Just a thought (or two): On things like "just a thought (or two)," other tags

This is your song for this weekend. It might be the song for next weekend too, but we'll see. Don't think about it, just play it.

If you scroll on down past all those other wonderful sites I link to there on the right (Hello, new followers!), and the archives I only realized I can actually sift through a few months ago, you'll notice the collection of tags. Most of them are pretty self-explanatory, but two near the top need to be cleaned up.

The first is "notable links," which was probably just created by me when I first began tagging posts more than a year into BMC's life and needed something to affix to the extremely short comments with hyperlinks that made up much of this site's inaugural year and was what I thought constituted blogging. These days, they've got an entire site for that kind of thing. But since then, most everything I post has "notable links" of some sort (they're notable ... aren't they?). So either that tag dies with this post, unless I think of a better way to employ it.

The other tag that has grown to encompass just about everything in it's vagueness is the one in the title of this here post, "just a thought (or two)." Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

So that tag's going to be reviewed, possibly removed from a number of posts and from now on have its first letter capitalized and hopefully become an occasional feature here at BMC in which I can talk about a couple things on my mind in one post that are NOT me making predictions or posting reaction to those predictions. I mean, we'll have time for that too.

Oh, and whenever I do put up an edition of the new (!!!) "Just a thought," it will feature this picture of Jane Krakowski simply because I fucking love it. I love the way it looks on my Tumblr, I love the way it looks on the other Tumblrs that reblogged it, and of course I still really love that contribution of hers to Esquire. Love it, LOVE IT, LOVE IT!!!

But I will not jack off to it.

No, but I will mention "JACKING OFF" on this blog, because ... well, apparently it gets me hits. Don't take my word for it though:


Yeah, so this post's the first one that comes up on a Google Image search for that top item there. Even though I didn't explicitly use that exact phrase, I'm debating changing the subhead for BMC to that now.

Or maybe I'll just make a tag for it. Bring on the traffic.

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. IT REALLY IS THAT IRAQ WAR MOVIE YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR — In case you hadn't heard, non-documentary films about the ongoing conflict have been as well-received at the box office as Ishtar. Nothing released until Hurt Locker, however, had that on-the-ground immediacy of Kathryn Bigelow's feature. And Mark Boal's script places its characters—and its audience—into the daily routine of a bomb-disposal unit without the usual perceived political statement of a lesser war movie that probably kept asses out of the seats in the first place.
   
2. AT LONG LAST, A DIRECTOR HAS FINALLY RECAPTURED THE GENUINE SUSPENSE OF THE OTHERWISE TIRED WIRE-CUTTING SCENARIO — Bigelow almost immediately plugs the viewer right into the danger of the duty at hand and incredibly manages to maintain a genuine sense of fear that I had almost forgotten was possible from one of the seemingly most exhausted forms of momentary danger in movies. In The Hurt Locker, instead of being exploited just for a cheap moment, the constant process of finding and deactivating an IED instead fills us with a sense of dread that carries throughout most of the film from the ground-level opening scene.
   
3. JEREMY RENNER IS READY FOR HIS CLOSEUP — I liked him enough for his terrific turn in Dahmer to actually buy it on DVD (try explaining that one when friends see it on the shelf ...), but Hurt Locker offers Renner a role that's certainly a little more, um, audience-friendly. Actually, one of the movie's most pleasant surprises is that the more recognizable members of the cast (Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, David Morse) get what essentially amount to cameos, while the cast of lesser-known talent including Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty get to steal the show. The focus on the chemistry of that trio adds more to feel of watching something more like real everyman American soldiers than just a group of actors.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. BEND IT LIKE "BECKHAM" — It was inevitable, I suppose, that in attempting to develop Renner's Staff Sgt. William James, he's given a young Iraqi kid named "Beckham" to bond with. The young'un plays soccer and hawks bootlegged DVDs and ... well, I think you can guess where this is going to go.
   
2. CAMBRIDGE TO NOWHERE — Lt. Col. John Cambridge (Christian Carmago) is the therapist trying to get Geraghty's Spc. Owen Eldridge to stop thinking about dying even though James' style leads anyone to think he'll somehow get everybody involved killed. So when he passes on an invitation until the time is right, you can guess what he means.
   
