The Blind Side
I read The Blind Side almost three years ago and loved it. We tried to see the movie last weekend, but it was sold out. (Anyone seen it yet? Please tell me it lives up to the book!) Here’s what I wrote then:
Which of the following, on average, would you guess is the second highest paid position in football (behind the QB)?
a) Wide receiver
b) Left tackle
c) Running back
d) Middle linebacker
The answer is (b): the second highest paid position in the NFL is the left tackle. Why?
1. Because of Bill Walsh. You could say, more generally, the West Coast Offense. But there were two versions of the West Coast Offense: one went deep and the other (Walsh’s version) went wide. Spread out the field. Send four or five receivers out for shorter passes, raising your completion percentage and extending the run after the catch. Sending more people out, however, left the quarterback more vulnerable.
2. Because of rule changes in 1978. No longer could a cornerback “bump-and-run” with a receiver all the way down the field. Now he’s limited to five yards. And offensive linemen, who formerly were forced to block looking like clothes hangers, were suddenly allowed to use their hands.
3. Because of Lawrence Taylor. If you still wince when you hear the name “Joe Theismann,” then you’re probably a football fan. Taylor was a QB-destroying machine. The new profile for the blind side pass rusher became that athlete who is large, fast, and violent. In other words, someone not easily blocked by a running back.
Michael Lewis’s The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game tells the story of why the left tackle, the person who guards the blind side of the quarterback from the Lawrence Taylors of the world, has become such a valuable position.
The new profile for an NFL left tackle is what Lewis says the scouts call “a freak of nature.” He’s tall (6’4″+), big (320+), quick, and has a wide butt, long arms and big hands. Think Orlando Pace or Jonathan Ogden.
Like Michael Oher, now a left tackle for Ole Miss. Much of this excellent book tells his story.
It’s the story of Memphis — a city with an invisible Berlin Wall between white and black. Lewis talks about the Christian academies that sprang up quickly with forced integration so wealthy white children wouldn’t have to go to school with black children. He talks about the pilgrimage east — as far away from the problems of West Memphis as possible.
But this story is specifically told through one young man: Michael Oher. He was a child who seemed to have no hope.
He was one of ten children of a crack cocaine-addicted mother. At times they had no shelter. When asked what he remembers about his first years of life, Michael says: “Going for days having to drink water to get full. Going to other people’s houses and asking for something to eat. Sleeping outside. The mosquitoes.”
For a few years they lived in Hurt Village — a community of about 1000 with no — count them, ZERO — two-parent families. Seventy-five percent of the adults there had some mental illness. Drug lords waited with crack in hand at the first of the month when welfare checks arrived in the mail.
By the time he was 15, Michael Oher hadn’t been to school much. He’d been tested, and his IQ came out to be 80.
But all that changed. I’ll leave the details for you to enjoy the book. But the short story is this: he fell victim to the love and nurture of one wealthy, white family in East Memphis. Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy (a former basketball player and a former cheerleader at Ole Miss) welcomed him into their family. He suddenly had a family, including a sister his age and a younger brother. He had a school to attend — Briarcrest Christian School. He had clothes and food. His IQ rose from 80 to 110.
Whether you’re a football fan or not, you’ll love the chapters on the recruiting of Michael Oher. Every college coach in the country began salivating when he saw tapes of Oher treating large opponents as if they weren’t there. In one game Briarcrest played, every offensive play consisted of giving the ball to the running back and telling him to stay behind Oher’s butt until he heard a whistle. They destroyed their opponent on that one play.
This is a hard book because of the despair. You realize that most people in the Hurt Villages of our inner cities don’t have a Tuohy family to help them.
But it’s also an inspiring read because this one family — this one white, wealthy, Evangelical family — brought a monstrous kid into their lives before anyone knew he had athletic super-talent. He was lost, and Leigh Anne Tuohy was going to care for him.
