I have to wonder where the bottom is. How much lower can this thing go. Since Franklin's firing, AU has lost two straight....and in embarrasing fashion.
They lost to what I thought was probably the worst team in the SEC - Arkansas. The scary thing was, not only did the offense continue to struggle monumentally, but the defense struggled too, allowing a pitiful Arkansas offense to actually look good.
Then, last night, Auburn blew a 17-3 first half lead, allowing 31 unanswered points to lose to a mediocre West Va. team. WVU had 17 plays of over ten yards. Their running back had 207 yards rushing. Pat White threw three touchdown passes. The defense, which looked so awesome saving victories for the anemic offense earlier in the year, has now totally tanked.
At the start of this year I was excited at the prospect of a high potency offense to go with our strong defense. Immediately I saw that the offense was going to be a drawn out process. Then the offense just became bad. Then the defense began to struggle. Now the defense is just plain bad. Add to this bad punting, bad field goal kicking, and inconsistent kickoffs and what do you have? You have a BAD TEAM. That's right, AU is a bad team. No two ways about it.
There is of course rumbling about firing the coach. That may be what we need, but I do not know for sure. I have never been totally sold on Tubberville. He bought a LOT of patience with me in '04, going 13-0. But, that patience has now worn off. The offense since that time has progressively gotten worse - spiraling down hill so fast as to make you dizzy. Now the rest of the team is following suit. I see only two possible explanations for this. Either AU just does not have the players to compete or they have the players but they are not properly coached. (Ok, a third possibility is they do not have the players AND they are not well coached) Either way, all this falls on Tubby. If they do not have the players, whose fault is that? If they are not well coached, whose fault is that?
I am hesitant to scream for his firing because things like this have happened to great coaches before. In 1969 and 1970, Bama fans were yelling for the end of the Bryant era. He basically went somewhere around 6-5 those years, and lost to AU both years. He was past his prime they said. The game had passed him by, they said. But, he stayed and won 3 National Championships in the 1970s. There is no way Bama could have been that good without him.
In a far more recent occurence, Penn State has struggled for several years. Fans were reluctant to call for Joe Pa's head because he had been there longer than most of them had been alive, but certainly people were assuming the old man was way past his prime. But now look. PSU is undefeated, ranked high, and is in my opinion one of the four or five best teams in the country.
Therefore, it is possible that Tubby's best years are to come. Perhaps this is a slump that he will get out of. Therefore, I am slow to just automatically call for his firing. However, I tend to think that he is just not into it like he should be. He seems almost nonchalant most of the time. To me, he just does not come across like he has the fire (in fact, he never has). I think at least if he stays, he needs to make some major changes.
He has had almost the same staff of coaches since his arrival, except for the revolving door at offensive and defensive coordinator. He keeps firing or otherwise loosing his coordinators, then hiring new ones and forcing them to use the existing staff. On the whole this has worked fairly well on defense (where he has lost at least two coordinators to Texas), but it has caused untold problems on offense as seen by the whole Tony Franklin fiasco. (Franklin wanted to bring his own people in, but Tubs would not let him. Franklin therefore had to teach both the players AND the other coaches his offense and apparently the coaches were not too eager to learn.)
I believe at the very least Tubby needs to evaluate where they are at right now, and make changes during this off season. Every single coach on staff needs to be evaluated. He needs to fire those who are not performing. I know it would be hard, but life is hard.
If he is not willing to do this, or if really deep down his fire is gone, he needs to just resign.
If he is unwilling to do either, then whether or not AU fires him, they need not adjust his contract any at all in a positive way until major improvement is made. I do not believe in firing him and having to pay the multi-million dollar buyout. But I certainly would not give him one minute of an extension or one penny of a raise - at least until something changes.
