Soxbadger

Very small thinking. How many world series rings does A-rod have? How many world series at bats does A-Rod have? How many post season wins does A-Rod have? This isnt Michael Jordan.

Well my opinion Rex still has more potential than any Bears QB on the roster, and I think that if we keep giving Griese starts we are going to keep seeing the same thing. At least Rex had arm strength, at least Orton is young, I just dont see what Griese brings to the table. Its not so much I think Rex is good, I just think that Griese is bad. And clearly the Bears arent giving Orton a shot, so might as well advocate a change that might happen.

They were discussing the Pats running up the score and Keyshawn asked what would happen in baseball. Kind of funny because I always thought in baseball if you were "up 15 points in the bottom of the 8th" that a team would actually play different. While they would stil be hitting, you would not see hit and runs, players stealing bases, etc. And if you did see some one do that, I would expect a player to get a fastball right at them. Just thought it was interesting to hear them talk about it.

Steve, Thats why its called, giving him another chance. If he doesnt do well, hes gone, no questions asked. I really just dont see what it will harm. If he sucks, he sucks, 1 more loss, 1 more half of Rex wont end this season. Griese isnt going to get any worse sitting 1 more game, and at this point who really cares. When your starting QB throws 3 picks in the end zone, something needs to change. Id rather give Orton a look over Griese as well. You know with Griese what you are getting, you have 2 unknowns, we might as well see if Orton or Rex has anything for next season. Zoom, If you keep Rex, draft a rookie, then youd get rid of Orton or Griese. At this point the Bears dont need Griese, Orton, and Rex, since they all bring about the same suckness.

Well Zoom, what pick would you say that they should take a QB? The only way I would advocate Rex is if he put up a 80-90 rating in every single game from here on out. I do not think you could expect a rookie to come in here and put up those type of numbers. Anyways if Rex did awesome I would sign him to a 3 year deal, still draft a young QB in round 4 or later and have him back up. Most young players are not ready as rookies anyways, so next year the Bears are going to need another QB anyways. If Rex can show he is serviceable you can probably get him for a decent deal that would not handcuff you and allow the Bears to draft the QB of the future. I just dont see how the Bears can develop anyone with the current OC. They just are so bad at game planning, development, etc that any QB you bring in will be damaged by the time they are done with their first season. The Bears offense needs to completely be rebuilt, and the OC is the guy who needs to go. How many more horrible game plans do we need to see before we call it? How many Benson being motioned into the slot do we have to see before we know this guy is clueless? And Im sorry but 3 ints by Griese in the end zone is inexcusable, those plays to Bradley were horrible. I dont know why you are throwing jump balls to your 4th wr, but I guess thats a recipe for success?

I wouldnt say to resign Rex unless he played well in every single game the rest of the season. But I would give him that chance to play well, because Id rather resign Rex at a cheap price, than draft a QB in the first round and 5 years from now have this situation replay itself. The Bears cant draft offense, and im really afraid of what they are going to do with a high pick.

So no QB in 27 games has started bad, and then turned it around? Really Steve, really? If this season is lost, you might as well give Rex 1 or 2 more starts, because what does it hurt? If he sucks, he sucks, thats the end. But what do we have to gain by not giving him another shot? Thats all I ask. Just for fun, here are some HOF QB's stats in their first few years: Young: 84 USFL- 80.6 85 USFL- 63.1 86- Tampa Bay-56.9 87- Tampa Bay- 65.5 Aikman: 1989 Dallas Cowboys 55.7 1990 Dallas Cowboys 66.6 I guess those teams should have just thrown them under the bus as well. Oh wait Tampa did, what did they get for Young again? Now granted, the Boys and Bucs were considerably worse teams, but the fact remains, Turner is one of the worst OC's in the history of football. I only can wonder how Rex would do in a real system that understands offense.

Maybe he can, maybe he cant, but at least he would be stepping in not feeling the pressure of having to QB a Super Bowl contender. I just think we wasted a first rounder on him, we should at least give him another 1-2 starts. Id like to see him start the game after the bye week, and then if he continues to suck give the rest of the season to Orton. That way we gave him every opportunity and there wont be any second guessing down the line.

Id rather have Rex. I think the benching, etc, could do a lot for his career and perhaps make him a better qb in the long run. He wouldnt be the first QB who needed to get knocked off the horse before they actually turned out decent. Also maybe a sense of urgency that he wont ever start at QB could do wonders for him turning it around.

