Well, the Angels had themselves an 8 game lead with 8 games left.... which became a 4 game lead with 4 games left.

If they win one more game -- or if Seattle loses one more -- they are in. If they don't go, this is as great a choke job as there's been in baseball.

Another reason why I find baseball uninteresting is that, presuming that the Angels do go, well, great -- one of the four teams in the playoffs are playing crap baseball at the moment. I'd be a bit surprised if they win a single game in their series against the Yankees. At least if there were 6 or 8 teams it wouldn't be this crushing blow if one team got cold in the last two weeks.

I don't see how the Yankees *don't* walk away with this one. Maybe they don't win the World Series or whatnot, but I really think they are going to cruise out of the AL.

[quote="Ben"][quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]There is an increasing tendency amongst NFL coaches to throw the rookie QB out there to let him take his punishment and get done with it so that they can develop faster.[/quote]

Oh, is that the reason? I thought the reason was that these teams are scrounging around to get ANYONE with the ability to throw the ball with more accuracy and speed than my dead, decomposing, overweight great-grandmother.
[/quote]

Eh, maybe you're right. That could be. Certainly some teams are.


Sorry about gramma.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]There is an increasing tendency amongst NFL coaches to throw the rookie QB out there to let him take his punishment and get done with it so that they can develop faster.[/quote]

Oh, is that the reason? I thought the reason was that these teams are scrounging around to get ANYONE with the ability to throw the ball with more accuracy and speed than my dead, decomposing, overweight great-grandmother.

[quote]sitting back there, hoping to chuck and duck before he morphs into a dinosaur.[/quote]

Well, you just go enjoy your "football", then. I'll just stick to golf, if you don't mind.

No dilution of talent there, pallie.

I'm going to go ahead and declare myself the victor of this thread seeing how you quit hitting "refresh."

[b][i][color=red]I WIN, maggots!!![/color][/i][/b]

[quote="Ben"]Listen to yourself, man. This is exactly what I am saying. 53 largely mediocre players beating 53 other largely mediocre players.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that there are nothing but mediocre players on both teams. Dallas had more than enough talent to stomp the Texans. I mean, really, they had La'Roi Glover, Kevin Hardy, Dat Nguyen, Roy Williams, Larry Allen, Joey Galloway and Emmit Smith and they couldn't beat an expansion team? They lost due to the arrogance of the coaching staff. They didn't prepare for the game and had no idea what they wanted to do.

More, Houston has some players like Jamie Sharper who are there because their previous teams could not afford them. So they are not all made up of scrubs either.

I don't think that the players sucked on Dallas and therefore they lost. I think that they were not coached adequately. Oh, and Quincy Carter is a complete and total bust. The QB position, if it's manned by a guy who's terrible, will affect your season more than any other player on the team.


[quote]Rookies never used to start. The concept would have been ridiculed. The only reason you start a rookie is when you don't have a veteran who's better. Sad, sad.
[/quote]

Er, if you have a veteran who is better than the guy you are thinking of drafting in the first four rounds, you probably don't draft from that spot. Your statement is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway, I still disagree. Jeff Blake was better than Aaron Brooks last year. The Saints started Brooks because they wanted him to get better so that this year he'd be of value to them (Blake's age meant that they'd have to switch to Brooks eventually.) There is an increasing tendency amongst NFL coaches to throw the rookie QB out there to let him take his punishment and get done with it so that they can develop faster.


[quote]
So now you're telling me that these days the rookie quarterbacks are actually BETTER than the veterans, whether they replace them or not? Yeah, buddy, you sure are putting me in my place.[/quote]

The new quarterbacks as of late are getting a lot, lot better. Many of them are coming to the league able to run away from trouble (and turn would-be sacks into positive rushing gains) rather than just sit there and take abuse. That covers up for a lot of mistakes and makes them infinitely more dangerous than some poor slob who is just sitting back there, hoping to chuck and duck before he morphs into a dinosaur.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]I don't think you're quite right there. The Texans managed to find 53 players that nobody else wanted and beat an established NFL team.[/quote]

Listen to yourself, man. This is exactly what I am saying. 53 largely mediocre players beating 53 other largely mediocre players (hey, Dallas, nice QB you got there) does not "prove that the talent level is the highest of absolutely any sport". In fact, I'd go so far as to call that particularly statement "laughable". Watch: LOL!

