User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6402 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If he wins another Super Bowl, he'll be elite like Eli!
I have nothing against Flacco at all, but I'm not going to cement my opinion of him mostly based on whether a Broncos defensive player soils himself on the key play at the end of last week's game.
I think Flacco is quite good, and still would even if he had lost last week.
It helps when the other teams don't score in the 2nd half.
There could have been a "Harbaugh Bowl" last year. Why wasn't there?
I'm sure that's a great consolation for Patriots fans after he outplayed Superman for the 3rd straight game.
...but the NFL today is pretty much this:
If you have a franchise quarterback who can throw with surgical precision, you're probably going to win a lot of games.
If you do not, the rules that protect the QB, disallow much contact with receivers, etc., make it tough to build a defense-first franchise.
I don't think Belichick is incapable of building an excellent defense. I think he is a pragmatist. You can build the best defense possible, you're still going to have trouble preventing most decent teams from scoring 20 a game.
Belichick also knows he has one of the five greatest QBs ever to play football, and he knows that a guy like Brady, in a league with rules like currently exist, rewards lots of players with good hands, quick feet, and the ability to think quick.
Welker. Hernandez. Gronk. Woodhead. Faulk, back in the day. Branch. Vereen is a really good fit for this offense. Edelman.
Belichick has identified the market inefficiency in the current NFL game, and is getting very good players for this offense without using high draft picks.
Mark Ingram was a 1st round pick, and a lot of Pats fans wanted them to take Ingram. They thought Ridley was just as good, perhaps better, for this offense - and they got him in the 3rd round. Hell, they got Vereen in the same round, too! Edelman was a 7th round pick. Woodhead, a FA pickup. Hernandez and Grok? 2nd round picks?
Finally, if I am going to ding Belichick for one thing, it is that he undervalues the utility of blue chip pass rushers. Chandler Jones could be very good next year, but the consistent lack of blue chip pass rushers is probably the single-biggest reason why the Pats have fallen a little short the last several years. A lack of a JJ Watt-type guy has left some questionable defensive backfields exposed...
Also: brother vs. brother!
Their last two games have been hugely impressive, but they were a large favorite against the Colts.
Yeah, the rules no longer allow for this. You can do two things on defense to gain an edge:
1. Try to strip the ball. We've seen a vast increase in this over the past 5-10 years.
2. ... ... .. Well, maybe just the one.
Hmm, I seem to have forgotten the second one... Oh, rush the quarterback.
But you can't gain an edge on defense by hitting people anymore, on balance, given the way the quarterbacks and WRs are protected by the penalty calls.
That was pretty dumb, but then the Ravens were as timid as a titmouse in their first half play selection on first down, so it wasn't just the Patriots who were making questionable decisions. The Ravens wound up winning the game for the simplest of reasons: Once they got warmed up, they dominated the line of scrimmage.
When you need somebody to fire their mother's gun at somebody he can't be beat.
IMO most of those rules changes are for the better, but some of them suffer from what I'd call overly literal enforcement, like one of those face mask calls in the Niners game where one of the defenders' fingers seemed to just brush against the face mask and the QB's helmet barely moved an inch, and yet he still got flagged.
Cowher made a good point at the end of the postgame show when he said that the Ravens should be studying the tapes from their game against the Redskins, because Kaepernick is going to present them with a challenge that's far closer to what they faced in Griffin than what they were up against in Manning and Brady. And screw the seedings going into the postseason, this is going to be one hell of a Super Bowl.
Or ask Kaepernick how long he's been a black quarterback.
Yeah. As if we didn't already have enough to deal with with this Ray Lewis nonsense.
I am the only one I know that thinks the entire NFL rule book should be reviewable. Therefore I think it is near criminal the head to head shot to Ridley wasn't reviewed and the turnover reversed. The only way he fumbles is if he is knocked dead, which he was by a full speed direct shot to the head. This play, penalty, should have been reviewable and the Pats should have been awarded a 15 yard penalty and the ball.
This coming from a guy that thinks 90% of the "head to head" hits are BS and the NFL is leading the way in outlawing football from football.
Of course you're right about all of the above, but after Flacco's generally excellent performances in all but one playoff game he's ever been in, it gets a little tiresome to keep hearing about how weak he is, with the undertone that's his postseason performances are little more than a fluke. When he's played as well as he has against the consensus "best team in football" for the past three times he's faced them, I think he's shown us by now that he's more than an "average" quarterback. Going into today's game, his QB ratings for the past 3 postseasons (2 games each year against some of the top teams in the AFC) have been 90.0, 96.1 and 120.0, with 12 TDs and 2 interceptions. Doesn't mean he's an elite QB overall, but it does show what he's capable of when the chips are down.
