Monkeypox

Yeah, it would've been 11-0 and everyone would've been happy with wasting our bullpen I guess. Instead, we throw out sacrificial lamb Nippert who's barely pitched the last few years and just got traded to us. Other than the fact that we HAVE pitchers like Nippert on our roster, going up 11-0 and beating LAAAAAAAA doesn't really resemble recent Rangers' baseball, IMO.

Yeah, this one hurts. Another mistake made because JD thought we could contend, so we needed a "more ML ready pitcher."

Our minor league system hasn't been this highly rated in almost 20 years. I don't understand how anyone can say it seems like we always have solid prospects, when I can't remember a single time when there was anything like what we have now. The ceiling of the prospects we have now is decidedly higher. I don't like the presence of guys like Broussard or Cat, but other than Botts, I don't see any young players getting hurt by not playing in the majors right now. If they can't win the battle against the spares we run out on a regular basis, then they're AAAA players anyway. And, to be perfectly fair, Botts has a nasty hole in his swing and has nowhere he can play suitable defense, so while I agree that he's been left down far too long, he didn't make it as difficult a decision as it could've been, though I wish he could wrest some PT away from guys like Cat and Broussard, who bring very little to the team anyway. We don't have any high minors OF prospects because the team HASN'T been properly committed to rebuilding in the past. If they HAD been, they'd have kept AGon and traded Tex, and whatever package we got for him a few years ago would already be up, and we might not have ever buried ourselves with MY's albatross contract. These were the kind of moves that Beane used to make before he went batsh*t ego crazy. It was impatience initially with Volquez that forced their hand on him. He never should've been brought up the first time when he was walking 4-5 batters/9 IP in AAA. If they had left him where he was, he could've been given a proper developmental curve in the minors and we might not have had to push him all the way back to A ball this year, and we might've been able to come up with something else to get Hamilton. It's like those that want Hurley, right now, to be pitching in the majors, when he has plenty to work on in the meantime. It's like those who wish to see Salty in the majors now, despite the fact that he still has a lot to do to get his defensive game up to par, AND we have a young, serviceable starting catcher right now we're trying to drum up interest in. It's not like either one of these guys has gotten the Botts treatment. Who else, Boggs? A 25-yr-old in AA last year? Mayberry, the predictable bust - a 1st round project OF out of college? A guy whose swing they had to re-work and still can't hit the ball? On the Hamilton deal, the reality is that we have more pitching prospects than we do high ceiling OF prospects, and a guy like Hamilton (at one point, the #1 prospect in all of baseball), who is young and under control for a number of years and still has options, was about the best thing you could hope for. I hate hate hate having to deal pitching, and I'm not big on the risk factors with Hamilton, but this trade was about the relative strenghts and weaknesses of two organizations.

Well, this year it seems like they're finally committed to rebuilding, so we'll see. It takes a lot more patience than Hicks has shown in the past, but it appears they're going in the right direction. That said, it's a long journey, and they're pretty lacking in young OF talent and most of the big upside arms they have are in the low minors, so it will be a while. They've got nothing but prayers in the rotation, and no real 1st baseman, so don't look for any immediate success. This thing will be pretty much wheels off for a few years. I also like the moves in the front office (hard NOT to like adding Nolan to the staff), and after JD's initial abysmal trades (CY, AGon, Sorryano), he's done a solid job. It looks like we'll have to wait to see if he can trade for quality major league talent, though. 75 wins territory for this team.

He doesn't have to blow smoke to simply REFRAIN from making a negative comment. I don't believe we'll be in position to win the Sun Belt, but it's pretty silly to talk about how likely it is we'll be out of the race by that point, since it's still only spring. It's not any real prognosticating. He doesn't really have the juevos to make it as a real prediction, but every chance he gets he puts things like that out there. A GOOD journalist would simply say that "most students will be gone and the Sun Belt Conference title could already be decided by then." That's how you play it objectively. It's not hard. Would you say it's blowing smoke to not make a prediction about our potential standing in a Conference Race that won't even START for 6 months? He doesn't need to say "and North Texas might be overlooking ASU as they pack their bag for New Orleans." He just needs to quit being such a turd.

FACT: Gretsch hollowbodies > all everything ever.

