel is found in paragraph four. It goes like this:

We never see Disney movies about a bad team that stays bad – it’s just not great entertainment. Maybe that’s why, for the third straight year, the Rams are scheduled for zero nationally televised games. Can the Rams improve in 2010? Of course. It’d be hard not to, considering 2-14 would technically be an improvement. But the Rams aren’t going to improve enough to vie for a playoff spot. They simply don’t have the talent. The young offensive line has no depth. None of the wide receivers or tight ends would start on a typical N.F.L. team. Steven Jackson has to carry the entire run game. Defensively, there’s an absence of pass-rushers. And the secondary will start three backups on opening day and be only slightly worse off than the linebacking corps.

I added emphasis to the most critical words in the piece. The most benighted of Ram fans--who are few in number--seem to think Sam Bradford is going to launch rockets this season. It may not be 1999 all-over-again, but 2010 will be something special. The linchpin of this delusion is a relentless denial of problems with the offensive line, and an upbeat view of the receiver corp. Like Devaney, these myopic fans say, "Gheez, I thought our receivers were pretty good."

Problem is that nobody else does. No D.C. in the league has any fear of the Rams' receivers, nor should they. At this point, none of the Rams receivers has been able to make them pay for this lack of respect. Ergo sum, we must presume the lack of respect is fully warranted.

I read a piece, not so long ago, in which Mardy Gilyard declared his hopes to make an impact on special teams first, and then hopefully become a starter. I was surprised by the limited nature of his goals. My response was more like "Kid, you're going to start on Day 1, before Sam Bradford does, and you'll be the #1 receiver from day one also." Let's face it: It's Gilyard or the Rams got nothing. Donnie Avery is too much of a ball-dropper to be #1. We'll see what Laurent does.

Can you give the name of another football team where a 4th round draft pick is the presumptive #1 receiver on the squad? Some may point at Pierre Garçon last season, but that is illegit. Nobody expected Pierre Garçon to be the #1 receiver on the Colts squad in 2009. Frankly, it never happened either. Both Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark were preferred by Manning. Pierre Garçon was #3 in their scheme.

No folks, we are looking at a situation in St. Louis that is almost without president. A guy drafted in the 4th round is seen by insiders as being the likely #1 receiver straight away, from day-one. Roll that over in your mind 7 to 10 times and consider the implications well.

Poor Sam...

A few vociferous kids on the net loudly proclaim their cheer and their love of Sam. These are the few and the proud, the vociferous. They are vociferous for a reason; they feel they need to be. I see a few people who conform to Sam Wyche's mania proclamations, but not many.

For most, there is a sorrow that the Rams misused an ultra-valuable pick to ruin a good kids career. Poor Sam. This isn't a dis of Sam so much as it is a regret of what is going to happen to him.

My one quibble with Benoit's writting is his line "The line has no depth". That speaks volumes if you know what has been happening for the past three years in St. Louis. It's been one damn injury after another, and it is continuing this season. Saying the team has no depth is like saying the team has no line, because at one point or another several, if not all starters will be out. He also skirts the issue of quality problems.

The Rams have one man who has proven he can play on the offensive line: Jason Brown. They have two more guys with talent: Jason Smith and Rodger Saffold. Those who both have plenty to prove. The Rams need two new guards, period. Smith has not proven he is durable and reliable. Saffold is a rookie, and he had a nasty back injury last year. Goldberg will be moving right back to Tackle soon enough, leaving a hole at Right Guard.

Poor Sam. Poor, poor Sam. I feel terrible for the kid. It's very depressing. I wish I had his talent. I hate to see him squandered by bad management.

So it seems that the press is turning around on the subject of Blu-Ray

Well, well, well, it's about time.  I was just reading the New York Times, and it seems that Eric Taub is getting enthusiastic about Blu-Ray.  He found the nuts to go against the prevailing gainsayers in the media.  This is the biggest news blog yet to come out in support of Blu-Ray.

At the same time, media pundits have noted that Blu-Ray movie sales have doubled from a year ago.  Also, the industry claims it will ship 12 million new Blu-Ray players in 2009.  Somebody even noticed that Blu-Ray acceptance is well ahead of where DVD was at the same point in both of their life-cycles, despite the massive bite of the Great Recession.  Some estimates claim that sales rates will triple current numbers 2010.  Ergo 2010 should be the cross-over point where DVD becomes legacy material, like VHS, and Blu-Ray becomes the standard.

