Salaam-E-Ishq

Salaam-E-Ishq - Movie Trailer

Salaam-E-Ishq

Salaam-E-Ishq - Movie Trailer

Bobbi Brown Stonewashed Nudes Palette

As some of you may realize by now, I'm a bit of an eye shadow palette junky- especially Bobbi Brown ones. Its probably because a) I just can't control myself and my love for eye shadow palettes since they look so pretty and b) BB is the beauty counter I visit most often on account of my eyebrow plucking appointments. But thats another story. So anyways, when I found out that they had yet another limited edition eye shadow palette coming out following the footsteps of the Chocolate Palette last year (which I love and still use), I simply HAD to try it.

WHAT makes this palette different from the chocolate palette (besides the fact that one cannot buy the chocolate palette anymore anyways cause its limited edition)? They certainly look similar enough at first glance and that is what I asked him too. Turns out, on closer examination, there are a wider variety of colors (with a few very pretty shimmers) that makes for an more interesting combination of looks- and I agree.Instead of just brown, the look has a more of a greyish tinge to it, which makes it really great smokey eyes at night i.e. like the model above. Check out the BB website for instructions on this looks. And yet its also great for a more casual day time look- I know, because that was what the make-up artist tried on me.

He used the first three shades from the top on my top lids, the first one as base, the third one as the first layer and the second one at the outer edges of my eye blended in near the crease and as an eyeliner. He then used the third one on the inner corners and the sixth one on the outer corners to line the edges of my bottom lid. This sounds really complicated, but he IS a make-up artist and when applied subtly its a great casual look- I LOVED it.

So naturally I bought myself a palette. And if you're interested too, I suggest you not hesitate and go out to get it now before it sells out. Last time I checked, the counter I was at only had 20 more palettes left- and its only been out for a few days!

Quick note: The staying power is also amazing. The eye shadow is still on after a shower and needs to be taken off with make-up remover. Usually it comes right off with water.

Haute Couture FW07 III

Roland Mouret
I have to admit, when I first saw the subscription email from Net-a-porter announcing that I could watch RM's first runway show online and pre-order the clothes, I wasn't at all excited. I mean ok, the Galaxy dress was huge and looked amazing on the celebs who wore it, but really, it's not like I (or probably most of you out there) has actually worn the Galaxy or have even seen one in real life. Plus it was a formal and mature-looking dress. So really, while I think Roland Mouret is a great designer who sadly lost his brand name, I wasn't exactly anticipating his new collection. But when I first clicked into vogue.co.uk to see the collection, I was in awe. I LOVE the collection. It's modern, clean, pretty, and is a good mix of lux-casual and lux-cocktail-ish.

The first dress already got me in love. It's black and white, and has such a young design. As for the 2nd outfit, I'm not a fan of hot pants, but that jacket is fantastic.

I really like the long coat on the left too. You noticing a pattern? And the outfit on the right -it's very French chic.
The outfit on the left -another outfit I love. The jacket is to-die-for, and that white skirt is so modern and cute. The dress on the right is called the Moon dress, which is kind of like the Galaxy 2.0.

Most of the outfits are black, white and blue.

Although I'm not too sure what I think about these finale dresses. I just don't like them as much as the dresses earlier in the show.

And of course, I've ogled at the Christian Louboutin ankle boots through all the photos. I suspect Net-a-porter will be very happy with the sales that will be generated from this collection! I want!!!

Armani Prive
For a couture show, this sure was a long show. Actually, it felt more like a ready-to-wear show than a couture show. Anyways, this Armani Prive collection is certainly different from the previous ones. For one, there was so much colour! From what I remember, the previous shows were mostly of black, white and silver. In this collection, there were surprising bursts of super bright colour.

Seriously, the tailoring is just amazing -look at how perfect the jackets are!

I didn't expect these dresses to be in an Armani Prive collection -look at all that colour. I wonder how much that flowery shawl will cost!

And here is more amazingly tailored clothes. Do you feel the rock'n'roll vibe? (This collection is supposedly inspired by rock'n'roll people.) I'm thinking this collection is more rock'n'rich.

Now these two are very Armani Prive outfits. The white dress on the right in particular feels very made for the red carpet.

The dress that I thought stood out in the collection is the finale dress (right picture.) It sparkles and it's got an original shape. It's mega-glamorous. I wonder how heavy it is though?

