Two different directions

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Cain was the only one to have pitched a perfect game. Some were close I'm sure, but couldn't quite finish it off. Cain finished what he started because he didn't let the pressure and the situation get the best of him

Rog -- Matt pitched a perfect game because of an unbelievable catch. Jonathan Sanchez may have actually pitched an even better game in 2009, but lost it not because of his own doing, but because of an error at third base.

You see how lucky Matt was, don't you?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2Ea0pRCC6

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- The accolades and trophies keep rolling in with these guys, perhaps it's time to stop calling it just talent and luck.

Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, and you might be right. But let's not forget that back in 2010 the Braves' second baseman -- in the lineup only because of injury IIRC -- handed the Giants the NLDS.

And this past postseason, the Giants twice were facing elimination where they needed to win three in a row to stay alive. One can look at that situation and say that overcoming both of those extremely tough circumstances proves how good the Giants were -- especially since they then went on to sweep the Tigers.

But I would ask this: If that situation would have been replayed 100 times, how many times do you think this Giants team would have won? My guess is that if they were able to win more than twice, they would have been doing exceptionally well.

Yes, the Giants did it, and for that they should be quite proud. But if the same situation were to arise again between the same teams, it is highly unlikely the Giants could pull it off again.

To be able to do something time after time is greatness. To pull it off once but not be able to duplicate if the situation were replicated, is luck.

Let's take nothing away from the Giants' accomplishment. But let's also not forget that it would be unlikely that they could do it again.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2Ebi58wdh

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Michael Jordan and Larry Bird understand.

Joe Montana understands.

Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera understand.

Buster Posey, Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum after this year, understand.

Rog -- Those guys understand. And they have a lot of talent. And they have really good teammates. And they had a little luck to bring it all together.

Let me ask you this: Was Michael Jordan any less determined when he stunk as a baseball player? If anything, he might have been MORE determined, since he was facing a bigger challenge.

If Michael truly understood, and it was that important to understand, why couldn't he bring it to baseball.

I have posted this before, but perhaps it bears repeating. One winter, instead of playing basketball, Michael was taking batting practice in a stadium in Arizona. There were four people at the stadium. My dad was one of the four, shagging balls.

Determination, unwavering mindset, and the refusal to lose.

That's what brings you two WS championships in three years.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=1#ixzz2Ec79amS7

[Islandboagie]

Boagie -- Michael Jordan and Larry Bird understand.

Joe Montana understands.

Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera understand.

Buster Posey, Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum after this year, understand.

Rog -- Those guys understand. And they have a lot of talent. And they have really good teammates. And they had a little luck to bring it all together.

Let me ask you this: Was Michael Jordan any less determined when he stunk as a baseball player? If anything, he might have been MORE determined, since he was facing a bigger challenge.


Boagie- If playing one season at the AA level and giving up shows determination to you then I don't think we'll ever agree on this topic. You and I apparently have a different idea of what determination is.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Determination, unwavering mindset, and the refusal to lose.

That's what brings you two WS championships in three years.

Rog -- A team can't just decide to refuse to lose, no matter how unwavering it is in its mindset and how determined it is.

It's just not that easy.

I certainly don't mean to say being determined isn't important, but by itself, it's hardly enough.

PLENTY of losing teams have been determined.

If the Giants could in essence WILL itself to win, what happened from July 25th through August 2nd? What happened was that the Giants lost 7 out of 8 games -- at home! What happened was that one of our posters gave up on the team because it couldn't win consistently at home. He said losing three out of four to the lowly Mets cost them the postseason.

But, you say, the Giants didn't have Hunter Pence and Marco Scutaro, and indeed they didn't have that pair for the whole eight games. Yet the Giants lost the last two games of that streak AFTER they had Pence, and they lost five of six after they acquired Scutaro.

You could argue that they weren't yet a determined team, that they didn't become determined until they lost Melky Cabrera (in which case he STILL might have been the league MVP, in an ironic sort of way). But that doesn't quite fit, either, since the Giants had won eight of their last 12 games when they lost Melky. In other words, their fine run the rest of the season had already begun WITH Melky there.

And they LOST their first game without Melky.

