Another Goode Job by Mike Judge

King of the Hill's 13 year run on Fox ended last week. But as one door closes, another opens, as Mike Judge's new project, The Goode Family, premiered last week, and was awesome. If you haven't seen it, the show centers around a family of politically correct environmentalists, and right from the beginning, it's one laugh after another. Really clever, creative, and different from the norm, and some great character voices. Basically everything we've come to expect from Mike Judge. It's hard to say someone has been underappreciated, as it's impossible for me get a large enough sample size of appreciation from the public to judge (pun intended) whether or not it's enough...but I think the guy is great and have loved just about everything he's ever done. Beavis and Butthead, Office Space, King of the Hill, Idiocracy, and now, so far, The Goode Family.

Far be it for me to tell you whom to appreciate. But while Seth MacFarlane gets the "rocketship to the moon" (which, officially, is a "push to the moon" times five), let's hear it for Mike Judge.

Sometimes, you just don't get to gloat

Remember when David Beckham was coming to the U.S. to play for the L.A. Galaxy, and how he was going to make people in this country care about soccer, and how ESPN gave him the ol' "push to the moon?" How did that work out?

This is just one of the things in sports where we just don't get the chance to say "I told you so." There is never a "gotcha" moment. You don't get that win/lose result the way you get in a singular sporting event. (Like, say, the Giants beating the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII, the only Super Bowl in which the Pats were not allowed to cheat.)

No, the Beckham story was one that faded away in a very slow and irrelevant manner, robbing us of the chance to say at any given point, "See, I knew no one would care about soccer, it will always be at best a niche sport in this country (and at worst a reason to riot and murder in others), and ESPN will have egg on their face for making such a big deal out of this guy."

So we never got a precise moment for that chance...though I guess I just took it now.

SI's best and worst owners in sports

Because I am fascinated with sports ownership and management, I found this particualrly interesting. Sports Illustrated made their lists of the top 5 best and worst owners, in each major sport. As the old saying goes, "a fish stinks from the head." So it's not a coincidence that the same teams are bad year after year, with very few exceptions. Similarly, we see the same franchises hovering near the top of the league every season, for the opposite reason - teams run very well all the way from the top to bottom, and great organizational stability.

In the NFL list, to no one's surprise, the Rooney family was ranked the best. Also to no one's surprise, Al Davis was ranked the worst - though I'm sure they had a tough decision between Davis and William Clay Ford. Giants' ownership, the Mara & Tisch Families, was ranked the third best, which I can't quarrel too much with. But I wouldn't have put Robert Kraft at #2, simply because too much of New England's success was achieved by cheating.

Apples and oranges?

I've always appreciated music reviews where they give you an alternative. Or, to put it more specifically, a better recommendation from a similar genre. Sometimes even from the same band. For instance, if a music outlet reviews Aerosmith's Just Push Play (their 2001 offering; the last time Aerosmith was relevant) and didn't like it, they'll typically say, "Save your 15 bucks and just listen to Get a Grip again instead."

The reason I bring this up is, I gave a first listen today to Green Day's Bullet In a Bible live album from 2005, and I found it mostly grating and obnoxious. And I normally like Green Day just fine. I don't know, maybe it's just the mood I'm in today. Or my taste is changing - I had not listened to any Green Day in quite some time before today. I do like The Offspring still, they're also considered in the punk category...though as anyone should be able to admit, The Offspring is far superior to Green Day. It's also possible that some bands just don't have that certain "it" when they're live. Yet a 4th possibility was that the crowd mic was too loud. And the crowd sounded to be mostly made up of 12 year old girls. That's not the band's fault. Well, maybe it was their fault with regards to marketing, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. (They're not a band backed by Disney that wears purity rings while selling sex or anything, I'm sure of that much.)

Anyway, during about the 5th song on the live Green Day album, I thought to myself, "I'd rather be listening to Queen right now." And that's what made me think of the music review thing I led off with. Could I review this Green Day album by saying, "This album is a little empty...You might better enjoy Queen's Live at Wembley Stadium, 1986?" That's at least a live-album-to-live-album comparison. But they're not in the same ballpark as far as genre goes. If I can get away with that one though, could I also compare other, non-musical endeavors to Queen? "Chachkis' jalepeno poppers aren't very good...I recommend listening to Queen II instead."

Now, only a few months until we find out if they're good

Here is the Giants' draft class of 2009:

1 29 (29) Hakeem Nicks WR North Carolina
2 13 (45) Clint Sintim LB Virginia (from New Orleans)
2 28 (60) Will Beatty T Connecticut
3 21 (85) Ramses Barden WR Cal Poly (from Pittsburgh)
3 36 (100) Travis Beckum TE Wisconsin
4 29 (129) Andre Brown RB N.C. State
5 15 (151) Rhett Bomar QB Sam Houston St. (from New Orleans)
6 27 (200) DeAndre Wright CB New Mexico
7 29 (238) Stoney Woodson CB South Carolina

Instead of rushing to "grade" a team's draft as many analysts do, I'll simply say that I have never seen any of these guys play, and that I hope they're good. However, given Giants' GM Jerry Reese's track record, I have to have confidence that these guys can play. Or at least most of the higher selections. The Giants will come into 2009 with a solid team, this we already knew. But the two big receivers, if good, can really contribute to a Super Bowl contender.

And back to the grade idea for a moment. It isn't a completely useless concept. I'd just like to see it applied in more constructive ways. A few outlets got the idea this year, but as for all the rest, I'd prefer they take all the time they spend grading a draft class of players who have never stepped on a professional field, and instead allocate it towards revisiting past draft classes and look back at how successful they were. I don't think you can truly evaluate a draftee until he's been in the league for at least two years. (That is, if he even lasts that long - and that's part of the idea in why waiting is so much more useful.)

With that, I now grade the 2007 New York Giants draft:

1 20 (20) Aaron Ross CB Texas
2 19 (51) Steve Smith WR USC
3 17 (81) Jay Alford DT Penn State
4 17 (116) Zak DeOssie OLB Brown
5 16 (153) Kevin Boss TE Western Oregon
6 15 (189) Adam Koets T Oregon State
7 14 (224) Michael Johnson S Arizona
7 40 (250) Ahmad Bradshaw RB Marshall

Yep...A+.

Things get even more interesting when looking at scouting reports of past draftees, if you can find them. Here's one for University of Michigan star defensive end LaMarr Woodley:

NEGATIVES: *Lacks the ideal measurables and may not have a true pro position.

Lacks a true position, eh? How about, totally awesome outside linebacker in a 3-4 scheme.

*Only occasionally asked to make plays in reverse.

I don't even know what this means so I'll pass.

*Benefited from the terrific talent around him at Michigan.

The 2006 Wolverines were a terrific team, but it was largely because of Woodley, not in spite of him.

ANALYSIS: A game-disrupting defender on the college level, Woodley positively impacted the Michigan defense since his arrival. Impressive on film, he could be ideally suited as a rush linebacker in the NFL. May need time to get adjusted but will be productive at the next level.

Ding! 11 1/2 sacks last season. Credit to the scout for seeing the potential there; though he still hedged too much in his "negatives" section. It's like the scout was saying, "I see him as a good outside linebacker in the NFL, but just in case he doesn't work out, I also told you he would suck."

PROJECTION: Late Second Round

Not a bad prediction, as he was picked in the middle of the 2nd round by the Super Bowl XLIII champion Pittsburgh Steelers.

I thought it really would have been interesting to find a pre-draft scouting report on Defensive Player of the Year and Super Bowl hero James Harrison, but I couldn't find one. I did find this though, an article on why Harrison went overlooked for so long. Here are the "money" paragraphs.

"Number one," said (Ozzie) Newsome, one of the league's shrewdest judges of talent, "he came out of Kent State. Number two, the measurables were lacking. When you come from a small school, what can attract you to someone is good measurables. But some measurables were missing."

Brandt seconded that motion. Harrison was undersized. He was 5-feet-11½. He wasn't fast, either. His 40-yard dash time was 4.85. Plus, he was a 24-year-old rookie.

After all this time, and all the "workout warrior" busts we've seen (I'm thinking of Mike Mamula most of all here, though with a couple more bad years, Vernon Davis and Vernon Gholston can join this list), teams still seem to place way too much importance on the measurables, and not enough on how they actually play on the field.

So my friends, here's to hoping that this year, your team got it right.