I wonder if Tubby is still miffed at the 2003 ordeal, though. In '03, AU was suppose to be fairly good, but they lost four games, never looked particularly good - especially on offense. In 2002 their offense was pretty good but they lost then OC Bobby Patrino to Louisville. Rather than hiring a new OC, Tubby made 'joint OCs' out of offensive line coach Hugh Nall and Steve Ensminger. The whole thing was a disaster and the offense looked inept all year. Right before the Iron Bowl, some AU officials, including then AD David Housel went on a private plane to Louiville to coax Patrino to come to AU after they fired TUbby. Word leaked out, the whole thing blew up. AU backed out. Auburn beat Alabama. The next year Tubby hired Al Borges as OC and AU went 13-0 and should have played for the National Title. AU officials looked stupid for doing what they did. But, really, at the time, I was thinking it was the right thing to do - just maybe not the right way to do it.
My how things changed after that. AUs offense has been on a downhill slide since then. After the '07 season Tubby fired Borges (still keeping his good ole boys on the staff) hired Franklin without allowing him to bring his people in and the whole thing looks like I don't know what. In what is more than a bit of irony, Tubby fired Franklin mid season leaving, you guessed it, Nall and Ensminger in charge of the offense again and the first game after that AU lost to a horrible Arkansas team coached by......Bobby Patrino.
All in all, to me Tubby has been an average at best coach who had one outstanding year (in which he had FOUR first round NFL picks on the team including the entire offensive backfield). Beyond this, he has had a couple of pretty good years, a couple of pretty bad years (the present being the worst), and a bunch of mediocre years. He is a mediocre coach, in my opinion. Doug Barfield was fired after five years in which he tried to lead a probation damaged team while the Bear was still coaching across the state. I believe that Barfield would have done at least as good as Tubby in the same situation, and Tubby would have done at least as bad as Barfield in his situation. Yet, we are suppose to love Tubby and Barfield is a forgotten joke of a coach in Auburn history.
I think the biggest problem I have is that Tubby has not taken advantage of his strong situation. Sure, he has beat Bama six in a row, but it has been a highly damaged Bama team and he has not beat them in an impressive fashion the whole time. The average margin has been about 8 points, and the largest margin has only been by 10 points. But, what is more alarming to me is that even during these years of winning consistently against Bama, and even after going 13-0, he has not capitalized with great recruiting classes. AU is a wonderful and beautiful institution with great tradition. Yet even with all that in his favor, Auburn is already way behind Bama and Nick Saban in recruiting. It will only get worse from here.
I really do not know where AU can go from here, but SOMETHING has to change.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Bad times on the Plains
I have been wanting to write about the sorry state of affairs at Auburn all year long, but have not gotten around to it. I'm glad I haven't because yesterday the whole thing took a major turn of events. I do not have any idea if this will be a positive move or further the slide downhill.
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Tony Franklin of the much vaunted Tony Franklin System was hired last December to take Auburn's offense to new heights. After six games, they have fallen to unprecedented depths. During the middle of the week after an embarrassing loss to Vanderbilt and facing yet another conference opponent in Arkansas in three days, Coach Tommy Tuberville relieved Franklin of his duties. I really do not know what all to say about this except that I am almost one hundred percent sure there is much more than meets the eye.
Franklin coached High School Ball with apparently some level of success for several years. In the late 1990s, he became an assistant at the University of Kentucky (his home state). He was QB coach and coached such greats as Tim Couch, who set all sorts of records, as well as Jared Lorenzen, who was also quite successful. I believe both of these guys averaged well over 300 yards passing per game. Kentucky had a phenominal offense and a very average at best defense. But, Kentucky did win more than they usually have - even going to bowl games. If they only had a defense.....
However, the whole thing fell apart at KY, as Head Coach Hal Mumme was run out of town under allegations of wrongdoing. Franklin retreated out of coaching, wrote a book about his time at UK where he named names in the whole scandal. He then began developing and marketing his system mostly to high school teams all over the country.
His system drew teams from all over the place. Close to my home is Hoover High School, who had used his system to win like five out of six state championships - being so good that they got their very own MTV show called "Two a Days."
Some colleges also ran his system. Most notably of these have been Texas Tech. The Red Raiders have always been a middle of the road team. But in recent years their offense has been so good that they have begun winning. If they only had a defense......
Well, apparently, they have finally developed some defense and are now a top ten team. Last weak they scored 58 points.
