Next year in Naples

Since 2007 a number of fraternity brothers have reunited in February to catch up.  Sometimes we meet twice a year rendezvousing in October as well.  Each time we've connected in Albany where we met, studied, and cavorted as college classmates in the late 60s and early seventies.

February is not the balmiest of months for those who live in Albany. Usually the snow is up to your knees and it is every bit of frigid. In 2016 the temperature during our weekend was atypically warm. We ambled easily around the municipal golf course with hundreds of Albany denizens who were strolling or walking their canines on that atypically spring like day for February.

This year we decided to change it up a bit. We decided to meet in Boston where two of the regulars of the crew reside.  We have had this planned for six months.  One of our cronies bought tickets to a Harvard hockey game on Friday night. I purchased ducats to a Northeastern basketball contest for Saturday.

The problem was that on Thursday we on the east coast got whacked with a storm.  One attendee from Chicago could not fly in. Another driving from Montauk faced a daunting drive through slick highways and decided, wisely, to take a pass.  That left four of us. We made do.

What do four guys pushing 70 who went to school during the revolution discuss during reunions. Here were the items that got the most air time.

• Donald Trump.  Not only did none of us consider voting for Trump, we spent a good deal of time talking about how anyone could.  When we met in October it was the weekend when, on Friday, his "you can grab their pussy" comment was broadcast.  At that time we made fun of him as a goof, and also as someone, of course, who was sure to lose.  This time we identified incident after outrageous incident. The Trump conversations often concluded with one of us asking rhetorically "how could he have been elected?"
• The weather.  Albany is typically colder than Boston, so we figured that this year it would be a little more balmy than are our usual rendezvous. Not.  Much of our conversation this weekend was about how cold we were.  We had great seats for the hockey game, but were right near the ice, so it was not summery at the rink.  But let me assure you that the walk from the rink to the car after the game was the kind of stuff you might consider would make a prisoner confess and give up his mother.  It was so cold that we four sat in the car for 15 minutes with the heat trying to blast us warm-- wagon train waiting to exit the arena, then drove another 15 minutes to a restaurant, yet we were still frozen a half hour later when we parked ourselves at the table.  Saturday night was a little better since the basketball arena was more temperate and the walk to where we dined shorter.  Still damn cold. I think we will speak about how cold we were this weekend for several reunions to come.
• Children. The other three who made up our group, are parents. It was interesting to hear them talking about the joys and tribulations of parenting, in much the same way as we--in our early twenties--talked about the joys and tribulations of being parented.  I imagine that our folks talked about us in 1967, in much the same way as the guys this weekend asked/talked about their kids.  Do the kids have relationships. Did they like their kids' others.  One of the guys said that when his son had asked him, years before, about what to seek in a partner, his response was simply "low maintenance."  This seemed to resonate with all.
• The Patriots.  It was fun to talk about the recent startling super bowl game. Each of us relaying "where we were then" almost like talking about the Kennedy assassination.  Where were we watching it? How did we react when the Patriots went down so big?
• Old girlfriends.  This has been a bigger issue at other reunions, but it got some air time this visit as well.

The party's over.  We, in  Boston, are getting blasted again by another storm. My buddy Kenny left at 10:45 driving into the teeth of it.  We dropped the other non-Bostonian off near his daughter's apartment last night and I hope if he knows what's good for him, he's nearly home already.

I always find it nourishing to see these folks.  One of the guys who did not make it has a condo in Naples, Florida.  Last night while cold, and recalling how much colder we were the night before, one of the fellows suggested that next February we meet in Florida.

Why the Patriots Won

Almost immediately after the Patriots miraculous comeback on Sunday night I received an e-mail from my buddy from New York who is still angry at Bill Belichick for not taking the offered Jet job and deciding to coach the Patriots instead.  His e-mail declared that the reason the Patriots won was because Atlanta choked.  He went on to list the various foolish things the Falcons did to lose--as opposed to acknowledge why the Patriots were victorious.

