Marc by Marc Jacobs SS07 Ads

As the fashion-addicts know, most of the SS07 ads have been released in the past month, which of course caused a lot of excitement among us. One of my favourite ads this season is the Marc by Marc Jacobs ad. True, it looks pretty much like the ones from the past few seasons -afterall, they were shot by Juergen Teller. But I love how the ad really gives off that young and hip vibe. It just feels so Marc by Marc Jacobs. I just really like the clothes and the styling of this shoot! Iekeliene Stange looks so cool in this shot -she (and the clothes) look girly-pretty in the non-cutsy, slightly edgy way.

Another cool, or perhaps slightly odd thing about this ad is that the brand name isn't completely printed on. While I'm sure any normal person knows the ad is by Marc by Marc Jacobs, it's just not normal advertising to not print the full designer name. Anyways, I'm loving the other features of the ad too-the colours are so vibrant and the poses are so fun! Plus, I love the style of the photographs. Pretty cool huh?

Oh btw, NY fashion week has started already. For a fun insider read, check out Derek Blasberg's Fashion Week blog @ Jane.

Urban Outfitters SS07

I used to LOVE Urban Outfitters. I'd go there everytime I go downtown, just in case I missed something the last time I went or something I had my eye on was on sale. But now I find myself going to UO less and less. I don't even have their online catalog memorized anymore! So I thought I'd pick a few to analyze- and no I did not delibrately pick ones that I thought were hideous.

I think I would've found these two camis pretty. They're feminine and pretty. But I just don't see it fitting very well into my current wardrobe! More cutesy camis that would be good for mix and match. But now that I know UO better, I can tell from here that the quality of these are probably not too good and may potentially look cheap. So is it still worth almost $30? Moreover, is this really the look we're looking for?

Cool bold tees. I guess these are alright for casual wear. I rather like the grey one actually, a decent attempt at the oversized tshirt thing.

Jackets! I have mixed feelings. I like the way the striped one looks on the model, but with the thin material and all, would it look chic or cheap on us normal mortals? But I DO like that cropped jacket on the right. Although I'm not sure if its worth $48, if I can get a better one by waiting a bit and paying a tiny bit more. . .

Classics. Am loving the simple design. Although again, the material? Not so sure.

More classic bottoms. I rather like the style of these flare skirt and wide legged denims. Although beware the skirt is probably made of a flimsier material than you think.
An example of getting it right and wrong. The red one is soo off. But I think the one on the right is . . well right. Could potentially be cute and this season actually! These two are pretty, but waaay too bohemian chic for me.

So what do you think? Is it just me? Am I growing out of Urban Outfitters or are their designs too bohemian and off for the current season?

The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency

Ever since I got cable, my apartment mate and I have been obsessed with one show: The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency!

I first caught a glimpse of it this January when we sat down and watched a marathon of it. At first it was just something to watch while we had lunch, but then we got hooked and we couldn't stop! We knew she had quite a character from ANTM, but who knew it was quite this big? She jumped into a fountain in a one of a kind, really quite gorgeous, couture gown. She made her models sing christmas carols to strangers in the cabins in christmasy UNDERWEAR, which is both hilarious and scary, because if I opened my door and a bunch of half naked people were singing Christmas carols at me I'd freak out. Although I must say, they were a rather good looking bunch of half naked people. . . . Oh and her version of the 12 Days of Christmas was completely shameless and one cannot help but want to wince and laugh atthe same time. One modeling agency, two giant breasts, three former husbands, four Italian suits, five naked men. . . . . . .LOL. For a 53 year old, she really isn't doing too badly, although many pictures and stuff are SO photoshopped (i.e. the cover. . . ).

Another thing I like about this show is that there aren't just female models, but male models too. It definitely adds something more to the norm. And they look soo hot, esp when one of them was pouring water down his half naked body the other day for a photoshoot. Plus, the whole situation is actually real and the models are actually getting somewhere, unlike some shows where they put models in unrealistic situations for ratings and tell them they're being trained for the real world *cough cough*. We actually get to know what the modeling world is really like, which is nice.

Anyways, from the feedback I'm getting from my girlfriends, it doesn't seem like its just me whose obsessed with the show. So if you haven't given it a try yet, check out season 2 every wednesday night 10/9C. And when you get hooked, you can join me and catch up with season 1 on their DVD which was released just yesterday.