I believe other teams either run the TF system or some offense similar. I believe that Oregon was running it and was undefeated and one of the best teams in the country last year until their QB got hurt. West Virginia has run some variation on the spread offense to much success. The current number one team in the country, Oklahoma, runs some variation of the spread (I do not know how related it is to the Franklin system) and they have the best offense around.
I went onto Youtube, and looked at some old Kentucky highlights with Couch and Lorenzen. VERY exciting stuff - even realizing that these were highlights and undoubtedly there were plenty of unseccuessful plays mixed in, too, that weren't shown.
So, we get this genius, this guy who makes Kentucky, Texas Tech, and Oregon to be contenders, this guy whose systems wins High School Championships, we get him to come to Auburn - a team whose offense has struggled in the past couple of years, but who has a very strong defense. We get that offense playing to the level of the defense, and we will be tough to beat. Many in AU land were excited.
I expected that they would not be lighting up the scoreboard right off the bat. I was glad we opened with a very weak team, followed by a very mediocre team, so as to help get in stride. I figured by the third game of the year, we should be showing massive improvement.
Well, the first game against La Monroe was somewhat concerning. Sure, they won 34-0, which is actually a quite modest score for a 'powerhouse' against a weak sister. However, one touchdown came on a defensive play where a fumble was recovered and returned, and another came on a beautiful punt return. Therefore, Auburn's vaunted, high octane spread offense scored a whopping 20 points against this gosh-awful team from the bayou state. On top of that, in four quarters against a warm up opponent, AU had less than 100 yards of passing, moving the ball most effectively on the ground. This is the Spread?
The next week found AU playing a fair, but not really good, Southern Miss team. The first two possessions, Auburn marched down the field beautifully, but fumbled the ball away deep in USM territory both times. They still went on to build something like a 17-0 (or something like that) halftime lead then held on to win 27-13. Not great, but at least there was promise. Without the two fumbles, it could have been 31-0 at the half, and who knows where it would have ended up. Now, this is what I am talking about!! Not great, but progress - potential greatness in the making.
However, since the first half of that game, the wheels have completely come off. Auburn beat Mississippi State, a bona finde cellar team in the SEC in probably the most embarring win in Auburn history. Their high charged offense scored five points! And two of them were for Mississippi State, winning 3-2. Oh, well, I thought. Still working some kinks out. Maybe MSU has a great defense. That was shot down for me the next week when MSU lost to Georgia Tech something like 38-7!
The next game was against LSU - the defending National Champs. Very good team. AU managed to go up 14-3 and knock their starting QB out of the game. (One of the TDs was an interception for a TD so only one offensive TD) The other QB for LSU came in and played flawlessly in the second half. Still AU managed to drive for a TD in the fourth and regain the lead at 21-20. A short punt set LSU up near midfield late, and they drove for the winning TD. Oh well. They are great. We may be making at least some progress.
Next came Tennessee - who is very sub par for a UT team. Again, we build a 14-3 lead early, in part due to a Tennessee fumble recovered in the end zone. We hang on to win 14-12 - putting constant pressure on our defense to hold UT time and again with good field position as our offense could not move the ball.
Finally, the last nail came last week against Vandy. Granted, this is the best Vandy team in a long time. They are undefeated - the deepest they have been so since WWII!! However, they have done so through just finding some way to win. Actually, coming into the game, they were rated last in the SEC in total offense and total defense. (How they could have been behind AU in offense is beyond me)
AU came out scrapping the spread and playing power ball. First three plays were sweeps to the right side by Ben Tate. All three went for over ten yards. They continued to drive down the field getting a first and goal inside the five. They then ran four straight plays up the middle and did not score. Not to worry, they stopped Vandy, got the ball back and drove down the field, mixing run and pass and scored easily.
When Vandy go the ball back again, AU intercepted a pass, then scored quickly again on a beautiful pass play. The route was on. Oh, but one minor flaw, they missed the PAT.
After one quarter, Auburn had well over one hundred yards offense, 13 points which very easily could have been 21. They were in complete control of the game.