OK, you say, losing those seven out of eight games at home is what brought about the determination in the first place. That would perhaps be a more logical argument, or at least one that fit better with the way the season played out.

But if so, how did they get down two games to none to the Reds in the first place, giving themselves perhaps a one in 10 chance of winning the series? How did they get down to the Cardinals, three games to one?

If the Giants refused to lose, did they suddenly lose that determination on the days that they lost?

I believe the Giants had a good team and that like in 2010, they got hot at the right time. In fact, my biggest worry in September of this past season was that they got hot TOO early. It turned out they were able to sustain it.

We talk about 2010 and 2012 as being "magic." To some extent they were.

Was that "determination, unwavering mindset, and the refusal to lose?" I would agree with you that it was. But I believe it was much more, including talent and at least a little luck.

Can we agree that the team that wins the World Series isn't necessarily the best team, but moreso the team that got hot at the right time? In both 2010 and 2012, the Giants got hot at the right time.

In 2010, with the aid of a backup Braves second baseman forced into action, the Giants won fairly handily. This past season they hung on by the skin of their teeth -- and then suddenly were able to almost coast through the finale.

Two different seasons, which shared the factor of "magic." Hard to say what goes into "magic," but can we show that a lot of it ISN'T luck?

Something that was a BFO (brilliant flash of the obvious) to me years ago. There's a lot of luck involved in a low-scoring game. Does the fielder make a diving catch, or does it fall in by an inch? Is the runner safe, or out by an inch? Does the umpire call the critical pitch that could go either way a ball or a strike? Does he flat-out miss a call?

Does the manager make the call that is less than optimal -- and still have it work out? Does he make the right call, and then have it fail?

In virtually any low-scoring game, if the two teams are fairly evenly matched, luck often plays a big part in the outcome.

Baseball is a HUGE parity game. Few teams win more than three out of five games. Few teams lost more than three out of five.

Things get magnified in a short series (or chain of short series). In terms of getting hot in its most focused, the Giants got red-hot in their last seven games, winning each and every one of them.

The Giants had 150 chances this past season to win seven straight games. Know how many times they did so? That would be none. Even with some of those opportunities involving only HOME games. Even with most of those games involving opponents not nearly as tough as the Cardinals and Tigers.

If a team could will itself to win with "determination, unwavering mindset and refusal to lose" all by itself, it wouldn't lose a game. The last time I looked, the Giants didn't go 173-0 last season.

If "determination, unwavering mindset and refusal to lose" can't guarantee winning each and every game, it can't guarantee winning each and every series. And if it can't guarantee winning each and every series, it can't guarantee winning the World Series.

How important is determination? We know it has an impact. We just don't know how much.

I really, really, really wish I could choose determination over talent, but I can't just do it. Can you?

If talent is equal, I'll choose determination virtually every time. But even then, I won't win every series, and I won't win the World Series all the time.

If Boly had the talent, he would be in the Hall of Fame. Sadly, even though he has gone on to a wonderful life, he didn't. Otherwise, he would be right there with Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson and Denton True Young, even though that is far from age-appropriate.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#7889#ixzz2EfJjqdMK

[sharksrog]

Rog -- Let me ask you this: Was Michael Jordan any less determined when he stunk as a baseball player? If anything, he might have been MORE determined, since he was facing a bigger challenge.


Boagie- If playing one season at the AA level and giving up shows determination to you then I don't think we'll ever agree on this topic. You and I apparently have a different idea of what determination is.

Rog -- I think Michael was determined to get back to the NBA once his 18-month "off the books" suspension ended. Had he been as good at baseball as he was at basketball, I suspect he would have shown his great determination by trying to play both sports. Or possibly even by playing baseball alone.

You just described a context in which indeed Michael WASN'T determined. Was he a different guy than he had been playing basketball?

Or was his talent level just a lot different?

I actually think you just showed how talent usually wins out over determination. Michael Jordan had Michael Jordan determination. He is said to be one of those who hates to lose, an athlete who tries as hard not to lose on the golf course as on the basketball court.

One would guess that determination carried over to his baseball career, since that endeavor took place on a level far higher than his golf game.

But try as he might, Michael's determination just couldn't get the job done.