"Muhammad Ali sent John Harbaugh a text before the game."
I really don't care, Jim.
And the pre-game, halftime, and postgame shows are beyond execrable. Who is watching these?
Mark Sanchez's is 94.3.
Yeah. As if we didn't already have enough to deal with with this Ray Lewis nonsense.
I think the last NFL championship game without some sort of schmaltzy "narrative" was probably the 1952 Lions-Browns game. It's one of those things that's more or less inevitable when you're straining to reach the sort of "casual fan" whose idea of a great football "story" is that Teo farce that's dominated the talk shows all week. The only way to deal with it and remain semi-sane is to mute the sound whenever the camera is focused on anything but the actual game on the field. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing my DVD of today's games without a single second of commercials or Grammy Award singers.
I'm glad that Ray Lewis has been largely invisible in the playoffs so that we have been spared non stop "Ray Lewis is willing his team to victory" BS.
Or, do you have the same Dad?
I'll tell you this: I find it far, far easier to forgive Ray Lewis his sins than Ben Roethlisberger.
Mark Sanchez's is 94.3.
In that case I'm sure that the Patriots might have been better off today with Sanchez taking the snaps.
Not by me. The Ray Lewis hate here seems largely driven by Patriots fans and others who don't like the Ravens, and can be taken for what it's worth, though I do agree that the current narrative about him is overkill to the Nth degree, no pun intended.
Now you're just trolling.
I don't have today's total, but Lewis had 13 tackles against the Colts and 17 against the Broncos. I guess you must have been taking an extended nacho break or something.
Mark Sanchez's is 94.3.
In that case I'm sure that the Patriots might have been better off today with Sanchez taking the snaps.
Now you're just trolling.
I love it, and here's a tip: Wait Till Next Year.
What does this even mean?
not kidding.
Falcons Fan Stabbed In Throat outside stadium.
The Colts also claim to be an AAFC team. They could trace their history back to the AAFC, sort of, but not through the team they are claiming to be descended from.
The Colts did that for similar reasons as the Browns. We had a team named the same, it fell apart/left but not the fans' fault, we got a new team of the same name as soon as we could. So let's remember the old team as part of our history, okay? Makes enough sense unless you move the new version of the team, which the Colts did. The Colts history is by far the more convoluted.
i'm a fan of basketball and i'm a fan of baseball, but when it comes to football and the NHL, i'm really only a fan of the eagles and the flyers. the labor strife and the wanton disregard for player safety in both sports has completely sapped my ability to just sit down and enjoy a football (or a hockey) game with no rooting interests.
The Colts also claim to be an AAFC team. They could trace their history back to the AAFC, sort of, but not through the team they are claiming to be descended from.
That Baltimore Colts team, featuring ugly green jerseys and no horseshoe on the helmet, was was born in 1946 as the Miami Seahawks, moved to Baltimore in 1947, went to the NFL along with the Browns and the 49ers in 1950, but then was disbanded after only a year. The team that's now the Indy Colts originated as the Brooklyn Dodgers, and began life in Baltimore in 1953 via Boston, New York and Dallas.
BTW the very first AAFC game matched the two "Colts" franchises: The one that became the Ravens (the original Cleveland Browns) and the one described above (the Miami Seahawks). And the first game the 49ers ever played was against another short-lived team known as....the New York Yankees. Glad I could clear that up.
I know. But the Colts never claimed the Texans et al as part of their history. 1953 Colts were a new franchise, that happened to be stocked with the players from the 1952 Texans. It really was a different case than other franchise moves. I can't think of another case where the ownership collapsed and the move was accompanied by a new ownership group. Usually the owners stay the same in a move.
Then the Colts "adopted" the history of the other 1947-50 Colts franchise. At least the records are listed in their media guide with the other Colts teams. Not the 1946 Seahawks, just the Baltimore Colts teams. I suppose back in the day Baltimore Colts fans looked back on the 1947-50 Colts with some degree of fondness as their first team, and wanted to remember them. Point being the Colts' official history in 2013 makes less sense than what the Browns have done.
Despite being a Bostonian I'm not a Pats fan. I find Lewis reprehensible for the reasons most others do but I think you bring up some interesting points. It's a bit like the Lance Armstrong stuff. At what point do a bad act or acts invalidate lots of good work. Now in my opinion Lewis' involvement in a double homicide outweighs pretty much everything else but the fact remains Lewis, like so many others, is not a black and white answer.
