Monkeypox

I did that for 2003. Last year, I bought a memory card with the rosters off E-Bay and LOVED it.

Well, if you're stupid, you could sign a Todd Van Poppel for $2.5 million. Half of the Rangers current crop are under that, including Kenny Rogers, Cordero, Jeff Nelson, Brian Jordan, David Dellucci... Go to other teams and there's Mike Timlin, Todd Walker, John Thomson... Solid but unspectacular players. The kind SMART teams sign. But the point isn't SIGNING, it's DEVELOPING.

Not ONE free agenct signing. You're forgetting about the HORDES of mediocre veterans they've been bringing in over the last several years. You're forgetting about Juan Gonzalez, Caminiti, Gallarraga, Everett, etc. etc. The fact is the Rangers DIDN'T make a good move with Park (a move I was against from the beginning). All you had to do was look at Park's Home-Away splits and you'd see a very mediocre pitcher outside of the cavernous stadium in LA. Banking on LA pitchers is a bad move, in general. I could go into all the arguments that I (and others) had back then against the signing, but there's no point in it now. My problem with Rangers pitching has never been "Why don't they go out and spend for good pitchers?" but rather "why can't they seem to develop any good pitchers?" So please, when you say "THESE" people, maybe you should qualify who "these people" are. Also, perhaps you missed the POINT of my post, in that Hicks HAS at least $40 million (made primarily from the A-Rod trade, but also from other moves) already he could spend on talented ballplayers for the team, WITHOUT having sold the naming rights to a stadium that the PUBLIC pays for. The selling of the stadium naming rights was lame and unnecessary. If the Rangers have to blow up the payroll to win, I will consider them part of the PROBLEM with baseball.

Yeah, like Chan Ho Park! Yay! The fact is the Rangers have had payrolls around $100 million in recent years WITHOUT a corporate-sponsored ballpark. This proves to me that the selling of the ballpark's naming rights was UNNECESSARY in building the Rangers. Hicks HAS the money, and he's not known to be a WISE spender, which is more important than the AMOUNT you have to spend. Just ask the Los Angeles Dodgers.

No, The Ballpark in Arlington is a great name... It's just "The Ballpark." Corporate names are lame-ass, and The Ballpark had managed to maintain its non-corporate status for 10 years, so why now? Not necessarily a tradition, but I liked that it'd NEVER had a corporate name in its existence.

Ugh... I think I'm gonna puke.

Rogers moved past Bobby Witt for second most wins as a Ranger with 105. Charlie Hough holds the rcord at 139.

And I thought there wasn't any bashing on this board. As far as my hate to work out, I don't have any PERSONAL feelings whatsoever about the QB situation. I do have a logical ability to look at a player's game and determine whether or not I would want him to be a full-time starter for my favorite team. Simple enough. Maybe you should take it less personally, so that you won't have to resort to personal attacks when logic fails. I'm not tearing down Smith to build up Hall. I'm tearing apart everybody's arguments FOR Smith, because they don't have merit. There's always some excuse for why he doesn't complete 50% of his passes, or has more turnovers than TDs, but those are the FACTS. 9-22, 126, 0-1 is NOT picking apart a secondary. I don't care who you play for or what offense you're running, it's not.

Well, I don't consider 9-22, 126 yards, 0TD and 1 INT (79.9 rating) picking apart a secondary. Especially when they're stacking against the run. I criticized Smith for making poor decisions last year. He made plenty, and saying his 3-INT performance against USF was ALMOST WINNING is ridiculous. I also went into a complete breakdown of his numbers last season, and they do not impress me. Also, when I compared their stats, you'll see that I compared an entire season of Scott Hall (2001, where he faced tough OOC opponents) to Andrew Smith's full season (2002). Those numbers alone were disparate enough to let me know who I wanted leading the team. Despite the version of history that some people seem to recollect, I never compared Smith's OOC to Hall's Sun Belt. You don't need any help to see who's the better QB. When people say that Smith "led us to our first bowl victory", I see it as a veiled criticism of our defense and Scott Hall's performance against a tough Colorado State team, and a game in which Scott Hall played well. Also, when people were saying that Smith led us to 7 straight wins, they didn't seem to care that 6 of those games were Sun Belt foes, but when Scott Hall wins, it's because it's against the Sun Belt, and unfair to compare to Smith's play vs. tough OOC opponents. Hall has proven himself the better QB. He's the QB that gives UNT the best chance to win, and THAT is what I care about.

It'll be a shame to see Smith go, because an experienced backup is an important thing to have. That said, I'm one of the "bashers" who has never been terribly impressed with Smith as a starter. It's probably wise for him to go to a school that would give him a better opportunity to start. IF players, and particularly QBs, have a problem with criticism, especially on a message board, then perhaps they need to consider another vocation. IF fan criticism upsets you, you better get ready for the NFL, kids. Imagine an entire city on your back. That's life. Persevere or fold. Prove your critics wrong. I got no problem with that.