3. HOME IS NOT WHERE THE HEART IS — I think it was the kite shot that felt like the warning, but when Hurt Locker follows James back to American soil to show the effect it's taking on his wife and home life the film feels like it's trying to resolve more than it can or should before the end.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Makes the day-to-day defusing of roadside bombs unforgettably riveting and compelling, even if the film can't remove a few war movie clichés.

The Blackhawks' Third Quarter: Preparing for the Final Push

So yeah, the same thing that was of concern to me when I last talked about the Hawks is still of concern to me now, but nothing much more I can do now I suppose other than keep my fingers crossed and hope that everybody's healthy when I'm guessing that at least three of the guys the team sent over there are recovering from the Olympics final on a cross-country flight to resume the NHL season in Long Island.

But everybody's been saying the Blackhawks need this break—even though they've won their last four (last three all being shootouts). I'm sure most teams are appreciating the rest that their non-Olympians can get during this fortnight break, but you would have to think that our ongoing silly cries for a goaltending move (I thought we were over that!) before the trade deadline will almost certainly be resurrected as both Huet and Niemi adjust to having not played during the off-time. I guess I'll have to keep those fingers crossed for a few days after the Olympics about that as well, seeing as I'm more than content to play the hand the team's got right now and see how far it takes you when the playoffs start.

The move that the team did make in sending Cam Barker to Minnesota for Kim Johnsson and prospect Nick Leddy struck most fans I've talked to as well as most observers I follow as a definite win. As McClure over at Second City Hockey put it, "While Barker may turn out to be 'a thing,' it wasn't going to be here, and in return, the Hawks got real value for both this year's playoff push, and for the future."

Overall, I think the third quarter still went relatively well for Chicago. At 41-15-5, their 87 points is second to the Sharks, but they're 11 points ahead of No. 3 Vancouver in the conference and the closest team to them in the division is Nashville, 16 points back. So it would appear that there would have to be a truly epic collapse not to end up with one of those top two spots.

Looking back on that third quarter of season, the 5-3 performance over the eight-game road trip at the end of January certainly could have gone a lot worse. As big as the win over San Jose was, I actually think that it could be the game the Hawks pissed away to the Wild that they learn the most from heading into the post-season.

However, if one game really had that exciting atmosphere about it from last season's hella-fun playoff run, it had to be that shootout (yes, I know what I've said about those things) with Detroit:


Oh, and let's not forget VERSTEEG! mixing it up in that game, which was awesome too (although he's really been dogging it ever since, but ...).

The bottom line here is that the Blackhawks are only one point behind their total from what they accumulated over the course of an entire season two years ago. And really, in truth, this last leg of the regular season is hopefully one last chance to get the necessary momentum to begin plowing over Western Conference opponents on the way to the Stanley Cup. Here's a breakdown of the team's performance by quarters from the message board:

While the offensive numbers are improvements over that second quarter, the penalty minutes and (dare I say it?) the goals against are concerns—but still small ones, I say. Of my four Bs (Braves, Bulls, Bears, and Blackhawks), it's the hockey team that's the only one I haven't seen win a World Championship in my lifetime. So forgive me for being anxious to get to the point where I can finally say that I've seen all four win it all. As we've been saying all year, "CUP OR BUST!"

Movie Review: Up in the Air

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. I CERTAINLY WON'T ACCUSE JASON REITMAN OF TAKING ON BORING SUBJECTS — It's easy to hate those privileged enough to be in the Lucky Sperm club, but with Up in the Air, Jason Reitman has proven to me that he's talented enough to get by on his own name and not his father's. He's began his career with a trifecta of issues confronting the main characters that have all certainly whetted my appetite: Thank You For Smoking offered us Aaron Eckhart lobbying for Big Tobacco; Juno had Ellen Page dealing with an unplanned pregnancy; and now Up in the Air presents George Clooney taking on the role of the corporate hitman, firing people across the country. In this day and age, I'll applaud the effort to take the road less traveled.
   
