The Man in Blak

Richard Hidalgo has signed with the Rangers...I'll edit in the contract numbers momentarily. EDIT: 1 year deal for...well, I guess they aren't going to say in the press conference. "He's been an elite performer", sez Rangers management. "He's a tough kid."

Damn. Where's Dutch when you need him?

boo fucking hoo Great rebuttal.

Now, as I mentioned, later wins would be coaching genius for Belichick - when they changed the rules to outlaw the physical contact that Patriots DBs were famous for, he didn't whine and toss a pile of grievance paperwork at the league. He adapted and now, even with an injury-riddled secondary, they're still one of the top defenses in the league. That is genius.

Well, not every coach happened to be in the Super Bowl that year. I mean that with the utmost sincerity - during the regular season, referees throw flags more frequently but, inexplicably, keep them tucked in their pockets for most of the playoffs. So, in Belichick's situation, he literally told his guys to go break the rules and dared the officials to do something about it...and they didn't. And, if you spin it as "coaching genius" and "identifying a possible advantage", then - by that same logic - you must condone the use of corked bats. Or, for a better example, maybe I'm the coach playing the New England Patriots and I decide that, after a pass play, one of my linebackers should just level Tom Brady with a helmet-to-helmet hit and knock him out of the game. Sure, it's against the rules - player gets ejected (if he even gets caught) and there are fines aplenty...but none of it would change the fact that Tom Brady's out of the game. None of it would change the fact the outcome of the game, if I happened to win from exploiting that "possible advantage." Wouldn't it behoove me, as an opposing coach, to chop Corey Dillon on a running play so he could either be injured or tentative when he hits the line the next time his number is called? Sure, it's against the rules, but having Dillon at less at 100% (or even out of the game) is a possible advantage that, however immoral, is available to me as a head coach. The rules of the game aren't in place merely for entertainment value - they exist to balance the game and provide as fair of a playing field as possible. Belichick wasn't exploiting some unfair advantage that hadn't been accounted for in the rules - he deliberately told his defense to go out and rough up the Rams receivers in a way that is outlawed by the rules. Is it his fault that the referees had better things to do that Sunday than officiate the game? No, not at all. Does it take away the fact that the Patriots won the Super Bowl? No, not at all. What it should take away, however, is all of this ridiculous "intrepid upset" and "hero" garbage that's always tacked onto the Patriots victory. It's one thing to say, very accurately, that the Patriots beat up the Rams but it's another thing entirely to say that the Patriots "heroically overcame all odds and beat the overrated Rams" sentiment that somehow gets tacked onto that Super Bowl. There is no heroism that comes from breaking the rules of the game...but why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

All I'll say is that "beat them up" is the perfect word for it, since Belichick explicitly told them to rough up the wide receivers because the referees would be reluctant to throw a flag and slow down the Super Bowl. That's not coaching genius (though later wins would be) - that's exploiting a sad flaw in officiating. Plus, the coach on the other side of the field was Mike Martz. That's like spotting the opposing team with a touchdown before the game even starts.

Wow. What a terrible deal. Seven years in football is an eternity. Plus, Wayne and Stokley are developing quite nicely - Reggie Wayne could eclipse Harrison on the depth chart by the end of next year. Just an unspeakably bad move by the Colts to appease Harrison, who was whining about his importance in the offense.

After the season is over, the Elias Sports Bureau ranks all of the players at each position according to their performance over the last two years. Then, once they have all of the position rankings sorted out, the free agents fall into the following categories: Type A - A free agent in the top 30% of their position Type B - A free agent in the 31-50% range of their position Type C - A free agent in the 51-60% range of their position Two important details to remember: - the last two years of performance are under scrutiny (which is why Eric Milton, who had an injury-shorted 2003, would not have fetched any compensatory draft picks) - the players are ranked by position, rather than by rank. That's why somebody like Rheal Cormier is a Type A free agent - though he may not necessarily be in the upper third of all players in terms of performance, he's undeniably in the upper third of all relievers, given his outrageous 2003.

Here's a very provocative article against the steroid rage, written by Larry Mahnken at The Hardball Times: -----------------------------------

Of course you do. Actually, I think it's a tremendous move by the Cardinals. At $2.5 million a year, Matt Morris is a much more reasonable gamble than, say, Cory Lidle, even with the health issues. Plus, with a one year contract, Morris now has the avenue and the proper motivation to prove himself to other free agent suitors next year. I applaud Morris for taking a much-deserved pay cut while staying loyal to the organization that brought him up. The Tony Womack signing, however, is pretty damn hilarious. I'm not going to say that Womack can't perform at the level he achieved in 2004, but the odds of him doing so - given his age, injury history, and career performance - are slim to none.

Yes, it's true. All true.

You're telling me.

I'd imagine that the board and the posts still exist on the web space - there's just no domain to point to them. I don't remember the IP of the server.

I haven't seen any owners decrying steroid use by players. Have you seen any owners decrying steroid use by players?

Yep, led the team in touchdowns too, with six.

Not that they needed an excuse, but they could have banned him just as easily for the articles that he wrote for the site. Complete garbage.

Let's take an over/under on Vanhalen's appearance. I'll set it at...say...six posts.

He did say the PS2 versions. Ah, my mistake. Sorry 'bout that.

... Baldur's Gate and Fallout are dungeon crawls, but Torment and Icewind Dale are real RPGs? And Anachronox is mildly amusing if you like console-style RPGs, but it really doesn't have much to offer other than its humor.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...7790092-3459318

Then why does BG get no love here? Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes -- arrrrrrrrgh!... Because a majority of the people who frequent this folder are nerds for Japanese console games.

Well I do have ideas to make Sports Games more SIM like......and well a little more roleplaying like as in you take on the role of the General Manager or Owner and do EVERYTHING they have to do.....like fire drunken players and then tell advertisers off. And they've got those - the Mogul series (I know there's a baseball one, but I think there's a football one too) puts you in the owner's chair and makes you preside over a whole bunch of junk, like salaries and even hot dog prices and such.

Fallout's a helluva PC RPG.

That's pretty funny. And yeah.

Damn. Ah, well. I missed the playoff by point margin with a team I didn't draft that also managed to sit out its entire roster for the first two games of the season. Ultimately, I don't think I did badly at all.