By the way, The Baseball Cube gives Michael a high rating for patience and a very high rating for speed. But it gives him a horrendous rating for batting, contact and power. Over which one of those did he have the most control? That would be patience, and he did indeed get a high rating there.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2EfchFxNW

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- I think Michael was determined to get back to the NBA once his 18-month "off the books" suspension ended. Had he been as good at baseball as he was at basketball, I suspect he would have shown his great determination by trying to play both sports. Or possibly even by playing baseball alone.

You just described a context in which indeed Michael WASN'T determined. Was he a different guy than he had been playing basketball?

Or was his talent level just a lot different?

Boagie- The talent was there, of course, but what separated Jordan from the others was his determination. As the story goes - He didn't make the varsity team when he was a sophmore in HS. His coach described him as just an average player at that point, but he worked his ass off to get to a varsity level for next season. ALL his coaches down the line have stated that Jordan spent more time in the gym and more time in the weight room than anyone else. He was always the first in line for drills..ect ect. That's determination and drive. Michael Jordan wasn't born a great basketball player, he made himself one.

Jerry Rice is another example of a player who had talent but the dedication to his workout regimen is what made him one of the best receivers in football history.

[donk]

most kids didn't make the varsity when they are a soph. in high school....if they were 14 or 15 years old...and the better athletes played different sports in their seasons...to say that Jordan worked hard to become a better basketball player might be overkill...he got older and more mature and probably kept growing....today's better athletes are sometimes told to pick one sport and play it all year round....some pick the wrong sport and lose out on what might have been in another sport....Jordan is a good example on someone gets to much admiration as a sports hero and it over shadows his life style....he is a heavy gambler who has lost lots of money in the casinos and on the golf links.....and after he lost 2 million the night before a playoff game against the Knicks, I thought he was working overtime to "shave" points with lots of turnovers to keep the score down.....but the Knicks were turning the ball over right back to the Bulls.....I think Jordan was forced to take that leave....if they turned him in it might of been the end of the NBA.....I sweat pro sports in today's environment...too much gambling, too many games....

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- As the story goes - He didn't make the varsity team when he was a sophmore in HS. His coach described him as just an average player at that point,

Rog -- An even better story is that Bill Russell wasn't a high school starter unti lhe was a senior. I don't even know how his McClymonds team did his senior year, but I do know he soon became a title machine.

Of course, Russ had some pretty good talent surrounding him in college and with the Celtics.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#7894#ixzz2Eh95qdQF

[Islandboagie]

Don- most kids didn't make the varsity when they are a soph. in high school....

Boagie- That's very true, Don, most kids don't. However, I'd be willing to bet that most future NBA stars likely do make the varsity team by their sophomore year.

[allenreed]

By the way, Willie wouldn't have caught that ball had he been the center fielder. His wonderful ability to go back on balls had him playing a very shallow center field. Even he couldn't have gotten back to that one.

Allen- Matter of opinon. I'd say it depends on what year the ball was hit. In the 50s and early 60s, I think he would have. In the seventies probably not.

[allenreed]

Jerry Rice is another example of a player who had talent but the dedication to his workout regimen is what made him one of the best receivers in football history.

Allen- One of the best? Jerry Rice is not only the best receiver in NFL history, he's the greatest player in NFL history. No one else is really even close.

[Islandboagie]

Allen- One of the best? Jerry Rice is not only the best receiver in NFL history, he's the greatest player in NFL history. No one else is really even close.

Boagie- I'm inclined to agree with you, Allen. I just didn't want to say "the best" because I don't know enough about football to make that claim. Plus eventhough someone would seem the best without question, there's always someone who might think otherwise, and that wasn't my point.

For example, as far as numbers, Barry Bonds would easily be the best baseball player of this era, would you agree?

[allenreed]

If you want to suspend reality and disregard the fact that he cheated, then sure. He may have been the best player of his time without cheating, but due to his selfishness and lack of integrity, we'll never know. Sadly, neither will he.

[donk]

Dec 23, 2012 9:57:54 GMT -5 Islandboagie said:

Allen- One of the best? Jerry Rice is not only the best receiver in NFL history, he's the greatest player in NFL history. No one else is really even close.
dk..I'm not even sure that Rice was as good as Don Hutson....even though Hutson couldn't rest between catches or sit on the bench when his team was on defense,,Hutsn was not only a great end, he was a very good defensive back and in his spare time he did the punting and place kicking.....and I think Jim Brown, among several guys, was certainly as good or better than Rice as a player...

