The 333 Best Pop Songs of the 2000s: #194

#194: "A Woman" (2007) - JJ Grey & Mofro

Stax and Malaco sound-stealers JJ Grey (singer, songwriter, guitar, bass, and--here--tambourine) and Mofro (a soul/blues/jam band out of Florida) heard Ludacris's record that I listed yesterday--and they laughed: first at Ludicris's lyrics, and then at Ludacris himself, for Grey & Co. know that 'Cris won't be able to keep his woman for long if all he's focused on is the boudoir. Sure, he'll be able to run through his fantasies for a time, but after awhile, Ludacris will move on, and the next woman might not be as imaginative as the one 'Cris just sang about, and then 'Cris is S.O.L.: straight outta luck.

You see, Grey & Mofro knows something that Ludacris doesn't: Grey knows that a woman needs as much, uh, intimate caressing as a man does (like Ludacris mentions). Grey takes it one step further, though: he knows that he's got to be patient, understanding, open to criticism, and acquiescent enough to say, "yes, honey" even when he knows he might be in the right because he wants his woman to keep him around so that she'll cook for him in the day time and at night, again and again. Now that is a smart man.

Grey also knows better (to an extent) than to kiss and tell, as lyrically, he graduated from the Charlie Rich School of Discretion. Sure, he'll take his woman out dancing, and when this song comes on, he'll take her out to the dance floor and hold her tight and grab what she lets him out on the dance floor in front of others who don't give a flip what others see them do while dancing, and if he doesn't get too frisky, then when they get home, she'll take him upstairs. The next morning, when he wants to mention the night before to his woman who's cooking now (just like she did last night), he finds that even with his deep blue-eyed soul voice (his singing a Southern-fried cross of Ray Charles falsetto squeals of pleasure and Otis Redding's serrated soul stirrings), as earthy and fulfilling as it is, can't replicate the magic of the night before. The music can, though.

The music here--and it's all just basic country/blues chord progressions, as simple and direct as can be--is what sells the message, what tells us the secret story that Grey leaves to our imagination, as the music takes it's time, pauses at time for anticipation, and builds to a crescendo, pausing again to allow for some relief, before going right at it again.

The sax and the drums tell their whole story anyway--the drums his rhythm and the sax her...well...no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.

The 333 Best Pop Songs of the 2000s: #195

#195: "What's Your Fantasy" (2000) - Ludacris & Shawna

The funniest serious rapper in the game, Ludacris here--and this, if not quite revolutionary, is still pretty rare--sees his woman as his equal, vowing to pleasure his woman just as she pleasures him, and he uses his wit, his wild imagination, and his gift for meter to detail about sixty-nine (or so) different sexual fantasies and positions and settings (all of which rhyme, of course, and that takes some doing), and he makes it all sound exciting and fun, not lewd and crude (even though a cursory perusing of the lyrics may lead one to this latter presumption).

The woman, Shawna, goes along with it, but verbally she's completely overwhelmed. 'Cris's cadence here is masterful--heck, he doesn't even need the backbeat nor the synths (though I do like the electric typewriter plinks) to rock this joint. And his voice is as lacking in personality as his is full of it (take that phrase however you like), so much so that I wonder if 'Cris is fantasizing about this woman or just doing so to hear how far he can go himself, how creative he can be with his verse, and how much energy he can put into a four-minute pop song--and it's so much more than Shawna puts out (ahem), that I'm sure he'll be done with her pretty soon. Wonder if the next one will oblige him, or if 'Cris will be left to be the master of his domain.

The 333 Best Pop Songs of the 2000s: #196

#196: "You Know I'm No Good (Remix)" (2006) - Amy Winehouse featuring Ghostface Killah

And, after a one-day patriotic pause, we continue our tour of society's fascination with outre female celebrity behavior. The adjective female is important here, 'cause the public and paparazzi didn't rail away at Keith Moon, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards (okay, maybe him, 'cause he was busted for smack), John Lennon (okay, him too, but not because of booze or alcohol, but mainly because of the "more popular than Jesus" comment, and the fact that he publically bedded and bedded with the woman who "broke up the Beatles"), Pete Townshend, Nikki Sixx, Vince Neil, Mick Mars, Tommy Lee (if you've never read Motley Crue: The Dirt, and you're a fan of rock and roll/metal/pop music, then you're missing out on a well-written and endlessly fascinating tale of decadence and stupidity), Biggie Smalls, etc....Why not those guys? 'Cause they're guys! It's all in fun, man!