Gary is as fervid a Jets fan as there is. The Jets have not been in the super bowl since 1969, and Gary is understandably frustrated. Besides he is a good guy, so I cut him some slack.  However, the fact is that the Patriots won because the Patriots were the better team.

Here is why the Patriots won.

Understanding Talent
The team understands that the key to victory is not necessarily the skill level of individual players, but the willingness of players to adhere to a system that is likely to result in wins.  Sure, you need to be skillful and strong, but you don't have to be the most skillful or strongest; you need to be the most committed and smartest.  The best receiver on the field on Sunday was an Atlanta Falcon: Julio Jones.  While Edelman's catch was an optical illusion and brilliant--Jones's catch earlier was even better.

The best receivers for the Patriots are (1) a former college quarterback who never played receiver until he came to the Patriots--Julian Edelman (2) a former lacrosse player for Penn State who played only one year of college football at Monmouth University in Division I-AA--Chris Hogan (3) an undrafted free agent--Danny Amendola (4) a running back who two years ago when the Patriots went to the superbowl was not even good enough to be active for the contest--James White (5) a rookie from Georgia-- Malcolm Mitchell and (6) a tight end--Martellus Bennett.  I heard a pundit after the game opine that he would be stumped if he was a defensive coordinator trying to game plan against the Patriots NOT because the receivers are so good, but because none of them are really good--so he could not pick out who to focus on.

Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. His best asset is his brain, not his arm.  His second best asset is that he seems to have no need to demonstrate that he is the greatest.  He really does not seem to care that he didn't throw the winning touchdown pass--and that it was rather run in by James White.

Malcolm Butler was undrafted and two years ago literally stole the super bowl by intercepting a pass. This year he blanketed very talented Falcon receivers for nearly the entire game. He got beat badly on one play but for the most part was all over the Falcons.

So, the Patriots won because they had the talent--talent defined as players who are smart and industrious.

Coaching
I watched 95% of all the plays the Patriots ran this entire season.  And I saw plays on Sunday that I had not seen all year.  Both two point conversions were brilliant.  The first I had seen before--in the 2004 superbowl game with Kevin Faulk--but I do not think the Patriots have run it all year.  The second two point conversion was also well conceived; again I do not believe the Patriots used it all year. Similarly the pass to James White that set up the overtime winning run, was new and very cleverly designed.    The fake kneel down at the end of regulation has, I will bet, never been used by any team ever.  Defensively the play that led to the strip sack during the comeback was brilliant. The guy who was supposed to pick up the blitzer was so confused, he barely saw Hightower rushing past him.  The Patriots were better prepared and always seem to be.

Opportunism
Atlanta made some decisions that in hindsight were not the greatest, but in the first half they made enough good decisions to go up by 25 points.  What happened though was when they did falter, the Patriots took advantage of the errors.   Sure it was not the most brilliant move in the world to try and pass when a field goal would have nearly clinched the game, but when forced to punt they pinned the Patriots inside their own ten.  Down 28-20, the Patriots mounted a 90 yard drive--including a 3rd and 11 first down--not to mention Edelman's circus catch.

Character
Belichick never throws his team under the bus.  When they lose, he takes as much heat as everybody. He praises his opponents and does so, it appears, genuinely. Even when an opponent has been hurling snide remarks his way, publicly at least Belichick does not disparage the player often saying he has a great deal of respect for the other.  As a coach you have to be able to deflect praise to create a culture that is conducive to winning.



In December 1981 I remember screaming my head off because the team I was rooting for then, the New York Giants, had finally gotten into the playoffs on the last day of the season. For many franchises just getting into the playoffs is a big deal.  Since 2001 the Patriots have missed the playoffs two times. They have appeared in 7 of the 16 superbowls. That is amazing. And they have won 5 of those 7.

It's not luck. It's not because their opponents choke.  It's because they recognize that if a lacrosse player can catch a ball and understand the pass plays, then he is worth a shot.  And that an afterthought like James White might be your go-to guy, simply because he works harder than the next player.

