hawkeyecub

I don't understand the appeal.

Yeah it would be great for the Indians. Helps the Dodgers this year but long-term that's an expensive deal.

There is something to be said for seeing the same course every year and remembering specific shots (at times specific pins) and knowing many of the holes so well.

Former Oregon State basketball coach?

Great outing for Rich. Thankfully he has 6 days off before his next start so he should be alright. Would like to see Milton lead off the 8th here.

Yes I think all (or very nearly all) European players want the British the most of all major's. The course could have some significance in individual situations like you said, but for the most part I'm with jersey. I think nearly everyone would rather have the British than the PGA.

No you don't know what you're talking about because you've clearly demonstrated that. You've been off base on nearly everything you've said in this thread. Seriously. Within golf and amongst golf fans this will still be remembered for a long time. Had he won, it would have immediately been one of the 5 biggest stories in the modern era of golf. As it is it's still an enormous story. How casual fans see it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Is Va. Tech supposed to be good? The only thing I know about them is they lost Vasallo and they look like they were dominated by him and two other guys last year. And yes I know we'll be bad.

So wrong on so many levels. I'm guessing you don't follow golf very closely. First of all, the approach on 18 was not terrible. It landed maybe 2-3 yards long, that's it. It was right at the flag and smoked. Even with the distance he hit it, it was unfortunate that it skipped all the way through. It's not like he ruined a comeback by Nicklaus or Palmer? Clearly you're not aware that Watson has won more majors than Palmer. Or that he has the 5th most majors of all-time. Or that he was #1 in the world for about 7 or 8 years immediately following Jack's reign. The enormity of an all-time great being on the doorstep at age 59 (50 freaking 9) is beyond incredible. No one has won a major in their 50's and he's 60 in a month and a half. If he wins it's immediately a top 5 story from a major in history. More impressive than Jack in '86 at Augusta which has that distinction right now. People who follow golf will certainly remember who won and they will remember Watson's run. It's not like Cink is some nobody. He's a guy that people have thought should have won more than he has, but he's been a successful player and a mainstay on the Ryder Cup teams. I do follow golf (how close is closely? I don't watch every weekend, no), but Watson doesn't have the name recognition of Palmer. Doesn't matter how many majors he's won or if he was #1 in the world whenever. Palmer is the more famous golfer. That was my only point. This will be remembered by the people who can tell you who won whatever random major, and the people that can tell you the years and the majors that Norman choked away, or some other mid-level golf stories. But most people, even those that follow golf casually, aren't going to remember this much. I don't disagree that a Watson win would have been a huge story. I disagree that a Watson loss is similarly huge. But that still doesn't make any sense. You diminished it because "it's not like Palmer or Nicklaus" but in fact he's just as accomplished as Arnold and is probably the most recognizable player of his generation. That's like saying some future story involving Kobe or LeBron isn't a big deal because "it's not like he was Jordan or Magic or Bird." And what the hell do casual fans have to do with anything? Why do they matter? You don't go to casual baseball, football, basketball fans when asking about historical perspective or importance. Casual fans think Derek Jeter is a top 5 player in baseball and Shaq going to the Cavs is a huge deal. You said it's only a big story right now because there's nothing to talk about in golf. Well that's because it's 1 of 4 majors and the biggest major in the world. When the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl to block history did you say "They're only a story right now because it's the only thing going on in football right now." you're comparing golf to the 3 biggest sports in America. They aren't the same at all. why do casual fans matter? b/c it's golf. if casual fans don't care, then the story isn't covered much by sports media and it dies quickly. Ugh. Yes they are similar within the sport. I didn't see anyone saying "this is the biggest moment in sports history" or trying to rank it in that sense. People were talking about how amazing it was and where it ranks within the world of golf. In fact there wasn't really any of that talk in this thread. Then you came in diminishing it, proving you didn't really know what you were talking about and bringing up casual fans for some unknown reason. Golf is more of a niche sport and doesn't bring huge ratings without Tiger. Very seldom will any golf event non-Tiger related, be a huge story that "most people" remember. I'm not a soccer fan. I don't know very much about soccer. Therefore I don't try to rank events of importance within the world of soccer.

Ok, why is this the biggest major? I'm speaking from shameless ignorance here. It seems to me like the "biggest major of the year" is always the one that finished most recently. Notice I said biggest major in the world. I'm not saying that based on any ranking or personal preference, just from a worldwide perspective. Outside of the U.S. it holds much more meaning than the other 3. In the U.S. it's not #1 but still prestigious enough that I think it gets that title worldwide.

