Rex Hudler

QUOTE(GoRowand33 @ Nov 3, 2005 -> 03:23 AM) I understand the criticisism but again the reason why i got the C wasn't my choppy sentences or my bad tense usage(which I appreciate being pointed out since my teacher didn't) It was because she didn't understand how following a tense sox game could be personal I'm not an English teacher, nor a great writer. But I can add the following constructive criticism. The teacher didn't get the personal connection because it wasn't there. You need to make the reader feel like they are in the room with you. Talk about clenched fists, sitting on the edge of your seat, sweat dripping, or whatever you can to bring it to life. I read it and while it was supposed to be a narrative, it was very plain. I didn't feel the emotion either. As far as the writing, I am sure others can critique better than I, but I did notice a few things. It seemed choppy and didn't really have a flow to it. There were some errors in tense and also in grammar (see loose where lose should have been). Next time you write something, write it so the reader can live it with you. Be more descriptive, yet make sure there is a flow to your ideas. Find ways to bring things to life. I'll pick one part as an example The first sentence says me instead of we and also alludes to another collapse. Yet, two sentences later, it says the rookie worked his way out of the jam. You never described what happened and how it was directly related to poor managing. You mentioned poor managing led to the collapse, but then tie it to an overworked bullpen. To me poor managing refers to that particular time, yet an overworked bullpen was due to past events. It just doesn't tie together well. Make sense? Lastly, beyond all of that, she may just simply be a Cubs fan. Writing is not easy unless you have a special talent (which I do not have). All you can do is take ideas from others and figure out how to make your own style with them. Take all the criticism constructively and your next paper, about the Sox or not, will be better. Good luck

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Nov 2, 2005 -> 06:39 PM) I think Young is more of a "Next McNabb" or maybe "Next Culpepper" before he will ever be a "Next Vick". Young has more size to him, like McNabb and Culpepper, and he doesnt look as jittery in the pocket as Vick. For a sleeper in the "next McNabb or Culpepper" category, look no further than to UAB at Darrell Hackney. He will be an NFL QB.

My guess is that you have a lot of interchangeable parts in IU's lineup. Guys that can play in multiple spots on the floor and give teams different looks.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 09:15 PM) Texas-USC would be an epic battle. Two schools that have been absolutely dominating the recruiting scene. Most of their 2nd string players would start for 90% of the rest of the schools in the nation. USC can't shut down UT's great running game, and UT can't shut down USC's balanced attack. I would give USC the edge on the OL, and UT the edge on the DL. I couldn't pick a winner right now. Here's how I would grade them head to head. QB: UT RB: USC WR: USC OL: USC DL: UT LB: UT Secondary: Even Personally, I'd have to go at least even at QB. Both are excellent and both have different styles, but I just can't see giving anyone the edge over Leinart.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Nov 1, 2005 -> 06:40 AM) Here's proof that I call 'em like I see 'em. The Wolverines have played 3 consecutive halves of defense. It might not sound like much, but that makes them the third best team in the Big Ten. -- Only tOSU and PSU have played more than 3 halves of defense this season. -- If they keep improving, the BIG GAME will be just that. The Winner of the Big Ten will have 2 losses in conference if Michigan continues to step it up. On another note, WTF happened to the defense in the Big Ten. -- Iowa's got the personnel in their back 7 to be good, but their scheme allows them to be picked apart by good teams. Michigan had an incredibly porous secondary until the last 3 halves. Wisconsin is not nearly as good as they are ranked, solely because they have no defense. Minnesota, LOL. MSU wins only because they can score 50 points a game. What happened to 3 yards and a cloud of dust? The interesting thing is that while offense is up and defense seems to be way down in the Big Ten, it is exactly the opposite down here in the SEC. Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Georgia and possibly Tennessee all have better defenses than the best in the Big Ten. One could argue OSU and PSU could squeeze into that list, but there is no doubt where the strength lies in each conference. I am looking forward to the 2-3 head-to-head matchups during the Bowl season.

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Nov 2, 2005 -> 04:13 AM) Is it still a given that Danks goes to school? Danks enrolled at the beginning of the school year. Yes, he is gone.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Oct 31, 2005 -> 12:20 AM) Rex and Brian do you guys agree with me that Michigan needs a QB change. I know it's late but I really think that Gutierrez is a much better QB than Henne. I was at the game yesterday and some of thoses passes that Henne threw were just awful. He overthrew Jason Avant 3 times and Breaston twice in the 2nd half. And this is against the worst defense in College Football. Obviously right now the defense is the strength of this football team and IMHO is the most underrated defense in College football. But sooner or later you are gonna have to put up more points on the board. And Henne isn't able to do that without a guy like Braylon Edwards. There is only a certain amount of times in which Avant can save Henne's ass after he makes a bad throw. And Henne is about as mobile as my Grandmother who uses a cane to walk. Gutz is much more mobile and can make things happen on his own. Also i agree with both of you guys. Michigan will win the Big Ten and I can't wait to see those cocky buckeye fans weep on this message board once Ohio State gets beat. You know, I actally thought about that on Saturday. After pondering it some, I feel it is best to stay with Henne. Henne is the future and the present. There may be upsides to giving Gutierrex a shot, but think of these downsides... 1. Despite Henne's shortcomings, they are currently winning again, against good teams, and despite all of the injuries. When Tim Massaquoi is fully integrated into the offense and Hart is back on the field, Henne will look a whole lot better. It would also help if Breaston could ever become a true deep threat. 2. Gutierrez has never been a starter. 3. It's kind of late in the year to throw a new QB into the mix when a team seems to be getting back on track. 4. Two QB's never seem to work out. See Tennessee. You have to make up your mind and go forward, unless there is an injury. 5. The coaches see the players every day in practice. If they felt Gutierrez was better than Henne, they would give him more reps to see what he could do. I tend to trust the judgement of those that see the players on a daily basis. Henne's inaccuracy frustrates me at times. But I am not going to blame everything on him. They have had injuries all over the offensive line. His best HB has been hurt half the season. His best TE is just now getting back to being able to be effective. Rather than find a QB that can run, I'd rather get the offensive line back in shape so they can make it that he doesn't have to.