I dont really think it will matter much what OSU does on offense, they are going to score points. Wisconsin wont really stop them if they choose to run and do bubble screens etc, so i doubt that they do a lot of over the top passing just because it wont be necessary. The only way Wisconsin wins is if their offense, specifically Donovan, does not make any stupid mistakes. They just can not turn the ball over, almost every drive will have to be some what productive, because I just cant see them stopping OSU to many times on defense. Hopefully they make OSU take long drives and maybe stop them for a fg a few times, but the offense is going to have to score points. On that note, Lance Smith wont be playing, so it means PJ Hill will get 97% of the carries. I disagree with this completely as I feel that Bown/Landingham have much better bursts and after Hill wears on a defense, those guys look like they have 4.2 speed. Id like to see a 70/30 or even 60/40 distribution, because PJ just can not break the long run and Wisconsin will need a few big plays to really help themselves stay in the game. Wisconsin generally plays OSU tough, just I have 0 faith in the defense after the first part of the season. So they are going to have to prove that they belong.

Im lucky and have RCN so I get BTN. But its pretty lame, I guess there is a clause that each Big 10 team has to be on BTN 1 time, and OSU had to be on this week or next (obviously UM v OSU will not be on BTN). Some think since OSU was on ABC the last few weeks they put this game on BTN so that they can have OSU the next few. Not really sure Wisconsin has any chance (they looked good the last 2 weeks but so what), but still surprising its not on national tv.

Looks like UW v OSU will be on Big 10 network.

Even though the offense didnt do that great last year, you have to like a guy like Walker who only cares about the team and is willing to tell his employer to fire him if they can find some one better.

Scrubs unfortunately suffers as a tv show that my ex used to like and I would dislike so that I could tape survivor or something.

A little financial advice Barry, Bonds are generally a stable long term investment.

House> ER> Greys Yes I watch all 3, no Im not proud.

Ive never played any form of Pokemon, although I have played some pogs.

My points are dumb? lol Thats about the worst statement Ive ever seen. First of all, once again the Colts have played a more difficult schedule and have basically scored the same amount of points. How is it "dumb" to say that I think the Colts are the better team? Now to your wr remark, because Indy plays Clark as basically a wr/te he doesnt count? Just because hes listed as a TE, he doesnt count? Clark catches passes last I checked. Just because you want to create a semantics argument by saying "Well clark is a te, therefore does not count as a wr", thats fine, but it really adds nothing to the equation of who is the better offense. If both NE and Indy are going to put 4 receivers out on the field on any given play (NE: Welker, Stallworth, Moss, Watson. Colts: Wayne, Harrison, Gonzo, Clark) why is it unfair to compare those 4 players? Its not like NE gets to go: "Hey Clark is a TE, you cant use him like a WR, its unfair to put him in the slot, or as a split end" No so once again: Moss > Harrison, Clark> Watson, Wayne> either Stallworth or Welker, Welker or Stallworth > Gonzo. Seems like a push to me. Now onto the third point which you conveniently gloss over. Just because this year the Patriots have scored at will in 6 games (yes thats less than half a season) it does not mean that they are better offensively than the team that has arguably been the best offense for the last few years? "In 1998, Minnesota set an NFL record for most points scored in a season (556)" The offensive coordinator was Brian Billick, is he an "offensive genius", or did he just have Randy Moss. The Patriots may be the best team, but they are not that much better than the Colts that you can just say : "Oh the Pats are the best offensive team hands down and you cant even argue it". Lets see what happens this weekend, wont it be funny if the all mighty Patriots lose in the next 2 weeks. Then how dumb will I be? Or will you just make up some nonsensical argument on semantics and say that you didnt ever say that the Patriots were the best team, you just argued against my points, therefore not even putting out your opinion. Must be hard to type all those words and say nothing.

I would have gone with Tribe because I always support AL, especially central teams, but Im going Rockies all the way.

