Exile on Waveland

no, they can't beat the patriots because they're not as good as the patriots. those teams were not heavy favorites. san diego was favored by what, about 5 points against the pats last year? denver was also very good in 2005. and three years ago the pats were 14-2, and had won 2 of the past three super bowls, and were facing a rookie qb... i think they were actually favored over the steelers in the afc championship game. hey maybe i'm wrong and the pats will lose, but i don't think so. I doubt the Pats are big favorites over the Colts, if those teams meet in the AFCCG. If the line is big, bet on the Colts with the points. The Pats barely won the first meeting despite the Colts missing half their team. half their team? the only important players missing from that game were harrison and ugoh. if the officials hadn't been wearing colts jerseys during the game, the margin of victory would probably have been larger. You're certainly right. The Pats are better than the Cowboys. Surely no one will argue such. But just because they're not as good doesn't mean they can't. It simply means they aren't likely to. Also, again, you used today's game as a reason they can't. The Pats struggled against the same team -- without McNabb. Half their team was a ridiculous exaggeration, admittedly, but they were missing more than two key players. Anthony Gonzalez dislocated his thumb on the first drive and basically didn't play after that. He's certainly a key player -- three touchdowns the past two games proves that. The Colts also played with only two linebackers -- total -- and only one was a starter. Since then, they've lost Freeney for the year, so that must be subtracted. I won't even comment on the officials garbage.

Also, I think it's extremely ironic that the reason the Cowboys can't beat the Patriots is because they're struggling to beat the Eagles at home. I mean, the greatest team in the history of sport wouldn't struggle to beat the Eagles at home. Especially when the Eagles were missing their starting QB. Just wouldn't happen.

well, generally it means that you have a better chance of winning than the other team. Sure, it means that. The better team is almost always the favorite. But the favorite doesn't always win. Especially recently in the AFC playoffs. That's my whole point. The Pats are the favorite, but acting like it's a lock they make the Super Bowl is myopic. Especially considering they've struggled of late, aren't exactly built for the cold, and there isn't much reason to think they're much better than a healthy Colts (today's crap-fest notwithstanding).

Yeah, because the Pats just decimated the Jets today. it was rainy and windy the whole game. the cowboys barely beat the lions, who are getting trashed by the chargers today, and are struggling with the crappy eagles. the cowboys really aren't playing well. So it's not going to be rainy and windy in Foxboro in January? *My issue is you constantly advancing the Pats for no reason. The Cowboys won't have to play the Patriots in Foxboro in January so that's really a moot point. Really? They won't? As I said, my issue was with whether the Cowboys will even have to play the Pats in the Super Bowl. If the Cowboys even make the Super Bowl. Being the favorite means nothing. Then what's the point of the bolded statement? You were debating with Truffle the chances the Cowboys had of beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Then, for some reason, you wrote the bolded statement which, when talking about the Cowboys and Patriots, doesn't matter at all. No, I'm not debating the Cowboys chances against the Pats. See what I bolded, I thought it was pretty clear I was questioning the Pats automatically advancing. Especially the ensuing discussion between Truffle and I. Maybe it wasn't clear.

those teams were not heavy favorites. san diego was favored by what, about 5 points against the pats last year? denver was also very good in 2005. and three years ago the pats were 14-2, and had won 2 of the past three super bowls, and were facing a rookie qb... i think they were actually favored over the steelers in the afc championship game. hey maybe i'm wrong and the pats will lose, but i don't think so. I doubt the Pats are big favorites over the Colts, if those teams meet in the AFCCG. If the line is big, bet on the Colts with the points. The Pats barely won the first meeting despite the Colts missing half their team.

Yeah, because the Pats just decimated the Jets today. it was rainy and windy the whole game. the cowboys barely beat the lions, who are getting trashed by the chargers today, and are struggling with the crappy eagles. the cowboys really aren't playing well. So it's not going to be rainy and windy in Foxboro in January? *My issue is you constantly advancing the Pats for no reason. The Cowboys won't have to play the Patriots in Foxboro in January so that's really a moot point. Really? They won't? As I said, my issue was with whether the Cowboys will even have to play the Pats in the Super Bowl. If the Cowboys even make the Super Bowl. Being the favorite means nothing.