I am pleased.  This is part of a larger trend.  More and more experts and consumers are questioning what they have been told by so-called experts in regard to Blu-Ray.  They are having a hard time squaring their experiance with the twisted tales of a mis-begotten technological misfit, favorited by a small cult of fans, doomed to an early death.  Many are making noises that sound something like this:  "Jesus!  What the fuck were you bastards smoking when you reached that preposterous conclusion?"

For about 4 years now, predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an ultra-fashionable thing among would-be experts.  It has been functionally good, as it has placed great pressure on Sony and Samsung to cut the cost of ownership.  One might even argue that predicting the failure of Blu-Ray has been an underhanded way to insist upon price cuts.

Still, there have been persistent blithering idiots who have popped up on the net saying foolish things like "I can't tell the difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray" or worse "There is not much difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray".  In the first case, you could be vision impaired, so your statement might be accurate.  In the second case, you are absolutely and completely wrong, and it is easy to mathematically prove.  If you think there isn't much difference, you have neither seen a Blu-Ray, nor studied it.  Ah-hem...  Let me try this another way.  If you weren't suffering from sour grapes, you would be honest and say "It's great, but I just can't afford it."

For the first time, it would appear that mainstream media is beginning to test Blu-Ray seriously. Gone are the foolish claims that DVD can compete with Blu-Ray.  Those claims have finally been thrown out of court.   Now the NYT has investigated the claims of Video On Demand (VOD) firms also.  Guess whay they found?

1. VOD firms don't offer much HD
2. When they do, it is 720p
3. The encoding of said 720p pretty well sucks.  Maybe its better than SD, but...
4. We don't have enough bandwidth to get constant 720p without jerks.
5. Or maybe they don't have enough bandwidth to serve-up constant 720p without jerks
6. I don't like running an Ethernet cable to my TV.
7. I don't like having a computer in my entertainment system.
8. Blu-Ray seems to crush VOD in terms of quality.

In a nutshell, this what they are starting to say now.  It's about time they figured this out.  

I learned most of these things 2 years ago.  Nothing has been able to change my mind since.  I tried the most recent incarnation of the Apple TV recently.  While better than all VOD solutions before it, it still sucks.  Blu-Ray absolutely destroys Apple TV.  I am talking about a total-annihilation demolition.  It is the defeat the dimensions of which Apple has never experienced:  A route from which no honor can be salvaged.  I returned the unit to Fry's electronics.  It wasn't worth owning.

Allow me to make a positive case for Blu-Ray.  My family members, friends and I have come to the conclusion that a Blu-Ray image, when displayed on a high quality large screen, is so compelling we find it difficult to summon the motivation to go to the theater anymore.  The images we see on the big silver screen seem dark, drab, lifeless, colorless, undetailed and soft (meaning unfocused) in comparison to the razor sharp, detailed, colorful pictures we see at home.  The movie always looks better at home.  The movie never looks better at the theater.  There is a wide gulf too.  This is not a small or marginal victory.  We are talking about a 38-10 route.

When watching incredible Blu-Rays like Wall-e, or No Country for Old Men, or Sin City, I have frequently asked myself the following questions:

1. How thrilled were the authors of this movie when they first saw it on Blu-Ray?  They must have been ecstatic.  To see your creation preserved and presented in such an astounding format must be extremely gratifying.
   
2. How long is going to be before the movie theaters realize they are being completely outclassed by home theaters?
   
3. How long is going to take before studios realizes that they should not optimize for the movie theater, but rather for the home theater?  Movies should not be shot in 24fps or on film anymore.  They should be shot at 60p on digital.  You are only in the movie theater for 3-6 weeks.  You will be on Blu-Ray [or something better] forever.  Optimize for your true distribution channel.  Forget the glamor vector.
   

There are plethora of other benefits to watching the movie on Blu-Ray.  You can talk about the movie if you want to.  You can eat your favorite popcorn, and you can have it your way, cheap.  You can drink any damn thing you want, and it is cheaper than the theater.  You can hit pause and go to the bathroom.  You don't have to miss parts of the film.  You can start whenever you want to start.  You can watch with the subtitles on if you are hearing impaired.  None of these things have anything to do with fundamental image and sound, but they are very nice bonuses.