I read the book right after you did because of your review and loved it. Just this past year, Mr. Riley read it and we bought advance tickets for opening night. The movie is very close to the book. (First time Hollywood has gotten the Southern accent right)
Mike, I haven’t read the book, but my wife and I saw the movie this weekend and really liked it. I thought it told a great story, but I was curious at some fo the reviews I read.
One reviewer said, “In the best case, it’s an overly saccharine morality tale. In the worst, it’s poverty tourism.” And another who hated the movie said that he felt like the moral of the movie was that the best hope for a young black man in the projects is to be great at sports and find rich white parents. Basically white paternalism towards African Americans.
I don’t necessarily agree with those as I think they look at the movie trying to dictate a social policy rather than tell a story of a family, but I do think they raise interesting points.
I was also brought to mind Donald Miller’s new book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years and the power to have a story changed.
It’s a good movie, but the book is better. They definitely take some “artistic license” with it.
I loved the movie. And Phil, based on what I witnessed when my own cousins took in an African-American kid after his father had dumped him, I don’t think what the Tuohys did was anything having anything to do with white paternalism. I think that reviewer is trying to dig a lot deeper than necessary. It was just a kid that had made friends with their son who would have been hungry, a gang member, a drug addict, or just dead otherwise. I would imagine that it looked a lot the same way to the family in the movie. Sometimes people are just nice. I happen to be extraordinarily blessed to have gotten to witness that sort of Christianity first hand.
Here’s a portion of the book that ran as an article before it was published:
The Ballad of Big Mike
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24football.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Read the book. Drug my family to see the movie. Everyone loved it. I cried more at the beginning, just remembering the poverty from the book. The movie does not show near the poverty that the young man endured prior to meeting the new family.
Thought it stayed close to the book, but still got a few things wrong.
Tim McGraw is a much better football father in this than he was in “Friday Night Lights”. And I was happy that they did not show Oher’s final college game, since it was the Cotton Bowl and Ole Miss defeated Tech. Not having to relive that made me happy.
Everyone that has seen it here has loved it. I haven’t gotten to see it yet – hopefully SOON.
I haven’t read the book but I loved the movie. I plan reading the book. The bad part for me was seeing Houston Nutt playing a coach from Arkansas. Bad memories! Other than that – I loved it. Great sports movie with a lot of heart.
Had to drag Mark the day it opened…. he cried and loved it. I thought is was very inspiring. Not sure how SJ was characterized in the book but wanted to take the “movie” SJ home with me. Glad to hear that the book gave more poverty details and insights … I was pretty sure I was missing something. The power of love and inclusion are profound. God, help me find my inner “Leigh Anne Tuohy.”
We saw the movie and loved it! I KNEW the left tackle thing sounded familiar when the opening scene was talking about that position, but I couldn’t figure out how in the world I knew such a random football fact. I should have guessed it was from reading a blog post of yours.
Hope you’ve had a chance to see the movie by now.
Haven’t read the book, but the movie was so sweet. Sandra Bullock was fun to watch, but I have to admit part of that was mixed with a little envy over her amazing figure & clothes. I bet Leigh Ann Tuohy was/is deeply flattered.
Steve and I saw the movie Monday and really liked it. I liked how honest Sandra Bullocks character was. I think we saw Christianty in action.
Saw it. Loved it. Got the definite impression that Leigh Ann’s philosophy is “Do the next right thing.” She doesn’t appear to waste a lot of time worrying about what other people think or how things might look. Gutsy, strong, great mom.
I have not read the book, but I loved the movie. The best recommendation I can give is that I paid full price to see it and did not regret it.
Haven’t read the book but saw the movie this past weekend. My wife and I rarely agree with the critics and this is still another example. It’s a fantastic film. I didn’t cry but I whimpered a bit.
Finally got around to seeing a movie back during the holidays and we selected this one. Great movie, great story, acting was good etc. but what was with the misquote indicating that with man it is POSSIBLE but with God all things are possible? Not a big deal that Hollywood would misquote, just curious as to why and wondering if anyone has heard anything about it.