Dealing With The Control Freak In Your Life
Dr. David B. Hawkins
The Relationship Doctor
Editor's Note: Do you need sound, Biblically-based advice on an issue in your marriage or family? Dr. David will address questions from Crosswalk readers in his weekly column. Submit your question to him at: TheRelationshipDoctor@gmail.com.
You know them by the way they hem you in, making demands upon you. They have a “right” way of doing things and you better do it the way they say is “right” or else you face their criticism, shame and even disrespect.
Even while they judge you, they condemn judgmentalism. Even as they demand you play by their rules, they don’t want to play by any rules but their own. If you resist their demands, they insist you’re controlling, though deny they have issues with control.
Such is their high level of denial and seeming inability to look critically at themselves. Such is the narrow and restricted world of the Control Freak—a term used, perhaps pejoratively, about those who want to micro-manage our lives.
We’ve been talking for several weeks about CrazyMakers, and from the response I’m getting, many of you have one or more in your family, workplace, and even marriage. You have someone who makes you feel crazy, creating chaos in their path. We walk away from an encounter with an Egotist, Aggressor, Borderline, Sufferer and now Control Freak feeling tired, confused and angry. We wonder, “Is it me, or is it them? What just happened here?” as our emotions spin with frustration.
The Control Freak, the last of five Crazymakers we’re exploring, anxiously tries to hold onto the black and white world they have created. Often frustrated because people are not living up to their expectations, they hook us by trying to convince us their way is the only way to do things. Their narrow, rigid, dogmatic point of view can be the only way to see things, and if your point of view doesn’t match with theirs, you’re in trouble.
A recent email illustrates the problem:
Dear Dr. David. I’ve been following your series on Crazymakers, but you haven’t talked about the one that tries to control everything you do. My boyfriend, who actually seems to fit several groups, fits that category. He is manipulative, angry and very controlling.
My problem is that he tries to tell me how to live my life, all the way from telling me how to dress, how to interact with my parents, what kind of job to get and most definitely, how to treat him. Whenever I resist his directions, he calls me “spoiled” or “childish.” When I push back harder, he tells me I’m controlling, which is the word that describes him.
I have tried, time and again, to point out to him what he is doing. He never gets it. I keep looking for new ways to explain to him what he’s doing. Nothing seems to work. I’m wondering if you have any tips on how I can get him to back off, recognize all that I do for him, and help him see that he pushes people away by being so demanding. Please help.
I do have several suggestions for you and those struggling to gain independence from the Control Freak. Actually, these strategies are equally effective with the rest of our cast of Crazymaking characters.
First, we must come alive and pay attention to what the Control Freak is doing. They aren’t aware of what they’re doing, and much of the time we’re not aware of what they’re doing either. In fact, we’re often not aware of how we’re stuck in a disastrous pattern of reacting to the Control Freak. The Control Freak expects allegiance, and those of us with a tendency to please get caught in the trap of trying to keep them happy. Notice how these strategies don’t work.
Second, break their spell. Controlling people can be very convincing, enticing you to go along with their game plan and then resenting them. Notice their tactics, their anxious dogmatism. Then, instead of debating and defending your position, simply look at them and say “What?” This simple question allows you to step back, for a moment, and ask what exactly they are trying to say. It gives you a moment to ask if you really buy what they’re selling.
Third, think for yourself. After breaking their spell, you begin the process of thinking for yourself. You question the bill of goods they are so desperately trying to sell you. Simply say, “I don’t agree with you,” and notice the difference this step makes.
Fourth, don’t debate. Don’t ever debate, defend or explain yourself. Don’t get hooked in that trap. Don’t try to talk them out of their position—it won’t work. Don’t try to make them accept your position—that will not work either. Allow it to be okay to simply see things differently.
Fifth, do ask for validation. After learning to disagree and discovering that you can survive, ask for validation of your point of view. Ask them to state your point of view before launching ahead with their position. Understand that they may not get it, but it’s worth a try.
Sixth, talk about their anxiety. For example, if they are anxious about you traveling for work, ask them if they are anxious about your faithfulness. If they are anxious about money, talk about money in terms of anxiety. Empathize with their anxiety rather than trying to talk them out of their feelings.
Finally, set healthy boundaries. Learning to set healthy boundaries is a great way of flinging back the Control Freaks’ hook. Let them know you will listen to their concerns and will even validate them. However, you won’t march in lockstep to their demands. You will be practicing stating your preferences and are happy to hear their preferences. Find small ways to make it clear that you are a separate individual.
Whether you feel paralyzed by an Aggressor, exhausted with a Sufferer, or feeling hemmed in by a Control Freak, you have a job to do. You must extract yourself from their grasp. You must decide what impact your particular Crazymaker is having on you, learn how you become hooked, and then fling the hook—again and again—respectfully! Don’t allow yourself to be victimized, becoming resentful and angry. We are not to be in bondage to anyone. Remind yourself of the words of Jesus:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4: 18)
Please share your story with us. How have you found freedom from a CrazyMaker? What has worked and what hasn’t?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hawkins, Ph.D., is the founder of the Marriage Recovery Center. He has worked with couples and families to improve the quality of their lives by resolving personal issues for the last 30 years. He is the author of over 18 books, including Love Lost: Living Beyond a Broken Marriage, Saying It So He'll Listen, and When Pleasing Others Is Hurting You. His newest books are titled The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Healing a Hurting Relationship and The Relationship Doctor's Prescription for Living Beyond Guilt. Dr. Hawkins grew up in the beautiful Pacific Northwest and lives with his wife on the South Puget Sound where he enjoys sailing, biking, and skiing. He has active practices in two Washington cities.
As politically incorrect as I wanna be.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
He Said-She Said: An Acceptable Age Difference In Dating Relationships
He Said-She Said: An Acceptable Age Difference In Dating Relationships
By Cliff Young & Laura MacCorkle
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer & Senior Editor
EDITOR’S NOTE: Each He Said-She Said column features a question from a Crosswalk.com reader with responses from a male and female point of view. If you’ve got a question about anything related to singleness, please CLICK HERE to submit (selected questions will be posted anonymously).
QUESTION: Should a woman in her late twenties pursue a godly relationship with a man in his early twenties? Is there an acceptable age difference?
HE SAID: In a way, this is like asking “How much money do I need to retire?” Many thoughts, besides age, should be considered in answering such a question.
Age alone is not a determining factor of the compatibility of two people. The emotional, mental, and spiritual maturity of each individual is much more important. In general, males mature at a later age than females. (This is probably the excuse many older men use in order to “chase” younger women.) Although you may think your circumstance is different, take the time to observe a person over time and in different situations. First impressions can be misleading.
Along the same line, does a man in his early twenties have his priorities, focus, and career in order? Many guys at that age think they do—I did. However, at this stage, a man is just beginning to experience life, he’s starting to see what is in the world, and he’s finding out who he is and what he wants to do.
Spirituality plays the greatest role in a godly relationship.
Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22).
Is the man pursuing righteousness and ready to be the spiritual leader in a relationship? Is he ready to sacrifice some of his freedom, time and desires in order to reciprocate in a relationship? Will this relationship bring you both closer to God?
Just for fun, I Googled “woman pursue a man” and received over 17 million results! This seems to be a popular question.
What is your definition of “pursue”?
Does it mean letting him know that you are available?
Does it mean walking up to him to initiate communication?
Does it mean acknowledging you have interest in him?
If this is true for you, then there is nothing wrong in letting someone know you are unattached and interested. In this busy world we live in, sometimes we (I’m speaking for some guys, including myself) miss signals that are right in front of us. I would be flattered to know someone is interested in me and had the forthright to initiate contact.
However, if your definition of “pursue” is this:
Does it mean tracking down his phone number and calling him?
Does it mean asking him out on a date? Or dates?
Does it eventually mean asking him to marry you?
Then, I would caution you.
If the man knows you are available and interested in him, but isn’t pursuing, this is an indication of how he feels.
Maybe he thinks the age difference is insurmountable or something he isn’t ready for.
Maybe he isn’t interested at all.
Maybe he isn’t ready for a relationship.
Maybe he doesn’t have the guts to ask you out (not a good sign).
Most men want to be the “hunter.” It is in our blood to see something we desire and to go out and get it (Ok, conquer it … I said it). When pursued, the flattery that was felt earlier quickly changes to questions of:
“Why is she asking me out?
Is she desperate?
Is there something wrong with her?
Does she feel as if time is running out for her?”
As a long-time single, my hope for a mate is in God’s hands. He has shown me through His continual faithfulness that He knows what is best for me. Although I have experienced some disappointments along the way, I have been protected from relationships that were not right for me; I just see it as God’s grace. Several Scripture passages have helped me often throughout the years.
He that finds a wife finds a good thing (Proverbs 18:22).
With God’s help, I will be the one who finds a wife (not the other way around) and when I do, it will be amazing!
Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is worth more than precious rubies. Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich his life. She will not hinder him, but help him all her life (Proverbs 31:10-12).
Wow! I want to look for and find this kind of wife. Why wouldn’t I want to wait for the right one?!
There are verses in the Bible where women take the lead, but they are not the type of women I would want to be with.
He was walking down the street near the corner on the road leading to her house. … Then the woman approached him … So I have come out to meet you; I have been looking for you and have found you (Proverbs 7:8, 10, 15).
I empathize with you. I really do. What I have found to be true in my life is that God’s plan and design never feels contrived or forced. If you have to ask if there is an “appropriate age difference,” then I believe you already know the answer in your heart.
SHE SAID: I’ll have to start out my answer on a personal note, since I know a thing or two about age differences when it comes to relationships.
I’ve had dating relationships where there have been significant gaps in age and ones where there have been differences of only a few years or less. Some men have been older than me, while others have been younger. I guess you could say I’m an “equal-opportunity dater.” Well, as long as no gold medallion necklaces, pointy boots or mountain-man beards are involved (sorry!).
In hindsight, the closer in age I have been to those I’ve dated then the easier the relationships have seemed to go. Surely, there were other factors involved to determine the success and duration of each relationship (faith, maturity, interests, values, goals, etc.). But I think that a significant age difference can also make or break a relationship.
As believers, we don’t really find a clear answer for your question in Scripture. Thus far, I’ve only found references to relationships or marriages where the man is older than the woman. And to my knowledge, I don’t think that there are any biblical examples of older women in dating or marital relationships with younger men. So I am left with the world around me (and perhaps a little common sense and hopefully some divine inspiration) from which to draw.
I suppose a significant age difference in a relationship (with the woman being older than the man) is more culturally acceptable these days, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good thing. You would have to investigate on a relationship-by-relationship basis to see what works for some and what doesn’t work for others.
The more I think about this, though, I’m drawing the conclusion that an age difference is more of a “red light” factor when two people are younger. If one partner is 20 and the other is 28 or 29, that can be a problem. Considering how men and women mature at different rates, will a 20-year-old man be able to lead in a relationship with a woman who is pushing 30?
Another consideration is upbringing. Some are taught to be responsible, while others are coddled. So it’s likely you could have a very mature 20-year-old man who was raised to lead and do his part. Or you could have the opposite: A 20-year-old man who has more of a “victim’s mentality”—meaning his problems are always identified as the fault of others and no personal responsibility is taken whatsoever. In this type of individual, you’ll usually find someone who is floundering (and maybe always will be). If you date or marry him, you will likely end up being his mother.
So, where am I leading with all of this? Well, assuming that there are about seven to nine years between you and the young man in question, I am saying that you have a lot to evaluate before going forward (assuming he is the one who will be pursuing you).
If you have considered the compatibility of your maturity levels and if you have been able to observe this young man in various scenarios and you are at peace with what you’ve experienced, then I would proceed with caution. Remain friends until you feel certain that he is mature enough to lead a woman such as yourself in a godly relationship. And then, perhaps, proceed to dating.
But before you do, spend some time chewing on this …
What do your friends and family think? Are they sources of accountability and do you seek their counsel?
Do you think that this young man is mature enough to lead a late twenty-something woman in a godly relationship? And beyond that, in marriage?
Have you observed this young man enough to witness his speech, his actions and how he treats others?
Who are his friends and how do they treat one another? Are they people you would want to spend time with, too?
Is he a man of his word? Does he have a good reputation? Has he made a life for himself and have something to show for it?
Does he hold leadership positions either at work, in the community or at church?
If he is just starting out in his career or finishing up school and you are already established in your career, will this be a source of tension when it comes to respect? And submission?
Should you decide to marry and if you are ready to begin a family, will he be ready to have children as soon as you are?
Does this young man respect the elders in his life (family, supervisors at work, church leaders, authority in general)?
What is his relationship like with his mother? Does he honor her and treat her with kindness? Is his relationship with his father healthy?
Is this young man a respected leader in his family? Does he contribute to “the drama” or does he help to bring resolution to critical family situations?
These are good starter questions to get you thinking about various issues. An age difference doesn’t have to be a deal breaker, but it can certainly contribute to a relationship not being successful.
You will have to determine if this is the path down which the Lord is leading you. Or if this is a path down which you are taking yourself. There may not be any cautionary red lights for you right now, but if there are then please don’t ignore them. And don’t try to force something into being that is not of the Lord.
He will show you (and give you confirmation through prayer, the godly counsel of family and friends, study in the Word) if this age difference is acceptable in his sight for you.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1-2).
HE is … Cliff Young, a Crosswalk.com contributing writer and a veteran single of many decades. He has traveled the world in search of fresh experiences, serving opportunities, and the perfect woman (for him) and has found that his investments in God, career and youth ministry have paid off in priceless dividends.
SHE is … Laura MacCorkle, Crosswalk.com’s Senior Entertainment Editor. It is possible that she has never had the chicken pox, has definitely chowed down on some locust shells, has auditioned for a role in a Lou Diamond Phillips movie and once shook the hand of legendary Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry.
DISCLAIMER: We are not trained psychologists or licensed professionals. We’re just average folk who understand what it’s like to live the solo life in the 21st century. We believe that the Bible is our go-to guide for answers to all of life’s questions, and it’s where we’ll go for guidance when responding to your questions.
GOT A QUESTION? If you’ve got a question about anything related to living the single life, PLEASE SUBMIT HERE (selected questions will be posted anonymously). While we are unable to answer every inquiry, we do hope that He Said-She Said will be an encouragement to you.
**This column first published on September 4, 2008.
By Cliff Young & Laura MacCorkle
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer & Senior Editor
EDITOR’S NOTE: Each He Said-She Said column features a question from a Crosswalk.com reader with responses from a male and female point of view. If you’ve got a question about anything related to singleness, please CLICK HERE to submit (selected questions will be posted anonymously).
QUESTION: Should a woman in her late twenties pursue a godly relationship with a man in his early twenties? Is there an acceptable age difference?
HE SAID: In a way, this is like asking “How much money do I need to retire?” Many thoughts, besides age, should be considered in answering such a question.
Age alone is not a determining factor of the compatibility of two people. The emotional, mental, and spiritual maturity of each individual is much more important. In general, males mature at a later age than females. (This is probably the excuse many older men use in order to “chase” younger women.) Although you may think your circumstance is different, take the time to observe a person over time and in different situations. First impressions can be misleading.
Along the same line, does a man in his early twenties have his priorities, focus, and career in order? Many guys at that age think they do—I did. However, at this stage, a man is just beginning to experience life, he’s starting to see what is in the world, and he’s finding out who he is and what he wants to do.
Spirituality plays the greatest role in a godly relationship.
Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22).
Is the man pursuing righteousness and ready to be the spiritual leader in a relationship? Is he ready to sacrifice some of his freedom, time and desires in order to reciprocate in a relationship? Will this relationship bring you both closer to God?
Just for fun, I Googled “woman pursue a man” and received over 17 million results! This seems to be a popular question.
What is your definition of “pursue”?
Does it mean letting him know that you are available?
Does it mean walking up to him to initiate communication?
Does it mean acknowledging you have interest in him?
If this is true for you, then there is nothing wrong in letting someone know you are unattached and interested. In this busy world we live in, sometimes we (I’m speaking for some guys, including myself) miss signals that are right in front of us. I would be flattered to know someone is interested in me and had the forthright to initiate contact.
However, if your definition of “pursue” is this:
Does it mean tracking down his phone number and calling him?
Does it mean asking him out on a date? Or dates?
Does it eventually mean asking him to marry you?
Then, I would caution you.
If the man knows you are available and interested in him, but isn’t pursuing, this is an indication of how he feels.
Maybe he thinks the age difference is insurmountable or something he isn’t ready for.
Maybe he isn’t interested at all.
Maybe he isn’t ready for a relationship.
Maybe he doesn’t have the guts to ask you out (not a good sign).
Most men want to be the “hunter.” It is in our blood to see something we desire and to go out and get it (Ok, conquer it … I said it). When pursued, the flattery that was felt earlier quickly changes to questions of:
“Why is she asking me out?
Is she desperate?
Is there something wrong with her?
Does she feel as if time is running out for her?”
As a long-time single, my hope for a mate is in God’s hands. He has shown me through His continual faithfulness that He knows what is best for me. Although I have experienced some disappointments along the way, I have been protected from relationships that were not right for me; I just see it as God’s grace. Several Scripture passages have helped me often throughout the years.
He that finds a wife finds a good thing (Proverbs 18:22).
With God’s help, I will be the one who finds a wife (not the other way around) and when I do, it will be amazing!
Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is worth more than precious rubies. Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich his life. She will not hinder him, but help him all her life (Proverbs 31:10-12).
Wow! I want to look for and find this kind of wife. Why wouldn’t I want to wait for the right one?!
There are verses in the Bible where women take the lead, but they are not the type of women I would want to be with.
He was walking down the street near the corner on the road leading to her house. … Then the woman approached him … So I have come out to meet you; I have been looking for you and have found you (Proverbs 7:8, 10, 15).
I empathize with you. I really do. What I have found to be true in my life is that God’s plan and design never feels contrived or forced. If you have to ask if there is an “appropriate age difference,” then I believe you already know the answer in your heart.
SHE SAID: I’ll have to start out my answer on a personal note, since I know a thing or two about age differences when it comes to relationships.
I’ve had dating relationships where there have been significant gaps in age and ones where there have been differences of only a few years or less. Some men have been older than me, while others have been younger. I guess you could say I’m an “equal-opportunity dater.” Well, as long as no gold medallion necklaces, pointy boots or mountain-man beards are involved (sorry!).
In hindsight, the closer in age I have been to those I’ve dated then the easier the relationships have seemed to go. Surely, there were other factors involved to determine the success and duration of each relationship (faith, maturity, interests, values, goals, etc.). But I think that a significant age difference can also make or break a relationship.
As believers, we don’t really find a clear answer for your question in Scripture. Thus far, I’ve only found references to relationships or marriages where the man is older than the woman. And to my knowledge, I don’t think that there are any biblical examples of older women in dating or marital relationships with younger men. So I am left with the world around me (and perhaps a little common sense and hopefully some divine inspiration) from which to draw.
I suppose a significant age difference in a relationship (with the woman being older than the man) is more culturally acceptable these days, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good thing. You would have to investigate on a relationship-by-relationship basis to see what works for some and what doesn’t work for others.
The more I think about this, though, I’m drawing the conclusion that an age difference is more of a “red light” factor when two people are younger. If one partner is 20 and the other is 28 or 29, that can be a problem. Considering how men and women mature at different rates, will a 20-year-old man be able to lead in a relationship with a woman who is pushing 30?
Another consideration is upbringing. Some are taught to be responsible, while others are coddled. So it’s likely you could have a very mature 20-year-old man who was raised to lead and do his part. Or you could have the opposite: A 20-year-old man who has more of a “victim’s mentality”—meaning his problems are always identified as the fault of others and no personal responsibility is taken whatsoever. In this type of individual, you’ll usually find someone who is floundering (and maybe always will be). If you date or marry him, you will likely end up being his mother.