Super bowl prediction

It is always difficult to predict sports outcomes when you have a rooting interest in one of the contestants.  It's analogous to decisions made in the organization when you try to be dispassionate about, say, two prospective candidates but you kind of liked one going into the competition.

That as preface, I like the Patriots in today's game. I'd like them a whole lot better if neither the quarterback, owner, or coach had any apparent friendship with our solipsistic chief executive.  But, nevertheless, I think the Patriots will prevail.

Why?

• The Patriots have been there. The coaching staff is less likely to get weak kneed because of the moment. Similarly Brady has been there. Each game is different but some of the heebie jeebies will not surface.  Edelman, Amendola, Ryan, McCourtney, Butler, Gostkowski, and several others all played in the game two years ago. Can they still be nervous? Of course.  Can someone else who did not play in the superbowl make a big error? Absolutely.  But compared with the opponent the Pats have more experience.
• Brady probably does not need a whole lot of incentive, but if he needed any more, he received it when it was announced last night that Matt Ryan, the quarterback for the Falcons (as opposed to Logan Ryan mentioned in the first bullet) was named the league MVP.
• Quinn may be an excellent coach. Belichick is at least his match, and probably better.  This is his tenth superbowl. Ten.  He began coaching in the mid seventies as an assistant's assistant.  So, in say the forty years since he started, he's been either a head coach or a defensive coordinator in 25 percent of the super bowl games.  I think Belichick will be able to come up with a formula that will defuse the high powered Falcons offense.
• The Falcons played like the best of all time the last two weeks. However, they lost 5 games this year.  They must not be that consistent.  The Patriots lost twice. Once when a third string quarterback with a damaged thumb was playing. Once in the last seconds.  I think the Patriots played a weaker schedule and only faced a few quarterbacks that were in the top tier, but still they only lost two games.
• Patriots 27-Atlanta 23.

All these bullets may mean nothing.  The Pats could fumble the opening kick-off. Brady could get injured in the first quarter.  Ryan could prove to be very worthy of the honor.

It should be fun.  I will revert to being seven years old in a few hours.

Pundits

Last night when I returned home from work I went flipping through the channels. On the NFL station I saw that the network was replaying the Seattle-New England super bowl game of two years ago.  The game was in the second quarter when I joined the audience.  As I started watching I realized that I had forgotten a good deal of what had taken place.

What most people remember from that game is the end. For those who don't remember, what happened involved one of the most controversial decisions in the history of championship games.

The Patriots were leading by four points having scored to take the lead with just over two minutes to go.  Seattle received the kick-off and began to move slowly up the field.  With only a minute plus to go, Russell Wilson, Seattle's quarterback, threw a long pass that seemed to go incomplete. However, on closer inspection the ball had bounced around the receiver, never hitting the ground, until such time the receiver was able to possess it.  This put Seattle on about the five yard line with plenty of time to score and win the game.

Seattle had an almost unstoppable running back that year. On the first play after the miracle catch, they gave the ball to the running back and he came very close to scoring.  The next play involved the controversial decision.

Instead of handing the ball to the running back, Seattle tried to pass. The ball was intercepted by a Patriot rookie. Because Seattle had exhausted two time outs on the drive (neither was really necessary) the Seahawks could not stop the clock once the Patriots gained possession on the interception. Game over. Patriots win the super bowl.  The announcers express their bewilderment at the decision to pass instead of giving the ball to the horse. Chris Collingsworth said "And I'm sorry. I just don't believe the call" or words to that effect.  Al Michaels the other voice in the booth, said "I don't either."  Then Collingsworth repeated himself during the post mortem, joined in by scores of professional and amateur pundits who blamed Seattle's coach for such a blockhead decision to throw instead of pass.

I remembered all that.  However, here is what I did not remember.

Near the very end of the first half the score was 14-7 Patriots. There were six seconds left in the half and the Seahawks were close to the Patriot goal line.  Seattle decided not to kick a field goal, but to try to score a touchdown. Before the play, the announcers were skeptical about this choice, since the clock could expire if a play was unsuccessful.  The play, however, was successful.  Pete Carroll-the head coach--the announcers remarked--had been brilliant and gutsy for passing on that play instead of settling for the field goal.  This situation was not completely comparable to the play at the end of the game, but another was--almost exactly-- so.

