iamshack

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 09:20 PM) So who here says Hester isn't a great kick returner? LOL It was really looking like he had lost a step and wouldn't be much more of a returner after the first half of last year...but he's still fast enough to make it happen. Imagine how many td's he would have had he realized he only needed to put a little move on the kicker/punter instead of trying to beat him on the sideline all the time...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) Is Carimi back this week? Not sure. The NFL freaking crazy...Bucs lose 48-3 last week to the Niners and then beat the Saints today. No idea which Bears team or Bucs team will show up next week.

I don't know if Leslie Frazier is clueless, or if the Vikings just fell apart that fast...but he better watch himself.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 08:50 PM) You've made a lot of good points here. Makes me wonder what the hell is going to happen in london. They'll get overconfident in the offensive line after a few performances like this, Martz whill go back to his 30 yard crosses and 40 yard deep outs, and they'll have another game like they did against Detroit. I don't know that it will happen in London, but it will happen at least one more time this year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 07:45 PM) Another part of it is that Minnesota is crap. They absolutely are, but their defensive line isn't bad, and Allen is leading the League in sacks. It's amazing how the smallest things can have such huge ramifications in the NFL. In that respect, the NFL is much different than other sports.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 08:39 PM) I guess those are factors, but it doesn't explain last week fully. It was perhaps the worst offensive line performance Ive ever seen. I know there were only 3 sacks, but that was due to cutler's will. It was the same as in NO, and NY last year...in loud, hostile environments, they get flustered and self-destruct. And Martz seems to refuse to adjust his playcalling or protection schemes, despite Cutler practically being dead. Tonight, they've had 7 guys in several times and max protect a time or two. But you're certainly right, you never quite know what you're going to get from them, which is why I refuse to bet them anymore.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 08:40 PM) It seems like the Bears are really getting fooled on play action. I don't think they're getting fooled...I think they just don't give a s***. They're going to stop AP and make Donovan beat them, and it's pretty clear they don't particularly respect him at this stage of his career.

QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) I don't understand how the offensive line was SO bad last week and looks pretty good tonight against what everyone considers a very tough defensive line. Home game, first of all. Secondly, Martz finally seems to have realized he has to adjust his playcalling philosophy due to a s***bag offensive line. Saaaannnnnnzzzzeeeennnnbaaaaaacccchhhhherrrrr

cockteases

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) And that may be it for this version of the Brewers as competitors. I guess the books out here have a lot of exposure with the Cardinals because in early Sept they were 200-1 to win the NL and 400-1 to win the WS. They were pretty big Brewers fans this week.

I think if I could do it all over again, I definitely would have enrolled at Eugene, OR. How could anyone not like that University?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2011 -> 09:33 PM) See, that whole middle paragraph...that's so like Hawk except he's not rooting for my team and has no catch phrases or quirks. Yeah, and that was Francona who said that. Not McCarver.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 15, 2011 -> 08:23 PM) I'd rather have Edwin jackson in the booth . Seriously, i find it so much easier to follow the game with other color men. When Francona was in there you got legit strategy, discussions of the managers and players thoughts...the stuff I like best about Stoney. McCarver in the booth is like Hawk except without te clear bias and rooting interest on my side. And no good catch phrases. And a nasty habit of being proven instantly wrong (see October 23, 2005). Well, there you have it. I thought Francona added very little, including analysis just as obvious as McCarver...honestly, when managers and coaches come on and do these things it really disappoints me because I envision them having a lot more interesting knowledge, and then it turns out they seem to know pretty much the same as you or I... I like when they what the origin of the word "cheese" was, when used in the context of someone's fastball. First, Francona says he thinks he knows who coined the term, and cites Dennis Eckersley. Then, when Joe Buck tells him it was first used in the mid-19th century, Francona says "oh, I guess I was only 40 years off." The best part of his two nights was when Joe asked him if it was harder than he thought. Francona responded by saying "I really want to chew, and I really want to curse at will. "