So, where am I leading with all of this? Well, assuming that there are about seven to nine years between you and the young man in question, I am saying that you have a lot to evaluate before going forward (assuming he is the one who will be pursuing you).
If you have considered the compatibility of your maturity levels and if you have been able to observe this young man in various scenarios and you are at peace with what you’ve experienced, then I would proceed with caution. Remain friends until you feel certain that he is mature enough to lead a woman such as yourself in a godly relationship. And then, perhaps, proceed to dating.
But before you do, spend some time chewing on this …
What do your friends and family think? Are they sources of accountability and do you seek their counsel?
Do you think that this young man is mature enough to lead a late twenty-something woman in a godly relationship? And beyond that, in marriage?
Have you observed this young man enough to witness his speech, his actions and how he treats others?
Who are his friends and how do they treat one another? Are they people you would want to spend time with, too?
Is he a man of his word? Does he have a good reputation? Has he made a life for himself and have something to show for it?
Does he hold leadership positions either at work, in the community or at church?
If he is just starting out in his career or finishing up school and you are already established in your career, will this be a source of tension when it comes to respect? And submission?
Should you decide to marry and if you are ready to begin a family, will he be ready to have children as soon as you are?
Does this young man respect the elders in his life (family, supervisors at work, church leaders, authority in general)?
What is his relationship like with his mother? Does he honor her and treat her with kindness? Is his relationship with his father healthy?
Is this young man a respected leader in his family? Does he contribute to “the drama” or does he help to bring resolution to critical family situations?
These are good starter questions to get you thinking about various issues. An age difference doesn’t have to be a deal breaker, but it can certainly contribute to a relationship not being successful.
You will have to determine if this is the path down which the Lord is leading you. Or if this is a path down which you are taking yourself. There may not be any cautionary red lights for you right now, but if there are then please don’t ignore them. And don’t try to force something into being that is not of the Lord.
He will show you (and give you confirmation through prayer, the godly counsel of family and friends, study in the Word) if this age difference is acceptable in his sight for you.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1-2).
HE is … Cliff Young, a Crosswalk.com contributing writer and a veteran single of many decades. He has traveled the world in search of fresh experiences, serving opportunities, and the perfect woman (for him) and has found that his investments in God, career and youth ministry have paid off in priceless dividends.
SHE is … Laura MacCorkle, Crosswalk.com’s Senior Entertainment Editor. It is possible that she has never had the chicken pox, has definitely chowed down on some locust shells, has auditioned for a role in a Lou Diamond Phillips movie and once shook the hand of legendary Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry.
DISCLAIMER: We are not trained psychologists or licensed professionals. We’re just average folk who understand what it’s like to live the solo life in the 21st century. We believe that the Bible is our go-to guide for answers to all of life’s questions, and it’s where we’ll go for guidance when responding to your questions.
GOT A QUESTION? If you’ve got a question about anything related to living the single life, PLEASE SUBMIT HERE (selected questions will be posted anonymously). While we are unable to answer every inquiry, we do hope that He Said-She Said will be an encouragement to you.
**This column first published on September 4, 2008.
Marrying Your 'Soul Mate': Does Such a Person Exist?
Marrying Your 'Soul Mate': Does Such a Person Exist?
By Edward M. Tauber & Jim Smoke
Authors, Finding the Right One After Divorce
A great marriage is not when the “perfect couple” come together. It is when an imperfect couple learns to enjoy their differences. ~ Dave Meurer
Unfortunately, some people use very strange criteria in making their decision about who to marry. They have some limited set of characteristics in their heads that tell them when they’ve found Mr. or Ms. Right. How often have you heard someone say, “I’m getting married because I found my soul mate”?
He Knows My Inner Being
Never fully defined in any literature, the term “soul mate” is used by people as if we all clearly understood what is meant. We have asked a number of people to explain what a soul mate is. We never get the same answer. Nevertheless, it’s a popular buzzword. Some definitions of a soul mate is a person who…
has the same background as you.
thinks like you.
understands you.
knows you before even really knowing you.
knows you better than you know yourself.
you can talk with for hours even when you first meet.
has the same interests and hobbies as you.
has your best interests at heart.
Others say a soul mate…
sees into your inner being.
is like the missing half of you.
is a perfect match for you.
is your twin or counterpart.
is the one, true person for you.
immediately connects with you.
If you think there is only one person out there who is the right one for you, you are vulnerable to marry when you think you have found that person. There is much evidence that there are likely many people in the world who would make an acceptable mate for you. The risk of thinking otherwise is that when you believe you have found “the one,” you abandon all sensibility and are driven to marry that person. Some people believe in soul mates because of their divorce experience. It didn’t work with my ex because he was the “wrong one.” Now I will go and find the right one, who will be the opposite of my ex.
Since you believe there is such a thing as the one soul mate in the world for you, you have some preconceived notions in mind. Some people are searching for someone “just like me.” Others believe that someone is their soul mate if they have similar backgrounds, thoughts, or views. Still others believe they will intuitively know a soul mate by their connectedness to them. We’re not saying that having things in common isn’t important. Quite the contrary, it is very relevant in a successful marriage. The problem comes when you are on a mission to find an individual who has one or a few narrow set of similarities or characteristics, and you take it as a sign to marry.
Finding a soul mate is a great start, but people are multidimensional. You cannot judge a person as right for you because he or she has certain similarities or just seems tuned in to you. Now you need to spend considerable time learning all about other aspects, such as the differences between you, the habits and quirks he has, any shared values, dreams, goals, opinions, and so forth. Don’t fall into the trap of the “soul mate mentality” and think someone is right just based on initial impressions.
When He Said Soul Mate, I Knew…
Sheila was married for 17 years to an advertising executive who was never at home. Their marriage happened because she got pregnant during their dating phase, and they got married to legitimize their offspring. Sheila had three children by the age of 36. The lack of availability of her husband drove Sheila to have an affair with the husband of a friend. This relationship went on undetected for four years before Sheila finally decided she could not handle the strain any longer. At that point she asked for a divorce. Once divorced, the friend’s husband quickly backed out of their tryst. She was suddenly available and a threat to his current marriage.
Sheila did not date for more than a year. Then she began to go out with some men from the office. She expanded this to men friends recommended. This intensive dating went on for more than three years. At first, Sheila didn’t want to remarry, and she gave off that vibe. However, as time passed, she became more and more frustrated. She decided she needed to find her soul mate. When asked what such a man would be like, she answered by saying, “He will know me better than I know myself.” We heard nothing more from her until a friend said she met a man and got engaged.
Later, Sheila said Phil was the man she had been searching for. She knew he was “the one” when he opened the car door for her. He wasn’t like the others she had dated. She and Phil immediately hit it off when he told her he was looking for his soul mate. That triggered a discussion for hours. They were of one accord. Sheila did marry Phil, almost immediately. Problems began early because Phil was about to be laid off at work, something he failed to mention during courtship. This put an immediate strain on the marriage. Phil had to sell his home, and they had to move into a small apartment. The pressures eventually forced Sheila to realize that Phil was not her “soul mate,” and she filed for divorce.
Sheila let herself become a victim of the “soul mate mentality.” After intensively dating men with her attitude of “I’m not interested,” she suddenly got desperate and devised a simple formula for deciding when to get married. They would both be of one accord—meaning he would be looking for a soul mate, too. Phil fit the bill, and his gentlemanly courtship behavior was icing on the cake. No need to dig any further in learning more about him or determining if they were compatible in various areas. Being in tune with each other was enough.
We’re Just Alike
Andy and Joyce had led a hard life until they met. Andy married a girl in high school, divorced before 19, and dropped out of college at 20. He had one job after another. He never could earn enough money to even afford to take someone out on a date. He moved back home to live with his mother. This made things worse because his self-esteem dropped even further. His older sister and brother were both successful professionals, which was salt in his wound. From early childhood, Andy’s mother acted as if she thought Andy was a loser. He’d had poor grades in high school, a failed marriage, a failed college career, and a failing business career all before the age of 25. The more he failed at something, the more his mother reinforced that he was a loser. He acted out her script of a person who could do nothing right. It was a vicious cycle of negative feedback and failure.
Andy met Joyce when a mutual friend suggested they would have a lot in common. Sure enough, the friend was correct. Joyce had grown up in the same town, yet she and Andy had never met. When they began comparing notes, they found tremendous similarities. Joyce’s mother was a very controlling woman who judged Joyce and always found her lacking. No matter what Joyce did or accomplished, it was never good enough for her mother. As a result, Joyce had developed an overeating problem in her teen years. Whenever she tried to lose weight, some conflict would develop with her mother and cause a setback. Even when Joyce went away to college, her “failure in her head” mentality kept her from achieving what she knew she was capable of. Joyce had even tried marriage. In her sophomore year, she married a graduate student who left her after seven months. She attributed the marriage debacle to her eating disorder. She always blamed herself for whatever went wrong.
Andy and Joyce saw in each other some amazing similarities that they interpreted as signs that they were meant for each other. Their relationship seemed to help them, too, because instead of dragging each other down, they were mutually supportive. For the first time, they began to feel good about themselves. There were some red flags, however. Occasionally, if Joyce became depressed, Andy couldn’t handle it. They even separated one time because of this. Another problem was that Joyce was Catholic and Andy was Jewish. Joyce’s mother was totally opposed to the couple marrying. Also, Joyce wanted children, and Andy wasn’t sure. He’d had so much trouble as a child, he didn’t know if he could be a good father.
In spite of these issues, the couple believed that their similarities were the signal that they were right for each other. Joyce was happy to act in opposition to the wishes of her domineering mother. Andy and Joyce’s marriage lasted 11 years, but most of the final 6 were stress-filled. Joyce had again retreated to her illness of overeating, which caused tension in the marriage. Andy continued his struggle to hold a job for more than a year at a time. His out-of-work periods created great financial strain on the marriage. They were not the only ones to suffer from the marriage failure. They had a child who was constantly caught in the middle of the downward spiral of his parents. Some years after the divorce, Joyce committed suicide.
Andy and Joyce were a sad couple who identified with each other’s circumstances and mindsets. Two halves don’t make a whole, but they thought so. Andy was not ready to care for and support another wife. Joyce was still struggling with her overeating disease and was far from mentally healthy. They ignored all the red flags that were obvious to both of them. No doubt, they each believed no one else would have them, and so this was their one opportunity to remarry. When you find someone who has some similarities to you, it is not enough of a basis for a healthy marriage. Andy and Joyce confused similar backgrounds, conditions, and problems with shared interests, dreams, and goals. They had none of those.
His Children Caused Our Divorce
Belinda married a man when she was in her twenties, and it didn’t work out. He told her she was smarter than he was; she made him feel inferior. Belinda was smart, talented, and beautiful. For some men, that’s a threat.
By her mid-thirties, Belinda married again. This time she picked an older man, Frank, who was a senior executive at the company where she worked. He had also been married before and had three sons—two who were teenagers and the third of college age. Belinda had no children, and she had originally worried how well she might be accepted by Frank’s children. As it turned out, they seemed to love her and she blended in well with his family. All went fine until the couple began to squabble. In these instances, Frank would drag his sons into the fight, and they took sides with him. It got so bad that Belinda demanded that the three boys not be allowed in their home. The friction was aggravating an already deteriorating situation. This angered Frank and brought everything to a head. Eventually Frank and Belinda divorced. She told all her friends that she would never again marry a man with children. In fact, she felt so strongly about this that she would not even consider dating someone who was divorced with kids.
Mark had recently moved to town and joined the church where Belinda attended. Mark had never been married and was a little younger than Belinda. When she met him, she set her sights on him as the next “Mr. Belinda.” Nothing would get in her way. He was the perfect candidate. Never married, no children, and no baggage—she thought. They were married, and Belinda found out differently after the wedding. She had never asked if he had children and only found out when she accidentally opened an envelope from one of his past live-ins asking for child support money. Mark had (intentionally) failed to mention that he had lived with two women and had fathered a child with one. He had been too ashamed to tell her this during their short courtship.
Belinda “learned” from her first marriage that a man who has children is not a good husband. She, therefore, concluded that if she could find a man who has no children, she should seriously consider marrying him. This so-called “learning” came about from not allowing enough time to understand what really went wrong in her first marriage and, instead, blaming the presence of her husband’s children for the breakup.
The One-Dimensional Match
What do these stories have in common? They may seem very different, but they are all examples of having one dimension in mind as a trigger for concluding, “I have found the right one. I am ready to remarry.” Sheila was searching for the illusive soul mate. This thinking focused her on a limited dimension of a prospective spouse—someone whom she would immediately “recognize” as her soul mate. This kept her from examining all aspects of her relationship with Phil. How could she be aware of any negative factors with him after concluding from the start “he’s the one”? When you jump to a conclusion that fast, you are assuming all other aspects are irrelevant or will magically work out.
Andy and Joyce identified one important aspect in their lives that they had in common—others thought they were losers. They had become convinced themselves, and so immediately decided to huddle together against the world. Anyone who is feeling so incomplete and inadequate should not consider marriage in that condition. If you already feel like a failure, there is nothing worse than to jump into another marriage, get another divorce, and “prove” it to yourself all over again. You don’t have to have the intense mental problems Joyce had. The normal emotional stress of a divorce can place you in the same condition. This story is not a case of rescue. It’s a case of believing you should marry someone because he or she is in the same predicament you are. Misery loves company.
When you divorce, you immediately look for the culprit. With a lot of time passed, you will see things differently. You will learn what you contributed to your marriage failing. Time helps us see more clearly when the anger and grieving are past. If you don’t wait for that time to elapse before doing a post-mortem on the marriage, you are likely to conclude something very narrow like Belinda did: The divorce occurred because her husband had children. Armed with this “fact,” she set out to find a childless husband replacement.
The Perfect Person
We have heard many other versions of this story—where a divorced individual has a “perfect” person in mind. The ideal usually relates to one attribute—often the reverse of what the ex-spouse had. He doesn’t drink. She won’t be such a religious fanatic. He won’t travel in his job. She won’t have an ex-husband who lives in town. From these examples, you can write the story about what happened in the previous marriage. Is it wrong to be concerned about issues such as these, especially if they were a problem in your past marriage? No, of course not. The problem is one-dimensional searching: When you are so focused on one issue you tend to ignore other things. Because someone you date has or doesn’t have the characteristic you are looking for is no guarantee of success in marriage. You still have to do the hard work and allow the time to make sure he or she has other good qualities and not any horrible ones. You also have to be observant of the dynamics between you. How do you two interact in various circumstances? What does he do that causes conflict? How does she behave when under pressure? To gauge all of this takes time, an open mind, and an objective attitude. It sounds cold and calculating, but remember, divorce is painful and affects your entire family.
Sign of an Unhealed Divorce
Another reason that single-dimension searching is a problem is that it is a sign of an unhealed divorce. Think about it. Sheila sought a soul mate believing that was what was missing in her prior marriage. She was frantically dating. She was frustrated and desperate. Does this sound like a woman who has allowed time to pass and worked through her problems to become healthy and independent?
Then we have Andy and Joyce, two people who needed to get their own acts together before putting their problems on each other. They were each still struggling with low self-esteem from childhood, which was reinforced in their previous divorces. Andy was still living at home with mom. Joyce was unable to control overeating, a clue that she was not well.
Finally, Belinda had gone through two marriages and was still confused about what had happened. When you are still blaming someone else for the failure of your marriage, you need to remain in recovery and accept what you did and learn forgiveness. Belinda wasn’t close to accomplishing that. She was still playing the blame game.
If you are on a one-track search for Mr. or Ms. Right, you are not ready to remarry. Don’t get confused when you date that because someone has what you deem desirable similarities to you, this is enough of a basis for marrying.
Are You at Risk?
Searching for a soul mate can be dangerous. Are you at risk for this behavior? Do you…
have a “soul mate mentality”?
believe you will know the “right one” the minute you meet him or her?
search for your next spouse looking for one important trait—maybe the opposite of what your ex had?
think there is only one person in the world who is right for you, and you are on a mission to find him or her?
have a set of criteria for the ideal spouse or a simple formula for knowing who would be your soul mate?
Here are some tips to help you avoid trapping yourself in the soul mate myth.
Retrain your thinking. If you have a “soul mate mentality,” educate yourself about the risks. One way to do this is to read and reread the stories in this book of redivorced people who naively searched for their soul mates only to get burned because they refused to see or acknowledge any problems once they made up their minds.
Don’t shop for duplicates or opposites. Finding your mirror-image mate in background or experience is no assurance of a good match. Likewise, just because someone doesn’t have the ugly habits or traits of your ex (drinking, yelling, spending, controlling) doesn’t mean he will be right for you, either. List the problems of your past marriage(s) and make certain that these are not the only criteria you use to select a future spouse.
Don’t be unequally yoked. If you choose someone who has a major difference in belief systems from you, it is likely to become a problem after the “honeymoon phase” is over. When your most fundamental beliefs are at odds, you will eventually see divisions creep into the marriage that could lead to its downfall. Any disagreements or major differences in belief systems will certainly become more pronounced if and when children are part of your family.
Allow enough time dating. Quick decisions about a soul mate can be overcome if you date someone at least a few years before marrying. Be alert to problems and red flags.
Taken from: Finding the Right One After Divorce. Copyright © 2007 by Edward M. Tauber and Jim Smoke. Published by Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR. Used by permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward M Tauber, a corporate researcher, industry consultant, and divorce counselor, received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. A former professor and department chairman at the University of Southern California, he's also been a senior executive and consultant with Fortune 500 companies.
Jim Smoke is an internationally known author, speaker, and life coach. A pioneer in the divorce recovery field, he has worked with singles and singles-again for more than 30 years. Jim has written 17 books, including his bestselling Growing Through Divorce (nearly 600,000 copies sold).
By Edward M. Tauber & Jim Smoke
Authors, Finding the Right One After Divorce
A great marriage is not when the “perfect couple” come together. It is when an imperfect couple learns to enjoy their differences. ~ Dave Meurer
Unfortunately, some people use very strange criteria in making their decision about who to marry. They have some limited set of characteristics in their heads that tell them when they’ve found Mr. or Ms. Right. How often have you heard someone say, “I’m getting married because I found my soul mate”?
He Knows My Inner Being
Never fully defined in any literature, the term “soul mate” is used by people as if we all clearly understood what is meant. We have asked a number of people to explain what a soul mate is. We never get the same answer. Nevertheless, it’s a popular buzzword. Some definitions of a soul mate is a person who…
has the same background as you.
thinks like you.
understands you.
knows you before even really knowing you.
knows you better than you know yourself.
you can talk with for hours even when you first meet.
has the same interests and hobbies as you.
has your best interests at heart.
Others say a soul mate…
sees into your inner being.
is like the missing half of you.
is a perfect match for you.
is your twin or counterpart.
is the one, true person for you.
immediately connects with you.
If you think there is only one person out there who is the right one for you, you are vulnerable to marry when you think you have found that person. There is much evidence that there are likely many people in the world who would make an acceptable mate for you. The risk of thinking otherwise is that when you believe you have found “the one,” you abandon all sensibility and are driven to marry that person. Some people believe in soul mates because of their divorce experience. It didn’t work with my ex because he was the “wrong one.” Now I will go and find the right one, who will be the opposite of my ex.
Since you believe there is such a thing as the one soul mate in the world for you, you have some preconceived notions in mind. Some people are searching for someone “just like me.” Others believe that someone is their soul mate if they have similar backgrounds, thoughts, or views. Still others believe they will intuitively know a soul mate by their connectedness to them. We’re not saying that having things in common isn’t important. Quite the contrary, it is very relevant in a successful marriage. The problem comes when you are on a mission to find an individual who has one or a few narrow set of similarities or characteristics, and you take it as a sign to marry.