Yeah, because the Pats just decimated the Jets today. it was rainy and windy the whole game. the cowboys barely beat the lions, who are getting trashed by the chargers today, and are struggling with the crappy eagles. the cowboys really aren't playing well. So it's not going to be rainy and windy in Foxboro in January? *My issue is you constantly advancing the Pats for no reason. might be. bad weather has helped teams stay closer to the pats (baltimore, jets) but they still haven't lost. and as for "advancing the pats for no reason," they're 14-0 and might be the best team ever, i would say those are pretty good reasons. When bad teams can nearly beat you in bad weather, what might a good team do? Last year San Diego (14-2) was a heavy favorite, two years ago it was Indianapolis (14-2), three years ago it was Pittsburgh (15-1). A one-game playoff is a crap shoot. Especially when you're clearly not playing as well as early in the season or built for cold weather.

Yeah, because the Pats just decimated the Jets today. it was rainy and windy the whole game. the cowboys barely beat the lions, who are getting trashed by the chargers today, and are struggling with the crappy eagles. the cowboys really aren't playing well. So it's not going to be rainy and windy in Foxboro in January? *My issue is you constantly advancing the Pats for no reason.

Yeah, because the Pats just decimated the Jets today.

Dang it. I cannot describe how much I wanted Cam Cameron to have the ignominy of finishing 0-16.

Yep. Read about that earlier. There's also a couple of insiders on the WV scout board who are saying R Rodriguez is going to stay at WV. Looks like Michigan has been turned down again. The embarrassment grows. :evil: I think Rodriguez was a little optimistic on Michigan's part. Not according to this: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3157227 Oh. Well, I stand corrected. I didn't think Rodriguez would leave. I'm impressed by Michigan, they did a good job. *Assuming Rodriguez doesn't back out.

The Rams horrible record is due almost completely to injuries that they've since recovered from (save Orlando Pace). I'm sure the Pack will still win, but I'm not stunned it's close.

Yep. Read about that earlier. There's also a couple of insiders on the WV scout board who are saying R Rodriguez is going to stay at WV. Looks like Michigan has been turned down again. The embarrassment grows. :evil: I think Rodriquez was a little optimistic on Michigan's part. I'm serious about this wild speculation: perhaps as the fruitless search continues, Miles gets back into after the title game. Assuming no coach is hired by then, of course.

Two really big games right now (Cleveland v. Buffalo, Jacksonville v. Pittsburgh), including the Cleveland game in the snow that I'd love to watch and I'm stuck watching Green Bay v. St. Louis. It's actually been very entertaining, but still not what I was hoping for.

Oregon was clearly one of, if not the, most overrated team in the nation coming into this season. See 2003 Oregon.

Don't hold your breath for a serious response to this question from some of the people on this board. what kind of response do you expect? it's ridiculous. he's asking for a stat that doesn't exist. no one said stats explain everything about the world and noone said they "base everything on stats." it's like he's asking for statistical analysis of love or hunger or something. So you do recognize that intangibles exist? I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight or anything, I'm seriously curious whether "stat-heads" believe in them. of course intangibles exist. but their importance in evaluating a major league player is absolutely, 100%, dwarfed by the importance of using statistics in evaluating a major leaguer's worth. anyways, i think every major leaguer has solid intangibles. if they didn't, they would have broken down and failed long before they ever reached the major leagues. the weak would be weeded out in high school, college, or the minors. Once you weed out the weak, you're left with the major leaguers. However, what was once strong is now weak. What was once a plus slider is now a minus. What was once good bat speed now can't get around on fastballs. What was once a strong mental makeup is now poor. That's what happens at the highest levels. Everything is relative. The lesser MLB players are now the weak. Of course, all this intangible stuff is mostly nonsense; statistical evaluation trumps such tenfold.

That looks more like Houston's basket than the Cubs'. Too many brown ones in that basket. Dangit! I was getting ready to post that. Funny stuff.

imagine how much smaller the other threads would've been if games like lsu-arkansas had almost no meaning? What meaning did it have?