From that point on, they scrapped what they were doing and went to the TFS spread for the rest of the game. They managed a TOTAL of 82 yards offense for the remaining three quarters. Once again, the starting QB for the opponent left the game, but the backup played beautifully. AU let Vandy hang around, until finally, Vandy won the dadgum thing 14-13.
Let's think about this. As far as offensive points produced, AU has scored 20 (out of 34), 27, 3, 14 (out of 21), 14, 13. That, my friends is an average 15 points per game, and other than LSU, this was against very subpar defenses. The worst thing is that there has been absolutely zero progression from week to week. Actually, it appears to me that there has been regression.
Tuberville insists he is sticking by Franklin and the spread. That is, until yesterday, when suddenly he fired him. I am at a loss for exactly what is going on here. I do believe there is more than meets the eye, but I have no idea precisely what it is. But, here are a few observations:
* Auburn's great offensive line has struggled constantly with procedure penatlies, holding, and just getting outmanned.
* The negative plays from the first line above have frequently happened at the most inopportune time - just as we get one or two positive plays and good field position and momentum, we have a procedure, hold, or sack.
* Watching Tim Couch highlights, I recognized right off the whole offense was not the same as AU is currently running.
----He frequently had one and sometimes two tight ends and one and sometimes two backs in the backfield. This was mixed in with an occasional no back, no tight end set. Auburn a great deal of the time runs with no backs or tight ends, placing tremendous pressure on the five linemen.
---- He would frequently line up under center - AU has stuck predominately with the shotgun play after play.
---- The UK linemen would often line up in a three point stance - AUs is almost exclusively in a two point stance.
---- UK ran a ton of quick plays - either by design, or as a safety valve drop off. Even when these only get 1-5 yards, that is better than zero or negative yardage. AU seems to run plays that take ten minutes to develop, and usually end up blowing up in their face.
---- Because of the above, UK seemed to keep pressure on the Defense. The only defense AUs offense has pressured has been their own.
I have no idea what precipitated the firing. I do not believe it came out of thin air. I believe there is something going on - whether it be chemistry among the coaches (and this could be TTs fault, or TFs - I really do not know) . there could be insurmountable frustration on the players parts. There apparently was some sort of a blow up in the last day or two - though Tuberville the Politician insists nothing of the sort led to the dismissal.
I tend to think as the season progressed, TT began pressuring TF to produce. By the time of the Vandy game, TT could well have said "Give the rest of us the first quarter to see what we can do, then I'll give it back to you." You see how that worked out. I imagine at this point, TT was calling for TF to back up and rethink what he was doing. TF probably took this as an insult. Sparks flew. TF is gone. Coaches have egos (see Nick Saban).
Tubs is actually insistent on his love for the spread and claims to keep plugging away at it. Doing so without the spread guru himself tells me there must have been major personality/philosophical issues going on behind the scenes.
One thing I do know. Auburns offense, which ranks worse than 100th in the country in virtually every stat, has been for all intents and purpose, totally non-productive. I mean totally. Yet, we have two losses each against a team that is still undefeated and highly ranked. These losses have been by a total of six points. If we can simply have an offense that can produce some time of possession, field position, and some amount of scoring, AU can end the year quite successfully. That is my hope. My fear is that this, yet another embarassing moment in AU football history, may have long term negative impacts in terms of national perception, and recruiting - as well as in terms of who in the world would now come to AU as Offensive cooridinator? TT ahs had 5 in ten years!
Oh, well, we'll just have to watch and see!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who Needs Radio?
Some time back, I read an ad for a web site called www.slacker.com. It seems you can go there, tell it artists you like, and listen to them all the time. What a concept!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
I have been using this for awhile now. My computer speakers are not exactly hi-end, but they sound good enough. I have multiple Slacker stations - including one country, one soft rock, one classic rock, one r&b, one with a bit of everything, and several others. And, it is all free.! Of course there are upgrades you can buy, but even at the free level, it is great. This gives me enough exposure to the music I like, that I do not have to buy anything else!
It has also allowed me to find out there is music out there that I like and others that I don't that I would not have been able to know about before. I have found out that I like Gov't Mule, The Derek Trucks Band, Ray Wiley Hubbard, and others. I don't much care for Warren Zevon (I figure actually being able to sing would be a plus!)