Hall was a DB when he started his freshman year. His QB Rating was a 123.6, which is excellent. Smith did not have a very good game vs. Cincy (79.9 QB Rating). If you want to know who won that game, it was our running game and the defense that picked Cincy off 5 times. He didn't manage the offense very well (in the season) if he didn't complete 50% of his passes. That's not acceptable to me. He didn't manage the offense very well if he had more turnovers than TDs. I don't need 300 yards and three TDs. I need efficiency, especially from a team that primarily runs the ball. I would settle for 5-8 125 yards 0 TDs, 0 ints. In a game like La-Monroe, where the Smith only had to throw the ball 5 times, gets sacked for a safety and we win 41-2, you're not going to convince me that it was his passing game that got us there. In a game like Idaho, where Smith goes 3-14 with 50 yards, 0 TDs, 2 ints... you're not going to convince me it was his poise and passing ability that got us the 10-0 win. Both of these were LATE SEASON games. He did EXCELLENT against MTSU and I'll even give him NMSU for his efficiency, but if you want to compare, the only thing that Smith has over Hall is WINS, and I've shown how that's misleading. It bothers ME when people write threads like this, stating that Smith should start OVER HALL simply because of our wins from last year, and act like he lit it up vs. Cincinnatti. They make a lot of statements that have no merit. SMITH is a better passer (despite his lower QB Rating). He's got a better arm (despite a lower yards/completion). He's more mobile (are you joking? Hall ran for 300 yards and 4 TDs his sophomore year). By saying that Smith should start, and giving him credit for the wins, it means you're granting Hall credit for the losses his sophomore year, despite the fact that our offensive line, defense, and running game were much worse in 2001 than they were in 2002. That, and we didn't play a Div. I-AA team in 2001. Do you really want me to compare our defense and running game in 2001 and 2002? First of all, Hall was a BIG PART of the running game in 2001. We had less yardage and less than half the TDs on the ground (not counting Hall) in 2001 than we did in 2002. Our defense was ranked about 50 spots lower in 2001 than it was in 2002. We allowed more than 300 yards of offense on a number of occasions, including teams like Troy State and in the bowl game against CSU. Our PASSING game, however, was much better in 2001 than it was in 2002, in efficiency... not just yardage. It also bothers me when people assume that just because I think Hall should start and that he's a better runner and passer, that I'll be rooting against Smith. If Smith gets the starting job, I PRAY I'm proven wrong on this, and that he lights it up. To assume otherwise is both childish and ridiculous. I'm a Mean Green fan, kids - not a Hall or Smith fan. That said, we're NOT going to be able to win games against quality opponents with inconsistency at QB. Remember USF last year? They stopped our running game and we were forced to put it into Smith's hands. It wasn't pretty. I feel we SETTLED for 8 wins last year. We SETTLED for just winning the Sun Belt. People want to go with the hot hand, and that's the only reason I can see wanting Smith to play. However, it's illogical.

Smith didn't win most of those games, the defense and running game did. We could've had a lot of people in and come up with the same results last year. Smith hasn't shown me anything as a passer. Do you believe his 100.7 QB rating is what won those games? Seriously... Let's see, how did he do in that HUGE NO Bowl win last year? 9-22 (40.6%), 126 yards (not bad), 0 TDs, 1 INT (ran back for 46 yards, directly leading to Cincinnatti field goal). QB Rating of 79.9. 1 sack, 5 attempts for 8 rushing yards (hey, third best rushing game of the year for him!!) Hall played better against Colorado State (110.7 QB Rating, 185 yards) the year before than Smith did vs. Cincinnatti. Smith had 7 games last year with a QB rating BELOW 100. With the exception of QB, everyone on the offense played better last year than the year before. Smith couldn't complete 50% of his passes in games where we rolled up 200 + rushing yards. Hall threw for 937 yards as a starter in only NINE games his freshman year, starting in mid-season. He also had a QB Rating 20 POINTS HIGHER THAN SMITH's was last year. Smith was THERE for 8 wins. In FOUR of those 8 wins, he had a QB Rating of less than 100. In FIVE of those 8 wins, he had less than 100 PASSING yards. Smith didn't HAVE to be good last year, and he wasn't.

Okay, I will re-post this information ONE LAST TIME, so people who ask this kind of question can see it. Here's why I'd rather see Hall starting. I didn't even bring it up this time. Scott Hall: 2000: Freshman year, Hall throws for 937 yards and 6 TDs in limited action. QB Rating of 123.6. Ran for 230 yards. And I remember how bad that offense was. 2001: Sophomore year, Hall throws for 1453 yards, completing 52.6% of his passes, with 17 TDs and 11 INTs. QB Rating of 133.1 is 4th highest in UNT history. Also ran for 328 yards and 4 TDs. 2002: Injured in the first game. Andrew Smith: 2002: Forced into starting role when Scott Hall is injured. Smith completes only 46.4 % of his passes, with 7 TDs and 9 INTs and 1206 yards. QB Rating of 100.7. Negligible rushing yards, with 1 TD.