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2011 -> 09:13 PM) The level of obviousness to his analysis is absurd, he makes absurd points and says absurd lines at all times, and I honestly don't like the sound of his voice. He seems to interject at weird times too. I like his voice and his little bit of southern charm...I dunno, I guess maybe he reminds me of watching a game with an old-timer or something. You have to remember though, what most of the viewing audience needs is the obvious. There is a reason Fox brings him back again and again and again. Guys that drive me crazy are the former coaches they bring in, like for instance, when Tito was filling in for McCarver because McCarver was having a medical procedure. Francona said the equivalent, or some close derivative of "this guy is one of the best in the game at _____," over and over until his opinion means nothing because he applies precisely the same sentiments to so many different players. Then whenever the umpire would call a pitch a strike that the pitch tracker thingy said was a ball, Francona would interject "I know the Foxtracker didn't like that pitch, but that was a good pitch, right around the plate." Well no s***, Tito, we all have eyes. The point is that while it was close, it was not a strike, it was a close pitch that should have been called a ball. I guess it's to each their own though. There have certainly been many on this forum alone that have panned McCarver as Captain Obvious.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 15, 2011 -> 09:05 PM) If there is one person I want to punch in the face solely because of their commenting on a game, it's Tim McCarver. Everything he says is awful. Simply awful. I always get into an argument with people about McCarver. I don't get the ire...I think he is a bit hokey, but for the vast majority of the viewing audience, I think he makes excellent points. I've listened to just about everyone else they've had doing these games, and with the exception of maybe Brenly, I find McCarver to be infinitely more listenable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 05:29 PM) The guy you cited also gave 30 years, which increases the time again. If nothing else...at least don't cite a page which says that 2.5 million stones in 30 years would have required placement every 90 seconds. The page you cited literally cannot do simple math. His exact setup gives 378 seconds per stone, not 90. The point remains the same. I apologize for the incorrect math. Go back to placing your 20 ton stones every 5 minutes every day for 20 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 05:14 PM) It's iffy...but there are a few texts that date back nearly that far and tell fairly detailed historical accounts which can be matched up with archaeological information. For example, there's very plausibly a solid correlation between the 3 days of darkness referred to in the Bible and the eruption of the Greek Island of Santorini. I have a history degree. I'm not claiming all history is wrong. I'm saying to consider it reliable, in the same sense you might consider something derived from what we consider "the scientific method," is complete and utter bulls***. History is the observations and interpretations of human beings, written down, sometimes drawn, or passed down via oral tradition. Obviously, this is very prone to subjective bias, not to even mention moral, political, and numerous other external forces.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 05:10 PM) Do the math yourself man. 20 years = 6 x 10^8 seconds. 2 million stones in 6 x 10 ^8 seconds is 315 seconds per stone. 315 seconds is 5 minutes, 15 seconds. There are three pyramids supposedly built in this timeframe. The Great Pyramid had approximately 2.5 million stones alone. I think that is why your math is not adding up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) You know, some of our best records for volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and weather comes from written records. The Royal Navy in particular was wonderful at this, they spent centuries recording the noontime water temperature in the exact same way. We know when a whole lot of events happened from historical records...and then when we check things like the date of the rock, age dates of fires, superposition of earthquake layers, things work surprisingly well. Explain to me the scientific process involved in the recording of events say, 5,000 years ago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 05:00 PM) You're off by an order of magnitude here. 20 years of construction would have required about a block every 5 minutes. I read the same thing on Wikipedia, Balta. There are other theories... Link

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) There's absolutely a scientific process involved in history, archaeology, anthropology, etc. I'm pretty shocked anyone would completely deny that. I'd love to hear the scientific process involved in history, especially, anything written prior to 1900.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:39 PM) Formally? No. But I do know and understand that scientific process and, to an extent, the academic publishing process. It is far more rigorous than the process a pop-psuedohistory book goes through. There is no scientific process involved in History. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it. The sources are built on years and years of documents, which were created when? Certainly before there were any rigorous academic standards. Archaeology is about as theoretical a field you can get as anything. "Based on what has been left here, this is what we think..." Again, I'm certainly not saying mainstream science is not the best manner in which to approach things. But in the absence of evidence necessary for it to be useful, it really offers very little.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 04:32 PM) I'd like to see those calculations, the data they're based on and the sources for that data. Crank science often has a whole lot of 'evidence' like this that turns out to be BS. That's simply untrue. One group follows rigorous standards. The other group writes pop-pseudohistory books for mass consumption, not critical peer evaluation. Rigorous standards? Have you studied history/archaeology AT ALL?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) That modern people can't figure out how ancient people would have done something doesn't mean that they couldn't or didn't do it, and it certainly doesn't lend any actual support to claims that they must have been built by aliens or advanced civilizations of which there is no evidence at all. Those are simply "just so" stories. Modern archaeological explanations do not have all of the answers. Hell, modern (insert scientific field) explanations do not have all of the answers. But they do all follow the best path to the truth that we have: the scientific method. Crank science and crank history don't, and it's plainly clear which claims lack any methodological rigor. It's no different than cryptozoology or any other pseudoscience. It's not just a manner of knowing how...it's a matter of it being physically impossible and completely illogical to do some of the things that they did. What is it, the Great Pyramid of Giza that supposedly was built in 20 years? It's been calculated that they would have had to place a new stone every THREE SECONDS for it to have been built in that time frame. Impossible. I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else of these "crank" theories. All we're pointing out is that the mainstream science is full of just as much crank as the non-mainstream theories.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 14, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) I don't think that's a supportable claim. There is no evidence to support the existence of much of these remains/formations. The mainstream theories have been proven to be completely inadequate. The fact that these things exist, and the degree of architecture/craftsmanship/precision, when taken in the context of everything else we know about these cultures, simply is inexplicable. To say that they were built by those cultures simply because those cultures existed, is as flimsy a claim as to say that they must have been built by more advanced organisms or with the help of more advanced organisms from another planet.