Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Ok funny thing. Trent Smith is on the sports animal ALL the time. He's best friends with the host stemming from when Trent played at OU during there National Title season. Many of you probably know Trent as the Tight End for the Ravens that went down with an injury. Well anyways he's on the Sports Animal anywhere from 2-3 times a week. Well all of these idiots call in screaming about how White should've been taken out of the game and how he's the worst QB OU's ever had and talking about how OU sucks and about how Stoops should be fired just absolutely dissapeared when Trent Smith was on today. Not one person wanted to argue with him. As soon as he left the show.......the idiots returned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Anglesault is going to be one of those Little League dads who tries to kill the umpire at his kid's game when a call costs them the championship. Then of course the kid will be grounded for two months for being a loser. Nah, the kids play to have fun. Which is exactly how I tried to sum up the college sports situation. Odd that you'd have this stance now. College sports don't involve kids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Once you leave High School, you are no longer a kid playing. You are a stupid man (or woman) who needs to quit blowing plays and costing the team wins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Who is the better QB, Jim McMahon, or Dan Marino? Marino doesn't have a ring, after all..is capturing every single passing record still a failure? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 9, 2004 AngleSault is right in part. You can have a successful season if you make strides over the previous years and make significant progress. The Dallas Cowboys, despite losing in the first round of the playoffs, had a good season because they made progress towards the only goal that matters. Making that step matters. On the other hand, if the Philadelphia Eagles don't go to the Super Bowl, will be a failure this year regardless of the number of wins they pulled together this year. The Yankees not winning the title is a failure since they always get that far. The Braves are a failure for winning a bunch of divisional titles and never getting anywhere after that. Staying where you are, year after year is a failure. Unless you're the champions of course. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Who is the better QB, Jim McMahon, or Dan Marino? Marino doesn't have a ring, after all..is capturing every single passing record still a failure? Ask any Dolphin fan if they would trade EVERY SINGLE ONE of those records for a SuperBowl championship and see what answer you get. Hell, ask a Dolphion. Ask Marino. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C Dubya 04 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Who is the better QB, Jim McMahon, or Dan Marino? Marino doesn't have a ring, after all..is capturing every single passing record still a failure? Yeah, but do you consider Marino a better QB than Montana or Elway or even Farve? I don't because even though he owns all those passing records, he never won the Superbowl, which in my mind he needed to do to be considered in the same class as those guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Who is the better QB, Jim McMahon, or Dan Marino? Marino doesn't have a ring, after all..is capturing every single passing record still a failure? Yeah, but do you consider Marino a better QB than Montana or Elway or even Farve? I don't because even though he owns all those passing records, he never won the Superbowl, which in my mind he needed to do to be considered in the same class as those guys. Marino wasn't exactly on a great team. I'm sure if he played for the 49ers then he would've won a couple of Super Bowls. Imagine Marino connecting with Rice.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Yeah, but do you consider Marino a better QB than Montana or Elway or even Farve? I don't because even though he owns all those passing records, he never won the Superbowl, which in my mind he needed to do to be considered in the same class as those guys. Yes, maybe, and yes. Marino on the Niners' back then would've been even more prolific and successful, I think, considering Marino is a much better pocket passer than Montana, with a quicker release. He'd be shooting quick slants to Rice all day, with fantastic protection, and a running game to back it up. Sickness would ensue. I don't believe Montana would've won it all with the Dolphins, though. Elway and Favre had great teams, too, as was mentioned. Marino never really had an all-star receiving staff, aside from maybe Clayton. Never had a good running game, either, and he STILL went to the big one on his second year in the league, only to lose to who? The much superior 49ers team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Elway didn't win a Super Bowl till he got a running back. I give Farve credit for winning with an average ground game. And Marino never had one but I doubt he'd have handed the ball off anyway. Danny boy loved to throw but odds are he'd trade it all for a Super Bowl. No matter what, none of them is Otto Graham. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Joe Montana won four Super Bowls, but he played in the NFL for more than 10 years. So is he overall more of a failure than a successful QB? After all, he won titles in less than half of his pro seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted January 9, 2004 I understand that, by definition, to "fail" is to "not succeed," Then why ask the question? Because instead of saying, "The Yankees failed to win the World Series," you are saying "every player on the Yankees is a failure." That is a big difference. Failing at something and being a failure have different meanings. Michael Jordan can only score so many points, but even if he averaged 100 points per game and his team lost in the Finals, how is Jordan a failure? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I understand that, by definition, to "fail" is to "not succeed," Then why ask the question? Because instead of saying, "The Yankees failed to win the World Series," you are saying "every player on the Yankees is a failure." That is a big difference. The team as a whole is a failure. They failed to accomplish their goal. Sure, there were three or four players on the team that genuinely tried, but as a whole, the Yankee team failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I think most of the team genuinely tried. You can go ahead and say the team failed, but to say they didn't try is grossly unfair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Putting on that performance was grossly unfair to me, the fan. So we're even. I saw a team that didn't give a shit (for Lord knows what reason) barely even qualify for a "going through the motions" excuse. Hell, I don't even know if they played well enough to say they phoned it in. The Marlins looked hungry out there. The Yankees looked bored with the whole situation. Did you see anyone on the team look genuinely disappointed after game six? I sure as fuck didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Ok, I've got two pet peeves of fans I can think of right off. 1. Athletes are lazy, overpaid crybabies who are paid millions of dollars for playing a game. Athletes work HARDER than 99% of the population, and are paid millions because they have skills far above the average person. 2. Any fan who refers to "clutch", "intangibles", or "veteran influence." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I didn't say they were lazy. They just didn't seem to care. Hell, in that post game six shot of Jeter leaning over the dugout railing, he looks bored. You can't SERIOUSLY say that the same team that played THAT series against the Sawx would get shut down by BRAD PENNY? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 You can't SERIOUSLY say that the same team that played THAT series against the Sawx would get shut down by BRAD PENNY? I would. Brad Penny's better than most of the Sox staff, save Pedro, and Derek Lowe on a good day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 And the laziness comment wasn't directed towards you. But the sentiment stands. Athetes don't get the credit they deserve. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 And the laziness comment wasn't directed towards you. But the sentiment stands. Athetes don't get the credit they deserve. Well, I feel that I'm giving the Yankees more than enough credit for that World Series. There are unconfirmed rumors of Giambi and Boone finally showing up at the Stadium yesterday looking to play the World Series. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 The same Jason Giambi who had a .381 OBP and a .471 slugging percentage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I hadn't noticed. How dd he hit when it mattered? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I hadn't noticed. How dd he hit when it mattered? In game one, with the Yankees down 3-2 in the ninth, Giambi drew a leadoff walk, putting the tying run on base. In game four, in the top of the twelve, Giambi singled, putting the go ahead runner on base. In game five, Giambi pinch hit in the ninth, and hit a home run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Ah. I still remember cursing him out, so he must have blown something to piss me off. What happenedin 2, 3, and 6? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 1-3 in game 2. 0-2 with 2 walks in game 3. 0-2 with 1 walk in game 6. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 *baseball lingo is going over his head* I really want to watch Baseball this season....I need to learn the rules of the game though...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 You could familiarize yourself with the game's rules here. I think the best method is simply to watch the games. You'll pick up the basic idea of it pretty quick. If I can find a good primer on the subject, I'll relate it to you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 1-3 in game 2. 0-2 with 2 walks in game 3. 0-2 with 1 walk in game 6. Yeah, that's probably it. Walks are nice and all, but ya know, we didn't sign him to get walks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 1-3 in game 2. 0-2 with 2 walks in game 3. 0-2 with 1 walk in game 6. Yeah, that's probably it. Walks are nice and all, but ya know, we didn't sign him to get walks. You signed a guy who walks 100 times a year. What did you sign him for? Walks are the saviour of a team. They give you baserunners, which leads to runs. A player in a slump can still draw a walk, as Giambi does. Look at a group of elite hitters, and 90% of them draw walks on a regular basis. At least when Giambi slumps, he still produces in a way. Compare that to Alfonso Soriano. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 10, 2004 1-3 in game 2. 0-2 with 2 walks in game 3. 0-2 with 1 walk in game 6. Yeah, that's probably it. Walks are nice and all, but ya know, we didn't sign him to get walks. You signed a guy who walks 100 times a year. What did you sign him for? The 40 homeruns and the .340 batting average? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