So wrong on so many levels. I'm guessing you don't follow golf very closely. First of all, the approach on 18 was not terrible. It landed maybe 2-3 yards long, that's it. It was right at the flag and smoked. Even with the distance he hit it, it was unfortunate that it skipped all the way through. It's not like he ruined a comeback by Nicklaus or Palmer? Clearly you're not aware that Watson has won more majors than Palmer. Or that he has the 5th most majors of all-time. Or that he was #1 in the world for about 7 or 8 years immediately following Jack's reign. The enormity of an all-time great being on the doorstep at age 59 (50 freaking 9) is beyond incredible. No one has won a major in their 50's and he's 60 in a month and a half. If he wins it's immediately a top 5 story from a major in history. More impressive than Jack in '86 at Augusta which has that distinction right now. People who follow golf will certainly remember who won and they will remember Watson's run. It's not like Cink is some nobody. He's a guy that people have thought should have won more than he has, but he's been a successful player and a mainstay on the Ryder Cup teams. I do follow golf (how close is closely? I don't watch every weekend, no), but Watson doesn't have the name recognition of Palmer. Doesn't matter how many majors he's won or if he was #1 in the world whenever. Palmer is the more famous golfer. That was my only point. This will be remembered by the people who can tell you who won whatever random major, and the people that can tell you the years and the majors that Norman choked away, or some other mid-level golf stories. But most people, even those that follow golf casually, aren't going to remember this much. I don't disagree that a Watson win would have been a huge story. I disagree that a Watson loss is similarly huge. But that still doesn't make any sense. You diminished it because "it's not like Palmer or Nicklaus" but in fact he's just as accomplished as Arnold and is probably the most recognizable player of his generation. That's like saying some future story involving Kobe or LeBron isn't a big deal because "it's not like he was Jordan or Magic or Bird." And what the hell do casual fans have to do with anything? Why do they matter? You don't go to casual baseball, football, basketball fans when asking about historical perspective or importance. Casual fans think Derek Jeter is a top 5 player in baseball and Shaq going to the Cavs is a huge deal. You said it's only a big story right now because there's nothing to talk about in golf. Well that's because it's 1 of 4 majors and the biggest major in the world. When the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl to block history did you say "They're only a story right now because it's the only thing going on in football right now."

I don't see why you are touting this as some kind of slam-dunk advantage. It's still a different team, different playbook, different terminology, and probably most importantly, all different & unfamiliar players. Given that he's not participated in any of the OTAs, there will still be an adjustment period. It might even lag significantly into the season. Read my posts on the subject and tell me when I've insinuated it's a slam-dunk advantage. It's not. There's more risk with Favre than Rosenfels in my opinion. There's also more upside. The offense and terminology is nearly identical to what he ran his entire time in Green Bay. He also would be joining earlier than he did last year. He would have a better o-line, a much better running game and better targets to throw to. He should be able to adapt faster and easier than he did last year with the Jets and he started the season pretty well last year.

In the last four seasons, he's had one where he met the very low standard of more TDs than INTs. This is true. However in the 27 games before his shoulder injury ('07 and first 11 games of '08) he had 48 TD's and 28 INT's while completing 66% of his passes. There is risk involved. My opinion is that there's a higher ceiling with Favre than the current QB's but the floor is also lower (same goes for Tarvaris vs. Sage). Favre with this supporting cast in a familiar offense can replicate what he was doing the last two years prior to the injury. But there's also the risk that he has an injury like last year but plays through it and stinks. I'm fairly tired of the speculation and won't really get excited either way with his decision. The division is too tough to predict between the 3 teams right now but they'll be in the mix either way. I think a healthy Favre would add more upside for the playoffs but only 1-2 games tops in the regular season.