The over the top coverage and sanctifying of the guy is pretty ridiculous particularly against the "won't people think of the children" B.S. of steroids but the media does that with people all the time. It's hardly unique to Lewis. At the end of the day its why I find myself watching virtually no sports coverage other than live events.
I can totally see the logic of a Cleveland fan wanting to connect the original Browns team to the current one, even though all those two had in common were the city and the uniforms. Same with Baltimore fans who see both Colts franchises and the Ravens as part of their memories. As a fan of both the Baltimore Colts and the Ravens, I do the same thing myself, and if I ever began to waver, the marching song would remind me that those two teams are joined at the hip in memory, if not in the continuity of the rosters.
The part about the record books, though, is kind of silly, especially when (for instance) you get a city like Washington with connections to six distinct teams. You can have one set of records for the city, and another set for the franchise(s), but there's absolutely no way ever to reconcile them in a way that's going to please everyone. As in so many other areas, we just have to admit that "logic" can sometimes steer us in more than one direction.
That's the mark of certifiably sane human being. In two weeks I hope to qualify for premium membership in the club by not watching a single second of a single Super Bowl commercial.
I find Lewis to be a clown. The dancing, the fake crying, the hey look at me, the theatrics, the role he played in a double murder.
Take it back.
Why would it get overturned? Runners are not protected against helmet-to-helmet hits.
Hmmmm, isn't this where the old Ray would come in to remind you that the networks are simply feeding the public the kind of junk food they love, and that if you don't like what you're seeing, this is why God gave us the remote?
Of course any sane person cringes at all these "stories", but even though we don't like it, it's been part of the package ever since some genius thought to link the violin and the tinkling piano to 330 pound flying behemoths. Just hit the mute button and read a book while all that crap's going on.
What is the reason to protect receivers, to protect quarterbacks, but not runningbacks?
Receivers are protected because they're focused on catching the ball and can't do anything about the oncoming defenders if they want to make the grab. Once they turn upfield, they become runners. Quarterbacks are protected because teams all agree that they don't want their QB injured.
Eh, I oversold it, but I still lean that way. I'm extremely confident in this Patriots offense going for two. Probably close to 2/3. I'll still say the numbers noticeably suggest you go for two in that situation the Ravens faced.
Of course, runningbacks themselves lower their head and project themselves into the head of an opposing defender, so...
Additionally, it was the follow-through from a swat at the throwing arm, rather than a deliberate club to the head.
IMO, that play should be reviewable. Or at least a 5-yard penalty for incidental rather than intentional contact.
Mind you, the penalty on this play is the same penalty that was assessed against Alabama to a player who launched himself into a helmet-headbutt at the quarterback well after the ball was released in the NC game.
The goal isn't really to protect most players. It's to discourage the hits (like the one that knocked Austin Collie out for half an hour) that look the worst for the NFL.
Good thing you didn't meet him and his friends after the Super Bowl in 2000.
But yeah, no single narrative will tell the story. You can't just take one side of Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis is probably a model citizen right now. But one or more people who committed murder are walking free today because of Ray Lewis.
I doubt Ray Lewis will be party to a murder again. I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Roethlisberger date rapes someone else.
Right. The NFL (and most of the rest of organized football)'s narrative is that "big hits to the head" cause CTE. Many people are skeptical of this. Big hits to the head of a QB do cause that QB to miss games -- the NFL is protecting its revenue stream here. Unfortunately, it'll be another 10-20 years after "big hits" are banned that we'll likely still see players crippled and dying from their head injuries.
Helmets and rules really have to change, don't they?
there's been a lot of focus on how the penalties on hard hits outlaw defense, but i think the big change happened when they changed the way they called illegal contact and defensive holding.
that stuff made it really hard to play defense, and was the trigger that caused the recent explosion in offenses. of course, the league loves that stuff, but i have to imagine that fast-paced video game style offense just serves to exacerbate the concussion issue. iow, if the league was really interested in protecting its players, it'd let the db's put a finger or two on the receivers.
And it takes Peter King three pages to get around to calling Brady's performance a "C game". And that is the entire extent of his analysis on Brady's performance. I know he's the golden boy, but will it kill the media to say anything negative about him, including maybe a "and this hasn't become unusual for him in the playoffs"?
OTOH, not having a 100% Gronkowski in the last couple playoffs can also make a guy look bad.