2. THE PERFORMANCES DESERVE ALL THAT PRAISE THEY'VE BEEN GETTING — It's hard to believe there was actually speculation at one time about George Clooney's career as a leading man. How long ago that does seem, now seeing as this New York Magazine article noted, he "has been elected the industry’s new class president." Indeed, it's hard to think of anybody else that could have played Ryan Bingham without coming off as unlikable—let alone anywhere near as casually charming as Clooney does it here. But casting's been a real strong point for Reitman in both of his previous efforts, and that's no different here as both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick earned those Supporting Actress nods (although I'd say Farmiga has more of the scene-stealing stuff if you had to pick one or the other).
   
3. I'LL MEET THE "FILM FOR OUR TIMES" ARGUMENT HALFWAY ... — As it concerns the angle the story has on how social networking has affected how we conduct ourselves personally in all relationships of our daily life, then sure, I like that side of what the film's touching on. In addition to the sexting between Clooney and Farmiga, the plan dreamt up by Kendrick's Natalie to fire employees from a single location via teleconferencing software offered a fairly effective contrast to Bingham's approach involving more of what he calls "dignity" on both the professional and personal levels to make it really compelling had the idea played itself out more fully.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. LIKE I SAID, HALFWAY ... — Since the movie is dealing with characters sending people to unemployment at a time when the country is dealing with the issue too, that parallel's pretty unavoidable. That segment of the audience might see similar pain or outrage in one of the voices that bookends the film, but the lasting impression is made by the stars—all three of whom have roles involving them seemingly getting through life with the comforts of expense accounts and only having to deal with creating the unemployed, never joining the unemployed. Forgive me for feeling as detached at times from the main characters as Bingham spends most of the movie being before, you know ...
   
2. BASICALLY THAT ENTIRE THIRD ACT — Unfortunately, while Reitman's topics of choice have thrilled me entering his three movies, all of them also seem to share some rather ho-hum resolutions. Up in the Air has that moment when you can begin to feel the shift, when that cynicism Bingham's been sporting so charmingly the first hour or so of the movie has eroded away and you suddenly realize that the real reason he's been keeping that other job giving self-help lectures was just to allow him to have a seemingly sensible podium to stand behind for that change-of-heart scene. While I imagine that others have Farmiga's Alex in mind when arguing to the contrary, I still feel that most every element involved in the narrative ultimately felt either quite predictable or certainly less than satisfying.
   
3. CONDESCENDING MUCH? — As I said, the movie begins and ends with a series of shots of actual, real-life people who'd lost their jobs recently. When the script needs professional actors for a little elaboration on those roles though, then it's time to call in one of those standbys for that sort of stuff. But it's been fairly well-publicized that Reitman sought out these newly unemployed folks to add into the film, as the book it was based on wasn't particularly audience-friendly fare after 9/11. While there's indeed a number of real-life victims of the Great Recession, Reitman's use of these people feels more like a gimmick. To some, it might be insignificant and even timely, but to me it felt forced and rather disingenuous.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Confirms Clooney's status as a leading man with more than enough elements to entertain you although hardly enough to stay with you.

Final Thoughts on 2009 NFL Season

It's unfortunate that the final score won't really reflect what a terrific game it was, but hopefully this video's safe where you can watch the entire thing in 14 minutes. I was stepping outside and actually the rounded the corner when the bar erupted after that critical interception, and the Saints winning it really made me enjoy the game all that much more. It's satisfying to get another underdog that emerges successful on a big stage.

I realize now that this is going to be my 45th post this year about the 2009 NFL season, and that's pretty remarkable because that tag got applied to more posts in one year than the total number for how many times I've whined about jobs or girls as long as I've had this here blog up. So I'll take that as a good thing.

My regular season performance in predictions is best summed up in the final Power Rankings for the year (the same numbers that would've gone 8-3 in these playoffs, by the way), and I do indeed plan to have a post created better explaining that numbers process before next season begins. Again, all of my playoff picks were based on my gut for the most part, although you'd be forgiven for assuming I was trying to get as many wrong as possibly after missing my first six games.