For women, though, it's not all in fun; indeed, it's trashy, slutty, behavior. And even moreso than Britney Spears, the one "diva" who seemingly never left the tabloids for two solid years was Brit Amy Winehouse. Drunken behavior, violent behavior, nonsensical behavior, loud behavior, boorish behavior, vulgar behavior--you name it, and Winehouse says yes. We're amazed, we're shocked, we shake our heads, but folks--we should have know it was coming. She warned us. She told us. Before most had ever heard of her, she recorded this song, and in the freaking title she tells us to beware. She doesn't mean it in any self-pitying way...not the way she sings it. She means no good to, uh, mean follow her libido, have fun, assert her independence, to go where she wants to go when she wants to go with whomever she wants to go.

If Britney Spears is cybernoir femme fatale, then Winehouse is a throwback to mid-twentieth century noir. She with the sliding, soulful, sultry voice slinks around this one, letting her voice ease in-and-out of the melody, almost lazily, almost intoxicatingly, but each move, each verbal shift is designed, and it's designed to let that melody and voice purr, to entice, while producer Mark Ronson's bass keeps us--and Winehouse--moving forward steadily, letting us know that though Winehouse may not be any good for us, what she has to offer is more tonic than toxic...at least until the cameras arrive.

The 333 Best Pop Songs of the 2000s: #197

#197: "List of Demands (Reparations)" (2007) - Saul Williams

On the day the first African-American President of the United States of American will be inaugurated, I proffer this paen to the poor and disenfranchised, to those who've felt betrayed and (at least partially) abandoned by their government; this call to action, to stand up and be heard, no microphone necessary (sorry, Nas, Williams tops you here), is brought to you by published poet (and Nuyorican Grand Slam poetry champion) Saul Williams and producer Trent Reznor. Williams (in his guise of Niggy Tardust) wants reparations; not monetary reparations, mind you (as many have feared would happen once Obama was in office), but social ones. He wants the government and the corporations and the people to question the status quo in order to enact social and ethical changes that benefit the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to be free, the homeless, and the wretched refuse, because they are we and we are America, the most prosperous nation in the world, a nation in which no man should have to make this list of demands for reparations, but if he does, we're glad that Saul is doing it, and we're glad that Reznor is providing us with the best hard-rocking dance music [those synths cut and slash like Steve Jones's guitar in "Anarchy in the U.K."] he's ever had to offer ( for just in case we don't get it, we'll at least dance to it, and maybe, just maybe, the information can seep in), and we're glad that we the people of the United States of American can elect a man based on his even-temperament and promise of hope and prosperity not fifty years after a man of his race would even be allowed to vote in the first place.

The 333 Best Pop Songs of the 2000s: #198

#198: "Piece of Me" (2007) - Britney Spears

Things have changed, haven't they? The pop-music chart is full of commercial shill recordings, the culture is fascinated with celebrity, and artistry be damned. What's happened to the good old days of, oh say--fifty years ago? There's much to be said of the demise of the greatest generation and of the American values that have since sunk into the slime that is today's degenerate culture, but let's stick strictly to pop music, just for the sake of brevity.

Right now, according to Billboard, the number one song in America is "Just Dance" by Lady Gaga & Colby O'Donis, and lyrically it's not much different than "The Stroll" by The Diamonds...from fifty years ago (where it charted as high as #4). The number two song in the land is a song about women asserting their independence: "Single Ladies" by Beyonce, the former lead singer of what was (at the time of her departure) the biggest-selling group (boy or girl) in the nation. Forty years ago, Diana Ross started separating from the Supremes (with an official name change from The Supremes to Diana Ross and The Supremes) with the #1 single "Love Child," a song about a woman whose independence is strangled by society's mores. Want more lyrical similarities? I know you do.

#3 song today: "Heartless" by superstar producer Kanye West. Fifty years ago, Phil Spector began his road to superstar producer by writing, co-singing, and producing the #1 song "To Know Him Is to Love Him" by the Teddy Bears.

#4 song today: "Live Your Life" by T.I. and Rihanna. Forty-one years ago, Otis Redding teamed with Carla Thomas to sing a much more lyrically-subversive song: "Tramp" (reached #24 on the pop charts and #2 on the R&B charts).