> 1) Throw him to the wolves. It worked for Peyton Manning.

Rookies never used to start. The concept would have been ridiculed. The only reason you start a rookie is when you don't have a veteran who's better. Sad, sad.

> weren't playing (I mean, hell, McNabb had Doug Freaking > Pederson and Koy Detmer ahead of him)

So now you're telling me that these days the rookie quarterbacks are actually BETTER than the veterans, whether they replace them or not? Yeah, buddy, you sure are putting me in my place.

I don't think you're quite right there. The Texans managed to find 53 players that nobody else wanted and beat an established NFL team. Ergo, I would say that the talent level is the highest of absolutely any sport, well distributed, and exciting to watch, as even "cast offs" are good enough to play and win on Sunday.

Plus they had a plan to start David Carr (the first overall pick in the draft this year). It was all intentional. There are two schools of thought on how to develop a QB:

1) Throw him to the wolves. It worked for Peyton Manning. He made a lot of mistakes his first year but got them out of the way.

2) Don't play him at all for x number of years. This worked for Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb and is what is going on with Drew Brees. Those guys were still, by far, the most talented guys on their roster at the QB position when they weren't playing (I mean, hell, McNabb had Doug Freaking Pederson and Koy Detmer ahead of him) but they sit and learn and don't take a pounding right off the bat.

(I guess there's a third, the whole "let 'em play a little bit" that was used with Mike Vick in Atlanta last year. But Dan Reeves is insane, sadly, and his opinion should be discounted as of late.)

But as they want Carr to be their guy for the next 15 years they are starting him right away.

The most diluted league is the NHL, and then probably the NBA. I'd put the MLB as more diluted than the NFL, but who knows. A lot of teams can't keep their good players, so perhaps it's more pronounced than it would be.

The problem with football, which nobody (in their salivatory fervor to say how totally wonderful and fabulous it is) seems to take notice of, is that the talent pool is so grotesquely thinned out and watered down, that the average *level of play* is quite dreadful when compared with, say, fifteen or twenty years ago. More teams, more players, and not enough quality guys to fill the spots.

So yes, the teams are very even, and it's very exciting, and all that, but the level that all these "even" teams are at is pretty frigging embarassing.

Any league that has teams which have their rookie quarterbacks START THE OPENER is a league that doesn't have enough decent players.

It will probably kill the thread if I write this, but I will say it anyway. My interest in baseball was forever tainted by this season. I simply seethe with hatred. Mixed with apathy. Mostly hatred, though. GRRR!! See?

It's not worth my time to follow a sport that doesn't have a level playing field for all their teams. The latest agreement they all made to avoid a strike? Give me a goddamn break. Nothing's changed, nothing's different. They apparently retained some fans by not striking, but they lost at least one -- me -- by making no real changes that'll help.

I'm in a fantasy baseball league and as a matter of pride I have been following my team. But this'll just about do it for me.

Each team in the NFL has just under $80 million to spend on their players. Just about every single team spends exactly that, some underachievers like the Bengals and Cardinals are a bit under that, but not by much. It's such a vastly superior way to do business that I can't believe anyone would argue otherwise.

At any rate, if forced for an opinion I would say that I'm really pulling for the Angels and Mariners to somehow come out of this thing. The Angels used to be a bunch of chokers but no-one remotely remains from their last playoff team, so they are completely new in all of this. The A's just breaking down at a fundamental level the last two seasons, horribly intimidated by New York fills me with disgust. The Mariners I guess I am pulling for because my brother is a fan.

I don't care for baseball myself, but the Angels are the hot topic in town, and I like to keep up on current events.

As a result of this, I've watched the last few innings of both of the latest two games between the two teams. They were both EXTREMELY exciting, EXTREMELY excellent, and ended up with the Angels (who I've decided to vote for, since I live closer) winning by one run, late.

Wow!

I think everyone's now hoping that these two teams end up playing for the AL pennant. If this series was any indication, that would be wild.

Hell, I might even watch it.