In the third quarter, the Seahawks were winning 17-14.  They had the ball down by the Patriots goal line.  On first down, they tried to run giving the ball to the excellent running back to get the touchdown.  The Patriots stuffed the run.  On second down--in almost exactly the same situation as what occurred at the end of the game--the Seahawks did not hand the ball off as everyone expected, but passed to a receiver who was wide open. The announcers--I was reminded last night--were effusive in their praise of Seattle's coaching staff for throwing the ball when everyone in the place thought it would be a run.  This decision, gushed the announcers, reflected the guts and intelligence of the Seahawks.

Well, er, in the fourth quarter when the Seattle Seahawks tried the same exact thing (the pass play was different, but the decision to pass and not run was the same), a Patriot player by the name of Malcolm Butler made an outstanding play and intercepted the ball.  Now, Carroll was depicted as a goofball for having tried to pass.

I am not an apologist for Pete Carroll. When he coached at New England he did only an okay job as far as I was concerned, and while he was successful as a college coach, I just found his behavior and style off-putting.  But the grief he took and has taken because of that fourth quarter decision is inappropriate in light of the fact that what he did earlier in the game was hailed as the stuff of genius. And it was the exact same decision.

In the Woods

--> I had a co-counselor at Camp Chicopee who was in charge of what was called "Nature and Pioneering." He was a bit of a cartoon character--nice man actually--but quirky enough to warrant attention because of his behavior.   His refrain when speaking to 10-14 year olds about camping was more amusing because of his butchered speech than the inherent wisdom of the message.  "In Da Woods" he would say, "Dere aint no luxuries."  He said it so often and every time with the butchered articulations that one co-counselor once remarked, "When brains were given out, he was in 'da woods.'"

I have read a few books with title references to the Woods in the last few years.  The most memorable of these was Man in the Woods which I thought was terrific both because of the story line and the metaphor--since the main character was in the woods as symbolically, as he was in the woods because a key event in the story took place in the woods.

Thinking of being in the thick of an impenetrable area dense with trees and brush allows us to imagine ourselves unable to extricate oneself from jungles of our own making.  How do we get out of our psychological woods without scarring ourselves irreparably?

I just finished In the Woods by Tana French.  A cousin recommended the novel when I spoke of enjoying a series of police procedurals by another author.  In the Woods was a debut novel for French and not that easy to get out of the multi site library system in the Boston area.  There must be twenty libraries around here that are part of the system.  Every one that had In the Woods indicated that the book was "out."  I put myself on a waiting list and, ten days later, a well read (as in damaged) copy arrived in the Waltham Public Library with my name on it.

Was it worth the wait? 

Not really. But it is growing on me to the extent that today I actually asked for the second novel in the series to be delivered to Waltham. 

Here's the story that is laid out right in the beginning, so I am not giving much, if anything, away. Two Dublin area detectives-a man and a woman--attempt to solve the murder of a young girl who was killed in the woods. Coincidentally or not, in the same woods, twenty years prior a trio of pals who cavorted there regularly, met with a devastating fate resulting with two of them vanishing and the third all bloody with no memory at all of what had taken place to him or to his mates.  One of the detectives trying to solve the current crime is actually the third child from the first. (The author very cleverly informs the reader how this is the case. It was so clever that I had to read the page three times to get it).  In what is really preposterous, most people in the community are unaware that this detective was a prior victim.

Stop here if you want to go read the book.

Lots of things about this book are disappointing. A key piece of the novel is about the relationship between the survivor and his detective partner. Yet, we never find out how the affection for the detectives which is apparent from day one, evolved. They are presented as platonic but clearly are not.  Also, the relationship of the detective survivor with a suspect from the current case is never developed until we discover that it had been taking place. There is no drawing of that relationship in any substantive way. Yet, that relationship is central to finding out how the crime was committed. Finally (and absolutely do not read this next sentence if you plan to read the book) while we find out who committed the current murder, we never find out about the perp in the earlier one despite a number of comments throughout that suggest that the two crimes are linked.