Peter King is a tool.
Sort of the way Manning went ultra-conservative in the zero degree wind chill the week before, with nothing but short passes. Whereas Flacco used the long pass to critical advantage.
Don't know how much to make of it, but the announcers commented at least twice yesterday on how Flacco threw better into the wind than with the wind at his back, and there were several near-misses early on where his passes seemed to sail just beyond his receiver's outstretched hands.
Oh, chill out. Brady's performance is well down the list of the reasons the Patriots lost yesterday. Losing Talib, Flacco playing well, a couple of unlucky/fluky turnovers, dropped passes in key moments by Welker and Vereen, among others, played a larger role. It's not like Brady went out at threw four picks or completely gave the game away or something.
Isn't that kind of a strange standard to have? I'm fairly certain I could dig up long list of playoff games like that for every QB in the "greatest ever" discussion, games where you'd watch and say "Wait, he's one of the best five QBs ever?" Montana, Elway, Marino (especially Marino!), Manning, Brady, etc, etc.
Great players sometimes play mediocre games. When they do, they generally don't look like great players. Because, you know, they weren't playing great.
Wow. I'll go along with the "Brady is human in the playoffs" thing -- to an extent; I mean, he _is_ something like 17-7 in the playoffs -- but he seems to have a rocket of an arm to me.
Joe Montana got pulled in a playoff loss in '87.
Then he won back to back titles.
(As far as I understand it, Lewis was indicted, but plead down to obstruction for lying to the police in exchange for testifying against his two co-defendants.)
Welker was probably sounding off to her about Lewis :-)
Hue Jackson did more to screw up the team than Al Davis in the last few years.
Brady got some lucky breaks early in his career, like Tuck Rule and that Chargers game-ending INT that didn't end it when the idiot tried to gain yardage. Then later in his career, Brady got David Tyree helmet-catched.
He's the same QB, really, even if you flip those three plays around - but then he has one Super Bowl early and then an undefeated title later (well, that included a game-ending unsuccessful QB sneak until Ravens asst coach Rex Ryan called a timeout that no one on the field noticed, so more luck).
His breaks came early, though, so it changes the perception dramatically.
This was pretty far into the middle of his career. I think it was a week before the AFC Championship game where Peyton Manning came back and destroyed the Patriots defense.
That's true, and as Howie points out, a lot of a QB's final image depends on at what point in his career his best games came. If John Elway had retired after the 1996 season, I doubt if his rep would be what it is today, and if some of Brady's earlier SB opponents had had defenses like the Ravens put on display yesterday, that golden boy image of his might never have gotten established to begin with. And if Lee Evans had held onto that pass last year, there's a decent chance that Flacco would be going for a Twopeat in two weeks.
Sometimes athletes don't listen.
I don't know if it's supposed to be ironic.
I wasn't aware there was a quota on how many unconvicted felons we could harbor resentment towards.
You forgot "ruthless dedication to the Pope."
You can't spell ELIte without ...
The comparison breaks down because the Yankees did win again, on the back of ARod, in 2009. But it's pretty close.
It's not only a "Ravens" problem. Eli beat him twice in the SB, which was kind of notable. And there was that game where he was leading big against Peyton at the half, only to get dropped in the second half.
It's like many of the things discussed in the last week or so - completely a media creation. For the media, superstars are either tremendous heroes who are clutch and nobel and all that or they're goats who make little babies cry. There is no in between.
This is about wanting to see Belichik on his knees in defeat after the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
And Sharpe should stick to analyzing the X's and O's. I don't need to hear him preaching about The Right Thing.
I think for the Belichick haters, it should be even more delicious that the guy can't even bring himself to come out and go through the motions. Not that he would cry or something; just that losing is that unbearable for him.
I mentioned the Brady career track before, and how the breaks came early for him and the bad breaks came later. Same for Belichick, of course.
But for Brady, he makes a fortune in endorsements and bounces from Bridget Moynihan to Giselle. Life is still pretty sweet.
Belichick, maybe the biggest egomaniac in league history, seems to have no life beyond football. His obsession (well known for sleeping in his office during the season) helped get him that spectacular early success. All that work paid off in trophies.
Now he's still a great coach, and his team is very successful but.....
Sorry but it's part of the job.
Whoa, don't forget the Cleveland Browns job. He had to go back to working for Parcells to get a second chance.
What coach does? You become an NFL head coach in part by having no life beyond football. We know he was involved in an affair. That alone is more than we know about many other coaches.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main