Happy Procrastination everyone!

Some considerations in changing or evolving your scheme.

Coaches often ask each other, "why do you use the scheme you use?" Many coaches say "I teach what I know," and then recite their won/loss records, or how many years they have been doing it. Other coaches, typically ones who lack success, talk about their reasons for overhauling everything and making some big switch to the spread/option/wing-t/wishbone/power-I/etc.

In my mind, both fail to properly understand all the relevant considerations. There are two sad facts to football:

One is that what worked yesterday may not--and probably won't--work tomorrow. None of us should be surprised if what we thought was genius suddenly looks pedestrian. If the other guy is using laptops and you're on legal pads, or they are smarter than you, it won't work anymore. The success of any "scheme," in the abstract, is ephemeral.

Good coaches do not forget. There is a kind of brooding omnipresence of football knowledge--now more readily accessible with the internet--where once a scheme has been analyzed coaches do not forget. You might get them for a game or two or a half, but it will be figured out. The most genius play design--the kind that only comes around once in a generation like a Sid Gillman, Bill Walsh, Mouse Davis, etc--is stupid, analyzed, broken down, countered, and copied within weeks.

The second sad fact is there is not a good way to know what will work in the future, along with the corrollary that it takes a long time to learn how to teach any given system or set of techniques to go with that, even if we did know what would work in the future.

The moral here is that must evolve and change and adapt, but if you stray too far to what you can effectively teach, then you will do more harm than good, even if your new scheme is better. But if you stay married to ideas simply because that is how Woody Hayes did it then your success--and your career--may quickly dissipate.

To borrow from the Holmes quote I had up, the guy who knows all the rules and the old schemes may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics: he can predict, adapt, grow, and is looking at the real consequences. He knows that just because it worked last year or for the last ten years does not mean it will continue to work.


A Model for Success

One way to go about this is to look at it like a kind of calculation. Let's say your offensive or defensive effectiveness is something like

SCHEME x EXECUTION,

where Execution is a function of TEACHING x TALENT.

A "novel" or unknown scheme can outweigh less talent, as well as weak teaching. For example, if you convert next year to the spread option and you've never coached it, clearly someone who has 10 years in it will be better than you at teaching it. Yet if no one knows how to defend it, you still may have great success even if you're a relative novice at teaching it.

So holding talent fixed--most coaches don't get to choose their talent--the basic trade/off is between scheme and teaching/execution. At some point it is not worth trying to outscheme everyone in every situation because you can't teach it everything, whether because it is a new offense or defense and you don't have all the fundamentals and coaching points down, or because you don't have time evenough time.

To sum up: The newest and often best scheme is a trade-off with how good you are at teaching it. There are some teams that use neanderthal-era schemes that are successful because those coaches have talent to work with and they are good teachers. This does not mean their scheme is great, or even good at all, it simply means they are good at teaching it. There are coaches who could and try to outscheme everyone, but at some point you have to do what you can teach effectively given the time constraints and your own inadequacies.

And, possibly unfortunately, talent lords over all.

Norm Chow - Reads and Concepts

This is from Norm Chow in 2002 (@ NC State when he had Phillip Rivers at QB): You can see that on SOME of these - he mixes 2 or even 3 concepts within 1 pass.

To better understand this post check out the BYU plays/numbers here, and compare these routes. He used these same routes at USC and NC State and still does in the NFL.

1. "QUICK GAME CONCEPT" = entire 3 step drop series ("50 SERIES") except for "4 Verticals".

2. "QUICK VERTICALS CONCEPT" = 3 step game with 4 verticals.

NOTE: "60 SERIES" = 5 step drop (SOME but very little 7).