The only complaint I have is that the collection was too long and didn't connect together as well as it could have. There were just too many silhouettes fit into one collection.

What did you think of the new RM collection?
Photo credit: http://www.style.com/

Haute Couture FW07 II

Givenchy
Kudos to Riccardo Tisci for a fabulous haute couture collection. It only gets better every season. This collection was modern and stylish, with just the right amount of details to make it haute couture. Hm.... I think I said something similar last time about Tisci's haute couture collection too.....it must be his style.
I was captivated by this collection from the very first outfit (left), with the exquisitely beautiful jacket with the very feminine flutters and the furry poofy skirt- stylish, girly and fun! And then he takes us to stylishly cool, with that stunning (alligator I think) jacket with white fur peeking out.

This grey shirt kind of makes me rethink my position on frills- it actually looks nice here! And outfit on the left- thats just classic.

Tisci's evening collection was just goooooorgeous. I love all the drapings of the fabric and how the dresses manage the models to look elegant and gorgeous without showing much skin at all (as most evening wear are). Sigh, I just ADORE the white dress with the structured top and swirl with the flowy skirts!
One thing I didn't like about this collection was the leopard print bit and the more casual bits that one expects to see in the RTW collection.

Chanel

While I love the idea of how the Chanel Haute Couture show was held outdoors on a garden pathway at the Parc de Saint Cloud (you should check out the video for more on the whole backdrop) I have mix feelings about the collection. At some points, I want to applaud Lagerfeld's genius and at others, I wonder what he's thinking.

The whole collection focused on detailings on the side seams of the outfits, which is probably why the outfits look so flat on picture. But I do like the idea of putting the details elsewhere and I can see how outfits like these two here would look exquisite in reality. Note also how the thigh high boots from last season remains prominent on the runway.
Maybe its the head thingy that is distracting my vision, but these two outfits just don't look very flattering. Although the one on the left is certainly water proof...These are the times when I'm wonder what he's thinking, and that maybe its just me whose being too conservative and not fashion forward thinking enough to see beyond the obvious.
And these are the times when I want to give him a standing ovation, because I just LOVE these two dresses. I can just imagine how the black dress will flow so beautifully in three dimension as the wearer walks and turn. And the white dress is just glamorous!
Again, love the elegant navy blue dress and wondering what is going on with the mesh materials and the feathers.
I can actually imagine some starlet wearing this dress on the left on the red carpet. Without the head thingy, it'll look gorgeous. But that white feathered wedding dress is just beyond me. I can't imagine anyone wearing it willingly to their wedding... even if it IS Chanel!

Photo Credits: www.elle.com

Haute Couture FW07 I

It's the week of the tres grand and fabulous again! Ever since reading The Beautiful Fall, I now really see take haute couture a bit more seriously, although I still think it a bit as a historical art form.

Christian Dior

60th Anniversary! It sounds like we're always throwing events like anniversaries more as pr events than actual meaningful events, but this is Christian Dior. A lot of super/ big models walked for the show, including Gisele, Linda, Helena, Raquel etc. And this is probably one of those shows which looking at the photos (like we are now) is very different from actually being there. The show was held in Versailles -can you imagine how amazing and wonderland feel the show must have been?

Think back to the New Look, one of the looks that revolutionised fashion. OK, the outfit Gisele has on isn't exactly the same as the New Look... And I really like the pink swirl in the middle of the dress. Unlike the typical rose (which lots of other designers like putting in the middle of their dresses,) this swirl is like a blob of paint on a painter's palette.

These two dresses are so glam, etheral and pretty without being overly puffy or exagerated.

I love the outfit Irina's wearing on the right. It's just so pretty and haute-casual (if that makes any sense.)

Dior's super grand dresses.

And even more. I think these dresses are so amazing (think of all the work put into one dress,) but somehow these huge dresses don't seem to connect together as they usually do. Maybe the variety was too large?

These two dresses-fierce!

The dress Lily Cole has on here is probably the one that really caught my eye. I don't know if it's the dress or the shimmery purple eye makeup Lily has on, or the way the different shades of purple seem to create contrast at the perfect areas, but the whole image is just SO captivating. Loves this image!