[sharksrog]

Rog -- By the way, Willie wouldn't have caught that ball had he been the center fielder. His wonderful ability to go back on balls had him playing a very shallow center field. Even he couldn't have gotten back to that one.

Allen- Matter of opinon. I'd say it depends on what year the ball was hit. In the 50s and early 60s, I think he would have. In the seventies probably not.

Rog -- I have a question for you on that ball, Allen. How long do you think it was in the air before Gregor caught it?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2FxEMZsEI

[sharksrog]

Allen- One of the best? Jerry Rice is not only the best receiver in NFL history, he's the greatest player in NFL history. No one else is really even close.

Rog -- On the NFL Network, Jerry was indeed picked as the greatest player of all time. I personally thought it should have been Jim Brown, but either one was likely a good choice.

But to say that no one was really even close to Jerry seems rather narrow to me.

I think Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player, but to say that Willie Mays wasn't even close seems rather to me, as well.

I think Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player, but to say Michael Jordan wasn't even close?

I think Wayne Gretzky was the greatest hockey player, but to say that Mario Lemieux wasn't close?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2FxF3sYR5

[Islandboagie]

Allen- If you want to suspend reality and disregard the fact that he cheated, then sure. He may have been the best player of his time without cheating, but due to his selfishness and lack of integrity, we'll never know. Sadly, neither will he.

Boagie- I was never really a big Barry fan, Allen. But I think it's quite clear he was the best player BEFORE he started taking steriods. This is why he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I was never really a big Barry fan, Allen. But I think it's quite clear he was the best player BEFORE he started taking steriods. This is why he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Rog -- You may have seen on Clubhouse Confidential how many ways various analysts view the issue of whether Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. The views pretty much vary from "Of course," to "No way," with many points of view including your aforementioned "He was already a Hall of Famer" in between.

What bothers me about Allen -- and long has -- is that he refuses to acknowledge any view aside from his own.

And your point about mentioning Ellis Burks and missing the narrow time frame is a good one. It was, however, an honest mistake. I don't think Allen's was.

Your post on that thread did show (and I appreciated the smiley face) that my comment about Allen was wrong.

If I had a vote, I would need to spend considerable time on whether to vote for Barry. My intitial thought is that I would, but I have VERY mixed emotions about the subject. If I decided NOT to vote for Barry, I can't imagine I would ever do so.

Some won't vote for Barry the first time around, but might do so in the future. For me, he either deserves it or he doesn't. If he deserves it, why not vote for him the first time around?

I realize the rationale for making a slight "punishment" by not allowing him to become a FIRST-BALLOT Hall of Famer. I simply think it is childish -- and to some extent, perhaps, a way of side-steppping the serious ethical issue involved here.

The ironic point is that one side of me says, "Of course." The other side says, "No way."

What bothers me is that Allen doesn't see anyone's opinion besides his own. It may be that the integrity of one's opinion is in direct proportion to his ability to see all sides, explore why those who have various opinions may have come to their decisions, and then make a decision in as unbiased a manner as possible.

For one not to even acknowledge why someone might think differently than they, seems very biased to me. It demonstrates narrow-mindedness and, frankly, a lack of respect for the opinions of others.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#8047#ixzz2FzMv9f5L

[allenreed]

dk..I'm not even sure that Rice was as good as Don Hutson....even though Hutson couldn't rest between catches or sit on the bench when his team was on defense,,Hutsn was not only a great end, he was a very good defensive back and in his spare time he did the punting and place kicking.....and I think Jim Brown, among several guys, was certainly as good or better than Rice as a player

Allen- It's all there in the record book, Don. Rice has 210 career TDs, Hutson 103. Hutson has 7991 receiving yards, Rice has 22895. Hutson had 488 career receptions, Rice had 1549. Rice had four seasons of 100+ catches. Hutson broke 60 catches just once. Let me ask you this. How do you think Hutson would have done attempting to cover Rice?