I hear Pong is good

It's comments like these that drive me bananas. Yes, there is luck involved when you are a pitcher. But whether a hit ball or not becomes an out is often due to the pitcher hitting his spots and setting up the hitter. Sometimes hitters hit good pitches hard or they bloop them for a base hit, but hitting the proper part of the strike zone and keeping hitter's guessing accounts for more than pure luck. Anyone that doesn't get this, just doesn't understand baseball. Or at least hasn't pitched. I'm sure he was generalizing there, but let's not be afraid to give the pitcher a little credit when ratios improve. Strikeouts and walks are not the only part of an at bat a pitcher controls.

I laughed then and am laughing now at those who were predicting a doomed season for Michigan. While Michigan isn't in the National Championship picture, they are a good team. They would be a very good team if they could get healthy and if Henne could be more consistent. Their defense was very good tonight against a team that had carved up many an opponent this year. Oh and Tennessee lost to South Carolina! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 07:31 PM) Lets just say that my belief on the Sox organization isn't just my opinion. I've been told information regarding various different organizations where handful of MLB players were steroid users. Are there players that were on the Sox in the past who were juicing? Absolutely! Were there players on the Sox this year that have juiced in the past? Absolutely! The funny thing about all of us this debate is that the Sox had to be the cleanest, in terms of steroids, team to win the WS in the last 15 years. All I am saying is that the Sox "steroid policy" is only as strict as the talent of the player. I'm sure every situation is different, but they aren't going to dump every player that might test positive.

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 07:28 PM) Considering how long the appeals process lasted in the Palmeiro case, it would seem likely that the player tested positive more than a month ago. I guarantee the players wasn't still taking the stuff if this appeals process has been going on during the playoffs. It doesn't matter though, if it happened to be a Sox player, the championship would be tarnished and that player would never be forgiven by Sox fans. Thus, I'd be stunned if they found anyway to bring him back. If they tested positive a month ago, it is very likely the steroids were still in their system. It doesn't matter whether they were taking them at that time or not. It makes NO difference. Hell, Mike Morse has been suspended three times for the same offense, if you believe medical evidence. The steroid he admitted taking has lingered in his body for more than a year, at consistently declining levels, indication he had not continued to take them. Whether they were taking them during the playoffs or not means nothing.

The thing that is the biggest problem with the current MLB Steroid policy (putting arguments about its severity aside) is the fact they do not name the offending substance. As soon as a rumor starts flying about a failed test, the word STEROIDS lands in every headline. The substance could be something as simple as ephedra. Not all banned substances are the same, nor do they provide the same effect. So by not naming the substance, the player immediately becomes guilty of the worst possible offense in the public perception. If they are going to name the player, they should name what he took!

QUOTE(fathom @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 07:17 PM) The Sox have been against steroids for quite a while, as I'm sure you know. After all the stuff they've gone through with not taking the tests last year, it would sure make them look like hypocrites if a starter on their World Series team got busted for it. Also, something that people aren't realizing is that it's not like these guys were on the roids during the postseason. Obviously, they tested positive for the stuff prior to the postseason. If that blogger went out of his way to mention it wasn't someone on the Sox, I feel a lot better about it. Where did it say the player wasn't on roids during the post-season?? That is nothing more than an assumption, unless I missed something. And even if true, that and 50 cents will just buy me a soda out of the drink machine at work on Monday. It means nothing. And to say the Sox have a "strict stance on steroids" is a bit of a stretch. I am not saying they are lackluster in that area, but other than the players position before the 2004 season, there is nothing else to indicate that. The Sox are no different than any other organization. If the player is good enough, they will work around it. If the player isn't, then they get rid of him. The Sox have players in their system that have used steroids and they knew it or intentionally turned their back on it. They have used a player in the big leagues that was busted for using a corked bat. They are no different than any other club in this regard. Please be clear, I am not indicting the Sox for any wrongdoing. Nor am I putting them on a pedestal. They simply are just like everybody else.