#5 song today: "Love Story" by country singer Taylor Swift, the only country song in the top ten. Forty years ago, Jeannie C. Riley had the only top-ten country song (and it went to #1) in the pop charts: "Harper Valley P.T.A." Both songs are narrative in lyrical structure, but Riley's is much more salacious.

I could go on and on, but my point is that lyrically, pop songs aren't much different than they were during the "golden" era of yesteryear. Though musicians can use words now that were verboten forty/fifty years ago, the lyrics' meanings and intentions haven't changed a whit; artists are just less subtle now...but contemporary audiences aren't as square, either.

There have always been popular (meaning top ten on the pop charts) songs about gangstas and murder ("Tom Dooly" by The Kingston Trio, #1 in 1958; "Stagger Lee" by Lloyd Price, #1 in '59), prostitution/pimping/ho'ing ("Kansas City" by Wilbert Harrison, #1 in '59), marijuana ("Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" by The Platters, #1 in 1959), the glorification of alcohol ("Tequila" by The Champs, #1 in 1958), paganism/cults/devil worship ("The Witch Doctor" by David [The Chipmunks] Seville, #1 in 1958), teenage rebellion/rejection of parental teaching ("Yakety Yak" by The Coasters, #1 in 1958; "Get a Job" by The Silhouettes, #1 in 1958; and a whole slew of others); masturbation ("All I Have to Do Is Dream" by The Everly Brothers, #1 in 1958), homosexual come-ons ("Jailhouse Rock" by Elvis Presley, #1 in 1957), and--worst of all--frank, outright, sexual invitation: the booty call ("Come Softly to Me" by The Fleetwoods, #1 in 1959). You think the parents and corporate heads and radio-station owners knew what these songs were really about? I didn't think so.

However, much of the fuss about popular music today isn't so much the sex or the debauchery (though those two are still sticking points) as much as it is about celebrating celebrity. Some music critics--or, rather, I should say some critics of music get upset when they hear that Miley Cyrus or The Jonas Brothers have best-selling albums and concerts, as the popular consensus among those (men) of my generation (and subsequent ones as well) who grew up admiring Guns N' Roses, R.E.M., U2, or other similar mainstream rock bands is that Cyrus and Bros. Jonas have no credentials, that they made the charts by coasting (and cashing) in on their celebrity. And in one facet, my friends are (probably) right: some of the celebrity pop artists--meaning those who were celebrities/actors before they became professional musicians--did indeed use their fame to launch musical careers.

But my point is: so what? Does it really matter how they were able to get a record deal? It shouldn't. I know that, in some parallel universe, were I to ever gain enough acting fame that I was able to land a recording contract, I'd do so in heartbeat--in 2/4 time--fortissmo! Making a living as a start-up rock/pop/folk/country musician is difficult; making a continuous good living doing so is...rare. Much involves luck, and much involves duplicitous (and some illegal) activity. Any way an artist can find to play his/her music to whatever audience (especially a paying one) he/she desires is the right way. Selling out? Please. It's just selling. No difference between, let's say, Metallica and Miranda Cosgrove when it comes to artistic intent (ability talent is another matter, and no, I don't mean that as a slam on Cosgrove, either). They both want to make music the way they hear it in their heads, and they both have songs to sing, and they both think they're talented enough that others would pay to hear them make their music. And they're both right. We're all consumers of music, anyway, right? So, shouldn't the charges of selling out and consumerism be summarily dismissed? Yup.

What should matter is the quality of the music, not whether we heard it on a commercial or in a coffee house. Sure, there have been some awful celebrity musicians (Lindsay Lohan, Ashlee Simpson, Bruce Willis, Frankie Avalon, etc...) and there have been some great ones, too (Ricky Nelson, Miley Cyrus, and...oh my...I think that's about it). Okay, so there have been only a couple of great ones, still though, Paris Hilton is not a bad singer just because she's Paris Hilton: she's a bad singer because she's a bad singer. On the other hand, star quality does not equate with a lack of singing talent, and neither does a pretty face or an attractive body, and neither does outrageous (and stupid) public behavior.