Finding a soul mate is a great start, but people are multidimensional. You cannot judge a person as right for you because he or she has certain similarities or just seems tuned in to you. Now you need to spend considerable time learning all about other aspects, such as the differences between you, the habits and quirks he has, any shared values, dreams, goals, opinions, and so forth. Don’t fall into the trap of the “soul mate mentality” and think someone is right just based on initial impressions.
When He Said Soul Mate, I Knew…
Sheila was married for 17 years to an advertising executive who was never at home. Their marriage happened because she got pregnant during their dating phase, and they got married to legitimize their offspring. Sheila had three children by the age of 36. The lack of availability of her husband drove Sheila to have an affair with the husband of a friend. This relationship went on undetected for four years before Sheila finally decided she could not handle the strain any longer. At that point she asked for a divorce. Once divorced, the friend’s husband quickly backed out of their tryst. She was suddenly available and a threat to his current marriage.
Sheila did not date for more than a year. Then she began to go out with some men from the office. She expanded this to men friends recommended. This intensive dating went on for more than three years. At first, Sheila didn’t want to remarry, and she gave off that vibe. However, as time passed, she became more and more frustrated. She decided she needed to find her soul mate. When asked what such a man would be like, she answered by saying, “He will know me better than I know myself.” We heard nothing more from her until a friend said she met a man and got engaged.
Later, Sheila said Phil was the man she had been searching for. She knew he was “the one” when he opened the car door for her. He wasn’t like the others she had dated. She and Phil immediately hit it off when he told her he was looking for his soul mate. That triggered a discussion for hours. They were of one accord. Sheila did marry Phil, almost immediately. Problems began early because Phil was about to be laid off at work, something he failed to mention during courtship. This put an immediate strain on the marriage. Phil had to sell his home, and they had to move into a small apartment. The pressures eventually forced Sheila to realize that Phil was not her “soul mate,” and she filed for divorce.
Sheila let herself become a victim of the “soul mate mentality.” After intensively dating men with her attitude of “I’m not interested,” she suddenly got desperate and devised a simple formula for deciding when to get married. They would both be of one accord—meaning he would be looking for a soul mate, too. Phil fit the bill, and his gentlemanly courtship behavior was icing on the cake. No need to dig any further in learning more about him or determining if they were compatible in various areas. Being in tune with each other was enough.
We’re Just Alike
Andy and Joyce had led a hard life until they met. Andy married a girl in high school, divorced before 19, and dropped out of college at 20. He had one job after another. He never could earn enough money to even afford to take someone out on a date. He moved back home to live with his mother. This made things worse because his self-esteem dropped even further. His older sister and brother were both successful professionals, which was salt in his wound. From early childhood, Andy’s mother acted as if she thought Andy was a loser. He’d had poor grades in high school, a failed marriage, a failed college career, and a failing business career all before the age of 25. The more he failed at something, the more his mother reinforced that he was a loser. He acted out her script of a person who could do nothing right. It was a vicious cycle of negative feedback and failure.
Andy met Joyce when a mutual friend suggested they would have a lot in common. Sure enough, the friend was correct. Joyce had grown up in the same town, yet she and Andy had never met. When they began comparing notes, they found tremendous similarities. Joyce’s mother was a very controlling woman who judged Joyce and always found her lacking. No matter what Joyce did or accomplished, it was never good enough for her mother. As a result, Joyce had developed an overeating problem in her teen years. Whenever she tried to lose weight, some conflict would develop with her mother and cause a setback. Even when Joyce went away to college, her “failure in her head” mentality kept her from achieving what she knew she was capable of. Joyce had even tried marriage. In her sophomore year, she married a graduate student who left her after seven months. She attributed the marriage debacle to her eating disorder. She always blamed herself for whatever went wrong.
Andy and Joyce saw in each other some amazing similarities that they interpreted as signs that they were meant for each other. Their relationship seemed to help them, too, because instead of dragging each other down, they were mutually supportive. For the first time, they began to feel good about themselves. There were some red flags, however. Occasionally, if Joyce became depressed, Andy couldn’t handle it. They even separated one time because of this. Another problem was that Joyce was Catholic and Andy was Jewish. Joyce’s mother was totally opposed to the couple marrying. Also, Joyce wanted children, and Andy wasn’t sure. He’d had so much trouble as a child, he didn’t know if he could be a good father.
In spite of these issues, the couple believed that their similarities were the signal that they were right for each other. Joyce was happy to act in opposition to the wishes of her domineering mother. Andy and Joyce’s marriage lasted 11 years, but most of the final 6 were stress-filled. Joyce had again retreated to her illness of overeating, which caused tension in the marriage. Andy continued his struggle to hold a job for more than a year at a time. His out-of-work periods created great financial strain on the marriage. They were not the only ones to suffer from the marriage failure. They had a child who was constantly caught in the middle of the downward spiral of his parents. Some years after the divorce, Joyce committed suicide.
Andy and Joyce were a sad couple who identified with each other’s circumstances and mindsets. Two halves don’t make a whole, but they thought so. Andy was not ready to care for and support another wife. Joyce was still struggling with her overeating disease and was far from mentally healthy. They ignored all the red flags that were obvious to both of them. No doubt, they each believed no one else would have them, and so this was their one opportunity to remarry. When you find someone who has some similarities to you, it is not enough of a basis for a healthy marriage. Andy and Joyce confused similar backgrounds, conditions, and problems with shared interests, dreams, and goals. They had none of those.
His Children Caused Our Divorce
Belinda married a man when she was in her twenties, and it didn’t work out. He told her she was smarter than he was; she made him feel inferior. Belinda was smart, talented, and beautiful. For some men, that’s a threat.
By her mid-thirties, Belinda married again. This time she picked an older man, Frank, who was a senior executive at the company where she worked. He had also been married before and had three sons—two who were teenagers and the third of college age. Belinda had no children, and she had originally worried how well she might be accepted by Frank’s children. As it turned out, they seemed to love her and she blended in well with his family. All went fine until the couple began to squabble. In these instances, Frank would drag his sons into the fight, and they took sides with him. It got so bad that Belinda demanded that the three boys not be allowed in their home. The friction was aggravating an already deteriorating situation. This angered Frank and brought everything to a head. Eventually Frank and Belinda divorced. She told all her friends that she would never again marry a man with children. In fact, she felt so strongly about this that she would not even consider dating someone who was divorced with kids.
Mark had recently moved to town and joined the church where Belinda attended. Mark had never been married and was a little younger than Belinda. When she met him, she set her sights on him as the next “Mr. Belinda.” Nothing would get in her way. He was the perfect candidate. Never married, no children, and no baggage—she thought. They were married, and Belinda found out differently after the wedding. She had never asked if he had children and only found out when she accidentally opened an envelope from one of his past live-ins asking for child support money. Mark had (intentionally) failed to mention that he had lived with two women and had fathered a child with one. He had been too ashamed to tell her this during their short courtship.
Belinda “learned” from her first marriage that a man who has children is not a good husband. She, therefore, concluded that if she could find a man who has no children, she should seriously consider marrying him. This so-called “learning” came about from not allowing enough time to understand what really went wrong in her first marriage and, instead, blaming the presence of her husband’s children for the breakup.
The One-Dimensional Match
What do these stories have in common? They may seem very different, but they are all examples of having one dimension in mind as a trigger for concluding, “I have found the right one. I am ready to remarry.” Sheila was searching for the illusive soul mate. This thinking focused her on a limited dimension of a prospective spouse—someone whom she would immediately “recognize” as her soul mate. This kept her from examining all aspects of her relationship with Phil. How could she be aware of any negative factors with him after concluding from the start “he’s the one”? When you jump to a conclusion that fast, you are assuming all other aspects are irrelevant or will magically work out.
Andy and Joyce identified one important aspect in their lives that they had in common—others thought they were losers. They had become convinced themselves, and so immediately decided to huddle together against the world. Anyone who is feeling so incomplete and inadequate should not consider marriage in that condition. If you already feel like a failure, there is nothing worse than to jump into another marriage, get another divorce, and “prove” it to yourself all over again. You don’t have to have the intense mental problems Joyce had. The normal emotional stress of a divorce can place you in the same condition. This story is not a case of rescue. It’s a case of believing you should marry someone because he or she is in the same predicament you are. Misery loves company.
When you divorce, you immediately look for the culprit. With a lot of time passed, you will see things differently. You will learn what you contributed to your marriage failing. Time helps us see more clearly when the anger and grieving are past. If you don’t wait for that time to elapse before doing a post-mortem on the marriage, you are likely to conclude something very narrow like Belinda did: The divorce occurred because her husband had children. Armed with this “fact,” she set out to find a childless husband replacement.
The Perfect Person
We have heard many other versions of this story—where a divorced individual has a “perfect” person in mind. The ideal usually relates to one attribute—often the reverse of what the ex-spouse had. He doesn’t drink. She won’t be such a religious fanatic. He won’t travel in his job. She won’t have an ex-husband who lives in town. From these examples, you can write the story about what happened in the previous marriage. Is it wrong to be concerned about issues such as these, especially if they were a problem in your past marriage? No, of course not. The problem is one-dimensional searching: When you are so focused on one issue you tend to ignore other things. Because someone you date has or doesn’t have the characteristic you are looking for is no guarantee of success in marriage. You still have to do the hard work and allow the time to make sure he or she has other good qualities and not any horrible ones. You also have to be observant of the dynamics between you. How do you two interact in various circumstances? What does he do that causes conflict? How does she behave when under pressure? To gauge all of this takes time, an open mind, and an objective attitude. It sounds cold and calculating, but remember, divorce is painful and affects your entire family.
Sign of an Unhealed Divorce
Another reason that single-dimension searching is a problem is that it is a sign of an unhealed divorce. Think about it. Sheila sought a soul mate believing that was what was missing in her prior marriage. She was frantically dating. She was frustrated and desperate. Does this sound like a woman who has allowed time to pass and worked through her problems to become healthy and independent?
Then we have Andy and Joyce, two people who needed to get their own acts together before putting their problems on each other. They were each still struggling with low self-esteem from childhood, which was reinforced in their previous divorces. Andy was still living at home with mom. Joyce was unable to control overeating, a clue that she was not well.
Finally, Belinda had gone through two marriages and was still confused about what had happened. When you are still blaming someone else for the failure of your marriage, you need to remain in recovery and accept what you did and learn forgiveness. Belinda wasn’t close to accomplishing that. She was still playing the blame game.
If you are on a one-track search for Mr. or Ms. Right, you are not ready to remarry. Don’t get confused when you date that because someone has what you deem desirable similarities to you, this is enough of a basis for marrying.
Are You at Risk?
Searching for a soul mate can be dangerous. Are you at risk for this behavior? Do you…
have a “soul mate mentality”?
believe you will know the “right one” the minute you meet him or her?
search for your next spouse looking for one important trait—maybe the opposite of what your ex had?
think there is only one person in the world who is right for you, and you are on a mission to find him or her?
have a set of criteria for the ideal spouse or a simple formula for knowing who would be your soul mate?
Here are some tips to help you avoid trapping yourself in the soul mate myth.
Retrain your thinking. If you have a “soul mate mentality,” educate yourself about the risks. One way to do this is to read and reread the stories in this book of redivorced people who naively searched for their soul mates only to get burned because they refused to see or acknowledge any problems once they made up their minds.
Don’t shop for duplicates or opposites. Finding your mirror-image mate in background or experience is no assurance of a good match. Likewise, just because someone doesn’t have the ugly habits or traits of your ex (drinking, yelling, spending, controlling) doesn’t mean he will be right for you, either. List the problems of your past marriage(s) and make certain that these are not the only criteria you use to select a future spouse.
Don’t be unequally yoked. If you choose someone who has a major difference in belief systems from you, it is likely to become a problem after the “honeymoon phase” is over. When your most fundamental beliefs are at odds, you will eventually see divisions creep into the marriage that could lead to its downfall. Any disagreements or major differences in belief systems will certainly become more pronounced if and when children are part of your family.
Allow enough time dating. Quick decisions about a soul mate can be overcome if you date someone at least a few years before marrying. Be alert to problems and red flags.
Taken from: Finding the Right One After Divorce. Copyright © 2007 by Edward M. Tauber and Jim Smoke. Published by Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR. Used by permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward M Tauber, a corporate researcher, industry consultant, and divorce counselor, received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. A former professor and department chairman at the University of Southern California, he's also been a senior executive and consultant with Fortune 500 companies.
Jim Smoke is an internationally known author, speaker, and life coach. A pioneer in the divorce recovery field, he has worked with singles and singles-again for more than 30 years. Jim has written 17 books, including his bestselling Growing Through Divorce (nearly 600,000 copies sold).
Washington Redskins vs. New York Giants - Week 1
Washington Redskins vs. New York Giants - Week 1
Thursday, September 4, 2007
Giants Stadium At The New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
7:00 pm
East Rutherford --
The Giants came out guns ablaze fresh off the Super Bowl XLII victory in Phoenix in February. NBC, famous for letting the suspense build for a sporting event (see: NBA on NBC, 1990-2002), got us riled up with footage of Michael Strahan and Super Bowl Hero David Tyree hoisting the trophy in midtown Manhattan the other day, and later, the trophy being escorted to East Rutherford. Then, Strahan got the crowd at Giants Stadium pumped with his "STOMP YOU OUT" speech.
Opening drive was sparkling. Eli Manning made a couple of great throws, Plaxico Burress, fresh off a new contract extension signed just before the game, was making acrobatic catches all night. Brandon Jacobs, who is always fired up, started the NFL season RIGHT by trucking Redskins' safety LaRon Landry. Jacobs, who goes 6'4" 265 lbs, is the biggest and most nimble running back the league has ever seen and does not fall with the slightest tap (you know who I am referring to). Landry is no slouch. He is going to be a stud in this league and came into the NFL with the reputation as a rangy hitter that can run sideline to sideline and make great plays. He's used to laying the lumber. This time, he got it laid to him and got knocked out, Debo style.
The first Giants' drive lead to a touchdown, but after that, suspect playcalling, lackadaisical throws by Eli Manning and a few adjustments by the Redskins' defense led to three field goals the rest of the night for the Giants' offense.
The biggest question would be how would Redskins' coach Jim Zorn fare with his West Coast Offense and QB Jason Campbell. The preseason was no fluke. The Redskins are BAD right now. They will get better as they adapt to the system, but they looked terrible for half the game. Of course, part of this was due to the Giants' defense, which despite missing Strahan and Osi Umenyiora, and playing a currently inept offense, were DOMINANT all night. It could have been Dallas or New England and the Giants' defense would have dominated. I, for one, believe the talking heads on ESPN and FOX Sports (most of whom hate the Giants anyway) have overstated the significance of Strahan's departure (which most Giants fans and the front office anticipated) and Umenyiora's injury (given that Justin Tuck is about to become a STUD defensive end that teams will have to scheme around all season). The Giants' defense will be fine. PERIOD.
The only question is: Can Eli continue what he did down the stretch in 2007? Will Toomer be bumped to the sideline in favor of Manningham or Hixon, now that he cannot get open anymore? Will Kiwanuka continue being as effective as he was in 2007 before his injury and last night? We will see. I had the Giants winning 12 before Umenyiora's injury. I still have them winning 10, possibly 11. There is no slippage.
Clinton Portis did well to get 84 yards, when there were hardly no holes in the offensive line to run through. He is a great back and I've always respected him. Mathias Kiwanuka does, too, now that he got chipped pretty good by Portis in the 2nd half. The Redskins have players. This was Week 1. Both teams are rusty. The Redskins are installing a new offense. Giants' defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo (or as Troy Aikman calls him, "Steve Spagnola") has been shuttling players in and out as he contours his defense to fit the personnel that remains after free agent defections, retirements and injuries. Despite all this, the next time these two teams meet -- expect more of the same. The Redskins will be better in all phases, but so will the Giants.
Week 2 -
New York Giants at St. Louis Rams
Edward Jones Dome
St. Louis, Missouri
1:00 PM
Thursday, September 4, 2007
Giants Stadium At The New Jersey Meadowlands
East Rutherford, New Jersey
7:00 pm
East Rutherford --
The Giants came out guns ablaze fresh off the Super Bowl XLII victory in Phoenix in February. NBC, famous for letting the suspense build for a sporting event (see: NBA on NBC, 1990-2002), got us riled up with footage of Michael Strahan and Super Bowl Hero David Tyree hoisting the trophy in midtown Manhattan the other day, and later, the trophy being escorted to East Rutherford. Then, Strahan got the crowd at Giants Stadium pumped with his "STOMP YOU OUT" speech.
Opening drive was sparkling. Eli Manning made a couple of great throws, Plaxico Burress, fresh off a new contract extension signed just before the game, was making acrobatic catches all night. Brandon Jacobs, who is always fired up, started the NFL season RIGHT by trucking Redskins' safety LaRon Landry. Jacobs, who goes 6'4" 265 lbs, is the biggest and most nimble running back the league has ever seen and does not fall with the slightest tap (you know who I am referring to). Landry is no slouch. He is going to be a stud in this league and came into the NFL with the reputation as a rangy hitter that can run sideline to sideline and make great plays. He's used to laying the lumber. This time, he got it laid to him and got knocked out, Debo style.
The first Giants' drive lead to a touchdown, but after that, suspect playcalling, lackadaisical throws by Eli Manning and a few adjustments by the Redskins' defense led to three field goals the rest of the night for the Giants' offense.
The biggest question would be how would Redskins' coach Jim Zorn fare with his West Coast Offense and QB Jason Campbell. The preseason was no fluke. The Redskins are BAD right now. They will get better as they adapt to the system, but they looked terrible for half the game. Of course, part of this was due to the Giants' defense, which despite missing Strahan and Osi Umenyiora, and playing a currently inept offense, were DOMINANT all night. It could have been Dallas or New England and the Giants' defense would have dominated. I, for one, believe the talking heads on ESPN and FOX Sports (most of whom hate the Giants anyway) have overstated the significance of Strahan's departure (which most Giants fans and the front office anticipated) and Umenyiora's injury (given that Justin Tuck is about to become a STUD defensive end that teams will have to scheme around all season). The Giants' defense will be fine. PERIOD.
The only question is: Can Eli continue what he did down the stretch in 2007? Will Toomer be bumped to the sideline in favor of Manningham or Hixon, now that he cannot get open anymore? Will Kiwanuka continue being as effective as he was in 2007 before his injury and last night? We will see. I had the Giants winning 12 before Umenyiora's injury. I still have them winning 10, possibly 11. There is no slippage.
Clinton Portis did well to get 84 yards, when there were hardly no holes in the offensive line to run through. He is a great back and I've always respected him. Mathias Kiwanuka does, too, now that he got chipped pretty good by Portis in the 2nd half. The Redskins have players. This was Week 1. Both teams are rusty. The Redskins are installing a new offense. Giants' defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo (or as Troy Aikman calls him, "Steve Spagnola") has been shuttling players in and out as he contours his defense to fit the personnel that remains after free agent defections, retirements and injuries. Despite all this, the next time these two teams meet -- expect more of the same. The Redskins will be better in all phases, but so will the Giants.
Week 2 -
New York Giants at St. Louis Rams
Edward Jones Dome
St. Louis, Missouri
1:00 PM
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Men Are Intimidated By Women Who Have More Education/Make More Money...
Men Are Intimidated By Women Who Have More Education/Make More Money...
Right?
Well, let's examine that a little bit. I will use my own empirical research and the experiences of a few of my contemporaries to back up my suppositions.