So wrong on so many levels. I'm guessing you don't follow golf very closely. First of all, the approach on 18 was not terrible. It landed maybe 2-3 yards long, that's it. It was right at the flag and smoked. Even with the distance he hit it, it was unfortunate that it skipped all the way through. It's not like he ruined a comeback by Nicklaus or Palmer? Clearly you're not aware that Watson has won more majors than Palmer. Or that he has the 5th most majors of all-time. Or that he was #1 in the world for about 7 or 8 years immediately following Jack's reign. The enormity of an all-time great being on the doorstep at age 59 (50 freaking 9) is beyond incredible. No one has won a major in their 50's and he's 60 in a month and a half. If he wins it's immediately a top 5 story from a major in history. More impressive than Jack in '86 at Augusta which has that distinction right now. People who follow golf will certainly remember who won and they will remember Watson's run. It's not like Cink is some nobody. He's a guy that people have thought should have won more than he has, but he's been a successful player and a mainstay on the Ryder Cup teams.

Bob Ryan made the same argument on PTI Friday.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneTh00.htm Ah...he did in 2005 with Kyle Orton/Rex Grossman as his QB. Brett Favre didn't have any impact on Jones production last yr, no matter how you spin it. I mean he was better with Favre then he was with Pennington the yr before, but Favre didn't really have all that much impact on Jones. Not trying to start crap with you ELCaballo cause I think your a pretty cool cat despite being a fan of "the enemies" but Brett Favre has been declining every yr since 2004, and to think that if/when Favre signs with Minnesota means they are a slight favorite, I simply do not agree. Favre is living off his name at this point in his career. This is not a Favre that will lead the Vikings from a 10 win team they were last yr with no QB, to a 12-14 win team. Favre is simply not that player anymore. The Vikings would simply making a lateral move with Favre. What? First of all, in '05 Jones was a 27 year old back with one 200 carry season under his belt. Last year he was 30 years old back coming off 3 seasons where he averaged over 300 carries and had 240 the year before. If you can't see that and understand the diminished returns of RB's at 29, 30+ then you're clueless. Secondly why are you saying Favre didn't have much impact when he improved his yards per carry by a full freaking yard, despite turning 30? How do you not see that? If you want to give credit to the o-line that's accurate but to say the QB had no difference is foolish. The Favre debate has been discussed plenty here so there's no real point in getting into it again. All I'll say is look at his numbers before the shoulder injury last year and look at his numbers in '07 with the Packers. Last year he was in a completely new offense and didn't have a full camp to learn it. This year he would have the exact same offense he played his whole career and would presumably have a full camp. As far as the shoulder surgery there are not supposed to be any lasting problems once it's healed. He's not the guy he was in his prime but he's a hell of an upgrade on the play the Vikings got from Frerotte and Tarvaris (until his last 4 games). I don't think you guys remember how bad Gus was last year. Worst case scenario is he gets hurt, it diminishes his play but he tries to keep his streak alive and play through it. Hopefully if he gets hurt again it's bad enough to knock him out. I'm not giving the Vikings the division by any means, nor am I saying Favre will be a stud. I think the Vikings have the best team in the division outside of the QB position. I think Favre with this line, backfield and a couple weapons can be good enough to help shrink the gap currently at the QB position between the 3 teams.

Eh, its more the fault of the bull pen then of Lou. If Guz had been able to get either Nieves or Kearns, then Marshall should be able to handle the seventh, Marmol the eighth, and Gregg the ninth. Now I would have left Wells in for the sixth, esp. with 2 outs in the top of the inning when he was up to bat and with the 6-7-8 spots due up. He was only at 85 pitches and had handled the last two innings decently. Yeah I didn't really have an issue with how he handled the pen tonight. I agree that the only issue I had was taking Wells down after the 5th. Although they seem to think they need to keep Wells' pitch count down lower than the other starters and there could be good reason for that. The only problem was they all seemed adverse to throwing strikes and Heilman was terrible.

I keep waiting for him to slide and remember that he's 60 years old in like 40 days. I really don't think he's going to have any kind of collapse tomorrow. There are so many guys bunched up in contention with some really good players on his heels that it will be tough. But you don't have to worry about any kind of mental mistakes or him beating himself. That's what makes it different from Shark last year. If he doesn't win it will be because he just can't keep putting this well and someone will play a really good round and top him. But he's going to keep striking the ball well and will manage the course as well as anyone.

except one had a big year with cutler just last year. Notice where I said TYPICALLY. Just as relevant is the WR you drafted in the 3rd round last year (only 20+ picks higher) who couldn't get on the field and had 0 catches. I liked Iglesias in college and he could be a nice player in the NFL. I'm not saying he can't do something this year. But if he's like most WR's drafted in a similar range, it will take him a couple years to develop and find his role. Knox could end up being the steal of the draft and make all teams look stupid for passing on him through 4 rounds. But more likely he'll be similar to the other 10 really fast WR's drafted from small schools in rounds 5-7 every year.