I wish I could have a little bit more control. I wish I could list Chicago and only get stuff from the sixties and seventies, and leave all that eighties garbagio alone. I have listed Fleetwood Mac, and as you might expect, I get a great deal more of the Buckingham/Nicks era Mac than I do the Peter Green (which I love) or Bob Welch eras. On the plus side, when I put in Skynyrd, I get mostly the old original and not the current stuff. Another plus is that with the Allman's I get mostly pre 1975 and post 1990, and not much of the stuff in between. So, all in all it is a mixed bag but did I mention it is free? I guess if I got off the wallet I might be able to control it a little more, but for free it is great!
Further Thoughts on the Upcoming Election
The closer we get to the election, the more uncertain I become of which way to go.
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
In brief, here is my delimma:
I absolutely do not like and can not support Obama/Biden. They clearly represent everything I am against, and are against everything I represent.
I do not care much at all for McCain. I am not real sure what it is he does represent. I don't care for his personality, such as it is. On a great variety of issues I see no huge difference between him and Obam/Biden.
I am very intrigued by Sarah Palin.
On the whole from what I know, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party would be far closer to what I would feel comfortable supporting (though he/they are not perfect). But, he has exactly zero chance of winning the election.
The struggle is this - is the addition of Palin enough to make me vote for the Republican ticket?
Palin has in her favor in my mind several things which the liberals scoff at her for:
1. She is a biblical literalist (I do not know exactly what her interpretive principles are and if they are the same as mine, but just the fact that she accepts the Bible as God's inerrant word to be taken seriously is good for me) I know a great many would question what in the world this has to do with being a national leader, but I would say it has plenty. She also has the guts (if she were a man, I would possible use another bodily reference) to state this publically and stand by it. This colors a lot of her other views in a positive light, some of which I'll mention here.
2. She is VERY pro-life. Not kinda sorta in a politically correct way when it is convenient, but solidly staunchly biblically pro-life as best I can tell. She also lives consistently with this, giving birth to a Downs Syndrome child and having her daughter carry her pregnancy through. It is not as if she says one thing then acts another way.
3. She has pursued action in Alaska consistent with not pushing the gay agenda - including wanting to rid the schools of pro-gay readings.
4. Most consistently, she has publically stated her belief in the literal reading of Genesis - meaning God created the world in six days not so very long ago. Adam and Eve were real people, etc. I recently read a liberal columnists which used this as reason enough to be scared silly of her. She must just be stoopid to believe that fairy tale, ya know!
These things makes me tend to want to have huge respect for her. Maybe even God is using this time of wimpy men to raise up another Deborah, as Douglas Wilson pointed out. (Deborah had to deal with a wimpy leader named, of all things, Barak!)
However, I do have a few reservations about making her VP, and with a certain turn of events, eventually President.
1. This may sound silly, but the fact that she is sided with John McCain makes me uncomfortable. I know Joseph had to work for the Pharoah. I know Daniel had to work with the leaders of his day. But, these great Godly leaders did not have to politically bow to the leadership direction they served under. Quite the opposite, Joseph and Daniel rose to the top by staying faithful to God even when it was unpopular, even dangerous. I have know idea what the level of faith of John McCain is, but some of his positions are not what I believe someone who understands biblical government, our constitution, and the relation between the two would be. The political reality of our day is that a VP has to be almost an exact echo of the Pres. How far is Palin willing to compromise? Or is that even a compromise for her? Is she politically comfortable with McCain?
2. A specific example was displayed to me in an interview I recently heard. I believe it was Sean Hannity who repeatedly asked her what was the problem with the economy, and what was the solution. Her consistent answer was that THE cause of our current economic woes was corruption on Wall Street and that THE solution was more government in the form of regulation. Now, I do not at all deny that there is some corruption on Wall Street. Only an imbecile, and Ayn Rand would. And I do not even deny that the government has a legitimate role to play in dealing with corruption (its job being to administer justice). However, the totality of our current economic problems is really a long and complex result of over one hundred and forty years of bad economic policy and too much government. There are so so many other things she could have more accurately stated as being major causes of our current economic woes and so many other directions she could have taken to point the way out. But, instead, she says that THE problem is Wall Street corruption and THE solution is more government. She even mocked the idea of 'self regulation' stating that it was actually 'no regulation.' My question to this is always then, who regulates the regulaters? At some point somewhere, someone is 'self regulated.' For all the dangers associated with the money of Wall Street, I feel much better with them being 'self regulated' than with the government empowered regulaters being 'self regulated.'