Which brings us (finally) to the singer of the current song on our countdown: Britney Spears. Has she made a fool of herself in public? Yes. Does she appear to be an irresponsible parent? Yes. Does she appear to be an ingrateful child? Yes. Immature? Yes. Bad public hair day? Yes. Drunk? Yes. Poor fashion choices? Yes. Made poor relationship choices? Yes. Some poor career choices? Yes. Overweight at times? Yes.

Okay. Look over those questions again, and ask them of yourself, and see what your answers are. I certainly don't want to divulge mine. Maybe that's it, though. Maybe we see Britney (or any other celebrity) as big-screen versions of ourselves. Maybe we condemn her public behavior because she's famous, not because she's white trash (and she's not; at least, I don't think so). Think of all the scandalous and unbecoming and obscene ways we or our friends have acted in front of others in our lifetimes. What do we do when it's someone we know? We tsk tsk, we talk, and we forgive (and ofttimes forget). When it's ourselves? We realize we've erred, we realize we're only human, we apologize, and move on. We may stumble a time or two more, but we grow older, and we mature, and we stop acting out. We then start belittling those who do just as we did. And we can't wait for them to do it some more, 'cause we're never more cocky or confident than we are when we can sneer at the boorish behavior of others because we're behaving better than they are right now. We look so much better in comparison.

I believe this snobbery is part of the reason (and it's a big part, though jealosy and envy and equating pop music to drivel all play their parts as well) as to why Britney is hated by so many people (including many of my peers). So, for the sake of this one song here--"Piece of Me"--let's put aside our petty prejudices, shall we? Let's take a look (and listen) to the music without worrying about the status of the musician.

The music's a swarthy little piece of electrofunk minimalism. It lathers itself in sythesized sweat , and it hums instead of pops (unlike Spears's early hits). It's sultry dance music for the Blade Runner set: if androids dreamt of electric sex instead of electric sheep, then this would be its sinuous soundtrack. That erotic-robitic element extends to Spears's vocals as well. They're autotuned (which is all the rage these days), filtered through an audio/computer device that distorts and fragments, and its effect is not to mask (as many have said) the lack of singing ability, but instead to match the mood of the music, and here it works well, as Spears deliberately undersings, coming across like a femme fatale in a sleazy cybernoir film. It's effective, as not only is Spears's voice sensuous, it's also removed and distant. This aloofness underscores the wit of the lyric, which is about...

Britney's celebrity life. And the people fascinated with it. And she's almost turned on by it--'cause she knows we are. The way she sings the title cements that bit of knowledge, turning a cliche into a double entendre of sexual mores, wish fulfillment, punishment, and vicarious living. In doing so, she one-ups Michael Jackson, whose wonderful tune in "Leave Me Alone" is undercut by the hypocrisy of the lyric. In "Piece of Me," Spears doesn't accuse nor does she apologize; no, she just casts her non-judgmental eye upon herself and upon those who would seek to condemn her, and she asks, now that everything is out in the open,

Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have's mine own,
Which is most faint. Now, 'tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell,
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.

Pigskin Prognostications, Super Bowl XLIII

Offense vs. Defense. The Cardinals' three thousand-yard receivers and two-time NFL MVP QB versus the best defense in football (which includes this year's Defensive MVP--linebacker James Harrison). Who wins this one*?

Vegas has already set the line: Pittsburgh -6 1/2. I've already heard TV analysts giving this one to Pittsburgh. Remember, though, Arizona has been the underdog--heavy underdog--in each of its three postseason games thus far. Arizona has also faced completely different teams in terms of both offensive and defensive philosophies. Atlanta played smashmouth run with precise play-action passes on offense and a read-and-react defense. Carolina played cutback run with deep-ball throws to Steve Smith on offense and an attacking--occasionally blitzing--defense. Philly played a draw/cutback run and screen/slant (Curtis)/deep-ball (Jackson) pass on offense and a blitz-heavy defense. Arizona's played--and beat--them all. Philly gave 'em the most trouble, but their defense failed more in individual breakdowns than it did in philosophy, and that was only on a couple of big plays. So, Arizona should handle Pittsburgh pretty well, right? Right? Let's see.