Bank of America sent unmarked letters to customers with good credit, arbitrarily raising their credit card interest rates by two and three times. Most people won't read or notice the letters, because they bear no markings for Bank of America and are sent from a random PO Box in Arizona. No joke. If you are carrying a balance on any Bank of America credit cards, you'll want to read this: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...ndex_best+of+bw The basics come down to this. Bank of America is hemorrhaging money because they've been giving unsecured mortgages and credit cards to illegal immigrants. They had loaned a bunch of money to Countrywide (for said mortgages), who was going under (I wonder why), and essentially was forced to buy back their loans by purchasing the failing company. They're losing money really fast and need a quick cash grab. Well, the best bet for that is getting to the people carrying high balances but who have actually shown the ability to pay them, meaning they can transfer the balances or in some other way potentially pay off the cards, avoiding bankruptcy and making sure that BoA gets back the money. BUT, since they need to cover all these mortgages and credit cards that won't ever get paid, they're innocuously raising APRs on the people with actually decent credit. Mine are going from 9.99% and 12.99% to 21.99% and 23.99%. I have not had a late payment or gone over the limit in 7 years. My credit score is solidly above average. I aggressively pay 3 to 5 times the minimums, but carry a balance. Again, THE LETTERS AREN'T MARKED. I have no idea why I opened these, because 99.9999% of these things I shred as soon as I get them. Most people would have NO IDEA they got them, and that's what they're counting on. IF YOU HAVE A BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT CARD, do yourself a favor and check into it.

That's what happens when you pattern your stadium after the Death Star - one little womprat-sized hole and KABLOOEY.

I said they're among the worst ever (one on the LIST). I just don't consider them a great team. They have an AMAZING D-Line, a decent group of linebackers, and that's about it, and, as has been typical the last few years, early favorites in the NFC have played their worst football late in the season. It's not that defense is boring. It's that floating duck passes and receivers who can't hold onto the ball for 90% of the game makes for bad football. The Giants D did an outstanding job dominating the LOS, but there were enough mistakes made by both teams for me to consider this a pretty lame Super Bowl. The New England defense, in its own right, played pretty poorly, which is another reason why I don't think you can point to this just being a defensive game.

Big boys were after Thomas early, but apparently got scared away by academics.

I was pretty ambivalent towards the game, and as such, I have trouble understanding how many people actually found it all that entertaining. I honestly think it has to come from the outcome itself instead of the actual play. The 4th quarter was good, but before that, this was a pretty lame Super Bowl. And yes, the Giants have to be in that list of worst teams to win a SB, but at least theirs was against the Pats. MVP to the Giants D-Line, IMO. Might have to share it with the O-Line in this game.

Plenty of the comments and editorial stuff comes from his articles, because he's a columnist moreso than a beat reporter these days. People say they don't want rah-rah fluff. How about this article (note: not a blog)? This would be Brett Vito as a columnist: Brett Vito: Dodge Needs Support Now More Than Ever (October 8, 2007) http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/....14e2169da.html So do you guys hate that one? Pure fluff. An example of an actual journalistically sound article from Vito: http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/...4.51712fbe.html I think the main problem is that we have ONE guy attempting to fill 3 different roles of columnist, beat reporter, and blogger. And while blogging might be a more informal medium to you or me, most of the big time beat reporters who blog still manage to keep their tone in the blogs strictly informational. Leave the snide comments to idiots like Galloway.

So what you're saying is that some crazy SLC Dodge fan posts a bunch of stuff and you incorrectly attribute his creepy obsessive commentary to Todd Dodge himself?

I don't much anymore, as it's not a good source of information. With only one real beat reporter, I think that's a pretty sad fact for our university. Now, as to guys like FLF who like to use this for their twisted agenda, here's how I see it laying out: 1) Todge shuts Vito out. 2) Vito opts to make his personal opinions known in his professional writings. 3) Vito gets even less useful information from the department, turning his normally half-decent articles into editorial drivel. 4) Vito's fans get mad that Todge is shutting him out. 5) FLF goes off about some more stuff he imagines Todge is feeling or doing that make him inadequate. I don't care whether Vito throws out fluff or vitriole, the QUALITY of the reporting remains the same. Of course, one might be more likely to provide you with sources to actually transmit information to people, which I heard one time was the purpose of the media.

