More random thoughts...
1) Congratulations again to Derek for a) the engagement and b) the A's clinching. It's hard to tell which he is more excited about. If you use the blog as a gauge, we see that he posted three long paragraphs on the A's and a one-paragraph post (entitled "More Bad News..") on his engagement. Hey, I just report, you decide.
2) I hope people are noticing what's going on in the NL Central. Just 8 days ago, the Cards let the Reds by 7 and the Astros by 8 1/2. Now the lead is 1 1/2 over the Astros and 2 1/2 over the Reds. The Cards have lost 7 straight and - if they end up blowing this - would easily be the biggest choke in ML history. I'm sure that would put a smile on Derek's face, knowing who the Cards' manager is.
2a) Can you imagine the logistics if the worst case came to pass? The Cards have a make up game vs. the Giants that has not been rescheduled. If the Reds finish 5-1, Houston finishes 4-2, and the Cards finish 2-4, the Cards would be 1/2 game up on Cincy and Houston. The makeup game would be played on Monday (StL vs SF); if the Cards lose, then there is a three way tie; two of the three teams would play on Tuesday and the winner would play the third team on Wednesday... therefore backing up the NL playoffs until Thursday. Wow.
3) Did you hear the news - as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up - that McDonalds is test marketing serving breakfast all day???? If that goes forward nationwide, I think this blog will sponsor a "Most Sausage McMuffins eaten in one day" contest. I could easily down 8 in one day. Easily. Hell, I've done three in one sitting at Vegas for breakfast!
4) So I log into Drudge yesterday and find the lead story being "Republicans to start launching massive negative ad campaign." This morning I turn on the local news - and I swear, from 6:30 to 7:00, I saw three such ads. We in Cincinnati are going to be inundated with ads from now until November - a competitive Senate race in Ohio, an open governor's seat in OH, and three separate competitive House races, one each in OH, IN and KY. We are ground zero for the political season - with the possible exception of Washington, DC, which will get zapped constantly for ads for the MD Senate and Gov, and the VA Sen races.
4a) My Senate sneak preview is coming. I promise.
5) Sirius took away one of my favorite stations and replaced it with an all-"The Who" channel. I'm pissed, but I feel like if I complain, I'll probably be the only one and they will laugh at me.
6) Thanks to all who responded to the informal Browns' poll - I respect your thoughts. However, this means that the Browns are really just one 52-yard missed FG from being equal to the Steelers.
You can say that reflects more negatively on the Steelers than it reflects well on the Browns - but you have to be consistent in your logic.
3 comments:
Eric - I can't believe that you are mad about trading "The Bridge" (soft classic rock) for 24 hour The Who channel. To me that is like trading Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell.
As far as the Steelers go, I will be consistant with my logic. They aren't a great team *right now*. Their QB is killing them right now and the D looks a little soft. Of course given their recent history, I also expect them to play better as the season roles on. Ben will get healthier and play better, I don't think their D is as bad as they've looked so far.
So if we look at the two teams in a vacuum (i.e. only at these three games) I would say your statement (about a FG being the difference) is correct. But just apply a small slice of additional context, and look at the fact that the Steelers are the defending SB champs - I think you'll realize that your statement is incredibly simplistic.
See, this is what infuriates me...
You guys are the one that say "you are what your record is". So that is looking at those three games in a vacuum. Now you want to look at past performance (i.e., Steelers are Super Bowl champs?) What is this, the college poll system? Well, WV was good last year, so they are a clearly better team than Boise State... of course!
The fact is that the Browns have played much tougher opponents than the Steelers. Period. And they are one game worse.
If you're not allowing me additional "context" to feel good about the Ravens game, fine. But then you can't use the context here.
By the way - you have to know that I love crappy music. I'd trade The Who for Anne Murray, Carly Simon, and Cat Stevens any day.
Eric, I agree with you. Its all about the record, nothing else. Is Pittsburgh better than the Browns. Yes. Simply by record. This is not college football or basketball. So what is your point saying that you are 1 game worse than the Steelers? If we don't care about past performance, who cares about being one game worse than the Steelers.
Post a Comment