On defense, Arizona should fare well. Pittsburgh's O-line isn't the massive one Philly's is, and their left tackle's not as quick, either. Arizona should do better rushing the passer. Stopping the run? Well, Philly probably could have eventually run it well, but they gave up on that one pretty soon; Pittsburgh won't. Even when they don't run it well, they still run it. So expect Pittsburgh to gain more on the ground against Arizona than Philly did. They shouldn't run for any tremendous gains, though, as Arizona's defense is well-disciplined now (what in the world turned their season around defensively?), and their D-tackle Darnell Dockett's as tough as they come. I don't think Parker will gash them, and I don't think he'll amass over one-hundred on them (unless, of course, Pittsburgh's got the game well in hand by the time the third-quarter's halfway through). I think for Pittsburgh to succeed on offense, it'll have to be through the air.

Pittsburgh's offense works best on the fly. Roethlisberger loves to throw it deep to Holmes (and occasionally Washington), and he's a fantastic--and accurate--improviser on the run. This is Arizona's weak spot defensively (during the post-season); their linebackers and safeties have had a tendency to lose focus whenever the play goes awry. They (the Arizona D) can be had on play-action fakes and pump fakes and QB scrambles because it seems as if they are coached so well to stay disciplined to stay in their zones that receivers can fly right by at times. As long as Arizona can bottle up the Pittsburgh running game early and control it with their front seven, then Roetlisberger will have to relegated to throw it to Hines Ward (if he plays) on the curls and out routes, and mosey down the field that way. If that happens--if Arizona can let Pittsburgh play ball control without allowing any big plays, then Arizona's D will have done it's job well. Barring any defense scoring (yeah, I know) or short fields (from turnovers or the kicking game), Arizona should be able to limit Pittsburgh's offense to seventeen-or-fewer points. Should.

Now--and here comes the fun part, the facet of the game that everyone wants to see, including me--Arizona's offense versus Pittsburgh's defense.

Pittsburgh's defense is similar to Philadelphia's in that both disguise their blitzes and coverages and change them up nearly every single play. In that aspect, Warner shouldn't worry too much because he carved up Philly's defense for twenty-four points in the first half (and would have carved them for much more in the second half had Arizona not decided to play so conservatively). Warner's experience will serve him well, as he should be able to recognize (and call for) coverage quickly, and he will have his hot reads identified. He's got a quick release, and in the Philly playoff game, it was timed--well-timed.

However, Pittsburgh plays a three-four, meaning more linebackers dropping in coverage. Plus, Pittsburgh sports the best linebacking crew in the league--no other teams come close to the talent Pittsburgh has there. They're faster, they're harder hitters, and they're smarter--at least they play that way. Warner's faced a three-four once this year (that I know of): the Jets' D. Warner turned the ball over six times (three picks, three fumbles) against that defense (albeit that was in week four)--and they weren't (aren't) as good as Pittsburgh's front seven (or eleven).

On top of that, Pittsburgh's got the best strong safety in the league: Troy Polamalu. Part of Polamalu's greatness comes from his versatility: he's fast (and quick) enough to excell in coverage, in space, and he can hit and tackle as well as any linebacker on the Steeler squad. LeBeau uses Polamalu all over the place. Mainly, of course, in position, but he's lined up at corner, and at DE, and at linebacker. I've seen him play right over center and then drop back twenty yards and intercept a ball. Harrison's almost as versatile, and with him (Harrison) playing the weak side and Polamalu playing the strong side, teams have found it difficult (and some--like Baltimore--next to impossible) to throw consistently (or consistently well) against them.

One team did, though: Indianapolis. Peyton Manning complete twenty-one passes for two-hundred-and-forty yards and three touchdowns against the Steelers in week ten...and no interceptions. He didn't fumble, and he was only sacked twice. I mention that game because Arizona's offense bears a striking similarity to Indianapolis's. Both favor three-wide-receiver sets with a TE. Arizona runs a traditional (two WRs, one TE, one FB, one HB) offense more often than Indy does, but the Cardinals will go for long stretches (normal stretches--meaning not hurry-up) using the Indy offensive set, employing the quick release when a full blitz is coming. A few differences, though: Indy throws to their TE often from this set; Arizona does not. Primarily, that's because Dallas Clark is an all-pro, and none of Arizona's TEs are anywhere near Clark's level of talent.