3. "HORIZONTAL STRETCH CONCEPT"
----A) 61 Y Choice
----B) 66
----C) 64

4. "HORIZONTAL STRETCH - RUB CONCEPT"
----A) 62 = MESH ROUTES

5. "DEEP HORIZONTAL STRETCH CONCEPT"
----A) 67

6. "DEEP HORIZONTAL STRETCH - HI/LO CONCEPT"
----A) 68 = SMASH )

7. "VERTICAL STRETCH - HI/LO CONCEPT"
----A) 63

8. "FLOOD - OBLIQUE - HI/LO CONCEPT"
----A) 65

9. "HI/LO - OBLIQUE STRETCH CONCEPT"
----A) 69

These passes (the "50 Series", and "61 thru 69") were the same he used at BYU

He was also experimenting with things he called:

A) "HORIZONTAL - TRIANGLE STRETCH CONCEPT"
B) "HI/LO - RUB CONCEPT"
C) "SNEAK - RUB - HI/LO CONCEPT"

THESE (ABOVE) were used on some "TAGS" that aren't in the base passes listed above (WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN JUST ABOUT ANY OF HIS BYU BOOKS).

The QB READS on the "60 Series" (his "bread & butter") were:

NORM CHOW POST SNAP READS – “60 SERIES”

“61 Y OPTION” – 5 step drop. Eye T.E. and throw it to him unless taken away from the outside by S/S (then hit Z), OR inside by ILB (then hit FB). Don’t throw option route vs. man until receiver makes eye contact with you. Vs. zone – can put it in seam. Vs. zone – no hitch step. Vs. man – MAY need hitch step.

“62” - MESH – 5 step drop. Take a peek at F/S – if he’s up hit Z on post. Otherwise watch X-Y mesh occur – somebody will pop open – let him have ball. Vs. zone – throw to Fullback.

“63” - DOUBLE-IN (split end post, Y-10 yard in, Z-15-18yd dig) – 5 step drop and hitch (7 steps permissible). Read F/S: X = #1; Z = #2; Y OR HB = #3.

“64” – SPEED OUTS - 5 step drop. Key best located Safety on 1st step. Vs. 3 deep look at F/S – if he goes weak – go strong (Z = #1 to FB = #2 off S/S); if he goes straight back or strong – go weak (X = #1 to HB = #2 off Will LB). Vs. 5 under man – Y is your only choice. Vs. 5 under zone – X & Z will fade.

“65” – Y-SAIL/STRONG FLOOD - 5 step drop and hitch. Read the S/S. Peek at Z #1; Y = #2; FB = #3. As you eyeball #2 & see color (F/S flash to Y) go to post to X. Vs. 2 deep zone go to Z = #1 to Y = #2 off S/S.

“66” – ALL-CURL- 5 step drop and hitch. On your first step read Mike LB (MLB or first LB inside Will in 3-4). If Mike goes straight back or strong – go weak (X = #1; HB = #2). If Mike goes weak – go strong (Y = #1; Z = #2; FB = #3). This is an inside-out progression. NOT GOOD vs. 2 deep 5 under.

“67” – 3-VERTICAL/DOUBLE CORNERS- 5 step drop and hitch. Read receiver (WR) rather than defender (Corner). Vs. 2 deep go from Y = #1 to Z = #2. Vs. 3 deep read same as “64” pass (Will LB) for X = #1 or HB = #2. Equally good vs Cover 2 regardless if man OR zone under.

“68 SMASH” – SMASH - 5 step drop and hitch. Vs. 2 deep look HB = #1; FB = #2 (shoot); Z = #3. Vs. 3 deep – stretch long to short to either side. Vs. man – go to WR’s on “returns”.

“69 HB OPTION” – Y-SAIL - 5 step drop - hitch up only if you need to. Eye HB: HB = #1; Y = #2. QB & receiver MUST make eye contact vs. man. Vs. zone – receiver finds seam (takes it a little wider vs. 5 under). Only time you go to Y is if Will LB and Mike LB squeeze HB. If Will comes & F/S moves over on HB – HB is “HOT” and will turn flat quick and run away from F/S. Otherwise HB runs at his man to reinforce his position before making his break.

NOTE: BLITZ AUDIBLES IN “60 SERIES” when we want “Y” to enter in protection on widest rusher (S/S or OLB) his side: “MAX PRO”.

1. “67 Stay”
2. “63 Stay” – gives X on post if F/S lines up strong on Y.
3. “62 Stay” – gives Z on post if F/S aligns weak on HB.

My First Online-Buy

Hmm, how to start? OK, to begin with, I am extremely cautious shopper. I analyse over every little detail of item -like the colour, the cut, the weight, the practicality, how often will I wear it, when will I get sick of it etc., until even my parents get fed up with me and tell me to just buy whatever it is. Also, even though I spend an abnormally large amount of my line window-shopping online all the time, I have never been brave enough to actually buy anything online -that was until a few weeks ago.