1) Who have the Patriots beat? Really, who have they put up those numbers on that has even a "good" defense? Jets? Bengals? Browns? Phins? Bills? Cowboys? Those are some stout defenses right there. Its not like the Colts havent played a much more difficult schedule and still been able to score over 30 points except for 1 game. 2) Best wr corps? Ill take my Reginald Wayne, Marvelous, Gonzalez, Clark. In my book, Moss> Marvelous, Wayne > Stallworth or Welker, Clark > Watson. I would rather have the Indy corps just because of consistency. 3) Offensive genius? What genius? Throw to Moss in triple coverage like the Dolphins game? Have Stallworth break tackles on a 10 yard pass? How exactly is throwing the ball to Randy Moss genius? I would say Manning has more offensive genius than the Pats. Everyone is slurping them so bad, but who have they beat? I wouldnt be shocked to see Washington beat them next week. With Taylor and Landry you cant just throw the ball into triple coverage and hope that Randy is going to save the day. The Pats are good, just the Colts are better at offense. IMO consistency trumps 6 career games. Its not like the Pats offense was so dominating all the other years Belicheck was there. So why is he such a genius now?

Never seen Titanic. Never even seen more than 10 minutes of it.

Wow, so let me get this straight, Chamberlain was appeasing Germany, so that Germany would fight USSR. I believe that this is more of a revisionist history. Chamberlain was nominated as a Tory, (English conservative party), Chamberlain considered himself a Liberal Unionist, but that merely had to do with Irish independence during late 19th century. The Tory position was that Germany had been unfairly treated by treaty of Versailles http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasement.htm%20" target="_blank"> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasement.htm And here is what he said specifically about the Sudentenland; http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html" target="_blank"> http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html Here is what Neville Chamberlain said during that time. If you notice, there is no mention of trying to use Germany as a weapon, in fact the entire premise of appeasement was to prevent war, not to create a different war that would pit fascism against communism (which im sure is where people get the idea that you could have created a Nazi-USSR war in that fascism and communism hate each other at a fundamental level, and therefore could not coexist.) But that is actually a mistaken view point (imo), Stalin was a fascist communist. Communism is an economic principal, it does not spell out how the govt is to lead. Marx and Engels do not formulate the type of govt that is to run a communist nation, and my guess is that they would have wanted some sort of democracy/republic, because the entire point of the progression from capitalism to communism is to give workers more rights, not for them to lose rights to a fascist. Hence why Stalin and Hitler could coexist, they were both out for the same goal. It is impossible to believe that Chamberlain could have bought Hitler to fight the USSR, too much of Hitler's goals were to the west, and there is no way that offering him more and more Eastern land would have done anything. Both Russia and Germany felt that they already had rights to that region, USSR believing that it was entitled to take all lands Slavic, and Germany believing that they were entitled to all lands that had pre-treaty of Versailles, which included Alsace-Lorraine. If you look at what Hitler did, he went after every single piece of land taken by the treaty of Versailles, and it was very hard politically for GB, France, and the rest of the allies to prevent this. If they stood strong and enforced the treaty, they would be baiting the German's into fighting. It was apparent at this point that the treaty of Versailles had been one of the most horrible handcuffs ever placed on a nation, and the only way that Germany had been able to bring itself out of a death spiral of depression and inflation (German money was so worthless they had to bring it home in wheel barrels) was to recreate the military, in direct violation to the treaty. So that was the problem, by allowing the Germans to re-arm themselves, the strongest per-person military nation was rebuilt over night. Using fascist policy which countries like Great Britain could not do, the Germany machine was able to rebuild a better stronger army faster than anything the rest of Europe could put out. Once Germany had its army, then what? Are you going to draw a line in the sand and say if you go over this line then its war for real, that eventually happened, and Germany beat the crap out of Europe. In fact appeasement may have saved Europe, for if France and GB had gone after Germany first, it would have been many more years before the US could have entered (and who even knows if Pearl Harbor goes down if Hitler is trying to play off that GB-France started World War II), US isolation policy was very strong at this point. In fact it was so strong that the US took on anti-semitic immigration policies in the later part of the 1930's to prevent jews from escaping Hitler, so as to not put undue pressure on the United States to do something against Hitler. Its pretty easy to say that Chamberlain was a coward now, its much harder to actually have been in his position and see the monster that the world had created. Its easy to say now that we won, that we could have done it faster, easier, etc, that we could have prevented it. But that just is not reality, the reality is that Europe was closer to being lost to the Nazi's forever, than it was for us to have easily beaten Hitler. In fact, if not for Hitler attacking the USSR, if not for him stopping