Still, though, Arizona can beat Pittsburgh through the air. Their wide receivers--especially Fitzgerald--are so talented that Pittsburgh must commit more players to them than they'd like. I'm not saying that Pittsburgh will; I'm saying that they must. Philly played the single-coverage/blitz Warner-into-making-mistakes game, and Warner torched them. I think if LeBeau uses Jim Johnson's strategy, then Arizona's gonna score and score early and score often. Again, though, Pittsburgh's D is better--almost to a player (corners notwithstanding)--than Philly's D, and perhaps LeBeau will count on his players' talent to overcome the Arizona O-line so much that Warner won't have time to hit his hot reads (or Fitzgerald, even though Fitzgerald often is Warner's hot read). I don't think so, though. I think LeBeau will bump Arizona's receivers at the line and clog all the short-to-intermediate zones, making Warner hold on to the ball until the deep routes are open, hoping that by this time the pocket will collapse, as LeBeau will--on most plays--blitz at least two players. At least, that's what I'd do if I had Pittsburgh's D, and I wanted to beat Arizona.

Since I don't know what LeBeau will do (and neither does anybody on Arizona's team, either), I'll say that he employs the partial blitz/take-away-the-short-routes scheme at least half the time, and that he'll force Warner into a couple of picks (at least), and that one of these will either be returned for a touchdown or will give Pittsburgh significant field position. I'll also say that Warner finds a way to get the ball to Fitzgerald or Boldin or Breaston for at least two scores and maybe a couple of long strikes or several mid-rangers for long drives, and that Arizona scores three touchdowns on offense. Plus a field goal.

Then we have special teams. Arizona's Neil Rackers's kickoffs...uh...need to improve. If he kicks it out-of-bounds and gives Pittsburgh the ball at the forty yard line more than once, then Arizona's going to be in for a long night. Similarly, if Mitch Berger's punting doesn't improve, then Arizona's gonna have a fun time scoring all night. I'll give this nod to Arizona, 'cause if both are given good field position, then Arizona's more likely to score than Pittsburgh.

So, let's see, what do we have: I have Pittsburgh scoring about thirteen on offense (I don't think they'll hit the seventeen) alone, one short-field (provided by their defense) touchdown, and one defensive touchdown. That's twenty-seven. I have Arizona scoring twenty-four on offense alone, and a short-field (thanks Mitch Berger) field goal. That's twenty-seven. Since the game's not going to end in a tie, and all things are even, then I'm going with a factor I haven't mentioned yet: coaching. Both are fine motivators, yadda yadda yadda, but Whisenhunt spent six years coaching in Pittsburgh, his last three as offensive coordinator. Does this give him somewhat of an edge? Well, considering how closely he worked with Roethlisberger and Ward (and against Polamalu and Townsend and Farrior and Foote on D in practice), then I'll say it does. I slight edge. Three points worth, even.

Final score: Cardinals 30, Steelers 27.

*Note: In all fairness, I must say that I'm a Cardinals fan, and that if I were a Steeler fan, I might--might--see the final score going the other way...and with a larger differential.

Fifth Down, Championship Games

What a Sunday! Two great games, and I correctly predicted both games' winners--both of whom I like. I'm pulling for the Cards, though. If only Jake were still around....

My original comments/predictions in italics:


Cardinals 24, Eagles 21 - I've read most of the predictions, and most make this one an easy victory for Philly, most likely based on Philly's thrashing of Arizona a few weeks ago. However, much like the Colts three years ago when they won the Super Bowl, Arizona's defense is peaking at the right time, stopping the run and running it much more then they did during the regular season, playing more ball control. I've heard about the Westbrook factor, but if the Redbirds can bottle up Michael Turner and DeAngelo Williams, then they should be able to contain Westbrook, too. What worries me--'cause I'm a Cardinals fan--is the humungous Philly O-line, the biggest in the league. Arizona's D-line is built more for mauling than it is for jetting around the edges, and I think McNabb will have ample time to throw. If Arizona can bump Philly's receivers at the line, get them off their routes, then I think Arizona's zone schemes can work, 'cause Philly's receivers are rather smallish, and they can be jammed.

On the other side of the ball, Warner's faced Jim Johnson's defense before this year, and I don't think he'll have the same problems, as surely--surely--Arizona will keep a back (or two) to protect Warner on his throws, and if Warner has time, he'll produce more than McNabb will, as Arizona's receivers are much better at running precise routes and catching the ball than Philly's. I don't think Arizona will run the ball well, but I do think they'll run it consistently--or at least they should, otherwise the Eagles will kill Warner. I think Arizona, though, learned its lesson from its last loss to Philly, and I think the Redbirds will prevail.