And while this year's playoffs were my worst showing in as long as I've put picks up here on BMC, I'll obviously take being perfect in those last two weekends to not end up in the cellar. Only two other dudes went out on a limb with New Orleans and as a result, here's how everybody ended up (colors obviously reflective of winning/losing Super Bowl Pick):

Oscar Nominee Reaction: I foresee Netflix in my mailbox

Well, 37 out of 45 doesn't sound all that bad when you've added five more Best Picture nominees. Looking over my nominee predictions, I obviously underestimated The Blind Side (some pundits did call that, but I had my own doubts) in the Best Picture race and mentioned my skepticism about how A Serious Man had been received. While Star Trek was a popular bet among many of the other picks I had seen, I knew The Hangover was a gamble probably influenced somewhat by my anticipating the opportunity to use that particular nomination lecture others on how the Best Picture race has been diminished by adding more nominees.

But enough with that noise, I guess.

I now realize that I have a recurring habit of beginning my Oscar-related posts by talking about how much more up-to-date I was on the film industry and what had been released over the year. And seeing as this past year was the end of another decade's worth of films (most have called it "the Aughts," although I preferred the tag title of "the Zeroes"), I typically would have been greatly looking forward to composing a Best of the Decade list, much like my Best of the 1990s list I published somewhere on here and want to revise now just thinking about it.

The point is that I certainly have bought into the Oscar hype, and am already trying to finagle my way into catching all 10 nominated films before the telecast—for which my next concern will likely be finding a good party to attend. I've got plenty of theater gift certificates I've accumulated, although it's a damn shame most of them are for one of our distinctly ghetto theaters.

But beyond that, my living space these days is the cleanest it has been since I moved in—check that, it's even cleaner than when I moved in. And now with all that shit I had let take up space on my floors for so long finally gone, there's the temptation to really do some redecorating—although entertainment for myself and any guest usually relies on my DVD player. And while my collection remains fairly impressive in size and scope, they're all films I've already seen all the same and now the time seems more appropriate than ever to look into getting another online rental program.

I went through Blockbuster for a while, but dropped them a few years ago. In recent years, I've become a pretty big fan of Redbox, almost entirely because of my perceived convenience of knowing the disc has been returned safely and I can often get away with seeing a movie for only a buck.

But the problem with Redbox, of course, is that I'm at the mercy of what's available in the machine. And if my guest for the evening is standing beside me at the Redbox, then I'm really at the mercy of what sounds good to her unless there's something I really make an impassioned case for (which is not all that often).

It would be nice to have some say in the manner again. Something like a wish list, you know. Or a queue, I think they call it.

I have less than a month, but I'm hoping to have a little more personal opinion about the films and the performances when it comes time to post my predictions. Considering I've liked the three Best Picture nominees I have seen so far, I'm more optimistic than usual.

Super Bowl XLIV Pick: At least it sounds good

I did a bit of looking back before beginning this post, and it nearly led to me beginning a MySpace blog entry but then I came to my senses and remembered how aggravating that process could be. Previous Super Bowl picks made here on BMC have usually been kept brief because of the girl I was with at the time, but it'll nice being single again for the big game this year—although the last year that happened, I still did get a prediction of sorts out there and then I basically wasn't single again.

But anyway, there's a game once again this year and I'm genuinely pretty pumped up about watching it. While one team is certainly a favorite here, the fact that the two best teams from the entire year and the top seeds in their conferences are in the biggest game works out pretty well for the NFL.

Looking back on how both the Colts and the Saints did for me during the year in the Confidence Pools, you'll notice the teams finished right next to one another to round out my Top 10 point-earning squads on the year. Considering they were both undefeated for a majority of the season, it's hardly surprising they finished in that bracket.

But a closer look at those numbers shows that the only way both teams earned me points this year was with victories. I never once correctly predicted a loss for either of these clubs, even if both of the records I ended up having predicted for Indianapolis and New Orleans were exactly right.

So, it sounds like I'm kinda fucked either way here. Which goes back to the girl thing, I guess. Or maybe I should just get on to how everybody else is doing—in these playoffs, I mean:

Oscar Nominee Picks: The End of an Era

So if I haven't bemoaned how I used to wake at the crack of dawn to watch the Oscar nominations gets announced live, I'll end it there and just say I'll probably sleep in tomorrow. Like I did last year.