And if you still can't get the message, the collection was influenced by various painters. OK, I have to admit, I don't think this show was perfect. To me, the SS07 show and collection seemed more perfect and amazing. But still, happy anniversary to Dior!

Ann Valerie Hash

The clothes seem casual and trend-influenced, but it's still worth taking a look at them. The message? White, black and bold colours all the way!

Photo credit: www.style.com

What Killed the Run and Shoot?

Q: What killed the Run and Shoot? Why don't you see "the shoot" anymore in the NFL or major college football?

A: First, you have to distinguish between the "Run and Shoot" as a specific, delineated system, and the individual Run and Shoot "concepts" or routes. And I'm not just referring to spreading with four wide receivers. I'm referring to the specific "Choice," "Go," "Switch," and the broader design of the system.

The first answer is that even if the "the Shoot" is dead, the Concepts live. This is so whether any of their current benefactors would admit it (or, in some instances, whether they even realize they are using run and shoot concepts). Indeed, the concepts are here to stay. Mike Martz with the Rams and now the Lions consistently use forms of Choice and Switch. Petrino at Louisville (we shall see in Atlanta) has used a couple R&S concepts. Even Charlie Weis at Notre Dame uses a play very similar to the Georgia concept. Moreover, the famous four verticals so common today where the slot receiver reads the coverage to attack the seam or the deep middle was largely developed and expanded upon by the R&S. Everyone who seriously considers passing offense should study the Run and Shoot.

The Shoot as a specific, delineated system with the four wide receivers (or two split ends and two slots), a single back, half-rollouts, certain run plays, the protections, the screen, and the like was countered. Offenses responded and have disguised their run and shoot philosophies by calling them different things and showing different looks. There is nothing magical (or surreptitious) about that; it is the West Coast philosophy and it is a good one. The reason people question this is because, for a time, the Run and Shoot had nearly unparralleled success.

As the typical story goes, the zone blitz killed the R&S. The preface to this story is that for twenty years, the Run and Shoot did not get blitzed. Well, it did, but Run and Shoot teams (like the U of Houston) would score 60 or 70 on those teams, and the NFL teams that tried it would give up after a quarter or half touchdowns raining from the sky.

How do you employ a four-wide pass-happy attack that was blitz proof for twenty years? And then why did it suddenly get blitzed out of existence?

The history of the Shoot is a lesson to all offensive coaches, and this same principle can be applied by all manenr of offensive coaches, and is often applied by coaches like Joe Gibbs and teams like the Indy Colts in the use of Tight ends and H-Backs.

The R&S used the RB in the protection. The quarterback would do a half-roll to one side, the line would do a kind of sprint-out/turnback protection, and the runningback would often block the defensive end or end man on the line of scrimmage to the half-roll side. About 8-10 times a game, however, the running back would block the DE for a 1001 count, and then slide off and release for a screen pass as his linemen got downfield to block for him. Against an all-out blitzing team, no one covered him because he had already engaged a defender, so everyone assumed he was in the protection, they would rush upfield, and the runningback would release out into the open field.

It becomes a study in game theory and reading and reacting. So defenses responded to this tactic. They had to keep at least one safety or another defender back to spy the RB. Why does this mean no blitzing? If the RB is able to block the end man on the line of scrimmage while another player must sit back and not blitz, simply to see whether or not the RB releases on a screen. The net result was that R&S teams rarely, if ever, saw Cover 0 blitzing man defenses. They could always release four receivers, block with six (assuming their six could block the other teams' six) and not face any overload blitzes.

Enter the zone blitz. Back in his days with Texas A&M, Bob Davie was an innovator. Against run and shoot teams like the University of Houston, he would run his 3-4 defense, blitz his outside LBs (thus forcing the RB to stay in and block), and drop off defensive linemen and interior linebackers so he could still play zone with six to eight defenders. As a result the R&S's protection and formation scheme broke down. They blocked with six, had the running back on a bad matchup with a good OLB, faced an unblocked rusher, but the defense still had 6-8 guys in coverage, so the R&S's "hot reads" and breakoffs did not work either. The run and shoot finally had to adapt. Sure they could do things like certain quick breakoffs and other gadgets, but free rushers and seven guys in coverage was a losing battle for the QB.