Women have made strides to narrow the gap between themselves and men in the areas of education and wages. I, for one, while DEFINITELY not a feminist, am glad to see it happening. However, there has been a few downsides to this. One of them is the now classic "men are intimidated by..." rhetoric. Let's explore.
First of all, many (not even most, BUT STILL, many) men have fragile egos. The slightest blow, perceived or real, to that ego makes those type of men feel emasculated for some unknown reason. A woman who makes more money than he does -- whether it be for a short period while she's gettin' it in at a Fortune 500 and he's in school or working a lower-level job, or just a deadbeat (the ones who are truly intimidated 98% of the time) -- and he has to endure the ridicule of his buddies when it comes to their education and/or income gap.
Let me set the record straight. No self-respecting, SECURE man really gives a flip about whether she has more income and material possessions than he does. Heck, especially if he is doing something with himself and just not on her level (yet) why would it matter? Personally, given that I am pretty much a college lifer, until I cross the New York State Bar and begin practicing law, the woman I marry will be making more money than I will be for a while (unless, of course, my businesses jump off like I believe they will when I move back to New York). I definitely h ave no problem with it. No sense in both of us having to eke by on subsistence level, right? LOL
Anyway, I know a lot of guys who are in that situation. Not a one of them cares about it. Why? First of all, none of my dudes are insecure cats! (A couple of my friends are married to women who make more than they do and are further than they are educationally at the moment. Insecurity is weakness and is poison to a man's swag, so I don't associate with insecure dudes. PERIOD.) It's all a means to an end. If you have to go through it for 6 months or 6 years, you know she's with you for the right reasons, not to try and style on you and bring up the fact every time there is a disagreement.
However, the real reason I was motivated to blog about this phenomenon is that the statement itself is just blither and hogwash from women who have serious issues with arrogance, overinflated sense of self-worth and placing too much emphasis on material things and temporal pursuits as a defining measure for their lives.
I actually was part of a forum and a panel discussion was centered around issues that single people have in life. This one chick who is notorious for being a label you-know-what and always needing to have the "best" (i.e. most expensive of everything) stood up and made this statement. To my surprise (although the panel was bereft of non-feminine guys outside of myself, the pastor who was leading it and a few other guys) I heard more women sucking their teeth and giving the "oh no she did-en" tone. It's one thing when you run into a guy or two who really has issues with chauvinism, and therefore has a problem with women being educated and making more money than him.
I love educated women. I am a super nerd and can talk intelligbly about almost anything. Those of you who really know me know this and sometimes shake your head in amazement or mock me for my broad vernacular and knowledge of seemingly obscure details. But this particular panel really stuck out in my mind (it was in 2005) and everytime I hear the statement being uttered, or I read it somewhere, I think of that panel. Now everyone who knows this chick knows she's full of herself, and most of the women who utter the phrase are just like her. Could it be THAT itself -- that self-centered/me-first attitude is what makes those guys uncomfortable and not whether you have a little more change or a degree or two more than he does? Worth thinking about.
The ironic thing is, those self same women, if given a chance to get with a man of worthy character and HAPPENS to not match the Ph.D. or JD that she has on her mantle or has one less "0" on his annual salary -- those women will pass up on the guy, thinking she'll have to "take care of him" and voicing their sincere opposition to the idea. The guy could be busting his hump working 70 hours a week and taking online courses (I know three guys like that personally), but she thinks it's all about her income vs. his. It's balderdash. This is one of the reasons I refuse to listen to 90% of women who are close to 30 when they start whining about there supposedly being a dearth of good, available men. I used to ask them a battery of questions regarding how they used to play games with guys' emotions in high school and college, or how they passed up on guys solely based upon his income, or how they were just doing the things that most young women do (you reap what you sow, no need to pity someone who is reaping what they have sown).
I could go on and on about this, but I've made my point. Realize a good thing when you have it, only 3-5 great ones come along in life -- passing up on one based upon a few material possessions that you may have and he might not (and it can easily change the next day) is not a good look. It's going to be 2009 soon, and it's BEEN time out for such bunk...
Right?
Well, let's examine that a little bit. I will use my own empirical research and the experiences of a few of my contemporaries to back up my suppositions.
Women have made strides to narrow the gap between themselves and men in the areas of education and wages. I, for one, while DEFINITELY not a feminist, am glad to see it happening. However, there has been a few downsides to this. One of them is the now classic "men are intimidated by..." rhetoric. Let's explore.
First of all, many (not even most, BUT STILL, many) men have fragile egos. The slightest blow, perceived or real, to that ego makes those type of men feel emasculated for some unknown reason. A woman who makes more money than he does -- whether it be for a short period while she's gettin' it in at a Fortune 500 and he's in school or working a lower-level job, or just a deadbeat (the ones who are truly intimidated 98% of the time) -- and he has to endure the ridicule of his buddies when it comes to their education and/or income gap.
Let me set the record straight. No self-respecting, SECURE man really gives a flip about whether she has more income and material possessions than he does. Heck, especially if he is doing something with himself and just not on her level (yet) why would it matter? Personally, given that I am pretty much a college lifer, until I cross the New York State Bar and begin practicing law, the woman I marry will be making more money than I will be for a while (unless, of course, my businesses jump off like I believe they will when I move back to New York). I definitely h ave no problem with it. No sense in both of us having to eke by on subsistence level, right? LOL
Anyway, I know a lot of guys who are in that situation. Not a one of them cares about it. Why? First of all, none of my dudes are insecure cats! (A couple of my friends are married to women who make more than they do and are further than they are educationally at the moment. Insecurity is weakness and is poison to a man's swag, so I don't associate with insecure dudes. PERIOD.) It's all a means to an end. If you have to go through it for 6 months or 6 years, you know she's with you for the right reasons, not to try and style on you and bring up the fact every time there is a disagreement.
However, the real reason I was motivated to blog about this phenomenon is that the statement itself is just blither and hogwash from women who have serious issues with arrogance, overinflated sense of self-worth and placing too much emphasis on material things and temporal pursuits as a defining measure for their lives.
I actually was part of a forum and a panel discussion was centered around issues that single people have in life. This one chick who is notorious for being a label you-know-what and always needing to have the "best" (i.e. most expensive of everything) stood up and made this statement. To my surprise (although the panel was bereft of non-feminine guys outside of myself, the pastor who was leading it and a few other guys) I heard more women sucking their teeth and giving the "oh no she did-en" tone. It's one thing when you run into a guy or two who really has issues with chauvinism, and therefore has a problem with women being educated and making more money than him.
I love educated women. I am a super nerd and can talk intelligbly about almost anything. Those of you who really know me know this and sometimes shake your head in amazement or mock me for my broad vernacular and knowledge of seemingly obscure details. But this particular panel really stuck out in my mind (it was in 2005) and everytime I hear the statement being uttered, or I read it somewhere, I think of that panel. Now everyone who knows this chick knows she's full of herself, and most of the women who utter the phrase are just like her. Could it be THAT itself -- that self-centered/me-first attitude is what makes those guys uncomfortable and not whether you have a little more change or a degree or two more than he does? Worth thinking about.
The ironic thing is, those self same women, if given a chance to get with a man of worthy character and HAPPENS to not match the Ph.D. or JD that she has on her mantle or has one less "0" on his annual salary -- those women will pass up on the guy, thinking she'll have to "take care of him" and voicing their sincere opposition to the idea. The guy could be busting his hump working 70 hours a week and taking online courses (I know three guys like that personally), but she thinks it's all about her income vs. his. It's balderdash. This is one of the reasons I refuse to listen to 90% of women who are close to 30 when they start whining about there supposedly being a dearth of good, available men. I used to ask them a battery of questions regarding how they used to play games with guys' emotions in high school and college, or how they passed up on guys solely based upon his income, or how they were just doing the things that most young women do (you reap what you sow, no need to pity someone who is reaping what they have sown).
I could go on and on about this, but I've made my point. Realize a good thing when you have it, only 3-5 great ones come along in life -- passing up on one based upon a few material possessions that you may have and he might not (and it can easily change the next day) is not a good look. It's going to be 2009 soon, and it's BEEN time out for such bunk...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Importance Of Music In My Life
The Importance Of Music In My Life
August 31, 2008
10:53 pm
A lot of people state that music has a high importance in their lives. For some, this is more than it is for others, but when I say it -- I truly mean it. One of my friends told me I had Musical Tourette's (no offense to those afflicted with the real Tourette's Syndrome) because I will just burst out in a song at random. Being that I know music of all genres, all eras and a diverse set of artists, this could be any song at any time.
Lately, I've been in throwback mode. With music royally sucking since 2001, it's about the only way. I even get strange looks from people when they hear me bumpin' something from 1995 (one of the best years ever in music -- more on that later) as if it is illegal to not be a teenybopper only interested in the latest drop.
From time to time I like to go back to the 1990s, when Bad Boy Records had the mainstream on lock and even had the streets on smash with Craig Mack and The Notorious B.I.G. I recently dug in the proverbial crates and listened to some of that Bad Boy when it was still fresh -- Mack's "Flava In Ya Ear"... B.I.G.'s string of hits, "One More Chance (Remix)", "Who Shot Ya?", "Warning", and a lot of Total's music (one of the few artists whose remixes are BETTER than the original songs -- i.e. the remixes for "Kissin' You" and "No One Else").
The year 1995 was iconic for many reasons. Several artists were dropping albums at the same time. Danceable tracks, fresh debut albums, masterpiece music videos (when they were still thoughtful) and an overall vibe. Arguably, and in my humble opinion, "Can't U See" by Total, featuring The Notorious B.I.G. was the "Cookout Joint" of 1995. Everyone was playing it at their cookout. If you were in middle or high school, you bumped it incessantly. If you were all mushy, it was the perfect song. I don't know a soul who did not like that song. Having Biggie in it only made it better. When the video came out, we were all imitating Puff and Pam's moves. Good times!
The New Jack Swing era (1987-1994) is probably my favorite era. PERIOD. I love 70s music more than anyone except maybe my sister (try me). But the New Jack Swing was exploding just as I was getting into music NOT by Michael Jackson, Prince or the funk records my dad and uncles were always playing. Salsa was all but dead in the 1980s, so there wasn't much else going on but the Pop Scene aside from the burgeoning New Jack, which is merely a symmetrical fusion between Hip-Hop and R&B. However, it worked, because no one had obviously done before. Hip-Hop was relatively new and R&B was dead in the water in the 1980s until this point. I argue that it was necessary for both genres to not only survive but GROW as they have in the twenty years since. Uptown Records (Harlem!) founder Andre Harrell, an intern of his, Sean "Puffy" Combs and a good number of artists from Harlem, The Bronx, Mt. Vernon and Yonkers, New York made up the majority of their roster. However, one of the biggest and best acts on Uptown was a seminal group from Charlotte, North Carolina -- Jodeci. They burst upon the scene in 1991 and forever changed the way male groups did it (Jagged Edge can thank them every time someone buys one of their records). And naturally, this singer named Mary J. Blige has had a LIIIIIIIITLE impact on the game for the past sixteen years...
Some of the artists and groups that either began or prospered in the New Jack era include:
Heavy D. & The Boyz (Uptown).
Jodeci (Uptown).
Mary J. Blige (Uptown).
Christopher Williams (Uptown).
Guy (Uptown).
Soul 4 Real (Uptown).
Father MC (Uptown).
Keith Sweat.
Jade.
Bobby Brown.
Troop.
Bell Biv DeVoe.
Now when we work back to the 1970s, I could go on and on all day. This music is timeless. Groups like The Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind & Fire, The O'Jays, The Ohio Players, Kool & The Gang, Air Supply and many others dominated peoples' tape decks and eight track players. Thankfully, even though the music was several years old when my cousins and I came along, we were very much exposed to everything that our parents, aunts, uncles, older cousins and grandparents were jammin' to in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the reason I am very knowledgeable about music that came out before I was even born. Although it is definitely arguable, my favorite song out of this era (and possibly ever) is "For The Love Of You, Pt. I & II" by The Isley Brothers. Listen to it once, if you haven't already. It puts you in a zone. Words cannot express it, but it is great music -- very much indicative of the Isley sound from about 1972-1980.
Even though most good music came out prior to 2001 (I pity the crowd that is under 18 and thinks Chris Brown and Lil Wayne are as good as it gets), there is still good music out there. You just have to turn off the radio, TV and music videos in order to find it. The best artists, aside from a few, remain unsigned or underpromoted, falling victim to label politics. However, here are a few artists and groups who manage to garner my attention who have either come out from 2001 or later or rose to prominence during the time period and since:
Israel & New Breed.
Smokie Norful.
Jadakiss (solo).
Cam'ron
Jim Jones.
Juelz Santana.
JR Writer.
.40 Cal.
Jaheim.
JoAnn Rosario.
John Legend.
Joss Stone.
Adele.
Juanes.
Kanye West.
Lecrae.
Steven The Levite.
116 Clique.
Canton Jones.
And a few others. There is still good music to be had, but you have to search for it. Since most of the music-buying public buys into the publicity stunts by the likes of 50 Cent and those pushing the pop-tart princesses of the month, no one recognizes good music anymore. Either that, or they argue over who sells the most (as if that is a barometer for talent -- label politics, distribution and other contractual matters factor in much more).
Segue.
Let me talk a little bit about the music industry. From time to time, I venture onto YouTube to find the drop on some hidden gems and obscure vintage records. However, one thing I notice from the music from the 1970s to the late 1990s is that most of the COMMENTS on the videos there are usually appreciation for the artist's work and how the music moved them when they first heard it. Regardless of genre (including hip hop). However, today's music seems to be loaded with vitriol. There isn't any more or less than there was even in the late 1980s (for those who remember the classic LL Cool J and Kool Moe Dee rap battles, or the battles between Roxanne Shante, UTFO and the others). But my point is, I see a lot of people almost seemingly hoping for an artist's downfall. Or comparing them to another artist, because they don't sell as much as the other, and then bashing them talent-wise merely based upon this fact. Again, as I stated earlier, many of the people who buy records only buy what they see on TV and hear on the radio most. If your label doesn't afford you a large budget with which to promote your work or get you on TV like someone from a major label, then guess what? Fewer people are going to notice you. Fewer people will know when your album drops. Fewer people will know about your shows. Meaning, fewer people will buy your records and be able to support you the same way they can for someone who is plastered all over every form of media. It's that simple.
To take it a bit further, let's discuss some industry facts. A lot of people think they know about the inner workings of the music industry, especially the complicated ways in which everyone inside makes money. Some believe that if you don't sell 5 million copies of your record, you're broke. Some believe that the artists who perform are the biggest money-makers. Some believe that the only way to become successful is to sell their soul and make music that contradicts everything they stand for. Not so.
1. Publishing. This is the most important part of an artist's work. Whether you are a singer, rapper, songwriter, producer or anyone involved in the process of compiling the record, if you do not have your publishing through one of the arms in the industry (ASCAP - American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers or BMI - Broadcast Music, Inc.), people can in effect, steal your work and claim it as your own. I've seen it happen to people that I know, and many of us have witnessed it happen to people who are famous -- with all the lawsuits in court seemingly on a daily basis. Without this protection, no one can monitor when someone is performing a song that belongs to you, or whether they stole one of your beats or what have you. Those are just two of the organizations that assist artists in this manner. There are others, but those are the two best bets out there. They charge licensing fees and whenever your work is published and disseminated, you are repaid in what are called royalties. I have a few friends who have ASCAP and a couple who have BMI. If you are serious about your work, then get this done!
2. Royalties. Royalties enable you to be paid on a grand scale for your work. It's that simple. With the aforementioned publishing, your spins on radio can be tracked, if someone wants to sample your record for a beat, it can be tracked, how many units are distributed (which is how the RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America - computes whether someone went silver; 100,000 units, gold; 500,000 units, platinum 1,000,000 units or diamond 10,000,000+ units). This computation is not based upon records SOLD, but records SHIPPED.
For those who like to argue this point when discussing who their favorite rapper is what they sell, keep that in mind. Also, for those are seriously pursuing a career in music -- this is important to your wallet and long-term viability, because this is potentially residual income. Why? Because your work makes money when you aren't even working. If someone plays your record, you get paid. If someone samples your work and you give them the OK (see the case of Biz Markie in the early 1990s regarding sampling work -- it was landmark), then you get paid!
3. Points. This leads me to my third note. Points are important in that they dictate how much money you can make off the sales of a particular record. The simplest way to explain points is the same way they are computed for people who are in the mortgage industry or getting points on their mortgage when buying a house. Points are basically a percentage of the royalties that come from the sales of a particular work (usually an album of some sort). I would encourage those who enjoy producing beats and want to do it seriously to EDUCATE THEMSELVES on the inside-out of points -- it is the best way to make money long-term. Merely selling beats does not create residual income. If you get points on an album, obviously, people will buy it for years, and you will continue to get paid. Without points and with only selling the beat, you get what you negotiate at the point of sale (usually between $2,500 for a beginner using Fruity Loops or Pro Tools, to $30,000 The Heatmakers, Just Blaze and upwards of $100,000 for the likes of Timbaland, Dr. Dre, Swizz Beats, etc.) Accordingly, if you are able to get 3-5 points on an album, think of it as a commission. If a record ships 2 million copies, with an average retail of $12, you can easily profit anywhere between $750,000 to $1M from that record's deal. Some producers or writers can make up to 10 points or so from a record deal. The absolute best in the game are able to get almost all the credit for their work, which is how Jay-Z and Puff (although many industry heads know that this came at the expense of some of his artists and the relationship with them) amassed such fortunes. All you have to do is the math to see how it is very easy to make a fortune and NEVER sing or rap. You just have to know how to turn your talent into a profit within the industry somehow.
4. Distribution. As I discussed in an earlier blog entry, this is important to the promotion of your album. Without large distribution like Universal Records, Epic Records, Interscope or Columbia Records have, it is pretty tough to compete with an artist who has advertising, media placement and tons of albums shipped (even if you are more talented than they may be). If you cannot move units from print to warehouse to the outlets, you aren't going to sell records. Much worse, once it leaks and once people rip their CDs, people will bootleg it, which will decrease future sales. It is not NECESSARY to be on a major label to secure distribution, but it is the best way to ensure you ship enough records that the retailers will buy and are convinced will be sold in their stores. Again, with education and creativity, one can amass a serious fortune and never be on a major label. Besides, with the ground floor being flooded with new artists and the competition level, this is not always a viable option.
Segue.
5. Major Label vs. Independent Label. Some people have been led to believe that if you are not on Def Jam Records, or Bad Boy, or Aftermath or Def Soul, Geffen, Island, Columbia/So So Def or any of the leaders in Hip Hop, R&B, Pop and the other genres that dominate the scene, then you have no chance to make it in the business. Not true. Increasingly, artists are finding that the creativity that many of them sacrifice to get onto a major label is available on an independent label. Concurrently, one (if they are smart) can make even more money on an independent than they can initially on a major label, due to the fact that standard contracts that most new artists sign on a major label restrict an artist's creative freedom to choose producers, songwriting and many other things. The upside to being on a major is the amount of promotion that a talented (or not so talented) artist can receive. There will be billboards, commercials, music videos, radio airplay/spins that exceed anything that most independent label artists can achieve. However, this is not out of the reach of someone on an independent. Whereas most artists average about $2 per record sold in royalties (about 5-7 points, conversely), an independent artist can profit up to four times that, because they own almost all their publishing and don't have the overhead that a major label has, which cut into the artist's profits from an album THE ARTIST created. For those disgusted with the major label politics, an independent label may be the way to go.