I will be interested to see how the nominees are presented, however, now that there will be 10 films in the Best Picture category. Does that mean there will be 10 screens behind the presenters tomorrow morning? Or will it be the traditional five and too bad if you wanted to see all 10 listed at once?

All of this is rather insignificant stuff, of course, because as best I can tell, the race is already more or less between two films (Avatar and The Hurt Locker). But I think the decision to expand the number of films nominated for Best Picture ultimately stands to take away from what it meant to be a nominee when there were only five. Of course, I'm probably the guy who's always anti-expansion about many things (I still like to romanticize the days when only four teams made baseball's post-season), but I mean, really, we're talking about films like The Hangover and Star Trek as factoring into the Best Picture race. Um ... what? Is that a sign of a slow year? Sure, both amusing, entertaining films—and oh, those box office results don't hurt either—but my guess is that when some chick is trying to get me to see any new release after 2010 and uses the "it was nominated for Best Picture" on me, I'll probably just respond with something along the lines of, "Isn't everything nowaday?"

Call me a snob. Who knows, maybe I'll be back here next month making a case for Hangover or Star Trek, but from what I've seen so far, my vote actually at this point would be Inglourious Basterds.

Anyway, I've been doing a little studying for the past couple days and I'm sure my picks for the traditional "Big Eight" won't be all that different than what everybody else has (it's usually just one spot in each category):

BEST PICTURE
Avatar
District 9
An Education
The Hangover
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
Star Trek
Up
Up in the Air

Like I said, Avatar and The Hurt Locker are front-runners right now, although Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air and Precious also seem like the natural nominees. I wonder if the inclusion of Up ultimately spells the end for the Best Animated Feature category as the winner will presumably be nominated for Best Picture every year ... but I'm getting ahead of myself. An Education boasts strength from a SAG award and the largest block of the Academy.

District 9 boasts a strong following as well, and my final two spots go to the two aforementioned films, The Hangover and Star Trek, which are actually have probably the longest odds of any of the 10 films I'm guessing.

A Serious Man seemed to get too much of a love it/hate it reaction, and Nine seems to have been widely panned. The film that will come back to haunt me will be Invictus, although The Messenger or A Single Man could be spoilers too.

BEST DIRECTOR
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

As Tom O'Neil put it, "These seem to be set in stone." The spoiler would be District 9's Neill Blomkamp with Daniels presumably most at risk.

BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker

Again, basically the same five everybody else has although I'm more worried about Ben Foster bumping out Renner than Viggo Mortensen.

BEST ACTRESS
Emily Blunt, The Young Victoria
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gaborey Sibide, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Helen Mirren is the safer bet, I suppose, but I think Emily Blunt nudges her out.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christian McKay, Me and Orson Welles
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

McKay is really the pick here that I'm out on a limb with, incredibly likely to be displaced by either Matt Damon, Alfred Molina, Anthony Mackie or even one of the show's hosts, Alec Baldwin.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Melanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds
Mo'Nique, Precious
Samantha Morton, The Messenger

Honestly the shakiest of any category so far, thanks largely to my assumption that Laurent gets put here by the Academy instead of the lead role she was given by the SAG. Then there's her co-star Diane Kruger, who actually was nominated in this category for those SAG Awards. Julianne Moore is certainly voter-friendly, and Emma Thompson or Penelope Cruz would allow the Academy to throw in a former winner if they're in that mood.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, A Serious Man
Peter Docter & Bob Peterson, Up
Scott Neustatder & Michael H. Weber, (500) Days of Summer
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

(500) Days of Summer is most at risk here, depending on if the Academy wants to finally give James Cameron a screenplay nod with Avatar. The Hangover also wouldn't be a total surprise here and I actually wanted to pick that before settling on Summer.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchel, District 9
Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious
Tom Ford, A Single Man
Nick Hornby, An Education
Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner, Up in the Air

Ford's addaptation is my dark horse pick here, with the writers behind Fantastic Mr. Fox, Julie & Julia, Invictus and The Road all being just as likely possibilities.