I guess, though, that if you take the novel away from the plot line the point is that it doesn't matter who committed the first crime, because the survivor will forever be in the woods, as will the perp of the current murder, as are some other key characters.  Events beyond our control and some in our control, put us in the woods.  And it is our challenge regardless of how we got in the woods, to figure out how to get the hell out.  Some of us do, some of us are so caught in the vines that we can not get out, and some of us don't even know we are in there.

One thing that is constant in this book and the other one I referred to earlier with Woods in the title, is that as my co-counselor once tried to inculcate, "In da woods, dere aint no luxuries".  So, while you might want to hang there for a while, after a stretch you need to get out.  

The book is convoluted and labyrinthine. So much is unnecessary, but sometimes authors of whodunnits throw in characters just to throw you off and it is kind of fun to try and figure out who did it and who did not.  I don't think Columbo himself could have figured out the doer in this book with the evidence presented to the reader.

I will be interested in seeing if the sequel to In the Woods is better than the first.

I am Fenwick

There is a funny Southwest airlines commercial that has been aired several times during the NFL playoffs.  In it a leader of some sort announces to an army that if Fenwick identifies himself, all of his comrades will be spared. As Fenwick begins to acknowledge his identity, his mates, one by one, announce, "I am Fenwick" to make it impossible to single out the real Fenwick for what appears to be some disastrous end.   The attempt to protect Fenwick, however, is thwarted because another man stumbles into the crowd, finds the real Fenwick, and asks him a question.  When he realizes the blunder, all heads turn to the latecomer. The audience hears the voiceover say, "Want to Get Away."

Over the past weekend, the Trump administration has issued a number of edicts that one would think could only be enforced in some autocracy.  I was under the impression that there are checks and balances in America to stop a tyrant from ruling like a King. Apparently, there are things a president can do unilaterally that are outrageous, let alone unconstitutional.

With some signatures, immigrants from certain countries cannot enter the country.  And Moslems are especially identified as potential threats to America and will have difficulty getting into the United States.  The claim is that since terrorists have, indeed, terrorized the US, and some of these terrorists are Moslems, and some of these terrorists have, as their place of origin, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia and Yemen, people who wish to enter our country from these countries are not welcome. (Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list).

So Moslems cannot come in. Lebanese, Syrians, and Sudanese etc cannot come in.  Does that not smack of racism to you?  Do you have to be an historian to remember when Jews had to wear Jewish stars so that they could be singled out as potential threats.

I am not Lebanese, or Syrian, or Sudanese--but I think it is time for all Americans to respond to Trump's absurd behavior, to pretend as if we are.

We are Fenwick.

Tomorrow, I fly out of West Palm Beach. This, I assume, is Herr Donald's airport when he flies to his winter mansion.  I will probably have no trouble getting through security, though I imagine tomorrow it will be a bit chaotic at the security check in.  But if I were an Iraqi or Lebanese I might not be able to get through. Imagine if you were an immigrant, or just had an accent, and were flying somewhere tomorrow. Imagine if you had planned to come to the land of opportunity and had saved for the pilgrimage. And then all of a sudden, because your name is not Alan, but El-Alan, you are stopped from boarding your plane.

It is time for Democrats and Republicans to find their backbone, stand up to the self styled King and say, defiantly.  We are Fenwick.

the U

Yesterday I drove from Del Ray Beach to Coral Gables to watch the University of Miami upset the University of North Carolina by double digits.  I am interested in UNC for a number of reasons one of which is that I am still befuddled at how the academic scandal there could have existed for nearly two decades.  Also, I think their coach Roy Williams is one of the more dedicated college basketball coaches there is. He has won wherever he has been.  Similarly I have been impressed with Jim Larranaga.  Before he went to the University of Miami (the U) he had taken just an okay talented team at George Mason to later rounds of the NCAA tournament. To be informed a bit more for this blog I was startled to read that Larranaga had played for Molloy high school graduating when I did (from a different high school) and he'd been a star at Molloy, as well as later at Providence College. I don't remember him as a player, but I do remember that Molloy was always a powerhouse team in New York.