A relatively new independent label, Koch Records, has burst upon the scene since the late 1990s with a burgeoning catalogue of artists -- the most visible being The Diplomats, who, at one point had distribution through Def Jam Records, Koch Records and Asylum/Warner Music Records. Obviously, for those with that level of distribution can profit up to twenty times more than an artist on a major label (keep in mind that artists receive nearly 80% of the profit of each album sold, whereas most artists on a major only receive about 10-12% -- this is worth noting when arguing over who sells more and who is broke, haha). But with all these factors at play, publishing, royalties, points, distribution and sales, you can see that going independent isn't the death wish that it once was. The bottom line is that one must be educated about all areas of the music business before breaking in, or else they will be taken for a serious ride.
Happy writing and massive sales!
I love music. I love the legal aspect of the industry, as well as the business aspect. Hopefully, I will be able to share more insight the more involved I get later on.
Peace.
August 31, 2008
10:53 pm
A lot of people state that music has a high importance in their lives. For some, this is more than it is for others, but when I say it -- I truly mean it. One of my friends told me I had Musical Tourette's (no offense to those afflicted with the real Tourette's Syndrome) because I will just burst out in a song at random. Being that I know music of all genres, all eras and a diverse set of artists, this could be any song at any time.
Lately, I've been in throwback mode. With music royally sucking since 2001, it's about the only way. I even get strange looks from people when they hear me bumpin' something from 1995 (one of the best years ever in music -- more on that later) as if it is illegal to not be a teenybopper only interested in the latest drop.
From time to time I like to go back to the 1990s, when Bad Boy Records had the mainstream on lock and even had the streets on smash with Craig Mack and The Notorious B.I.G. I recently dug in the proverbial crates and listened to some of that Bad Boy when it was still fresh -- Mack's "Flava In Ya Ear"... B.I.G.'s string of hits, "One More Chance (Remix)", "Who Shot Ya?", "Warning", and a lot of Total's music (one of the few artists whose remixes are BETTER than the original songs -- i.e. the remixes for "Kissin' You" and "No One Else").
The year 1995 was iconic for many reasons. Several artists were dropping albums at the same time. Danceable tracks, fresh debut albums, masterpiece music videos (when they were still thoughtful) and an overall vibe. Arguably, and in my humble opinion, "Can't U See" by Total, featuring The Notorious B.I.G. was the "Cookout Joint" of 1995. Everyone was playing it at their cookout. If you were in middle or high school, you bumped it incessantly. If you were all mushy, it was the perfect song. I don't know a soul who did not like that song. Having Biggie in it only made it better. When the video came out, we were all imitating Puff and Pam's moves. Good times!
The New Jack Swing era (1987-1994) is probably my favorite era. PERIOD. I love 70s music more than anyone except maybe my sister (try me). But the New Jack Swing was exploding just as I was getting into music NOT by Michael Jackson, Prince or the funk records my dad and uncles were always playing. Salsa was all but dead in the 1980s, so there wasn't much else going on but the Pop Scene aside from the burgeoning New Jack, which is merely a symmetrical fusion between Hip-Hop and R&B. However, it worked, because no one had obviously done before. Hip-Hop was relatively new and R&B was dead in the water in the 1980s until this point. I argue that it was necessary for both genres to not only survive but GROW as they have in the twenty years since. Uptown Records (Harlem!) founder Andre Harrell, an intern of his, Sean "Puffy" Combs and a good number of artists from Harlem, The Bronx, Mt. Vernon and Yonkers, New York made up the majority of their roster. However, one of the biggest and best acts on Uptown was a seminal group from Charlotte, North Carolina -- Jodeci. They burst upon the scene in 1991 and forever changed the way male groups did it (Jagged Edge can thank them every time someone buys one of their records). And naturally, this singer named Mary J. Blige has had a LIIIIIIIITLE impact on the game for the past sixteen years...
Some of the artists and groups that either began or prospered in the New Jack era include:
Heavy D. & The Boyz (Uptown).
Jodeci (Uptown).
Mary J. Blige (Uptown).
Christopher Williams (Uptown).
Guy (Uptown).
Soul 4 Real (Uptown).
Father MC (Uptown).
Keith Sweat.
Jade.
Bobby Brown.
Troop.
Bell Biv DeVoe.
Now when we work back to the 1970s, I could go on and on all day. This music is timeless. Groups like The Isley Brothers, Earth, Wind & Fire, The O'Jays, The Ohio Players, Kool & The Gang, Air Supply and many others dominated peoples' tape decks and eight track players. Thankfully, even though the music was several years old when my cousins and I came along, we were very much exposed to everything that our parents, aunts, uncles, older cousins and grandparents were jammin' to in the 1960s and 1970s. This is the reason I am very knowledgeable about music that came out before I was even born. Although it is definitely arguable, my favorite song out of this era (and possibly ever) is "For The Love Of You, Pt. I & II" by The Isley Brothers. Listen to it once, if you haven't already. It puts you in a zone. Words cannot express it, but it is great music -- very much indicative of the Isley sound from about 1972-1980.
Even though most good music came out prior to 2001 (I pity the crowd that is under 18 and thinks Chris Brown and Lil Wayne are as good as it gets), there is still good music out there. You just have to turn off the radio, TV and music videos in order to find it. The best artists, aside from a few, remain unsigned or underpromoted, falling victim to label politics. However, here are a few artists and groups who manage to garner my attention who have either come out from 2001 or later or rose to prominence during the time period and since:
Israel & New Breed.
Smokie Norful.
Jadakiss (solo).
Cam'ron
Jim Jones.
Juelz Santana.
JR Writer.
.40 Cal.
Jaheim.
JoAnn Rosario.
John Legend.
Joss Stone.
Adele.
Juanes.
Kanye West.
Lecrae.
Steven The Levite.
116 Clique.
Canton Jones.
And a few others. There is still good music to be had, but you have to search for it. Since most of the music-buying public buys into the publicity stunts by the likes of 50 Cent and those pushing the pop-tart princesses of the month, no one recognizes good music anymore. Either that, or they argue over who sells the most (as if that is a barometer for talent -- label politics, distribution and other contractual matters factor in much more).
Segue.
Let me talk a little bit about the music industry. From time to time, I venture onto YouTube to find the drop on some hidden gems and obscure vintage records. However, one thing I notice from the music from the 1970s to the late 1990s is that most of the COMMENTS on the videos there are usually appreciation for the artist's work and how the music moved them when they first heard it. Regardless of genre (including hip hop). However, today's music seems to be loaded with vitriol. There isn't any more or less than there was even in the late 1980s (for those who remember the classic LL Cool J and Kool Moe Dee rap battles, or the battles between Roxanne Shante, UTFO and the others). But my point is, I see a lot of people almost seemingly hoping for an artist's downfall. Or comparing them to another artist, because they don't sell as much as the other, and then bashing them talent-wise merely based upon this fact. Again, as I stated earlier, many of the people who buy records only buy what they see on TV and hear on the radio most. If your label doesn't afford you a large budget with which to promote your work or get you on TV like someone from a major label, then guess what? Fewer people are going to notice you. Fewer people will know when your album drops. Fewer people will know about your shows. Meaning, fewer people will buy your records and be able to support you the same way they can for someone who is plastered all over every form of media. It's that simple.
To take it a bit further, let's discuss some industry facts. A lot of people think they know about the inner workings of the music industry, especially the complicated ways in which everyone inside makes money. Some believe that if you don't sell 5 million copies of your record, you're broke. Some believe that the artists who perform are the biggest money-makers. Some believe that the only way to become successful is to sell their soul and make music that contradicts everything they stand for. Not so.
1. Publishing. This is the most important part of an artist's work. Whether you are a singer, rapper, songwriter, producer or anyone involved in the process of compiling the record, if you do not have your publishing through one of the arms in the industry (ASCAP - American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers or BMI - Broadcast Music, Inc.), people can in effect, steal your work and claim it as your own. I've seen it happen to people that I know, and many of us have witnessed it happen to people who are famous -- with all the lawsuits in court seemingly on a daily basis. Without this protection, no one can monitor when someone is performing a song that belongs to you, or whether they stole one of your beats or what have you. Those are just two of the organizations that assist artists in this manner. There are others, but those are the two best bets out there. They charge licensing fees and whenever your work is published and disseminated, you are repaid in what are called royalties. I have a few friends who have ASCAP and a couple who have BMI. If you are serious about your work, then get this done!
2. Royalties. Royalties enable you to be paid on a grand scale for your work. It's that simple. With the aforementioned publishing, your spins on radio can be tracked, if someone wants to sample your record for a beat, it can be tracked, how many units are distributed (which is how the RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America - computes whether someone went silver; 100,000 units, gold; 500,000 units, platinum 1,000,000 units or diamond 10,000,000+ units). This computation is not based upon records SOLD, but records SHIPPED.
For those who like to argue this point when discussing who their favorite rapper is what they sell, keep that in mind. Also, for those are seriously pursuing a career in music -- this is important to your wallet and long-term viability, because this is potentially residual income. Why? Because your work makes money when you aren't even working. If someone plays your record, you get paid. If someone samples your work and you give them the OK (see the case of Biz Markie in the early 1990s regarding sampling work -- it was landmark), then you get paid!
3. Points. This leads me to my third note. Points are important in that they dictate how much money you can make off the sales of a particular record. The simplest way to explain points is the same way they are computed for people who are in the mortgage industry or getting points on their mortgage when buying a house. Points are basically a percentage of the royalties that come from the sales of a particular work (usually an album of some sort). I would encourage those who enjoy producing beats and want to do it seriously to EDUCATE THEMSELVES on the inside-out of points -- it is the best way to make money long-term. Merely selling beats does not create residual income. If you get points on an album, obviously, people will buy it for years, and you will continue to get paid. Without points and with only selling the beat, you get what you negotiate at the point of sale (usually between $2,500 for a beginner using Fruity Loops or Pro Tools, to $30,000 The Heatmakers, Just Blaze and upwards of $100,000 for the likes of Timbaland, Dr. Dre, Swizz Beats, etc.) Accordingly, if you are able to get 3-5 points on an album, think of it as a commission. If a record ships 2 million copies, with an average retail of $12, you can easily profit anywhere between $750,000 to $1M from that record's deal. Some producers or writers can make up to 10 points or so from a record deal. The absolute best in the game are able to get almost all the credit for their work, which is how Jay-Z and Puff (although many industry heads know that this came at the expense of some of his artists and the relationship with them) amassed such fortunes. All you have to do is the math to see how it is very easy to make a fortune and NEVER sing or rap. You just have to know how to turn your talent into a profit within the industry somehow.
4. Distribution. As I discussed in an earlier blog entry, this is important to the promotion of your album. Without large distribution like Universal Records, Epic Records, Interscope or Columbia Records have, it is pretty tough to compete with an artist who has advertising, media placement and tons of albums shipped (even if you are more talented than they may be). If you cannot move units from print to warehouse to the outlets, you aren't going to sell records. Much worse, once it leaks and once people rip their CDs, people will bootleg it, which will decrease future sales. It is not NECESSARY to be on a major label to secure distribution, but it is the best way to ensure you ship enough records that the retailers will buy and are convinced will be sold in their stores. Again, with education and creativity, one can amass a serious fortune and never be on a major label. Besides, with the ground floor being flooded with new artists and the competition level, this is not always a viable option.
Segue.
5. Major Label vs. Independent Label. Some people have been led to believe that if you are not on Def Jam Records, or Bad Boy, or Aftermath or Def Soul, Geffen, Island, Columbia/So So Def or any of the leaders in Hip Hop, R&B, Pop and the other genres that dominate the scene, then you have no chance to make it in the business. Not true. Increasingly, artists are finding that the creativity that many of them sacrifice to get onto a major label is available on an independent label. Concurrently, one (if they are smart) can make even more money on an independent than they can initially on a major label, due to the fact that standard contracts that most new artists sign on a major label restrict an artist's creative freedom to choose producers, songwriting and many other things. The upside to being on a major is the amount of promotion that a talented (or not so talented) artist can receive. There will be billboards, commercials, music videos, radio airplay/spins that exceed anything that most independent label artists can achieve. However, this is not out of the reach of someone on an independent. Whereas most artists average about $2 per record sold in royalties (about 5-7 points, conversely), an independent artist can profit up to four times that, because they own almost all their publishing and don't have the overhead that a major label has, which cut into the artist's profits from an album THE ARTIST created. For those disgusted with the major label politics, an independent label may be the way to go.
A relatively new independent label, Koch Records, has burst upon the scene since the late 1990s with a burgeoning catalogue of artists -- the most visible being The Diplomats, who, at one point had distribution through Def Jam Records, Koch Records and Asylum/Warner Music Records. Obviously, for those with that level of distribution can profit up to twenty times more than an artist on a major label (keep in mind that artists receive nearly 80% of the profit of each album sold, whereas most artists on a major only receive about 10-12% -- this is worth noting when arguing over who sells more and who is broke, haha). But with all these factors at play, publishing, royalties, points, distribution and sales, you can see that going independent isn't the death wish that it once was. The bottom line is that one must be educated about all areas of the music business before breaking in, or else they will be taken for a serious ride.
Happy writing and massive sales!
I love music. I love the legal aspect of the industry, as well as the business aspect. Hopefully, I will be able to share more insight the more involved I get later on.
Peace.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
An Affluent, White Harlem?
An Affluent, White Harlem?
by Andrew Beveridge
August 2008
Lenox Terrace, where U.S. Rep Charles Rangel had four apartments, now qualifies as a luxury building. Townhouses in Harlem sell for one, two and even more million dollars, as real estate developers build new condos in Hamilton Heights and elsewhere, Meanwhile Columbia University arranges to get much of West Harlem declared blighted so its expansion in Harlem, past the Fairway grocery store and Dinosaur Barbecue, can march on.
With the recent city rezoning of the area (see related story), many residents fear they will be pushed aside by new development. What is happening to Harlem? Is it becoming white? Is it becoming a neighborhood for the rich?
Harlem has gone through many changes since 1910. How far the latest transformation will go, though, remains to be seen.
As with many New York neighborhoods, defining Harlem's boundaries can be difficult. Central Harlem follows the definition set out by Gilbert Osofsky in his 1966 book Harlem: The Making of a Ghetto. The southern edge starts at 96th Street on the East Side; at Fifth Avenue and Central Park it goes up to 110th, and then cuts over to 106th Street on the West Side. The northern boundary of the area in most places is 155th Street, though it extends a bit further up on the East Side. Central Harlem is basically north of Central Park and east of Morningside and St. Nicholas avenues.
Prior to 1910, most of Harlem's settlers were middle class, including many notable African Americans. In the 1920s, an efflorescence of culture known as the Harlem Renaissance occurred, and the Apollo Theatre and the Savoy Ball Room were founded. As the "great migration" of blacks from the American South continued, and the size of the black population expanded, an area of concentrated poverty developed. Kenneth Clark's 1996 book, Dark Ghetto, certainly was influenced by Harlem.
Click on the image for full graph or view a text version here.The changes in Central Harlem and New York City are shown in the table. In 1910, Central Harlem was about 10 percent black, Greater Harlem was a little more than 4 percent black, while the rest of New York City was less than 2 percent black. By 1930, Central Harlem was over 70 percent black and Greater Harlem was about 35 percent black, but the rest of New York City was still less than 2 percent black. In short, by 1930, during the Harlem Renaissance, Central Harlem had become very definably black area in a largely white city. By 1950, Central Harlem was about 98 percent black, while Greater Harlem was 57.5 percent black.
Central Harlem lost more than half of its population between 1950 and 1980, and Greater Harlem also saw its population drop as well. This was a period of sharp economic decline in New York City, especially for the black community. This also marked the era of urban renewal, and many older housing units were razed either for public housing projects or for other apartment developments. The new developments did not come close to housing the same number of people. Almost all of the people who remained in Central Harlem, though, were black.
Since1980, Central Harlem has become less black, and by 2006 a smaller percentage of the population was black than in 1930. Meanwhile, the white and Hispanic populations rose. In 1980, there were 672 whites in Central Harlem, constituting about 0.6 percent of the population. By 2006 that figure had increased to 7,741 or about 6.6 percent. Hispanics accounted for 4.3 percent of Harlem residents in 1980, the first year they were classified separately. In 2006,that number reached 18.6 percent.
In short, there had been a turnaround of sorts in Harlem. The white population that had moved to Harlem by 2000 was distributed in many different areas. Between 1980 and 2000, there has been a decline in the concentration of blacks in Harlem. Furthermore, according to the 2006 American Community Survey, the overall decline in black population has continued.
In the early days of Harlem, the black community there was quite diverse, especially when African Americans in Harlem were compared to those who lived elsewhere. During the period of the rapid influx into the area, the level of concentrated poverty increased in Harlem. That accelerated during the 1950s through the 1970s with urban renewal, housing deterioration and a decline in population. At the same time, areas such as Southeast Queens attracted affluent black families.
Now it appears that areas of Harlem are sought after once again. By 2000 and 2006, there were areas of some highly affluent black and white residents. Median household income in Central Harlem had increased from about $13,765 in 1950 to over $26,161 in 2006, in 2006 dollars. Still, this figure is well below the median of $46,285 for the rest of New York City.
Harlem has changed from an impoverished area with a few middle-class families to one where some middle-class people, including a few whites, have moved in and made their homes. In some parts of Harlem, blacks have been joined by Hispanics, but that percentage has not grown much since 2000. Rather, the new residents of Harlem seem to be non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic, who consider themselves to be "other race," neither black nor white. The traditional townhouse areas around Strivers Row, Sugar Hill and Marcus Garvey Park have undergone a rebirth. Stores and restaurants catering to the affluent have opened in West Harlem, while Magic Johnson opened a Starbucks and a Multiplex on 125th Street, near where former President Bill Clinton has his office suite. Columbia University's expansion will bring more change to West Harlem.
What these changes portend for New York City's iconic black neighborhood is hard to fathom. On the one hand, new residents mean that Harlem will have more diversity of income, occupation, educational level and race than it did in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, the large stock of public housing and the relatively low income means that high levels of poverty will continue to be a feature of Harlem. Harlem will not lose its black majority or its high concentrations of poverty anytime soon.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
by Andrew Beveridge
August 2008
Lenox Terrace, where U.S. Rep Charles Rangel had four apartments, now qualifies as a luxury building. Townhouses in Harlem sell for one, two and even more million dollars, as real estate developers build new condos in Hamilton Heights and elsewhere, Meanwhile Columbia University arranges to get much of West Harlem declared blighted so its expansion in Harlem, past the Fairway grocery store and Dinosaur Barbecue, can march on.
With the recent city rezoning of the area (see related story), many residents fear they will be pushed aside by new development. What is happening to Harlem? Is it becoming white? Is it becoming a neighborhood for the rich?
Harlem has gone through many changes since 1910. How far the latest transformation will go, though, remains to be seen.
As with many New York neighborhoods, defining Harlem's boundaries can be difficult. Central Harlem follows the definition set out by Gilbert Osofsky in his 1966 book Harlem: The Making of a Ghetto. The southern edge starts at 96th Street on the East Side; at Fifth Avenue and Central Park it goes up to 110th, and then cuts over to 106th Street on the West Side. The northern boundary of the area in most places is 155th Street, though it extends a bit further up on the East Side. Central Harlem is basically north of Central Park and east of Morningside and St. Nicholas avenues.
Prior to 1910, most of Harlem's settlers were middle class, including many notable African Americans. In the 1920s, an efflorescence of culture known as the Harlem Renaissance occurred, and the Apollo Theatre and the Savoy Ball Room were founded. As the "great migration" of blacks from the American South continued, and the size of the black population expanded, an area of concentrated poverty developed. Kenneth Clark's 1996 book, Dark Ghetto, certainly was influenced by Harlem.