I don't know that anyone's asking for sunshine blown up their asses. Reality is that Vito would have an easier time reporting the ACTUAL truth if he weren't so busy editorializing. Saying that our defense stinks or that we're unlikely to get a recruit because they're visiting some other school or that we're likely to get blown out by LSU isn't really coverage, isn't really news, and isn't really reporting. It's nothing to anyone, and as I mentioned before, only mirrors about 8,000 threads here on this board. I think it's a little silly to defend his reporting by suggesting he's being a responsible journalist just giving us the truth when the very point of these criticisms is that he provides too much opinion into the pieces, and no one can really argue that. And then you have to consider that people were on here whining that it's the athletic department's fault that he's not breaking stories.

Oh, I like him okay, I just think this year he's taken a step backwards. Whether or not it was the racism story or any number of other things, I can't say, but at some point it appeared he torpedoed his own ability to get out stories. If all he's good for now is talking about how our defense stinks or a top prospect probably isn't gonna come here or we're likely to get the beatdown from LSU, then he might as well just be one of any number of posters here. I mean, who doesn't know this stuff?

Vito actually lacks objectivity. He editorializes way too often for people to seriously defend him as a "newshound" journalist. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that it's not his job to editorialize. In fact, it IS his job, since he's a columnist. The problem is that he's also somehow a beat reporter, and those two jobs don't generally work out, because beat reporters can't sacrifice their inside knowledge for the sake of editorializing. Vito's already done that, and it's compromised his ability to actually be a useful reporter.

we did beg our way out of it before they begged their way out of it. sorry if you don't like the term, but whatever. economics 101 would probably dictate that you also count in with that $150,000 the money we would've gotten from Miami, as that was a fairly high paying game in its own right. yes, LSU pays more, but the difference itself when you include the buyout we now have to pay won't be that high. also, in a situation such as this, when you have Miami publicly acknowledging they were looking for a better opponent for the game, i don't understand us being the ones to pull it. combine that with the number of Div 1 opponents looking to fill up their home schedules, it's certainly possible we would've been able to get a buyout FROM Miami when they inevitably cancelled and picked up a 2nd money game, thereby getting paid by two schools to play one game. now, i know what the school decided to do was less risky, because they KNEW Miami would find someone else for the game, but had no idea of the timeframe, meaning that when Miami begged out of the game, we MIGHT have had trouble finding another to offer us a payout such as LSU offered. but still, we're not really going to make much money on the deal, and certainly not as much as we potentially could have. now, maybe that's not how any of it works, but i think it was dumb to beg out of the Miami game when it was clear they were going to do it themselves.

Well, I BELIEVE (and I could be wrong) the problem is that we begged out of the Miami game before Miami did. Miami had already expressed their wishes to dump us, and we preemptively dumped them for the LSU payday.

Sure, $1 million per bodybag game (what's our record so far? $500k?) x 3 bodybag games a year = $3 million We do that 10 years in a row, and we'll have a cool $30 million for a new stadium. So all we have to do is become a perrennial doormat playing 8 away games a year until 2018, and we'll have bought ourselves a fancy new stadium. I don't know about you guys, but I LOVE it.

Our offense struggled tremendously. It was only that the defense was so incredibly terrible it was hard to notice.

man, I've got a DeLoner.

yes, this is so much worse than getting another 6'2", 250 lb defensive lineman that we beat out Rice and SMU and Utah State and La-Mo to get. reality is this is a kid that started out as a tight end and developed into a pro-sized DL frame too late to be picked up by one of the big boys. yes, he's a project, and maybe he won't work out, but it's the right kind of scouting. honestly, if this guy had the skins everyone seems to want, he'd likely be headed elsewhere. we wanted beef along the DL and we got some. i'll choose whether or not to whine about it once he's on the field. in the meantime, i'm rooting for him.

BIG difference between being a DC and being a position coach. And RA was already a college assistant, at this particular college, which makes him a fine candidate for the position, IMO. And don't forget that he's been coaching in this area, and could possibly bring some local recruiting from some very good football schools that have historically evaded us.

Actually, I think more of the blame goes to Special Teams, Jacques Reeves, and a coach who failed to see or solve that Jacques Reeves is the worst DB in the NFL. Everybody knows the secret to beating the Cowboys is getting in 3 receivers and throwing on Reeves. And the Giants were helped out by getting the ball in great field position thanks to a terrible performance by Special Teams. Romo gets plenty of blame for turning into a slug in the 2nd half, but the primary problems in this game were with penalties, special teams, and Reeves.