I'll echo your sentiments punch.... Perhaps they just realize that DePodesta wasn't cut out for it. I am sure the Angels success didn't help him. But the fact is, that when they fired Dan Evans, the Dodgers were headed in the right direction. It seems to me that as of today, they are not. On a side note..... The Sox WS win seems to me to disprove much of what the Moneyballers professed. The Sox stole bases, they bunted, their team was greater than sum of its parts. I think most anyone who followed the Sox this year would now agree that chemistry, while not everything, certainly makes a difference in winning and losing. You can't base a team of human beings on strictly numbers. I wonder how Billy Beane feels now after watching the guy he gave up, basically as a throw-in, become a dominant reliever helping the Sox win the WS?? A left-handed reliever at that.

Last point.......... RELAX PEOPLE!!

fathom, where might I ask do you come up with "the Sox' strict stance against steroids"? On a separate note: If it were Podsednik, it certainly didn't help him hit. Teams were getting him out consistently with high fastballs during the playoffs and he couldn't catch up to them. He finally caught up with a fat pitch from Lidge who throws 95mph. That speed alone along with catching it square would allow any player to hit it out of the yard. Actually, he caught up with two because he did hit a nice triple a day or two earlier. I guess the roids were just kicking in...

QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 29, 2005 -> 02:48 AM) a poll to vote on who MAY have juiced? Jesus Christ I sincerely doubt it was him....

What the hell kind of uniforms are Miami wearing against UNC?

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Oct 24, 2005 -> 05:07 AM) Rex: In an age where a guy like Willie Harris can be a 25th man because he sucks up almost everything hit his way at second, how the hell could this guy still be in the minors? I'm not doubting you, but even if he hit like .200, it'd be passable, especially if his defense were as advertised. That's some damn high regard your giving that kid, and I'm not doubting it one bit -- just wondering how the hell this kid hasn't cracked a big league roster, regardless of what he's done at the plate. He did.. with the Sox in September 2000. Keep in mind that after that callup, he hit LESS than .200 in full seasons at BOTH AA and AAA. He refused to be coached. A perfect example of his hard-headedness... Hitting coach Gregg Ritchie became utterly frustrated with Dellaero. Minor League Hitting Coordinator Mike Lum had talked to him ad naseum, including a couple of closed door sessions that weren't too quiet on the other side of the door. One day, Ritchie asked Dellaero if he REALLY wanted to get to the big leagues. Jason said he did. Ritchie asked him to trust him and do what he asked him to do even though it would be weird. Jason seemed to be willing. Ritchie asked Dellaero to do everything he could to hit 4 ground balls right at the secondbaseman in that night's game. He said just trust me, and hit the ball as hard as you can on the ground right at the 2B. Said he didn't care at all if he went 0-4, he just wanted him to focus on keeping his front shoulder closed and to see he could still hit the ball hard. They proceeded to work off of the batting tee in the Met's indoor hitting room. Ritchie placed the tee on the outside corner and back a bit to force Jason to stay back and drive the ball the other way. Jason worked for 15 minutes, doing nothing but hitting balls off a tee that would go right at the second baseman. Ritchie seemed happy and felt he had made progress. He thought Dellaero would see that he could stay back on a pitch and drive it hard. Hell, he even hoped that while trying to hit the ball at the 2B he would hit a line drive over his head into RCF. Now it is time for Jason to head to the plate for his first AB. On the first pitch he saw, he pulled off of a curveball so hard that he pulled the ball fould down the LF line right at the opposing bullpen. Ritchie threw down his clipboard and said "I give up". Dellaero hit the ball hard on the next pitch, but right at the LF for an out. He came back to the dugout happy he hit the ball hard. Ritchie just looked at him in astonishment and knew it was hopeless. That help paint the picture???

palehosefan, they decide to start baseball season early in Chapel Hill Saturday? What the hell is up with 7-5? I think those guys and the folks in Tuscaloosa are trying to get a jump on the season.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Oct 23, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) For anyone who has seen the play of Valido, how does his play resemble that of Dellaero? Is it even a comparison? I can barely remember Jason's name, let alone recall a comparison. I haven't Valido, so I can't offer much up in that regard. I do know that Dellaero was a guy that you had to see many times to fully appreciate him. He didn't throw hard over to 1B unless he had to. He didn't seem to have a lot of flash until he made a play that he had no business making. He was very fundamentally sound, but could go in the hole and throw with the best of them. He would routinely field balls that were headed into CF, spin and throw a perfect strike to the 1B to nail the runner. It looked pretty effortless.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Oct 23, 2005 -> 07:55 PM) Postgame yesterday, a reporter asked Crede about his great defense, and Crede said he attributed it to the mentoring of Jason Dellaero. They did play side-by-side in Birmingham. It doesn't surprise me, Dellaero was that good.

Thanks, Heads. I didn't hear the comments that spurred the creation of this thread though. What was said to bring up memories of Jason Dellaero?

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Oct 23, 2005 -> 07:43 AM) Hey girlfriend - don't take it personally. Some of these guys are a little dense that way. :banghead And thanks for the props. I've been reading SoSH a bit recently and enjoy the (mostly) intelligent and sane discourse. dense? in what regard? Jamie could be either a girl or a guy's name.