Click on the image for full graph or view a text version here.The changes in Central Harlem and New York City are shown in the table. In 1910, Central Harlem was about 10 percent black, Greater Harlem was a little more than 4 percent black, while the rest of New York City was less than 2 percent black. By 1930, Central Harlem was over 70 percent black and Greater Harlem was about 35 percent black, but the rest of New York City was still less than 2 percent black. In short, by 1930, during the Harlem Renaissance, Central Harlem had become very definably black area in a largely white city. By 1950, Central Harlem was about 98 percent black, while Greater Harlem was 57.5 percent black.
Central Harlem lost more than half of its population between 1950 and 1980, and Greater Harlem also saw its population drop as well. This was a period of sharp economic decline in New York City, especially for the black community. This also marked the era of urban renewal, and many older housing units were razed either for public housing projects or for other apartment developments. The new developments did not come close to housing the same number of people. Almost all of the people who remained in Central Harlem, though, were black.
Since1980, Central Harlem has become less black, and by 2006 a smaller percentage of the population was black than in 1930. Meanwhile, the white and Hispanic populations rose. In 1980, there were 672 whites in Central Harlem, constituting about 0.6 percent of the population. By 2006 that figure had increased to 7,741 or about 6.6 percent. Hispanics accounted for 4.3 percent of Harlem residents in 1980, the first year they were classified separately. In 2006,that number reached 18.6 percent.
In short, there had been a turnaround of sorts in Harlem. The white population that had moved to Harlem by 2000 was distributed in many different areas. Between 1980 and 2000, there has been a decline in the concentration of blacks in Harlem. Furthermore, according to the 2006 American Community Survey, the overall decline in black population has continued.
In the early days of Harlem, the black community there was quite diverse, especially when African Americans in Harlem were compared to those who lived elsewhere. During the period of the rapid influx into the area, the level of concentrated poverty increased in Harlem. That accelerated during the 1950s through the 1970s with urban renewal, housing deterioration and a decline in population. At the same time, areas such as Southeast Queens attracted affluent black families.
Now it appears that areas of Harlem are sought after once again. By 2000 and 2006, there were areas of some highly affluent black and white residents. Median household income in Central Harlem had increased from about $13,765 in 1950 to over $26,161 in 2006, in 2006 dollars. Still, this figure is well below the median of $46,285 for the rest of New York City.
Harlem has changed from an impoverished area with a few middle-class families to one where some middle-class people, including a few whites, have moved in and made their homes. In some parts of Harlem, blacks have been joined by Hispanics, but that percentage has not grown much since 2000. Rather, the new residents of Harlem seem to be non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic, who consider themselves to be "other race," neither black nor white. The traditional townhouse areas around Strivers Row, Sugar Hill and Marcus Garvey Park have undergone a rebirth. Stores and restaurants catering to the affluent have opened in West Harlem, while Magic Johnson opened a Starbucks and a Multiplex on 125th Street, near where former President Bill Clinton has his office suite. Columbia University's expansion will bring more change to West Harlem.
What these changes portend for New York City's iconic black neighborhood is hard to fathom. On the one hand, new residents mean that Harlem will have more diversity of income, occupation, educational level and race than it did in the 1970s and 1980s. At the same time, the large stock of public housing and the relatively low income means that high levels of poverty will continue to be a feature of Harlem. Harlem will not lose its black majority or its high concentrations of poverty anytime soon.
Andrew A. Beveridge has taught sociology at Queens College since 1981, done demographic analyses for the New York Times since 1993, and been in charge of Gotham Gazette's demographics topic page since 2000. The opinions expressed are his alone.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
WHY PRAY?!?!?!
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
-- Philippians 4:6
God is omniscient. In other words, he knows everything. There is nothing you or I can do, think or say that he is not aware of.
But do you ever wonder why God wants us to bring everything before him in prayer; why he wants us to ask for those things we need? After all, if God already knows what we need, why doesn't he just provide those things for us?
The answer, when we really think about it, is simple.
Yes, God knows all of our needs—emotional, relational, physical and spiritual. But he also knows that if we don't bring those needs before him, we may begin to believe that we are self-sufficient. If we don't bring our requests before God on a regular basis, we may forget the source of all we have been given.
When you have a need, don't forget to bring it before God "with thanksgiving." Be thankful that God has provided a way for you to communicate with him. Use prayer the way it was meant to be used—as a lifeline between you and your Provider. Because when you "present your requests to God," you will begin to realize the power that he truly has to give you what you need.
A Prayer for Today
Dear God, I know that everything I have comes from you. You are the source of all I need to live. I pray that I continue to acknowledge that fact by bringing my requests to you. Help me to rely solely on you and not on my own abilities and strengths. And help me to recognize my reliance on you so I can discover the life that you want me to live.
In Christ's name I pray, Amen.
-- Philippians 4:6
God is omniscient. In other words, he knows everything. There is nothing you or I can do, think or say that he is not aware of.
But do you ever wonder why God wants us to bring everything before him in prayer; why he wants us to ask for those things we need? After all, if God already knows what we need, why doesn't he just provide those things for us?
The answer, when we really think about it, is simple.
Yes, God knows all of our needs—emotional, relational, physical and spiritual. But he also knows that if we don't bring those needs before him, we may begin to believe that we are self-sufficient. If we don't bring our requests before God on a regular basis, we may forget the source of all we have been given.
When you have a need, don't forget to bring it before God "with thanksgiving." Be thankful that God has provided a way for you to communicate with him. Use prayer the way it was meant to be used—as a lifeline between you and your Provider. Because when you "present your requests to God," you will begin to realize the power that he truly has to give you what you need.
A Prayer for Today
Dear God, I know that everything I have comes from you. You are the source of all I need to live. I pray that I continue to acknowledge that fact by bringing my requests to you. Help me to rely solely on you and not on my own abilities and strengths. And help me to recognize my reliance on you so I can discover the life that you want me to live.
In Christ's name I pray, Amen.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
NFL 2008: Predictions - Vol. XIX
Well, well, well... the NFL season has FINALLY gotten here. We were just watching the Super Bowl seven months ago, saying we didn't want football to go away -- but this year has FLOWN BY (thank God -- let's start the countdown to the third week in May 2009 already LOL). NFL 2008 is HERE!
With that said, let's get right into the prognostications and analysis division by division and conference by conference.
*** PLEASE BE ADVISED THE RECORDS WILL NOT COMPUTE EXACTLY -- THEY ARE MERELY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT I BELIEVE THE TEAM WILL PERFORM LIKE AND WHERE THEY WILL FINISH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DIVISIONS. NO SMART ALECK EMAILS ABOUT THE COMPUTATION BEING UNEVEN. Thanks.***
National Football Conference
NFC East Division:
1. Dallas Cowboys. Dallas has the most talent in the NFC and possibly the NFL as a whole. No one can sensibly argue that. Their problems are 1) out of control egos in Terrell Owens and Tony Romo (who refused to listen to Parcells' advice!) 2) questionable receiving corps without Glenn now 3) their history of flat out CHOKING in the playoffs in recent years, where they have not won a playoff game since 1996. That said, Owens is still the 2nd or 3rd best WR in the NFL and it will be interesting to see if Marion Barber III can be as effective carrying the ball 25 times a game with defensive coordinators scheming to take him out of the game and get after Romo. I still think they will be the team to beat in the end, but again, they have that postseason thing to shake.
Their special teams are average.
They are like the 1990s Atlanta Braves of MLB! They win a ton of regular season games, but don't do squat in the playoffs. More of the same this year, now that Big Blue showed the NFL "how to do this" (i.e. getting after Romo). Whoever they play in the Wild Card this year will do the same.
As for the regular season - 12-4.
2. New York Giants. The New York Football Giants were already being counted out by the perennial haters (ESPN, FOX Sports, irrational Cowboy and Iggles fans, people who hate New York City in general and those with inferiority complexes that can't stand to see others succeed, etc. etc. etc.) the minute the defections from the Super Bowl-winning team began. Gibril Wilson left, then Kawika Mitchell, then Reggie Torbor. Then Strahan retired. Then we trade Shockey. Then Plaxico Burress' ankle messes up again in training camp and finally, Osi Umenyiora's knee injury knocks him out for the season. That only made the irrationale even worse. Even with all those setbacks, the Giants quietly acquired Danny Clark to fill Mitchell's shoes (Clark is better in all areas as a linebacker, BTW), they acquired Sammy "Good" Knight to replace Wilson and drafted Kenny Phillips, to play strong and free safety, respectively. Phillips hits harder than anyone in the secondary that the Giants have had since Shaun Williams' first year in 1998 (before he got soft). Aaron Ross and Webster are MORE than capable in the secondary, provided the front seven gets adequate pressure, which it will.
Special teams look good, especially with Domenik Hixon emerging.
Much has been made about what Spaggs (Giants' defensive coordinator, Steve Spagnuolo) will do to fill the void of Strahan and Umenyiora. Yes, it is a loss of 23 sacks. But only Osi's knee injury is shocking. People knew Strahan was going to retire if we won the Super Bowl. We did. So he did. Justin Tuck is going to give left tackles fits all season. Kiwanuka will do the same to right tackles. Add to the fact that at times the Giants can shift Kiwanuka back to strongside linebacker and put Renaldo Wynn at left end, move Tuck inside to defensive tackle and shift Dave Tollefson to right end (or put Clark at strongside and put Kiwanuka at right end with Tuck inside at DT, Wynn at LE) and you see the Giants AREN'T out of options here, defensively in regards to pressuring the QB. What they CANNOT avoid is another injury to anyone in the front seven. Antonio Pierce is the ONE player who was indispensible on the front seven even with Osi being considered. Yes, I'm serious. Yes, I'm sane. The offense is better than people think. Eli has swag now. Jacobs, if he stays healthy, will be a 1,200 guy. Ward and Bradshaw give you a couple of different looks as the Giants have the deepest RB corps in the NFL. Burress, "Well-Dressed" Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, Sinorice Moss, Domenik Hixon, Mario Manningham, David Tyree give Eli Manning a plethora of weapon. Shockey's trade is overpublicized. Kevin Boss played great after Shockey broke his leg. The Giants will be fine.
New York Giants (pre-Umenyiora injury) 11-5.
New York Giants (post-Umeyiora injury) 10-6.
Again, the injuries and players who have left the team aren't as big of a deal as people make it seem.
3. Washington Redskins. I will be brief with this one, because they really did not do much change with their roster in the offseason. The big move was getting a new head coach (Jim Zorn) after Joe Gibbs stepped down and changing offensive schemes yet again. Jason Campbell will build upon his very good season last year and they do have weapons to run Zorn's offense. Portis will do his normal 1,300-1,400.
Yes, they looked awful vs. Carolina last week, but at the end of the day, an above average offense and a very good defense means they will be in the mix. Maybe a wild card team again. The NFC East is strong, and they will most likely be the third NFC East team (and last team into the playoffs) in the postseason again this year.
Record: 9-7.
4. Philadelphia Eagles. Without being nasty or placing personal biases ahead of objectivity, I do have to wonder what Donovan McNabb has been smoking that makes him think that 1) they are "the team to beat in the NFC" and/hence 2) be better than the other three teams in the division with, for the 15th straight year -- the CRAPPIEST set of wide receivers this side of the Miami Dolphins! McNabb needs to prove he can stay healthy for once. He hasn't played a full season since they went to the Super Bowl in 2004. Brian Westbrook is the only great player they have, and when he was injured last year, Osi Umenyiora had 6 sacks lining up against Winston Justice. McNabb isn't what makes them go. (Puts on Hubie Brown Second Person Voice) And when your QB doesn't have that kind of pull, then you are not a contender in the NFL. Brian Dawkins, who I respect, is getting long in the tooth. He has a year or two left before he really drops off. The rest of their secondary is weak. Their linebackers are nondescript and Trent Cole, who is a BEAST, is the only lineman you really have to account for with them. MAYBE Mike Patterson here and there and MAYBE Broderick Bunkley (FROM?!?!?! FLORIDA STATE!!!) I just don't see how this team is supposed to be anyone's favorite except delusional Eagles' fans.
Iggles' record: 8-8.
NFC North Division:
No one really cares about this division, but for the sake of arguing...
1. Minnesota Vikings. They have the best running attack in the division. With a conference bereft of quarterbacks, that's the only thing (and a decent defense) that will get you any W's in that division. Adrian Peterson is going to gain close to 1,800 yards this year if he is healthy. Chester Taylor is still giving you close to 1,000 when Peterson isn't in there. With their wimpy QB Tavaris Jackson nicked up again, it's tough for this offense to do much consistently. Their offensive line is arguably the best in the NFL, though. That is enough to keep them in games. Their defense has gotten BETTER, but they still have plenty of holes in their secondary aside from Antoine Winfield. If the Williams Brothers (Pat and Kevin) can get pressure up front and stuff the run, they are tough to beat. Ask the Giants last year.
Record: 9-7.
2. Green Bay Packers. Aaron Rodgers has big shoes to fill, blah blah blah. They overachieved by a good 4 games last year. The other shoe finally dropped (I had been waiting for it all season) in the NFC Championship vs. the Giants. They won't make it to the playoffs, but Rodgers will prove he is going to be good for years to come. Their defense will keep them in most games, but they don't have any real gamebreakers unless WR Greg Jennings and Rodgers can connect deep regularly. I don't see that happening though. At least not early.
Record: 6-10.
3. Detroit Lions. I don't know what to think about this team. Kitna gets you 4,000 yards every year (good for fantasy) and 30 TDs last year (also good for fantasy football). But he gets killed every year, too. They could not run the ball, and really have not since Barry Sanders walked out on top in 1998. They have receivers, but no one plays them honestly (Roy Williams gets double-teamed every game and still makes great catches and had a ton of catches in total last year). Calvin Johnson will be great, but if they can't get their running game going this year, it will be more of the same. Their defense is a joke.
Record: 6-10.
4. Chicago Bears. Their defense is the only thing worth noting. I feel bad for guys like Mike Brown and Brian Urlacher, as well as Lance Briggs -- wasting their prime teams on this train wreck of a team. They refuse to get a real quarterback -- indeed; they have not had one since McMahon and he was overrated. They basically gave Thomas Jones to the Jets, kept Benson (should've been the other way around) and then cut Benson this offseason. I also feel bad for my boy Kevin Jones. He is finally healthy and then ends up with the Bears. What did he do in his youth to deserve this? LOL
Rex Grossman is only in the league because he played under Steve Spurrier (whose QBs have NEVER EVER done anything in the NFL, does anyone notice this???) There's Good Rex (which is below average at best) and Bad Rex (as in worst in the NFL bad). How can you be taken seriously and win in the NFL with a joke of a quarterback? Kyle Orton, while suffering from the Chad Pennington/Matt Leinart syndrome, DOES win games, because he doesn't kill you with the mistakes that Grossman does nearly every game. I still think they will royally suck.
Take Devin Hester out of the equation and they would be the absolute worst team in the league. He literally won the Bears two games last year.
Record: 4-12.
NFC South Division:
1. Carolina Panthers. This division will be tight. However, I give the nod to Carolina for three major reasons: 1) Jake Delhomme is healthy, 2) the running game is solid and Muhsin Muhammad is back with the Panthers to take away the double/triple-teams Steve (Steven) Smith faced all last year and 3) Dan Morgan is out of the picture with his perennial concussions, Mike Rucker retired and Chris Gamble is back healthy. Their defense was always their strong point, but they were injured most of last year on all three levels. Add in Delhomme's catastrophic arm injury and you should tip your hat to them for even winning 7 games last year.
Record: 11-5.
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Smoke and mirrors. I said that about Green Bay all last year. I'll be saying it about Tampa this year. Cadillac Williams has the Bernard King-type knee injury. He will never be the same and may need this entire year to recover after missing ALL of last year after initially injuring it early in the Carolina game. Their defense is looking a bit long in the tooth. Derrick Brooks is one of my all-time Florida State guys, but he is 35. This might be his last go 'round. I don't know how they will do it, but...
Record: 10-6.
3. New Orleans Saints. The Saints are a solid football team. Brees will win you a few and rarely cost you one. He just gained a weapon in Jeremy Shockey (if he stops dropping the ball once a game). Their defense is solid with Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma leading the way. I like their receivers, but for some reason, I still don't see them making it over the hump.
Record: 10-6.
4. Atlanta Falcons. The worst team in football. Period. Pray for Matt Ryan.
Record: 1-15.
NFC West Division:
1. Arizona Cardinals. Yes, I think the Cards can do it IF Warner is the QB and IF he stays healthy for at least 13 games this year. Matt Leinart is just not an NFL QB. Any real scout saw this throughout his years at USC (he had a stellar offensive line, great running backs, GREAT receivers and a GREAT defense, my mom could've won the Heisman with that team). He's overrated. But Warner puts up pinball machine numbers (see the last half of the 2007 season). With two of the best WRs in the league in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (both have had 100-catch seasons) and a decent running game in an aging Edgerrin James and a young stud (pause) out of Richmond, they will be a force. Now if Rolle can anchor the secondary...
Record: 10-6.
***I resign the right to adjust this for a Warner concussion and say they will be 5-11 if he misses more than three games.***
2. Seattle Seahawks. One last hurrah under Holmgren. I put them here because their GLUE on offense, Bobby Engram, will miss several games to start the season. Hasselback does not have much to work with. Julius Jones' best days are behind him in Dallas. Maurice Morris is better at this point. Won't matter. They miss Steve Hutchinson at left guard too much. Walter Jones (FROM?!?!?! YAK...) is great, but he's just a tackle, he can't drive out defensive tackles also. Pork Chop Womack gets it done, but regardless, Seattle will only go as far as their defense (which is very good -- bends but doesn't break) takes them. Tatupu is a very good mike linebacker, and their defensive ends get plenty of pressure with Kerney and Wistrom, but their secondary will decide it all.
Record: 9-7.
3. St. Louis Rams. Can Bulger stay healthy? How effective will Jackson be? Their offensive line is decent. Not great. Same with their defensive line with Howie Long's son. I can't really say much about them. They're really not a good team.
Record: 5-11.
4. San Francisco 49ers. Alex Smith might have just lost his job to J.T. O'Sullivan, who has been a journeyman his entire career. Isn't that something? The 49ers waste tens of millions on a QB with small hands who can't catch a break. They have Vernon Davis, Frank Gore and nothing else to mention offensively. They have Pat Willis at LB, but his 200+ tackles last year were just a testament to the fact their defense was on the field all the time last year and the bookend LBs did not make plays. Willis is VERY GOOD, but 200 tackles is never a good thing; even though it looks good on paper. Their secondary is a complete joke even WITH Clements back there.
Record: 3-13.
American Football Conference
AFC East Division:
1. New England Patriots. Anyone who knows football knows they will not repeat what they did last year. Brady's numbers will fall back to his average (which are better than everyone's other than Peyton Manning's, so that's not a bad thing) and Randy Moss will not put up the same type numbers, either. Only the (90% bandwagon) deluded Patriot fans out there really think this team will come close to that.
Having said that, they will still be formidable and tough to beat regardless. Their linebackers are on their last legs and that got exploited in the Super Bowl. Their secondary is depleted with Samuel gone. Donte Stallworth's defection leaves them thin at WR. How does one figure this team will go undefeated?
Record: 11-5.
2. New York Jets. Brett Favre is overrated and has been this entire decade in terms of how much ink he gets. His best days ended the day Reggie White (thankfully he is with God for sure, RIP) left. And if you go look through your almanac, you see that was NOT last year. They only won that one Super Bowl because of White's two clutch sacks at the end of the game to keep Drew Bledsoe from completing a last second touchdown drive. Barry Sanders should have had the 1997 NFL MVP award to himself after amassing 2,000 yards, but NOOOO, they had to "split" it with Favre. How can you have TWO MVPs? Favre was great that year, indeed, they made it to the Super Bowl again after making it the previous year and winning. But he wasn't even the best QB in that game, and wasn't the best QB that season, NOR is he the best QB ever, as some claim (Elway across the board). Give Barry his due.