So it was not merely "disguising coverages," (as Run and Shoot QBs and receivers were well coached and could still find the voids or the single man), or the blitzing (as shown above, Run and Shoot teams could defeat the blitz), it was the defensive combination of always being able to always get an unblocked rusher, eat the RB, and run a disguised zone that eventually rattled and slowed down the "pure" Run and Shoot.

So did the R&S die? In a sense. Even those who still swear by it, like Hawaii's June Jones, both do not run the same "Shoot" in exact form, have changed their protections, and remain bitterly secretive regarding the system, fearing another breakdown.

But in another, perhaps larger sense, the Shoot is stronger than ever. More teams and more teams use its concepts. And, for a "dead offense," it still stirs up quite a bit of discussion, no?

Crocs

Lately walking on the streets, I've seen an uncomfortable amount of people wearing these:

Yes, by "these," I mean Crocs. There is even a whole colorful store in the best shopping district in Hong Kong devoted to the distribution of these Crocs.
I know that Bush has been seen sporting these recently, but he's hardly the icon of fashion and trends now. So WHY would the general population be seen in public wearing these, when they are not boating or doing outdoorsy things as they were originally designed for? They are certainly not flattering no matter what angle you're looking from.

But according to the Crocs site, these are the reasons why:

1. Really soft, super comfortable, molds to your feet: well people are certainly not wearing them because they look good


2. Barely there, weighing only 6 ounces: flip flops are barely there either...


3. Vented so air passes through, keeping feet cool: again, so are flip flops


4. Non-marking slip-resistant soles: a valid point


5. Bacteria and odor resistant: thats certainly a plus seeing as how it looks plastic


6. Ultra-hip Italian styling: It may possibly be Italian styling, but ultra hip?


7. Port holes allow water and sand to pass through: and thats a good point because?


8. Can be sterilized in water and bleach: well if it allows water and sand through, it'll obviously allow water and bleach through.....


9. Easy maintenance, just wipe clean: it does look plastic...


10. Orthotic molded foot bed for ultimate comfort and support: Is this the same as #1?

Basically, comfort, support and practicality are their selling points. So unless you are boating and doing outdoorsy things in which case these shoes may be practical, please, do NOT wear them around in public. There are just as comfortable and more easy on the eye options out there, like flats, sneakers, flip flops and *gasp* (even) birkenstocks!

Photo Credits: Crocs

Passing Concepts

I've had a few questions recently regarding passing concepts. For a primer, here are a few previous posts on the subject:

Organizing Pass Plays as Concepts
Further Note on Concepts
Packaging Concepts

Q: I have some questions concerning different passing concepts. Unsurprisingly, I've found many different opinions concerning number of concepts and names for them. I've heard some coaches say that every passing play falls into one of four different concepts, including: vertical stretch, horizontal stretch (outside in, inside out), flood concept, or a single receiver concept. However, I did read the Norm Chow article on your website and saw how there are coaches who believe there are many more than that. This seems confusing. For example, some coaches have a "Quick Game" concept. How can that be a single concept when most of the plays in the quick game use a different concept? In our quick game we have a four verts play that is a vertical stretch concept. [Ed Note: Is it really a vertical stretch? Or a "deep horizontal stetch" on the F/S?] I am aware that a single play can have more than on concept in it and I understand that different coaches have different names for the same plays/routes/concepts etc. I am just looking for some more clarification on ways to tell which category a certain passing play fits.

A: Passing concepts are intended as a tool and a framework to attack defenses. I put up multiple approaches to show that there isn't one hard and fast way to go about it, and to demonstrate that it's just a way of thinking about passes that can improve your approach. I think you can keep the number of concepts fairly small.

I will note that I think there is something to Norm Chow's "oblique" or "triangle" concepts, (which really is just the combination of a hi/low and a horizontal stretch). So my advice is to just tinker with it and come up with a framework that works for you. On one level, I'm convinced that there are really only three "concepts" - vertical stretches (hi/lo), horizontal stretches (in/out or out/in), and man concepts (rubs, option routes, or just plain old routes good against man). Then from there you break them down further (two level or three level vertical stretches; 1-2 in/out reads or 1-2-3; triangles which are both 1-2 hi/lo and 1-2 in/out reads).

In the end, it's about finding a way to structure your offense so that it (a) makes sense, (b) is tight and efficient with a core set of plays, with the best way of achieving this being to eliminate duplicative concepts, and (c) gives you a quick framework to draw upon when attacking defenses.