All this fits in nicely with McCain's own direction. He brags that while he is a Republican (presumably pro-big money interest) he has attacked Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Money Campaign Financing, etc. If McCain is a "Maverick" it is because in what little difference there is in the actual direction of the Republican and Democratic parties, there are some issues in which his rhetoric is that of Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, in the end, I am uncertain if I can swallow all of this and vote for McCain/Palin or if I should cast a protest vote.
Any help would be appreciated!
Is God Pleased With Our Works?
This thought hit me as we began worship this past week: "Surely God is pleased with the praises of His people."
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Now, His people are sinners, and in one sense can bring nothing to Him that could or would please Him. We are in rebellion against Him, and only by His grace can we even come into His presence. Yet, we come into His presence, and He condescends to us and is actually pleased with the worship we bring Him. That is actually a good example of His grace - that he not only accepts, but delights in our praise.
I do not think very many Christians, even specifically Christians in the Reformed branch(es) of the church, would deny that sentiment - that God delights in the praises of His people. Yet, the Reformed are quick to question any idea that God could be in anyway pleased, or even delight in, the works of His people. Any time people start talking about our works, Reformed people get very uncomfortable. We are only acceptable to God because of Christ's works, and our works are, it would appear, meaningless.
It is absolutely true that without the work of Christ, we could not approach The Father. However, the work of Christ actually makes our works acceptable. Worship itself is actually a work, as should be obvious. Even the word liturgy has a meaning associated with our work. In worship we do things (which is work) We pray, sing, kneel, stand, talk, listen, eat, AND bring our other works to the Father in the form of our offerings. What are our offerings, but the results of our works?
The Father delights in all of this when it is done in the name of the Son and through the Spirit. The Triune God delights in our worship - which is but one aspect of our works. It is therefore not at all wrong to think that God could be pleased with our works - when performed in the same manner on a regular basis as our 'special' work on each Lord's Day.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
RIP Snowman
A small, ok maybe very small, part of my childhood/teen years has now passed. On 9/1Jerry Reed passed away at 71. He was part of my life for various reasons.
I remember seeing him as a kid on television alot, and remember some of his big hits from the early 1970s. These were mostly 'novelty' type songs such as "Amos Moses," "When You're Hot, You're Hot," and so forth.
I specifically remember my mother, who was a smoker, buying his record "Another Puff," - an excessively silly rant about his trying to quit smoking.
As the 70s wore on, Reed became something of a movie actor, most notably on the "Smokey and the Bandit" Series with Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason. EVERYONE of my age group saw that movie. It is one of those that a lot of people can quote from line for line. And of course, the theme song "East Bound and Down" was a big hit for Reed.
As the eighties rolled in, he continued to have a few hits, including the No. 1 hit novelty song "She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft."
Another memory of mine is on weekend mornings watching outdoor shows - notably Bill Dance. That theme song from Bill Dance, "Today is Mine" - that was Reed.
Finally, in the early 1990s, Mrs. Philosopher and I took a trip to the Dallas - Ft. Worth area to visit some friends. We went to Billy Bob's one night to see the ol' Snowman in concert. We were all fairly sure that he was about the drunkest guy in Billy Bob's that night. He came on stage holding a bottle of beer. As the crowd cheered, he walked up to the mic and, looking at his bottle mumbled "What...in....the....hayull....is....."Lone....Star....Beer?"
He spent about ten minutes or more rambling before he started playing music. When he did play, he was actually pretty good, but he talked waaaaayyyy too much. We have all kidded since then that the Jerry Reed Concert was the best we've ever been to.