Thomas Jones (fam)is a force in the backfield, to go with Leon Washington and other spot backs, they have a running game. Their offensive line is solid with the addition of Alan Faneca. Their receivers are pedestrian, but make plays (Laveranues Coles, Jerricho Cotchery & Co.). The real question is their defense, and no one really stands out aside from Kerry Rhodes and Erik Coleman. When your best defensive players are your defensive backs, that says something about your defense -- and it's not a GOOD something.
However, the Jets have a VERY GOOD special teams. Especially returning kicks and punts - Leon Washington is only second to Devin Hester (albeit with much less ink) he scored just as often last year.
Record: 9-7.
3. Buffalo Bills. They have talent, but they can't figure out who their QB is. Their defense has been a revolving door the past few years. LITERALLY. Hard to guage them. If Lynch can run the ball consistently, they'll play a lot of close games. But that's about it. They won't win them without consistent QB play.
Record: 5-11.
4. Miami Dolphins. You can give them a pass this year. Can't really rip them too much after having won only two games last year. They drafted a relatively good set of picks in the 2008 Draft and get injured players back. We don't know most of those players, though, so I'll give them an incomplete right now. They gave up two of their defensive stalwarts in the offseason in Zach Thomas (Dallas) and Jason Taylor (Washington).
Record: 3-13.
AFC North Division:
1. Cleveland Browns. I think this is their year to overtake Pittsburgh. They could have done it last year except QB Derek Anderson got a case of the yips down the stretch last year. Cost them a game vs. Cincinnati. Nevertheless, they have Jamal Lewis, who is in the best shape of his life at RB... a STELLAR TE in K. Winslow, Braylon Edwards at WR making great plays every game and a very good offensive line. Their defense is still lacking a run defense, but they are better. Bend but don't break. I have them winning the division on the last game of the regular season over Pittsburgh in a tiebreaker. Watch Josh Cribbs on special teams!
Record 11-5.
2. Pittsburgh Steelers. They actually got better through draft picks. Their only true loss was Alan Faneca and they had players ready to fill in. Willie Colon (Ah Ah, Oh No) can move to RT and they can move a couple of other players around to make that line just as good as it was earlier in the decade. Santonio Holmes is a game breaker, Roethlisberger seems poised for a big year and Fast Willie Parker should be healthy. Their defense needs S Troy Polamalu to be healthy in order for it to be effective. They were rather pedestrian when he did not play. It hurt them in the end going into the playoffs (along with Parker's injury). If healthy, they will be right there.
Record: 11-5.
3. Baltimore Ravens. McGahee is going to have a 1,500 year. Mark it down. Even though defenses will stack the line with One-Arm Kyle Boller, Troy Smith and Joe Flacco as their QBs. Jonathan Ogden retired and their line is not well-known. I still stand by my prediction about McGahee. Just watch (and no, it's not because I have him in FF). Their WRs are okay, the only one worthy of note is Mark Clayton. Another smoke and mirrors team. Their defense isn't what it was, but they still make plays with Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister and Landry. They are one of those teams that are on the fence of not making the playoffs or being the second wild card. I like their return game.
Record: 9-7.
4. Cincinnati Bengals. Marv Lewis is going to get fired if they start the season 0-2 (conceiveable). They won't come back from that 1) T.J. Houshmandzadeh isn't 100%, nor is Chad. They even relented and brought back Chris Henry. You know it's bad when you have undrafted rookies getting time that the starters normally would have gotten in game three in the preseason. Their running game really fell off as Rudi Johnson started playing like RUDY from the movie. He's done. At age 29 and less than 5 full seasons of playing under his belt. Go figure.
Kenny Watson and Chris Perry are okay, but they won't win games for you. The defense is absolutely abysmal, considering Marvin Lewis is a defensive coordinator. Their offense is supposed to be the strong point, but in their last eight offensive possessions in the preseason, they haven't even managed a field goal. Scary.
Record: 6-10.
AFC South Division:
1. Indianapolis Colts. This is mostly by default. I, for one, am not worried about Peyton Manning's injury. He will be there. Marvin Harrison is healthy. Reggie Wayne is in his prime. Anthony Gonzalez has been gettin' it in. Joseph Addai is primed for a 1,400 yard year. If Freeney is healthy and Bob Sanders (best free safety in the NFL, sorry Dawk and Polamalu) can avoid nick-nack injuries, they are going to be in the mix for the Super Bowl. Keep this name in mind: Tony Ugoh. He protects Manning's blind side and is virtually unknown, but he played VERY WELL last year and how well he plays this year is pivotal.
Record: 14-2.
2. Houston Texans. Yes. Houston. If healthy (Andre Johnson), they would have won 12 last year. Does not matter who their RB's are. Their offense is pretty explosive. Their defense isn't great, but it makes timely plays. I expect more of that this year. They were able to hang with Dallas last week.
Record: 11-5.
3. Jacksonville Jaguars. The Jaguwires might take a step back without their defensive tackle tandem anymore. They do get Harvey into the fold to play defensive end, but I have to wonder how much that will matter. Without pressure up front, the rest of their defense is painfully average. They couldn't slow New England in the playoffs last year for this reason.
Record: 8-8.
4. Tennessee Titans. I like VY. He still hasn't improved enough in the passing game to win games from the pocket. Plus, he does not have the receivers. What he DOES have, however, is a running game. They aren't boring to watch offensively. With Vince Young himself, Chris Brown (RUN IT!) and LenDale White, they are up there in terms of running attacks in the NFL. Keith Bulluck is still a force at mike on the other side of the ball. Other than that, their front four is very good with Vanden Bosch and Haynesworth. I don't know about their secondary. Finnegan made plays here and there, but they aren't shutdown corners by any stretch, nor hard-hitting/big-play safeties. Tough to gauge a team like that.
Record: (Fittingly, in accordance with the last line of analysis above) 8-8.
AFC West Division:
This division may return to being fun to watch in a few years, but the Chargers own it until then. I won't spend much time here.
1. San Diego Chargers. Rivers' mechanics are FINALLY sound. That will help their offense overall, with Tomlinson healthy, Gates healthy and Chris Chambers to stretch the field with guys like Vincent Jackson, Kassim Osgood and Eric Parker (back from injury) to put out there as well. Marcus McNeal is one of the best left tackles in the league that no one knows. They will have the best offense in the NFL this year. Not on the Patriots' level from 2007, but at the top this year.
The defense is the focal point. With or without Merriman, the defense is fine. Shaun Phillips was the best LB on the team last year. Merriman should have the surgery and rehab for next year. But he knows his own body. The 3-4 scheme confuses teams, but Jamal Williams, the best nose tackle in the league according to John Madden (and I agree) will determine how effective the four LBs are. The secondary might just be the best all around in the NFL. Quentin Jammer is FINALLY playing up to par after six seasons of not making big plays. Although Terrence Kiel died in the offseason, they are still deep back there. Clinton Hart is up and coming. Special teams are fine.
Record: 14-2.
2. Oakland Raiders. JaMarcus Russell will make strides and their running game is deep, but I don't expect much from them this year. Their defense is suspect with so many players being traded and the dreaded Your-Best-Player-Is-A-Cornerback (Nnamdi Asemougha) situation. Give them another year and a new coach and they will be back into the playoffs.
Record: 6-10.
3. Denver Broncos. Bronco fans won't admit it, but while Cutler is decent, they don't have much else. They just cut their running game (Henry) and they have no receivers to relieve Brandon Marshall of the double and triple-teams he will face. Their defense is weak -- smallish linebackers, no pass rush whatsoever (which killed them last year) and Champ Bailey on the verge of the wrong side of his prime, they can't be expected to do much. Which of course means they MIGHT be better than I think.
However...
Record: 5-11.
4. Kansas City Chiefs. Admittedly, they were bad last year because their offensive line took serious hits with retirements over the past couple of years (Shields, Wiegmann) and the whole fiasco with Roaf. Larry Johnson's injuries did not help matters. I'll dare someone to name their WRs. Or their QBs for that matter. They are terrible. Too bad this will reflect more on Herman Edwards than anyone else.
Record 5-11.
In regards to playoff matchups --
NFC
1. Dallas.
2. Carolina.
3. Arizona Cardinals.
4. Minnesota Vikings
5. New York Giants.
6. New Orleans Saints.
NFC Wild-Card Playoff:
New Orleans Saints vs. Arizona Cardinals. (Cardinals)
New York Giants vs. Minnesota Vikings. (Giants)
Byes (Dallas, Carolina)
NFC Divisional Playoff:
Arizona Cardinals vs. Carolina Panthers (Panthers)
New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys (Giants)
NFC Championship:
New York Giants vs. Carolina Panthers (Giants)
New York Giants - NFC Champions.
AFC Playoffs
1. San Diego Chargers.
2. Indianapolis Colts.
3. New England Patriots.
4. Cleveland Browns.
5. Houston Texans.
6. Pittsburgh Steelers.
AFC Wild Card Playoff:
Houston Texans vs. Cleveland Browns. (Browns)
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. New England Patriots. (Patriots)
Byes (San Diego, Indianapolis).
AFC Divisional Playoff:
New England Patriots vs. Indianapolis Colts. (Colts)
Cleveland Browns vs. San Diego Chargers. (Chargers)
AFC Championship:
Indianapolis Colts vs. San Diego Chargers. (Chargers)
San Diego Chargers - AFC Champions.
Super Bowl XLIII - Tampa, Florida.
New York Giants vs. San Diego Chargers.
I don't DARE pick that one yet LOL... stay tuned this season!
With that said, let's get right into the prognostications and analysis division by division and conference by conference.
*** PLEASE BE ADVISED THE RECORDS WILL NOT COMPUTE EXACTLY -- THEY ARE MERELY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT I BELIEVE THE TEAM WILL PERFORM LIKE AND WHERE THEY WILL FINISH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DIVISIONS. NO SMART ALECK EMAILS ABOUT THE COMPUTATION BEING UNEVEN. Thanks.***
National Football Conference
NFC East Division:
1. Dallas Cowboys. Dallas has the most talent in the NFC and possibly the NFL as a whole. No one can sensibly argue that. Their problems are 1) out of control egos in Terrell Owens and Tony Romo (who refused to listen to Parcells' advice!) 2) questionable receiving corps without Glenn now 3) their history of flat out CHOKING in the playoffs in recent years, where they have not won a playoff game since 1996. That said, Owens is still the 2nd or 3rd best WR in the NFL and it will be interesting to see if Marion Barber III can be as effective carrying the ball 25 times a game with defensive coordinators scheming to take him out of the game and get after Romo. I still think they will be the team to beat in the end, but again, they have that postseason thing to shake.
Their special teams are average.
They are like the 1990s Atlanta Braves of MLB! They win a ton of regular season games, but don't do squat in the playoffs. More of the same this year, now that Big Blue showed the NFL "how to do this" (i.e. getting after Romo). Whoever they play in the Wild Card this year will do the same.
As for the regular season - 12-4.
2. New York Giants. The New York Football Giants were already being counted out by the perennial haters (ESPN, FOX Sports, irrational Cowboy and Iggles fans, people who hate New York City in general and those with inferiority complexes that can't stand to see others succeed, etc. etc. etc.) the minute the defections from the Super Bowl-winning team began. Gibril Wilson left, then Kawika Mitchell, then Reggie Torbor. Then Strahan retired. Then we trade Shockey. Then Plaxico Burress' ankle messes up again in training camp and finally, Osi Umenyiora's knee injury knocks him out for the season. That only made the irrationale even worse. Even with all those setbacks, the Giants quietly acquired Danny Clark to fill Mitchell's shoes (Clark is better in all areas as a linebacker, BTW), they acquired Sammy "Good" Knight to replace Wilson and drafted Kenny Phillips, to play strong and free safety, respectively. Phillips hits harder than anyone in the secondary that the Giants have had since Shaun Williams' first year in 1998 (before he got soft). Aaron Ross and Webster are MORE than capable in the secondary, provided the front seven gets adequate pressure, which it will.
Special teams look good, especially with Domenik Hixon emerging.
Much has been made about what Spaggs (Giants' defensive coordinator, Steve Spagnuolo) will do to fill the void of Strahan and Umenyiora. Yes, it is a loss of 23 sacks. But only Osi's knee injury is shocking. People knew Strahan was going to retire if we won the Super Bowl. We did. So he did. Justin Tuck is going to give left tackles fits all season. Kiwanuka will do the same to right tackles. Add to the fact that at times the Giants can shift Kiwanuka back to strongside linebacker and put Renaldo Wynn at left end, move Tuck inside to defensive tackle and shift Dave Tollefson to right end (or put Clark at strongside and put Kiwanuka at right end with Tuck inside at DT, Wynn at LE) and you see the Giants AREN'T out of options here, defensively in regards to pressuring the QB. What they CANNOT avoid is another injury to anyone in the front seven. Antonio Pierce is the ONE player who was indispensible on the front seven even with Osi being considered. Yes, I'm serious. Yes, I'm sane. The offense is better than people think. Eli has swag now. Jacobs, if he stays healthy, will be a 1,200 guy. Ward and Bradshaw give you a couple of different looks as the Giants have the deepest RB corps in the NFL. Burress, "Well-Dressed" Amani Toomer, Steve Smith, Sinorice Moss, Domenik Hixon, Mario Manningham, David Tyree give Eli Manning a plethora of weapon. Shockey's trade is overpublicized. Kevin Boss played great after Shockey broke his leg. The Giants will be fine.
New York Giants (pre-Umenyiora injury) 11-5.
New York Giants (post-Umeyiora injury) 10-6.
Again, the injuries and players who have left the team aren't as big of a deal as people make it seem.
3. Washington Redskins. I will be brief with this one, because they really did not do much change with their roster in the offseason. The big move was getting a new head coach (Jim Zorn) after Joe Gibbs stepped down and changing offensive schemes yet again. Jason Campbell will build upon his very good season last year and they do have weapons to run Zorn's offense. Portis will do his normal 1,300-1,400.
Yes, they looked awful vs. Carolina last week, but at the end of the day, an above average offense and a very good defense means they will be in the mix. Maybe a wild card team again. The NFC East is strong, and they will most likely be the third NFC East team (and last team into the playoffs) in the postseason again this year.
Record: 9-7.
4. Philadelphia Eagles. Without being nasty or placing personal biases ahead of objectivity, I do have to wonder what Donovan McNabb has been smoking that makes him think that 1) they are "the team to beat in the NFC" and/hence 2) be better than the other three teams in the division with, for the 15th straight year -- the CRAPPIEST set of wide receivers this side of the Miami Dolphins! McNabb needs to prove he can stay healthy for once. He hasn't played a full season since they went to the Super Bowl in 2004. Brian Westbrook is the only great player they have, and when he was injured last year, Osi Umenyiora had 6 sacks lining up against Winston Justice. McNabb isn't what makes them go. (Puts on Hubie Brown Second Person Voice) And when your QB doesn't have that kind of pull, then you are not a contender in the NFL. Brian Dawkins, who I respect, is getting long in the tooth. He has a year or two left before he really drops off. The rest of their secondary is weak. Their linebackers are nondescript and Trent Cole, who is a BEAST, is the only lineman you really have to account for with them. MAYBE Mike Patterson here and there and MAYBE Broderick Bunkley (FROM?!?!?! FLORIDA STATE!!!) I just don't see how this team is supposed to be anyone's favorite except delusional Eagles' fans.
Iggles' record: 8-8.
NFC North Division:
No one really cares about this division, but for the sake of arguing...
1. Minnesota Vikings. They have the best running attack in the division. With a conference bereft of quarterbacks, that's the only thing (and a decent defense) that will get you any W's in that division. Adrian Peterson is going to gain close to 1,800 yards this year if he is healthy. Chester Taylor is still giving you close to 1,000 when Peterson isn't in there. With their wimpy QB Tavaris Jackson nicked up again, it's tough for this offense to do much consistently. Their offensive line is arguably the best in the NFL, though. That is enough to keep them in games. Their defense has gotten BETTER, but they still have plenty of holes in their secondary aside from Antoine Winfield. If the Williams Brothers (Pat and Kevin) can get pressure up front and stuff the run, they are tough to beat. Ask the Giants last year.
Record: 9-7.
2. Green Bay Packers. Aaron Rodgers has big shoes to fill, blah blah blah. They overachieved by a good 4 games last year. The other shoe finally dropped (I had been waiting for it all season) in the NFC Championship vs. the Giants. They won't make it to the playoffs, but Rodgers will prove he is going to be good for years to come. Their defense will keep them in most games, but they don't have any real gamebreakers unless WR Greg Jennings and Rodgers can connect deep regularly. I don't see that happening though. At least not early.
Record: 6-10.
3. Detroit Lions. I don't know what to think about this team. Kitna gets you 4,000 yards every year (good for fantasy) and 30 TDs last year (also good for fantasy football). But he gets killed every year, too. They could not run the ball, and really have not since Barry Sanders walked out on top in 1998. They have receivers, but no one plays them honestly (Roy Williams gets double-teamed every game and still makes great catches and had a ton of catches in total last year). Calvin Johnson will be great, but if they can't get their running game going this year, it will be more of the same. Their defense is a joke.
Record: 6-10.
4. Chicago Bears. Their defense is the only thing worth noting. I feel bad for guys like Mike Brown and Brian Urlacher, as well as Lance Briggs -- wasting their prime teams on this train wreck of a team. They refuse to get a real quarterback -- indeed; they have not had one since McMahon and he was overrated. They basically gave Thomas Jones to the Jets, kept Benson (should've been the other way around) and then cut Benson this offseason. I also feel bad for my boy Kevin Jones. He is finally healthy and then ends up with the Bears. What did he do in his youth to deserve this? LOL
Rex Grossman is only in the league because he played under Steve Spurrier (whose QBs have NEVER EVER done anything in the NFL, does anyone notice this???) There's Good Rex (which is below average at best) and Bad Rex (as in worst in the NFL bad). How can you be taken seriously and win in the NFL with a joke of a quarterback? Kyle Orton, while suffering from the Chad Pennington/Matt Leinart syndrome, DOES win games, because he doesn't kill you with the mistakes that Grossman does nearly every game. I still think they will royally suck.
Take Devin Hester out of the equation and they would be the absolute worst team in the league. He literally won the Bears two games last year.
Record: 4-12.
NFC South Division:
1. Carolina Panthers. This division will be tight. However, I give the nod to Carolina for three major reasons: 1) Jake Delhomme is healthy, 2) the running game is solid and Muhsin Muhammad is back with the Panthers to take away the double/triple-teams Steve (Steven) Smith faced all last year and 3) Dan Morgan is out of the picture with his perennial concussions, Mike Rucker retired and Chris Gamble is back healthy. Their defense was always their strong point, but they were injured most of last year on all three levels. Add in Delhomme's catastrophic arm injury and you should tip your hat to them for even winning 7 games last year.
Record: 11-5.
2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Smoke and mirrors. I said that about Green Bay all last year. I'll be saying it about Tampa this year. Cadillac Williams has the Bernard King-type knee injury. He will never be the same and may need this entire year to recover after missing ALL of last year after initially injuring it early in the Carolina game. Their defense is looking a bit long in the tooth. Derrick Brooks is one of my all-time Florida State guys, but he is 35. This might be his last go 'round. I don't know how they will do it, but...
Record: 10-6.
3. New Orleans Saints. The Saints are a solid football team. Brees will win you a few and rarely cost you one. He just gained a weapon in Jeremy Shockey (if he stops dropping the ball once a game). Their defense is solid with Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma leading the way. I like their receivers, but for some reason, I still don't see them making it over the hump.
Record: 10-6.
