Michael Clayton Was Better Than Good?

We read an amazing quote today that, frankly, we're finding a little hard to deal with.  Here it is, it comes from Owen Gleiberman:

"Michael Clayton was better than good . . . just about restores your faith".

Our first thought was, what the F was Owen Gleiberman watching, because Michael Clayton was only involved in one memorable play from the game, his complete failure to go after a pass which resulted in Josh Johnson's second interception of the game.

Well, it turns out that Owen Gleiberman is not a writer for Pro Football Weekly, he's a writer for Entertainment Weekly.  And he wasn't referring to #80, he was referring to the film "Michael Clayton" starring George Clooney.

This Michael Clayton Is Better Than Our Michael Clayton

Now, we still don't agree with Mr. Gleiberman, we didn't think the movie was much better than the receiver.  However, we did see the movie, which is (almost literally) more than we can say for #80 in England.  But he does bring up an interesting question, who would you rather have lining up for the Bucs Michael Clayton or Michael Clayton?

Let's compare the two and find out who would be the better fit for us.

Michael Clayton clearly wins the size battle, he's listed at 6-4, 215; Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is just 5-11, about 190.  So Clayton might have the physical edge when it comes to blocking, which is what he does best (notice we didn't say "well", but it's the thing he sucks least at).

George Clooney clearly wins the hands battle and it's not just because he played a doctor on the hit television show ER.  Mainly it's because his competition is Michael Clayton, and everybody has better hands than Clayton.

Next comes route running and the edge here again goes to Clooney.  If you need evidence, look at the path Clooney took to stardom.  He went from playing a handyman on The Facts Of Life to one episode on Golden Girls to becoming the Sexiest Man Alive.  Now that dude can run a route.

Of course, in order to be fair, we must also consider football playing ability.  I don't know if you watched the movie Leatherheads (we like our sports movies to actually be about sports), but Clooney showed more skill in that movie than Clayton has shown in the past 5 years.  Plus, Clooney once tried out for the Cincinatti Reds, so he's clearly more athletic.

And of course there is the whole money issue.  Now Clooney does get paid a lot more than Clayton does, but consider this: Clooney is actually worth some of what he gets paid and he's entertaining to watch.  Plus, while neither Clayton nor Clooney had a single catch on Sunday against the Patriots, Clayton did play a big part in an interception which did cost the Bucs, so this one might be a draw.  If I were signing the checks, neither one of them would get paid after their performance against the Patriots.

So, who would we rather have on the Bucs?  We're going with Michael Clayton.  The one from the movie.  George Clooney.  While he might be a little undersized (people say that about Sammie Stroughter too), he does have better hands, runs better routes, has put better stuff on film, has an equally good beard, would draw more attention than #80, never runs his mouth, has a deserved ego, and has shown that he can produce (something Clayton clearly cant' do).

Bottom line, Clooney is a better Michael Clayton, on screen and off, than Michael Clayton.  Plus, did we mention how good looking he is?

The Gang @ 80Sucks.com