So a few weeks ago at the end of my Christmas break, I was looking through the net-a-porter sale. I looked at clutches first, since I figured if I was ever to buy anything online, it would be a bag, and clutches are usually cheaper than other types of bags. Plus I haven't bought an evening bag in almost two years and I'm terribly picky. So imagine my surprise when the first 'sale' page that I looked, there was a Miu Miu clutch that I actually liked and most importantly, it was affordable! So after imagining myself using it for a few days, encouragement from my sister and mum, and knowing that net-a-porter is extremely trust-worthy, I clicked the buy button.
The package arrived one day later than estimated, but it was all good. The clutch turned out a tiny bit smaller than I thought -it could just fit my already-tiny Samsung mobile phone. But I have come to accept that it is one of those little lipstick clutches. I love the velvet, which makes it look so classy. It's small, chic and girl-looking without being too cutsey. All in all, it was a fantastic experience. Now I really feel like I'm living in the twenty-first century!

Tell me about your online-shopping (or online-window shopping) experiences! Are you as obsessed as I am?

Chloe Bags SS07

Since the Paddington, Chloe bags have been on everyone's radar. Well, it has been on mine anyway (although I've always liked the style of their clothes as well). I especially liked the Betty bag. But now, its time to look forward to their newest offerings in SS07. Here are the two I like best.
The Bay Bag. Isn't it a little reminiscent of the Balenciaga Motorcycle bag? But I quite like this version of it. It still fits everything and its more rounded, cute, feminine and just different. I find the two huge zips on the pocket really adorable too! This is a really fun and classic bag.
Then there is the Ava. Although similarly rounded, this bag is less structured and I think more elegant, ladylike and feminie. Definitely more sophisticated.

I can't quite decide which one I like better, they are so similar and at the same time so different! I adore them both. Et toi?

SAG Awards 2007 Fashion

Award show again, but this time it's the SAG Awards. The winners of the SAG are pretty much the same as the Golden Globes so I'm not going to bother much with who got the awards. Actually, this award seemed so similar to the Golden Globes I wasn't even going to blog about it, but some dresses were so pretty that I couldn't resist.

OK, wow. Katherine Heigl's outfit was pretty disappointing at the Globes, but this dress just looks stunning on her. Plus she carries that old Hollywood look really well. Look at how gorgeous that hair and makeup are...

Sandra Oh (and her stylist) seem much better at selecting the right dresses for her now. She looked elegant in this Armani dress. One thing worth mentioning, Armani (or Armani Prive) totally upped the fashion-meter at the SAG yesterday. A few of the stylishly classic dresses were by Armani -more below:

I love Cate Blanchett's whole look here, from the dress to necklace to the earrings. The dress is such a great fit and cool look on her.

Anne Hathaway in Marchesa -uh, so-and-so I guess. Teri Hatcher -I usually hate Hatcher's fashion, but this dress looks really nice on her, (thanks Armani). At the very least, she doesn't look her usual tacky self.

Sara Ramirez -not bad. The green silk suits her skin tone really nicely. Diane Kruger in Dior -ahh, what can I say? Diane K practically looks pretty in everything.

Ellen Pompeo in Lanvin -I appreciate that she's got her own sense of style, but I'm really not liking the neckline bit of this dress. Kate Walsh -So summery and happy! It's not an amazing dress or anything, but she looks great in it, which at the end of the day is the most important thing.

Helen Mirren -I'm usually not interested what the older actresses wear to award shows, but Mirren looked so lovely and the dress was so suitable for her that I had to post about her.

The Ugly Betty ladies! Becki Newton -She's so gorgeous! Love the hair and makeup. And that dress looks amazing on her. This is definitely an improvement from that ill-fitted dress at the Globes. America Ferrera -Oddly, I don't like her as much as Becki, but she does look elegant in this dress.

Rachel McAdams -Ooo, I've been obsessed with her pink highlights for awhile. As much as the dress is young and cool, I'm not sure this super mini dress was the right choice for the red carpet, but she looks so cute that I'm going to ignore it and just declare her mega-cute!

Whose dress and whole look did you like the most?