4. Atlanta Falcons. The worst team in football. Period. Pray for Matt Ryan.
Record: 1-15.
NFC West Division:
1. Arizona Cardinals. Yes, I think the Cards can do it IF Warner is the QB and IF he stays healthy for at least 13 games this year. Matt Leinart is just not an NFL QB. Any real scout saw this throughout his years at USC (he had a stellar offensive line, great running backs, GREAT receivers and a GREAT defense, my mom could've won the Heisman with that team). He's overrated. But Warner puts up pinball machine numbers (see the last half of the 2007 season). With two of the best WRs in the league in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (both have had 100-catch seasons) and a decent running game in an aging Edgerrin James and a young stud (pause) out of Richmond, they will be a force. Now if Rolle can anchor the secondary...
Record: 10-6.
***I resign the right to adjust this for a Warner concussion and say they will be 5-11 if he misses more than three games.***
2. Seattle Seahawks. One last hurrah under Holmgren. I put them here because their GLUE on offense, Bobby Engram, will miss several games to start the season. Hasselback does not have much to work with. Julius Jones' best days are behind him in Dallas. Maurice Morris is better at this point. Won't matter. They miss Steve Hutchinson at left guard too much. Walter Jones (FROM?!?!?! YAK...) is great, but he's just a tackle, he can't drive out defensive tackles also. Pork Chop Womack gets it done, but regardless, Seattle will only go as far as their defense (which is very good -- bends but doesn't break) takes them. Tatupu is a very good mike linebacker, and their defensive ends get plenty of pressure with Kerney and Wistrom, but their secondary will decide it all.
Record: 9-7.
3. St. Louis Rams. Can Bulger stay healthy? How effective will Jackson be? Their offensive line is decent. Not great. Same with their defensive line with Howie Long's son. I can't really say much about them. They're really not a good team.
Record: 5-11.
4. San Francisco 49ers. Alex Smith might have just lost his job to J.T. O'Sullivan, who has been a journeyman his entire career. Isn't that something? The 49ers waste tens of millions on a QB with small hands who can't catch a break. They have Vernon Davis, Frank Gore and nothing else to mention offensively. They have Pat Willis at LB, but his 200+ tackles last year were just a testament to the fact their defense was on the field all the time last year and the bookend LBs did not make plays. Willis is VERY GOOD, but 200 tackles is never a good thing; even though it looks good on paper. Their secondary is a complete joke even WITH Clements back there.
Record: 3-13.
American Football Conference
AFC East Division:
1. New England Patriots. Anyone who knows football knows they will not repeat what they did last year. Brady's numbers will fall back to his average (which are better than everyone's other than Peyton Manning's, so that's not a bad thing) and Randy Moss will not put up the same type numbers, either. Only the (90% bandwagon) deluded Patriot fans out there really think this team will come close to that.
Having said that, they will still be formidable and tough to beat regardless. Their linebackers are on their last legs and that got exploited in the Super Bowl. Their secondary is depleted with Samuel gone. Donte Stallworth's defection leaves them thin at WR. How does one figure this team will go undefeated?
Record: 11-5.
2. New York Jets. Brett Favre is overrated and has been this entire decade in terms of how much ink he gets. His best days ended the day Reggie White (thankfully he is with God for sure, RIP) left. And if you go look through your almanac, you see that was NOT last year. They only won that one Super Bowl because of White's two clutch sacks at the end of the game to keep Drew Bledsoe from completing a last second touchdown drive. Barry Sanders should have had the 1997 NFL MVP award to himself after amassing 2,000 yards, but NOOOO, they had to "split" it with Favre. How can you have TWO MVPs? Favre was great that year, indeed, they made it to the Super Bowl again after making it the previous year and winning. But he wasn't even the best QB in that game, and wasn't the best QB that season, NOR is he the best QB ever, as some claim (Elway across the board). Give Barry his due.
Thomas Jones (fam)is a force in the backfield, to go with Leon Washington and other spot backs, they have a running game. Their offensive line is solid with the addition of Alan Faneca. Their receivers are pedestrian, but make plays (Laveranues Coles, Jerricho Cotchery & Co.). The real question is their defense, and no one really stands out aside from Kerry Rhodes and Erik Coleman. When your best defensive players are your defensive backs, that says something about your defense -- and it's not a GOOD something.
However, the Jets have a VERY GOOD special teams. Especially returning kicks and punts - Leon Washington is only second to Devin Hester (albeit with much less ink) he scored just as often last year.
Record: 9-7.
3. Buffalo Bills. They have talent, but they can't figure out who their QB is. Their defense has been a revolving door the past few years. LITERALLY. Hard to guage them. If Lynch can run the ball consistently, they'll play a lot of close games. But that's about it. They won't win them without consistent QB play.
Record: 5-11.
4. Miami Dolphins. You can give them a pass this year. Can't really rip them too much after having won only two games last year. They drafted a relatively good set of picks in the 2008 Draft and get injured players back. We don't know most of those players, though, so I'll give them an incomplete right now. They gave up two of their defensive stalwarts in the offseason in Zach Thomas (Dallas) and Jason Taylor (Washington).
Record: 3-13.
AFC North Division:
1. Cleveland Browns. I think this is their year to overtake Pittsburgh. They could have done it last year except QB Derek Anderson got a case of the yips down the stretch last year. Cost them a game vs. Cincinnati. Nevertheless, they have Jamal Lewis, who is in the best shape of his life at RB... a STELLAR TE in K. Winslow, Braylon Edwards at WR making great plays every game and a very good offensive line. Their defense is still lacking a run defense, but they are better. Bend but don't break. I have them winning the division on the last game of the regular season over Pittsburgh in a tiebreaker. Watch Josh Cribbs on special teams!
Record 11-5.
2. Pittsburgh Steelers. They actually got better through draft picks. Their only true loss was Alan Faneca and they had players ready to fill in. Willie Colon (Ah Ah, Oh No) can move to RT and they can move a couple of other players around to make that line just as good as it was earlier in the decade. Santonio Holmes is a game breaker, Roethlisberger seems poised for a big year and Fast Willie Parker should be healthy. Their defense needs S Troy Polamalu to be healthy in order for it to be effective. They were rather pedestrian when he did not play. It hurt them in the end going into the playoffs (along with Parker's injury). If healthy, they will be right there.
Record: 11-5.
3. Baltimore Ravens. McGahee is going to have a 1,500 year. Mark it down. Even though defenses will stack the line with One-Arm Kyle Boller, Troy Smith and Joe Flacco as their QBs. Jonathan Ogden retired and their line is not well-known. I still stand by my prediction about McGahee. Just watch (and no, it's not because I have him in FF). Their WRs are okay, the only one worthy of note is Mark Clayton. Another smoke and mirrors team. Their defense isn't what it was, but they still make plays with Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister and Landry. They are one of those teams that are on the fence of not making the playoffs or being the second wild card. I like their return game.
Record: 9-7.
4. Cincinnati Bengals. Marv Lewis is going to get fired if they start the season 0-2 (conceiveable). They won't come back from that 1) T.J. Houshmandzadeh isn't 100%, nor is Chad. They even relented and brought back Chris Henry. You know it's bad when you have undrafted rookies getting time that the starters normally would have gotten in game three in the preseason. Their running game really fell off as Rudi Johnson started playing like RUDY from the movie. He's done. At age 29 and less than 5 full seasons of playing under his belt. Go figure.
Kenny Watson and Chris Perry are okay, but they won't win games for you. The defense is absolutely abysmal, considering Marvin Lewis is a defensive coordinator. Their offense is supposed to be the strong point, but in their last eight offensive possessions in the preseason, they haven't even managed a field goal. Scary.
Record: 6-10.
AFC South Division:
1. Indianapolis Colts. This is mostly by default. I, for one, am not worried about Peyton Manning's injury. He will be there. Marvin Harrison is healthy. Reggie Wayne is in his prime. Anthony Gonzalez has been gettin' it in. Joseph Addai is primed for a 1,400 yard year. If Freeney is healthy and Bob Sanders (best free safety in the NFL, sorry Dawk and Polamalu) can avoid nick-nack injuries, they are going to be in the mix for the Super Bowl. Keep this name in mind: Tony Ugoh. He protects Manning's blind side and is virtually unknown, but he played VERY WELL last year and how well he plays this year is pivotal.
Record: 14-2.
2. Houston Texans. Yes. Houston. If healthy (Andre Johnson), they would have won 12 last year. Does not matter who their RB's are. Their offense is pretty explosive. Their defense isn't great, but it makes timely plays. I expect more of that this year. They were able to hang with Dallas last week.
Record: 11-5.
3. Jacksonville Jaguars. The Jaguwires might take a step back without their defensive tackle tandem anymore. They do get Harvey into the fold to play defensive end, but I have to wonder how much that will matter. Without pressure up front, the rest of their defense is painfully average. They couldn't slow New England in the playoffs last year for this reason.
Record: 8-8.
4. Tennessee Titans. I like VY. He still hasn't improved enough in the passing game to win games from the pocket. Plus, he does not have the receivers. What he DOES have, however, is a running game. They aren't boring to watch offensively. With Vince Young himself, Chris Brown (RUN IT!) and LenDale White, they are up there in terms of running attacks in the NFL. Keith Bulluck is still a force at mike on the other side of the ball. Other than that, their front four is very good with Vanden Bosch and Haynesworth. I don't know about their secondary. Finnegan made plays here and there, but they aren't shutdown corners by any stretch, nor hard-hitting/big-play safeties. Tough to gauge a team like that.
Record: (Fittingly, in accordance with the last line of analysis above) 8-8.
AFC West Division:
This division may return to being fun to watch in a few years, but the Chargers own it until then. I won't spend much time here.
1. San Diego Chargers. Rivers' mechanics are FINALLY sound. That will help their offense overall, with Tomlinson healthy, Gates healthy and Chris Chambers to stretch the field with guys like Vincent Jackson, Kassim Osgood and Eric Parker (back from injury) to put out there as well. Marcus McNeal is one of the best left tackles in the league that no one knows. They will have the best offense in the NFL this year. Not on the Patriots' level from 2007, but at the top this year.
The defense is the focal point. With or without Merriman, the defense is fine. Shaun Phillips was the best LB on the team last year. Merriman should have the surgery and rehab for next year. But he knows his own body. The 3-4 scheme confuses teams, but Jamal Williams, the best nose tackle in the league according to John Madden (and I agree) will determine how effective the four LBs are. The secondary might just be the best all around in the NFL. Quentin Jammer is FINALLY playing up to par after six seasons of not making big plays. Although Terrence Kiel died in the offseason, they are still deep back there. Clinton Hart is up and coming. Special teams are fine.
Record: 14-2.
2. Oakland Raiders. JaMarcus Russell will make strides and their running game is deep, but I don't expect much from them this year. Their defense is suspect with so many players being traded and the dreaded Your-Best-Player-Is-A-Cornerback (Nnamdi Asemougha) situation. Give them another year and a new coach and they will be back into the playoffs.
Record: 6-10.
3. Denver Broncos. Bronco fans won't admit it, but while Cutler is decent, they don't have much else. They just cut their running game (Henry) and they have no receivers to relieve Brandon Marshall of the double and triple-teams he will face. Their defense is weak -- smallish linebackers, no pass rush whatsoever (which killed them last year) and Champ Bailey on the verge of the wrong side of his prime, they can't be expected to do much. Which of course means they MIGHT be better than I think.
However...
Record: 5-11.
4. Kansas City Chiefs. Admittedly, they were bad last year because their offensive line took serious hits with retirements over the past couple of years (Shields, Wiegmann) and the whole fiasco with Roaf. Larry Johnson's injuries did not help matters. I'll dare someone to name their WRs. Or their QBs for that matter. They are terrible. Too bad this will reflect more on Herman Edwards than anyone else.
Record 5-11.
In regards to playoff matchups --
NFC
1. Dallas.
2. Carolina.
3. Arizona Cardinals.
4. Minnesota Vikings
5. New York Giants.
6. New Orleans Saints.
NFC Wild-Card Playoff:
New Orleans Saints vs. Arizona Cardinals. (Cardinals)
New York Giants vs. Minnesota Vikings. (Giants)
Byes (Dallas, Carolina)
NFC Divisional Playoff:
Arizona Cardinals vs. Carolina Panthers (Panthers)
New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys (Giants)
NFC Championship:
New York Giants vs. Carolina Panthers (Giants)
New York Giants - NFC Champions.
AFC Playoffs
1. San Diego Chargers.
2. Indianapolis Colts.
3. New England Patriots.
4. Cleveland Browns.
5. Houston Texans.
6. Pittsburgh Steelers.
AFC Wild Card Playoff:
Houston Texans vs. Cleveland Browns. (Browns)
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. New England Patriots. (Patriots)
Byes (San Diego, Indianapolis).
AFC Divisional Playoff:
New England Patriots vs. Indianapolis Colts. (Colts)
Cleveland Browns vs. San Diego Chargers. (Chargers)
AFC Championship:
Indianapolis Colts vs. San Diego Chargers. (Chargers)
San Diego Chargers - AFC Champions.
Super Bowl XLIII - Tampa, Florida.
New York Giants vs. San Diego Chargers.
I don't DARE pick that one yet LOL... stay tuned this season!
The Home Stretch of the Baseball Season
... and Alex RodrÃguez flies out to end the inning with a runner on base as I speak (bottom of the 5th vs. Boston Red Sox, Wednesday, August 27, 2008).
This has been the tone all season. I knew he had been bad all year when it comes to runners in scoring position and particularly after the 7th inning (an APPALLING 3 RBI after the 7th inning with runners in scoring position??? OVER 130 GAMES??? Steinbrenner is paying $30M a year for this???). The deceiving thing is, you look at RodrÃguez's numbers (.312/28/79/1.020+) and those are pretty decent. But they do not reflect how disgustingly awful he has been when it comes to knocking guys in all year. Grounding into double plays, striking out, flying out weakly... I like Alex, but this got old back in June. If we don't win these next two games versus Boston, our season is over. That's not jumping off the bandwagon, that's REALISM. Our pitching sucks. Andy, who is automatic in August and September, got nailed last night. Ponson only gave us 4 2/3 tonight, so the bullpen will be shot after this series. Moose is liek the 2007 Green Bay Packers (i.e. overachieving ALL year, running on fumes, and you're waiting for the hammer to come down finally -- for Green Bay, it was vs. the Giants in the NFC Championship of course; hopefully, for Moose it ain't tomorrow!)
As for the rest of baseball, I see it this way -- and I will be succinct:
AL East winner:
Tampa. They have the pitching. They have not missed a beat with their bats even though Crawford is out for most of the rest of the season and Percival is down as the closer (again). They will win the AL East. Boston's pitching is iffy at best.
AL Central winner:
Chicago White Sox. By the skin of their teeth. They've been back and forth with Minnesota all year. I just believe the Pale Hose have that moxie that Minnesota doesn't. Shouts to Gardenhire for keeping his pitching staff together. No one thought they would do it without Santana, but I don't see them overtaking Chicago for first.
AL West winner:
The Los Angeles Angels of Los Angeles County of Anaheim City of California Angels. They had the division clinched in June. YAWN.
AL Wild Card:
Minnesota. They will catch Boston and that's that. Deal with it.
NL East:
This is a tough pick. The Mets are not convincing, but they are coming back against Philadelphia as I publish this. We will have to watch this. I pull for the Mets like little brothers, and I can't put that bias aside right now. I see them winning the NL East in a playoff the day after the season ends.
NL Central:
The Brewers were looking prime to catch the Cubs when C.C. Sabathia came on board. I don't see it happening now. The Cubs are the best team in baseball. I actually see them winning it all this year unless someone like Derrek Lee or Zambrano gets hurt.
NL West:
I would LIKE to think the Dodgers would win it, but the NL West is like the NFC West in the NFL. Meaning... who cares who wins the division... they're not going to do anything in the playoffs but be the eventual champion's doormat.
NL Wild Card:
Strictly by virtue of the best record, the Phillies SHOULD win this, but we will have to watch. They have the better top to bottom pitching out of the trio of themselves, St. Louis and Milwaukee.
NLDS:
Philadelphia Phillies vs. Chicago Cubs. Cubs in 5.
Los Angeles Dodgers vs. New York Mets. Mets in 4.
NLCS:
New York Mets vs. Chicago Cubs. Cubs in 7.
ALDS:
Minnesota Twins vs. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Angels in 4.
Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 5.
ALCS:
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 6.
World Series:
Chicago Cubs vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 7.
Wouldn't THAT be something? It's not far-fetched, either. TUNE IN!!!
This has been the tone all season. I knew he had been bad all year when it comes to runners in scoring position and particularly after the 7th inning (an APPALLING 3 RBI after the 7th inning with runners in scoring position??? OVER 130 GAMES??? Steinbrenner is paying $30M a year for this???). The deceiving thing is, you look at RodrÃguez's numbers (.312/28/79/1.020+) and those are pretty decent. But they do not reflect how disgustingly awful he has been when it comes to knocking guys in all year. Grounding into double plays, striking out, flying out weakly... I like Alex, but this got old back in June. If we don't win these next two games versus Boston, our season is over. That's not jumping off the bandwagon, that's REALISM. Our pitching sucks. Andy, who is automatic in August and September, got nailed last night. Ponson only gave us 4 2/3 tonight, so the bullpen will be shot after this series. Moose is liek the 2007 Green Bay Packers (i.e. overachieving ALL year, running on fumes, and you're waiting for the hammer to come down finally -- for Green Bay, it was vs. the Giants in the NFC Championship of course; hopefully, for Moose it ain't tomorrow!)
As for the rest of baseball, I see it this way -- and I will be succinct:
AL East winner:
Tampa. They have the pitching. They have not missed a beat with their bats even though Crawford is out for most of the rest of the season and Percival is down as the closer (again). They will win the AL East. Boston's pitching is iffy at best.
AL Central winner:
Chicago White Sox. By the skin of their teeth. They've been back and forth with Minnesota all year. I just believe the Pale Hose have that moxie that Minnesota doesn't. Shouts to Gardenhire for keeping his pitching staff together. No one thought they would do it without Santana, but I don't see them overtaking Chicago for first.
AL West winner:
The Los Angeles Angels of Los Angeles County of Anaheim City of California Angels. They had the division clinched in June. YAWN.
AL Wild Card:
Minnesota. They will catch Boston and that's that. Deal with it.
NL East:
This is a tough pick. The Mets are not convincing, but they are coming back against Philadelphia as I publish this. We will have to watch this. I pull for the Mets like little brothers, and I can't put that bias aside right now. I see them winning the NL East in a playoff the day after the season ends.
NL Central:
The Brewers were looking prime to catch the Cubs when C.C. Sabathia came on board. I don't see it happening now. The Cubs are the best team in baseball. I actually see them winning it all this year unless someone like Derrek Lee or Zambrano gets hurt.
NL West:
I would LIKE to think the Dodgers would win it, but the NL West is like the NFC West in the NFL. Meaning... who cares who wins the division... they're not going to do anything in the playoffs but be the eventual champion's doormat.
NL Wild Card:
Strictly by virtue of the best record, the Phillies SHOULD win this, but we will have to watch. They have the better top to bottom pitching out of the trio of themselves, St. Louis and Milwaukee.
NLDS:
Philadelphia Phillies vs. Chicago Cubs. Cubs in 5.
Los Angeles Dodgers vs. New York Mets. Mets in 4.
NLCS:
New York Mets vs. Chicago Cubs. Cubs in 7.
ALDS:
Minnesota Twins vs. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Angels in 4.
Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 5.
ALCS:
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 6.
World Series:
Chicago Cubs vs. Tampa Bay Rays. Rays in 7.
Wouldn't THAT be something? It's not far-fetched, either. TUNE IN!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