the raids on GB, if not for him splitting his army into 2 fronts as he had spent his entire political career trying to prevent, he may have just taken GB. But in Stalin, Hitler faced some one who was far more cruel. There is a story about Stalingrad, in which Field General Paulus surrendered to the Soviets (first field marshall ever to be captured, hitler said he should have committed suicide). Paulus was one of the best commanders though, so Hilter tried to make a deal, Paulus, for Stalin's own son. Stalin refused, stating he could not trade a private (his son) for a Field General. His son died in captivity, and Stalin never mentions him ever again. Yeah I know thats off topic, but thats my view. And actually the paper you cited pretty much agrees with me and the reason he put your argument 5th is because: 1) Its the least credible argument and really is not accepted by mainstream history as to a real cause for British appeasement of Germany. While USSR and GB had frosty relations, it did not mean that they were in any hurry to get in another war. 2) It is qualified, by saying "The tory view" which is very important because it shows that only some GB's actually believed that Germany was their ally. The reason it is qualified is because Winston Churchill was one of the biggest detractor's to the "tory view" or conservative view, and believed that GB should be arming itself to fight Germany. As you can see, the conservative Tory party, which Chamberlain was a part of, actually wanted to befriend Germany. They felt that the German’s had gotten a bad deal by the treaty of Versailles, and therefore were willing to meet the demands made by the German’s, because they felt they were undoing a previous wrong. The problem with that is that they did not know at that time that Hitler’s real motivation was not just to re-create the Austria-Hungary Empire, but instead to create the next formulation of the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire, which meant they were going to eventually go after France. With historical hindsight, it is easy to see that the Tory position was horrible. Not only were they not antagonistic to Hitler, but they actually were sympathetic. The problem though, is that by the time Chamberlain came to power in Britain, the pieces for World War II were already in place. Nazi rearmament had started in secret in1933, by 1935 it was made public, by 1938 t the German army was almost completely rebuilt and was technically more advanced than every army in the world. The reality of this, is if not for Hitler’s own madness, it is very likely that all of Europe west of the USSR border would have fallen. It is easy now to say that if GB, France, etc had gone in guns blazing that they of course would have won, but it was only 1) the German’s splitting their forces and taking on 2 fronts, 2) the US entry, that gave rise to the defeat of the Nazi’s. I guess the point in all of this is: 1) Chamberlain’s main goal was not to turn the Nazi’s against the USSR, it was to make the treaty of Versailles more manageable for the German people. After the German depression devastated the entire Western world, GB wanted Germany back on track. That is why they gave them land, let them build an army, etc. They needed that economy, they needed a Germany that was not going to be saddled by a debt to France and Belgium that it could never repay. This is why GB was at the front of appeasement, there losses in World War I were not to infrastructure, their land was not destroyed, hence the hate for Germany and Germans was not as strong. Germany and GB had always had a relationship, even to the point where many GB royals were of German royal blood. 2) Revisionist history is the worst with World War II. It is very hard for many, to hear that the conservatives in Britain were Nazi sympathizers. In retrospect the Nazi regime is one of the most horrible to ever exist, but at the time very few actually knew this. While Hitler was viewed as a threat, he was no worse than any one else. Many of the people living in the 1930’s had lived under King’s and Queens, a fascist dictator who was restoring Germany and Europe economically was not viewed as such a terrible thing. It is only because of Hitler that the terms dictator and fascism have such negative under tones, and that is a product of our history. Even further, every historian with World War II wants to change what happened. They want to write that some one should have done something sooner, but the reality is unless you are talking about pre-1933 in which no one even knew who Hitler was, it was already to late. Once Germany had built its army, there was no turning back, there was no: “You broke the rules we are sending in weapons inspectors”, because Hitler knew that he could take on every European power and win as long as he did not fight a 2 front war. And that is the oddity of it all, Hitler, the one who was so damn stubborn about not fighting a 2 front war, eventually brought one upon himself. Oh yah this is long, sorry, but some times when I see something that just so horribly describes a situation I have to speak out.

South Park tonight, should be high quality with our imaginations being attacked by terrorists.

I dont think the Patriots will win. Right now I think the Colts are better, because if it comes down to who is going to score the most points, my money is on laser rocket arm.

I wanted Aldridge bad, guys like Thomas are just so hit and miss. Stromile Swift comes to mind, other guys with exceptional athleticism have also failed. Thomas is young, but some times the most talented players develop poor work ethics because they never had to work before and think that their talent will get them there. It just doesnt work that way, and hopefully his ego will drive him to be better and not be sitting on the bench.