UPDATE: I lied. I was up early and watched the nominations live on the web. More thoughts later.

The Bulls' Second Quarter: In which trade possibilities and free agency once again precede—possibly supercede—any genuine playoff optimism

I know things are bad when my uncle is joking (hopefully) about "adopting Memphis" as his new favorite NBA team.

My understanding is that the TV ratings for the team are actually better than last year, but I've also heard the topic of "Where's the outrage?" suggested more than once in regards to how Bulls fans are taking their usually sub-.500 team this year. I guess we're ignoring the continuing retardation of Derrick Rose by surrounding him with talent that "doesn't mesh well at all with his skill set." It seems to be OK since Rose is still young and the general consensus is that we're doing what it seems like Bulls fans do every year for as long as it's been since Jordan was called for pushing off made the shot that won us our last World Championship: We're relying on our next big acquisition. You know, that one move that'll put us over the top. I'm sure every city's got a similar franchise.

These days, that means the same Kirk Hinrich some people actually couldn't bring themselves to talk about moving for Kobe-fucking-Bryant a few years back is now back on the table when everybody plays fantasy GM. Tyrus Thomas is sort of the same story, but probably a tougher piece to move. And it's all about moving whomever we can to make cap room and hopefully land one of the many big fish, seeing as seemingly every game-changer becomes available during the much-ballyhooed free agent class of 2010. I think I've seen this story before, and usually all the biggest and best names from said "class" go to other teams and fans in Chicago are supposed to get excited about ... Ron Mercer. I'd try to think of a fine example of the sub-par talent I fear we're going to have end up settling with as what the front office will deem the best product they could offer, but that's ever-lingering thoughts on management that I was bitching about when I summarized my feelings after the first quarter of the season.

And since we last talked about the Bulls here on BMC, the team indeed still employs our man Vinny as the head coach. But just to point to one example that I'm not just another meatball blaming the front office without some real justification, Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski wrote up a fairly blistering piece following GM (kind of) Gar Forman's terribly awkward press appearance—amidst the daily speculation regarding Del Negro's job—in which he came out and basically told the media ... well, a couple lies and certainly not anything resembling a vote of confidence in that coach they have.

With a victory over the Spurs in San Antonio this evening, the Bulls have now won three in a row and are only one game under .500 on the year. The fact that this little winning streak (they had a pair of four-game winning streaks in this second quarter of the season) comes in the midst of a seven-game road trip is mildly remarkable, but as was said on the radio the other day, this year's Bulls team never gives you a feeling that they have something figured out that will translate to the consistency needed for, say, an extended playoff run.

And who's talking about a playoff run for these Bulls this season? The Cavs, as expected, will probably have the Central wrapped up by the time I'm done posting this and even if the Bulls do get into the playoffs (remember, it's actually harder to miss the post-season than make it since more teams get in than not in both the NBA and NHL), they'll be a lower seed that—at best—gives us another entertaining first-round series. Besides aforementioned Cleveland, then Boston, Orlando or even the Atlanta team that I had pegged as going out to the Bulls at the beginning of this year all appear to be squads that should have no problems with Chicago.

All of this, of course, assumes no roster changes despite the quiet hope for a move with slightly more news weight than today's shipment of Aaron Gray to New Orleans. The game that sadly leaps out to me the most from these past 20 or so contests since last writing about the Bulls would have to be the historic-in-a-bad-way loss to the Kings in which the team blew a 35-point lead.

But just to end on something of an upshot—and one of the most obvious reasons in regards to the players (besides Joakim, obviously) I keep coming back to the Bulls for this year—that Rose jersey is a lot more popular than I would have guessed. The kid keeps surprising me with what he can do every time I catch a game and at least one guy's already asked if his slam in the Suns game this weekend was the "Dunk of the Year?":

Conference Championship Picks: A Matter Of Trust

So I went back and did the little thing I do with red/green post-result-type-thing-a-madoo-hickey-bobber-ska-rinsky-poo on my NFL predictions (and, hey, "as long as I'm at it," last season's MLB picks too), and just to be clear, let me highlight how I did at predicting these playoffs at the beginning of the season: