NFL predictions: Orton will rock, Romo... not so much.

I have been quietly making a prediction to my friends about a handful of quarterbacks around the league this year. The more I see, the more I am convinced my predictions will come true, and I want to voice them a little more publicly.

At the end of the season, Kyle Orton will look like a super-star, and Tony Romo, while quarterback for America's Team will no longer be hailed as the Second Coming in Dallas, behind Troy Aikmen, but will be prepared to be relegated to the annuls of Cowboys history along with Drew Brees; a good quarterback, but not "it" for Dallas.

Let's start with Kyle Orton. The trade for Kyle Orton seemed an odd one at the time. Josh McDaniels, former offensive coordinator for the New England Patriots, became the head coach of the Denver Broncos at the beginning of the season. When Jay Cutler, quarterback of the Broncos, heard that McDaniels was considering trading him, he was allegedly hurt and furious. The Broncos knew they had a huge resource in Cutler, and cashed in with the Bears on that resource. I still haven't decided how much of all the trade was show, and how much was legitimate drama, but the facts remain; the Broncos received a Kings' ransom for Cutler, to include Kyle Orton. I DO firmly believe that McDaniels did not think he could effectively coach and mold Cutler, who had been reasonably vocal about how wonderful he already was. McDaniels has made big names for Quarterbacks like Brady and Matt Cassell. Admittedly, Cassell hasn't done all that much with his career, but any coach would take a 10-6 season from a backup QB, after having the starter taken out in the first game. McDaniels was looking for a solid quarterback to work with and move into his system. Kyle Orton fit the bill, AND McDaniels was able to get him at a significant discount over other big-name quarterbacks. Today, at 5-0, McDaniels in his first year of head coaching, is showing the league that the system works, and that a well-coached quarterback can be every bit as effective as a talented quarterback. I think the Broncos are going to have a great season, win the AFC West, and probably win their first playoff game. I'm not crowning McDaniels the next Vince Lombardi. I'm not announcing Kyle Orton as the next Joe Montana. I'm saying that at the end of this year, we're going to be asking ourselves IF Kyle Orton is the next Joe Montana, and I'll be answering "No, McDaniels is on his way to being the next Joe Gibbs; bright coaching future ahead of him, regardless of the quarterback."

Which brings me to my second prediction. Tony Romo will never be successful in Dallas, and at the end of this season, fans will begin to see that. Tony Romo is currently hailed as the next big thing in Dallas, after Troy Aikman. As a simple point of fact, Troy Aikman has 3 Super Bowl Championship rings, and Tony Romo has won as many NFL playoff games as I have. Interestingly, Troy Aikman himself feeds into this farcical legend. As the NFL analyst on most Dallas Cowboy games for FOX, he consistently slurps Romo as his crowned successor that always puts the Cowboys in a position to win. He is remarkably athletic, but athletics don't substitute for solid quarterback skills when it comes to long-term skill-position careers; athletics fade with age, but talent may remain. I predict that by the end of the season, Dallas fans will be questioning Tony Romo, but will REALLY be looking at Wade Phillips' coaching as the culprit. Once Phillips is gone at the end of the season, Romo will continue to produce solid results, without playoff payoffs, which simply aren't enough for the fans in Dallas. Romo will eventually be replaced and move on to a new team, which is the only place he will actually have any real hope of winning a Championship.

A Nobel Peace Prize? For what?!?

Today, President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

I don't mean to take away from the President's plans, initiatives, or policies.

BUT... Never has a Nobel Peace Prize been awarded for doing so little...

There is no doubt that the President ran a masterful campaign, focusing on hope and change. These ideas have global implications, and resound with the best parts of humanity. However, to date, it is still just talk. The President has accomplished VERY LITTLE in his 9 months in office, much like most new Presidents during their first year in office.

On the peace front, specifically, let's look at all the promises that are still unfulfilled; we're still in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay is still open. Outside of campaign promises, Iran has flaunted the fact that they a.) are building a nuclear refinery, and b.) have been doing it for years in secret, the President is considering increasing troops deployed to Afghanistan, and Navy SEALs were deployed to hunt and kill pirates off the coast of Somalia. Truly, this President has demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy.

I'm not saying that the President won't be deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize; certainly the previous Bush administration has set the stage for a dramatic change of international policy which could lead to a Nobel Peace Prize, and certainly President Obama has spectacular visions and goals for peace and diplomacy during his administration, but let's face it, most of his campaign "visions" will end up being like most campaign promises - unfulfilled. Let's not forget we are still IN an economic hole, and healthcare is clearly right at the top of the President's agenda.

The President did, however, appear to recognize that while his "to do" list was long, his "done" list was nearly absent; accepting the award as a "call to action," and not a "mission accomplished." I applaud him for being fair with himself, and the World.

So congratulations to the President, but shame on the Norwegian Nobel Committee. If former President Clinton, who put tremendous effort into the Middle East Peace process, focusing on Israel and Palestinians (and to a large extent, Egypt), in conjunction with peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans and Somalia, don't earn him a Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see how a President that hasn't DONE ANYTHING yet can be awarded one.

The Old Woman Shakes Her Cane.

I was in Pittsburgh this week, and while I was driving around the downtown area, I saw something I thought I would only see in a movie.

I was rolling through an intersection. I had to slow down, as there was an old woman in the crosswalk in front of me. She shuffled along, hunched over, in a white shawl. She was not graceful, but my coworker and I (he's in his 50s) both agreed that if years on this earth equated to wisdom, she must have carried frankincense to some baby's birth long ago. Adult republicans seeing her would have lamented that the Boy Scouts of America were clearly snoozing on the job, which never would have happened on THEIR watch in the 1950s. She slowly crossed the great expanse that was the crosswalk. As she left my lane and moved into the oncoming lane, a car pulled up and stopped for her.

Evidently, the driver pulled up too fast, too close, or both. She stopped, mid-shuf, and raised her eyes to the driver. She then raised her cane, precariously trusting her centuries-old legs to maintain their balance for the duration of her admonition. She shook her cane with grandmotherly fury at the driver.

We didn't have time to see how long she berated the driver, as we rolled passed, happy to have avoided personally experiencing her wrath. My coworker and I could only laugh. It was picturesque. It was surreal. It was as if we were watching a movie. It only could have been MORE classic, if she had hit the car with her cane.

A tip jar at a self-serve coffee place?!?!

As I was passing through Laguardia Airport, my eye was caught by a self-serve coffee kiosk. I thought, "Really? Free coffee at an airport? If I were Starbucks, I would be pissed..." As I looked closer, it wasn't just self-serve, it was a Dunkin' Donuts kiosk that was self-serve with a cashier beside it.

I do love my Dunkin' Donuts coffee, I hadn't had any breakfast, and DDs are hard to come by in Charlotte, so I decided to stop and smell the coffee. I grabbed a styrofoam cup, poured myself some jo, added some cream and sugar (which I will only do at a Dunkin' Donuts; otherwise, it's black coffee for me), and proceeded to check out the selection of donuts. They had my regular favorites, namely blueberry cake and glazed chocolate cake, so I indulged in one of each.

As I got to the cashier, she told me how much I owed, and as she was handing me my change, I was astonished to see a tip jar, staring me in the face, like some kind of pleading "Will work to feed my baby, cause I just got laid off, and I haven't had a drink in minutes" cauldron. I thought to myself, "Seriously? A tip jar? But you didn't DO anything..."

For the record, I got my cup. I poured my coffee. I added the cream and sugar. I struggled with the donut cabinet door, while trying to hold the donut bag, clinging to the little plastic tissue thingy in my other hand, magically balancing my coffee like some kind of Cirque du Soliel performer, AND managing my luggage. Indeed, it is YOU who should be tipping ME for your front-row seat to my performance!

And then it hit me... maybe the tip jar WAS for me. Maybe they added funds to the jar for me to take upon successful completion of the Java Obstacle Course, brought to you by the good people of Dunkin' Donuts.

My timid hand approached the tip jar to claim my reward, but was met with a questioning and almost reproachful look from the cashier. I somehow, from this silent but stern communication, deduced that the tip jar was NOT for me, and I had indeed assumed correctly at first that the money was for the employee, seated on her lofty perch, who had done nothing to assist me in my journey except to confirm my suspicions that I would be overcharged for my donuts and coffee.

Maybe next time, I'll walk straight up to the cashier, order what I want, and see where the conversation goes from there... if I end up with my coffee and donuts THEN, I am more likely to provide a tip.

"didn't mean to slight?" Are you serious?

I haven't been tracking the Gates-Cambridge Police issue too closely, recently, but I haven't been completely out of the loop. I saw yesterday on CNN.com that President Obama "didn't mean to slight" when he said that the police acted stupidly.

Thus far, I have generally been impressed with President Obama's public interactions. He's polished, personable, and generally reassuring, which are skills that President H.W. Bush was perhaps missing.

I cannot, however, figure out how a man as publicly well-appointed as President Obama can stand at the lectern, and on one day say that the police acted stupidly, and on the next say he didn't mean to slight them. The facts of the of the event are irrelevant to the statement.

"I think you are not professional, and do your job poorly, but I hope you don't take any offense."

Beyond that, the offending statement uses harsher language than the President will use with human rights violating nations! You don't hear the President saying that North Korea "acted stupidly" by continuing missile tests, or that Iran "acted stupidly" by claiming there are no homosexuals in Iran. The President, however , feels compelled to pick out a law officer and fellow American to put down in public.

I'm not, strictly speaking, down on the President. President Obama, however, needs to recognize that he is no longer "just" a member of the legislative branch, but is the leader of the free world, the long-awaited, compassionate Ambassador, and that his words resound internationally far beyond the White House lectern from where they are uttered.

It's the swine flu, not the plague.

I have seen and heard about the "outbreak of the deadly swine flu", and would like to help people understand some basic facts about the flu.

a.) Your best protection is basic prevention. - Wash your hands regularly.  Be aware of those around you that may be coughing, or otherwise expressing symptoms, which include coughing, sore throat, lethargy, nausea and vomiting, runny nose, etc.  Note that the symptoms are consistent with the body's reaction to most illnesses, including the common cold and severe allergies.  Correlation does not equal causation, and vomiting does not equal the swine flu.  For those of you who constantly use hand sanitizer, you have likely managed to diminish your body's immune system by depriving it of consistent exposure to bacteria and illnesses, and thus, may have increased your chances of the illness, should you come in contact with it.  Nice work.  

b.) If you're healthy, and you live in the United States, it is not deadly.  It's not that the flu can't kill you; it's that the flu won't kill you.  As I write this, 20 out of 149 cases have been confirmed.  Today, that's roughly 13% (tomorrow, 20/149 is still 13%, but the numbers will likely be different tomorrow), but that is likely to explode far lower tomorrow as yahoos with runny noses from every state run to be treated with what they believe is assuredly their beginning-of-the-end. 

Good luck, and Godspeed.

The Relationship Between Hotel Quality and Cost.

I used to be a Starwood Hotels guy, but then I realized something about hotels.  

Justin's law of hotel value:  Once a set of fundamental requirements of a hotel room are met, there is a nonlinear relationship between a hotel's room rate and the total cost of the hotel stay.  

Huh?  Stay with me, here.

Basically, if you have a room at a cheap hotel, you'll have a cheap stay, but if you have a more expensive room at a nice hotel, you'll have a FAR more expensive stay, compared to an identical stay at the cheap hotel. 

Huh?

Here it is:  Once you have the basic essentials of a hotel, like a bed, TV, private bathroom, etc., you've got a baseline price for a hotel room in a given market.  If you can find a hotel room at the basic cost  "threshold" for a given market, you'll find that it includes more amenities that you might WANT for free.  The more expensive a hotel room gets, the more you have to PAY for amenities that are otherwise free at hotels closer to the basic cost threshold.  

Take, for example, any given Quality Inn.  It's a relatively inexpensive hotel room, in the grand scheme of things.  You're not expecting a flat screen in every room, or a lavish pool necessarily.  You'll expect the basics of a hotel; bed, bath, TV.  Now, Quality Inn will generally include a free breakfast, frequently a hot breakfast, free wi-fi, free small business center, free use of fax, etc.  Nothing extravagant, but note the common term, "free."  So your total hotel stay will be in line with the room rate times the number of nights.

Now, take for example, any given Marriott.  It's not extravagant, but it's a "nice" hotel.  You're going to pay significantly more for a Marriott room in a given market over a Quality Inn.  What do you expect?  A nice bed, a nice bathroom, and a nice TV.  The Marriott, though, will include, breakfast for a fee, usually a hot breakfast, wi-fi for a fee, business center for a fee, use of fax for a fee... see where I'm going with this?  Why is the hotel 20%-50% more than what I call a "threshold" hotel, but the SAME services are free at the "threshold" hotel and cost money at the "premium" hotel?  While the hotel should cost 20%-50% more, based on the room rate, it doesn't.  It will cost far more for the same stay, because you'll pay the additional 20%-50% for the room rate, PLUS the additional $20-$50/night for the same amenities.  Hence the nonlinearity.  And it only gets worse as the hotels get nicer.  

This is what Justin's law of hotel value is all about.  As the hotel rooms cost more, the total cost of the stay diverges as the price of the hotel room increases.  "Cheap" hotels remain cheap with the cost of the room, but expensive hotels become more and more expensive as the cost of the room increases.

So today, I'm a Choice Hotels guy.  I have been for a handful of years now.  The Choice Hotels program provides great benefits at a wide variety of hotels.  More importantly, though, the cost of the rooms is generally around the "threshold" price, keeping the total cost of the stay reasonable. 

Here's my recommendation, then.  If you want a nice room, book the nicest room in the cheapest hotel that HAS the amenities that you want, and they're more likely to be free and/or cheap, than if you book the cheapest room in the nicer hotel that has the amenities.  If you want a pool, clearly you have to go where the pool is, but book the CHEAPEST place with a pool, and then get the nicest room you can, for a treat.  The folks behind the counter will see you're the big fish in the little pond, and take care of you accordingly.  If you're the smallest fish in the biggest pond, you're more likely to get the "how nice that you decided to play at the $2 table at Ceasar's Palace" look.