McNabb did have ample time to throw, but his throws--most of 'em, especially in the first half--were mis-timed, overthrown, or underthrown. Philly ran the ball eighteen times for ninety-seven total yards--as a team. Arizona stymied Westbrook and Buckhalter, and McNabb was the only one that gashed them on the run (one twenty-one yard scamper), and that was early. Speaking of McNabb, he threw the ball forty-seven times, and when a QB throws it that many times--especially in a playoff game--the outcome is usually not favorable because the defense knows it's playing pass, and the play-action passes don't work, and the safeties and linebackers play better in coverage, and the short slants and screens and circle routes don't work as well because the defense can stay in coverage without worrying about the run.

And that's what happened on Philly's last drive, and on their last offensive play. Curtis had to fight to get off his defender, and he couldn't get to the ball in time (and I'm not sure he could have caught in anyway, 'cause McNabb threw it high), 'cause the coverage was close and tight because there was no separation, and there was no separation because the Eagles were working against the clock and 'zona knew McNabb was going to pass it, and their defenders didn't have to worry about the run.

As far as the Cardinals' offense goes: twenty-eight runs, twenty-nine passes--about as balanced as an offense can get. The runs kept the play-action passes going, and even when Warner dropped straight back, the defense couldn't immediately play pass because Arizona had run the ball consistently (and ran it well early). Thus, Arizona takes a gigantic early lead, and the Eagles were too far behind to catch up by the end of the game.

Of course, having Larry Fitzgerald catching those passes from Warner made a humongous difference, but the Eagles knew that Fitzgerald would be getting the ball early and often, and yet they still left him in single coverage (Asante Samuel is good, but he's not that good)--what was Jim Johnson thinking?

Final score: Cardinals 32, Eagles 25

Steelers 20, Ravens 16 - If both teams play at about the same level of intensity, discipline, and aptitude this week as they did last, then Pittsburgh will slaughter Baltimore, as Baltimore's offense played an ug-ly game against Tennessee--and the Steeler's are better defensively than Tennessee. Maybe offensively, too. I think, though, that Baltimore improves its offense, and I think they'll cause a couple of turnovers, with Ed Reed returning one for a score, but I really don't see them scoring an offensive touchdown against Pittsburgh (not unless Pitssburgh gives it to 'em in scoring territory), as the Chargers had one good drive against Pittsburgh's starters--and that was the very first one. Heck, San Diego only had the ball once during the third quarter...ONCE! San Diego's offense is much better than Baltimore's.
As far as the Pittsburgh offense--Fast Willie Parker's no longer as fast as he used to be, so he won't gash Baltimore's defense the way Chris Johnson did (before he got hurt), but he can move it well enough to keep Reed and Jim Leonhard close to the line for Roethlisberger to be able to thread the zone or get some single-coverage a few times so that Holmes and Washington--faster than the Ravens' CBs--can fly loose. A think a few big plays is all Pittsburgh will need.

Okay, I didn't call this one as well as I did the NFC game, 'cause--especially late--the Ravens were able to run on Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh's running attack--and Roethlisberger's multiple looks and head turns--did keep Reed from being a factor (only two tackles and nothing else), and Holmes did manage to get deep once; however, that alone wasn't enough to win the game for Pittsburgh. Their defense--especially in the second half--did that. They confounded and confused Joe Flacco all game, and in the fourth quarter, with the game still tight, Flacco threw it away twice, one going back for a touchdown (by Polamalu).

Before the game, some analyst--and it's going to bug me that I can't remember who--stated that Flacco's inexperience would be the Raven's downfall. This analyst--I think it was someone on the NFL Network, perhaps Steve Mariucci--recalled that Ben Roethlisberger--in his rookie year--took Pittsburgh to the AFC Championship game, and he thereby lost that game, throwing three interceptions. Mariucci (or whoever) finished by saying that he foresaw the same thing happening here, that Flacco--as unflappable as he seems--just didn't have the experience necessary to top this defense in this type of game. Well I'll be doggone if he didn't nail it. Right on the head.

If indeed it was Mariucci, then perhaps some team might think about looking at him next year for a head-coaching job. Dude knows his stuff.

Final score: Steelers 23, Ravens 14