1) Fletcher was very good, he wasn't a near shut down CB. While he had a very good season last year, he was a 3rd round pick based on his measurables more than his production. The guy replacing him was a 4-star recruit with possibly better measurables who has a lot of potential and got experience in the nickel last year. 2) We lost our DT's not DE's. Both DE's return and both are very good. The DT's are big losses. 3) The defense may not be as good, but many would argue that it could be better. They return both DE's, all 3 LB's (and their backups), and 3 of the 4 in the secondary with all of their backups. The LB unit is ranked #5 in the country by Phil Steele, the DB unit is ranked # 11. The defense as a whole is ranked #8 in the country. 4) Hampton is not expected to miss the game at this point. Regardless, I think you're over-estimating his importance. Jeff Brinson came in as a freshman last year also as a higher rated recruit. By most accounts he was the more impressive runner in practice but Jewel picked up the passing game much quicker so he got on the field and Brinson red-shirted. He's expected to at least split time with Hampton even if healthy. Iowa also brought in a top 10 RB in the country last year in Brandon Wegher. Most importantly, they have the #6 OL in the country according to Phil Steele. 5) No idea where you're getting this stuff on Moeaki. He's 100% healthy and looking good in workouts. 6) You are obviously digging through every angle to find reasons why this can happen and there's nothing wrong with that. You're pretty well-informed and really trying to analyze it. App St. showed it's possible. You're just not really providing reasoning why you're skeptical of Iowa as a whole. By any measure they have a top 15 defense, a top 10 OL with a returning QB who became solid and good special teams. To me that's not a recipe for a team to get upset at home by a 1-AA squad. You cited the '05 team that beat UNI 45-21 and said they had a great point differential and should have been better than their record. Well, last year's team was an even stronger example of that. They lost by 1, 5, 3 and 3. 9-4 with their 4 losses come by a combined 12 points. This year's team as a whole is better than last year's team. The record may not be improved this year because they have road games at PSU, OSU, MSU and Wisconsin. But that doesn't have anything to do with UNI at home.

I'm sure he knows who the Bears receivers are. Probably the ones that played last year, yeah. I don't know if he knows all the rookies. And rookie WR's outside of the first round typically do nothing of any substance. So he doesn't really need to know anything about them.

Seems like once they get there they don't like playing for Lickliter though. It's been a rough start for him there, but I still think you made a good hire. Yeah that's definitely an issue. Outside of Jermain Davis (who for some reason thought he was going to be playing in a fast-paced system) all of the unhappy guys were Alford recruits. They'll be really bad this year and finish in the bottom 3, but I think they'll grow more than they did last year just because they have guys that want to play for him and in the system.

To me it seems as simple as command and keeping the ball down. He kept it down last night and in Pittsburgh, he was living up in the zone and well out of the zone against Milwaukee and his last two starts. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic and this is based only on observation, not pitch charts so I could be completely wrong.

Watson has been incredible. The putts on 16 and 18 were nuts. Sadly I think he'll probably fizzle out sooner than Norman did last year. The only thing is, he's playing so well tee to green that he can hang around even if he doesn't keep putting this well. To win it, he probably can't slip at all around the greens though. Tiger was -3 today on the first 7 and last 5 combined. Complete meltdown in the middle 6 where he went +7.

Iowa got a big '10 commit from Zach McCabe today. He was blowing up this summer and received offers from Minnesota, Virginia, Arizona State, Northwestern, Utah and others. Some saying he may sneak into top 100. Obviously not on par with Illinois and others at the top of the conference but at least Lickliter has beaten out quality programs and a lot of high-majors for the 2010 class. Larson is top 100-150 by some and had offers from Gonzaga, Nebraska, Baylor and smaller schools. Brust had offers from Stanford, Northwestern, Butler, a lot of mid-majors and Virginia was close. Marble Jr. had Providence, Michigan was supposed to offer on his visit and a lot of mid-majors. At least some hope for a middle of the pack finish in 2010 with Cole, Gatens, Tucker, Fuller as upperclassmen and some decent talent in the freshman and sophomore classes. With the Big Ten improving it will still be a hell of a struggle but it should beat the last 2 seasons plus next year.