So, for a number of reasons I was interested in going to the game.  I took notes during it making, no doubt, the folks seated to my left and right wondering why I was doing so.  But scribble away I did. Some points that may be of interest to readers.

• It took me almost as much time to drive the 4.4. miles on route 1 to the stadium, than it took me to drive the 50 miles from Del Ray to Coral Cables. Note to U of M, perhaps hire a constable to help with game day traffic. It was enough to discourage me from going to a game again.
• I bump into a fellow with a University of Miami shirt in the parking lot. He walks me to the arena, but then goes into a separate entrance which appears to be for the donors.  Looked like a bar mitzvah in there with all the food provided for folks who were in the club.  I remember that when I was at SUNY Fredonia that members of the booster club--of which I was one--were treated to pepperoni and cheddar cheese before games.  The U of M faithful were eating more substantive stuff.
• I was not impressed with the arena. I am not a big fellow, but I could just about squeeze into my seat. Fortunately, neither of my neighbors spent a lot of time on the buffet line, otherwise it could have been uncomfortable--and I paid a pretty penny for the ticket.
• I was smack at the mid court stripe. A little high up for what I paid, but could not be more dead center.  To my right were zealots from UNC. To my left were a father and son team that prayed at the alter of the U. I felt like Switzerland sitting between them.
• There was a lot of loud noise. "Songs" I never heard of were being boomed out at ear splitting decibels.  I have Shazam on my cell, so I can detect titles of songs being blasted. I did not recognize a one. "Freaks" was one soft number. Another was "Tsunami". A third was "Light it Up." Perry Como never sang these songs.
• When the Miami coaching staff came out, I counted ten suits. Ten.  When I played freshman ball it was Coach O'Brien and the manager.  On the varsity there was the head coach, and Coach O'Brien--that was it. Two suits for the varsity. One suit for the freshman team.
• There is apparently a tradition at the U. Fans do not sit down until the home team scores a basket. Since Miami got off to a 6-0 deficit, I was not too pleased when a guy two rows in front of me blocked my view for an extended period of time.
• The University of North Carolina fans to my right were the genuine article. The woman knew all the players by first name. Her husband was muttering about the referees from the start. My favorites, "What the hell call was that" and "Why don't you foul them all out you bum."  Since UNC eventually got shellacked he was not a happy camper and I hoped they had not flown in just for this contest.
• Miami switched to a zone after the slow start and they stifled UNC. Both teams were so well coached, but UNC could not get off a decent shot against the zone. Miami must have had a half dozen steals when the Tar Heels tried to get the ball inside.
• At a break in the game, high school seniors who had committed to playing football for the U in Fall 17 were introduced.  This is a big time sports school.
• At half time former Buffalo Bill and the University of Miami quarterback, Jim Kelly was honored and addressed the crowd.
• I guess the Tar Heels are deep. At one point, all five players on the floor were replaced by what looked like five other players who could start for most teams.
• Larranaga had some terrific inbounds pass plays including a recurring one which went the length of the floor. Difficult to believe these could not be defended, but they worked regularly even against an excellently coached UNC team.
• Father to my left had what I discern to be a Cuban accent. He knew his UM basketball. At one point I asked them how they were doing this year.  The response sounded like the guy was the team statistician. I wondered how he was reacting to the antediluvian immigrant policies created this weekend.
• The U were never really challenged at the end. Williams tried calling time outs and fouling, but the U led by a freshman, were just too well schooled to blow the lead.
• I left the parking lot at 322. I did not get to the Florida turnpike, 4.4 miles away, til about ten to 4.
• Even with the traffic, it was fun. The energy, sounds, dancing and various commercial escapades, made the experience an enjoyable one.