What might have been... :cry:

:roll: :roll: Yeah, they cannot be serious on that one. Just absurdly ridiculous.

I pray your wrong. Most projections I have seen for KFuk have him hitting 20 homers with 25 being the high end. DLee's power seemed to come back the second half of last year so hopefully he return to being a 30-35 homer threat. Also Dlee looks like he'll have a better lineup around than he's ever had in a cubs uniform. What about 2004? 2004 didn't happen. Never speak of such a thing again.

I've been telling my Michigan friends since the beginning they should hire Grobe. Yes, even over Miles. He seems very well respected. Deacon fans like him alot. If he turned down Nebraska because he needed to keep their assistants that could be a problem with Michigan. Rumors are they are being strongwilled about keeping the current assistants. No disrespect to Arkansas, Petrino is great hire for them. But if Arkansas can afford $3M for a head coach and UM's best offer to Miles was $2.5 thats pathetic. UM is self funding $250M in stadium and practice facility upgrades but cant put an offer of of say $3.5M for the head coach of that program? Fine botch up the process but don't botch up the $. That's pathetic if they only offered $2.5 million. They are loaded. On Grobe, Wake Forest has absolutely no business being good at all in football. They are one of the smallest schools in all D-I (approx. 4,000 students), yet play in a BCS league. It's an excellent academic institution with stringent standards. North Carolina isn't the most fertile football recruiting ground, either, and Wake must contend with three other in-state ACC teams (don't laugh, but Duke has about as much reason to be good as Wake). Their previous 14 coaches since 1950 had winning percentages of: .292, .448, .394, .412, .209, .182, .469, .350, .175, .313 and .460. That's abysmal. Grobe is at .536, including last year's ACC Championship. He's going to make some big-time program very, very happy. North Carolina has some pretty good HS football talent there. Unfortunately, there is a lot of competition college in state wise for that talent NC, NCS, Duke and Wake just in the ACC alone plus East Carolina USA and there may be other big schools I'm forgetting. Don't get me wrong, it's no Texas, Cal or Florida but it's solid. Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that North Carolina was devoid of talent. It just doesn't have enough to sustain multiple D-I programs, much less four BCS programs.

I've been telling my Michigan friends since the beginning they should hire Grobe. Yes, even over Miles. He seems very well respected. Deacon fans like him alot. If he turned down Nebraska because he needed to keep their assistants that could be a problem with Michigan. Rumors are they are being strongwilled about keeping the current assistants. No disrespect to Arkansas, Petrino is great hire for them. But if Arkansas can afford $3M for a head coach and UM's best offer to Miles was $2.5 thats pathetic. UM is self funding $250M in stadium and practice facility upgrades but cant put an offer of of say $3.5M for the head coach of that program? Fine botch up the process but don't botch up the $. That's pathetic if they only offered $2.5 million. They are loaded. On Grobe, Wake Forest has absolutely no business being good at all in football. They are one of the smallest schools in all D-I (approx. 4,000 students), yet play in a BCS league. It's an excellent academic institution with stringent standards. North Carolina isn't the most fertile football recruiting ground, either, and Wake must contend with three other in-state ACC teams (don't laugh, but Duke has about as much reason to be good as Wake). Their previous 14 coaches since 1950 had winning percentages of: .292, .448, .394, .412, .209, .182, .469, .350, .175, .313 and .460. That's abysmal. Grobe is at .536, including last year's ACC Championship. He's going to make some big-time program very, very happy.

Lineups don't really matter, it's about getting the right players into the lineup. But I wonder, I know it says "best" and "worst" lineups, but does this actually account for Dusty Baker level bad lineup construction? We'd be talking Dusty, but batting the pitcher first. That's what I thought. I also guess my question was poor, because I was thinking more of not playing the correct players at all. But that doesn't have much to do with lineup order construction.

Lineups don't really matter, it's about getting the right players into the lineup. But I wonder, I know it says "best" and "worst" lineups, but does this actually account for Dusty Baker level bad lineup construction?