However, in all this what is lost, in fact unknown to many people, is that Jerry Reed was a phenominal talent. He was one of the most incredible guitarists to ever grace the stage. He was something of a protege of Chet Atkins. In my opinion, as a guitarist, Chet Atkins wouldn't hold a candle to him. Amidst all the B grade acting, all the silly, senseless hit songs, lied a man of rare, all too rare, musical ability.
Jerry wrote and recorded "Guitar Man" - which became a huge hit for Elvis. He also wrote tons of songs that Chet Atkins himself actually recorded. Go to Youtube, do a search. Look for "The Claw", "Jerry's Breakdown" or others.
I have saved you the trouble and placed a few representative cuts here. Some of the sillies, along with some of the unbelievable playing. Their not labeled, so you just click and see what you get.
I last heard Reed on the Rick and Bubba Show about a year or so ago. His previously wild, fast talking was now slow and deliberate. He sadly told how he could not longer play the guitar due to arthritis. He talked about how he worked with some sort of group recognizing and honoring our war veterens. He hilariously spoke about "Smokey", Burt Reynolds, Jackie gleason, etc. Overall, though, he seemed contented, blessed, fairly serious, and reverent. It was good to hear.
RIP Snowman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGiW-y-Vhs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ1Ggt5f28o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8KBhnebwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcoeGjrL-r8
I remember seeing him as a kid on television alot, and remember some of his big hits from the early 1970s. These were mostly 'novelty' type songs such as "Amos Moses," "When You're Hot, You're Hot," and so forth.
I specifically remember my mother, who was a smoker, buying his record "Another Puff," - an excessively silly rant about his trying to quit smoking.
As the 70s wore on, Reed became something of a movie actor, most notably on the "Smokey and the Bandit" Series with Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason. EVERYONE of my age group saw that movie. It is one of those that a lot of people can quote from line for line. And of course, the theme song "East Bound and Down" was a big hit for Reed.
As the eighties rolled in, he continued to have a few hits, including the No. 1 hit novelty song "She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft."
Another memory of mine is on weekend mornings watching outdoor shows - notably Bill Dance. That theme song from Bill Dance, "Today is Mine" - that was Reed.
Finally, in the early 1990s, Mrs. Philosopher and I took a trip to the Dallas - Ft. Worth area to visit some friends. We went to Billy Bob's one night to see the ol' Snowman in concert. We were all fairly sure that he was about the drunkest guy in Billy Bob's that night. He came on stage holding a bottle of beer. As the crowd cheered, he walked up to the mic and, looking at his bottle mumbled "What...in....the....hayull....is....."Lone....Star....Beer?"
He spent about ten minutes or more rambling before he started playing music. When he did play, he was actually pretty good, but he talked waaaaayyyy too much. We have all kidded since then that the Jerry Reed Concert was the best we've ever been to.
However, in all this what is lost, in fact unknown to many people, is that Jerry Reed was a phenominal talent. He was one of the most incredible guitarists to ever grace the stage. He was something of a protege of Chet Atkins. In my opinion, as a guitarist, Chet Atkins wouldn't hold a candle to him. Amidst all the B grade acting, all the silly, senseless hit songs, lied a man of rare, all too rare, musical ability.
Jerry wrote and recorded "Guitar Man" - which became a huge hit for Elvis. He also wrote tons of songs that Chet Atkins himself actually recorded. Go to Youtube, do a search. Look for "The Claw", "Jerry's Breakdown" or others.
I have saved you the trouble and placed a few representative cuts here. Some of the sillies, along with some of the unbelievable playing. Their not labeled, so you just click and see what you get.
I last heard Reed on the Rick and Bubba Show about a year or so ago. His previously wild, fast talking was now slow and deliberate. He sadly told how he could not longer play the guitar due to arthritis. He talked about how he worked with some sort of group recognizing and honoring our war veterens. He hilariously spoke about "Smokey", Burt Reynolds, Jackie gleason, etc. Overall, though, he seemed contented, blessed, fairly serious, and reverent. It was good to hear.
RIP Snowman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGiW-y-Vhs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ1Ggt5f28o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8KBhnebwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcoeGjrL-r8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