[allenreed]

[quote author=donk board=general thread=1401 post=8032 dk..I'm not even sure that Rice was as good as Don Hutson....even though Hutson couldn't rest between catches or sit on the bench when his team was on defense,,Hutsn was not only a great end, he was a very good defensive back and in his spare time he did the punting and place kicking.....and I think Jim Brown, among several guys, was certainly as good or better than Rice as a player

Allen- You're certainly closer with Brown than you were with Hutson. Brown, like Wilt, is a guy who simply was way ahead of his time physically. I'd still give it to Rice because he was dominant for a much longer period of time. But Brown is very close.

[allenreed]

Boagie- I was never really a big Barry fan, Allen. But I think it's quite clear he was the best player BEFORE he started taking steriods. This is why he should be a first ballot Hall of Famer. [/quote]

Allen- Alot of people think that way. I believe Barry was a HOF lock before he started cheating. The issue now is do you want to put cheaters in the HOF? I say no, but that's just one man's opinion. I can't see giving someone who cheated the game's greatest honor.

[sharksrog]

dk..I'm not even sure that Rice was as good as Don Hutson....even though Hutson couldn't rest between catches or sit on the bench when his team was on defense,,Hutsn was not only a great end, he was a very good defensive back and in his spare time he did the punting and place kicking

Rog -- Hutson was indeed a WONDERFUL player. I might like Sammy Baugh even better. On Slingin' Sammy's resume is the season in which he intercepted more passes as a defensive back then he threw as a quarterback.

On the other side of this issue, should we be basing the "best" player on the old days when the players played both ways? Quite an accomplishment, but also an indication of how much better the game is today.

To me, the issue of who is the greatest isn't as clear in football as in, say, baseball. Babe Ruth isn't a unaminous choice, but he's about as close as anyone is likely to be.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#8052#ixzz2FzYkeXtD

[sharksrog]

Allen- It's all there in the record book, Don. Rice has 210 career TDs, Hutson 103. Hutson has 7991 receiving yards, Rice has 22895. Hutson had 488 career receptions, Rice had 1549. Rice had four seasons of 100+ catches. Hutson broke 60 catches just once.

Rog -- It isn't even close to being in the record books, Allen. The passing game has evolved so MUCH. Remember back when we were kids, when 50% was a good completion percentage? Now it's closer to 67%.

They threw a lot less when Hutson played, and completed a much lower percentage. Hutson led the NFL in touchdown catches in 9 of his 11 seasons. Rice led in 6 of his 22 years.

Hutson led in reception yards 7 of his 11 seasons. Rice led in 6 of 22. Hutson led the league in receptions in 8 of his 11 season. Rice led in 2 of 22.

You seem to be looking at only one side of the issue, Allen.

Allen -- Let me ask you this. How do you think Hutson would have done attempting to cover Rice?

Rog -- He couldn't have come close to doing so. The game has improved and evolved that much.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2FzZrL3sd

[allenreed]

Dec 24, 2012 12:47:48 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Allen- It's all there in the record book, Don. Rice has 210 career TDs, Hutson 103. Hutson has 7991 receiving yards, Rice has 22895. Hutson had 488 career receptions, Rice had 1549. Rice had four seasons of 100+ catches. Hutson broke 60 catches just once.

Rog -- It isn't even close to being in the record books, Allen. The passing game has evolved so MUCH. Remember back when we were kids, when 50% was a good completion percentage? Now it's closer to 67%.

They threw a lot less when Hutson played, and completed a much lower percentage. Hutson led the NFL in touchdown catches in 9 of his 11 seasons. Rice led in 6 of his 22 years.

Hutson led in reception yards 7 of his 11 seasons. Rice led in 6 of 22. Hutson led the league in receptions in 8 of his 11 season. Rice led in 2 of 22.

You seem to be looking at only one side of the issue, Allen.

Allen- Hutson was one of the best players of his time, no doubt. But comparing him to Rice would be like comparing Tommy Henrich to Willie Mays. Rice holds nearly all of the records a guy who played his position could hold (although Calvin Johnson just eclipsed his yardage record, I believe).

Allen -- Let me ask you this. How do you think Hutson would have done attempting to cover Rice?

Rog -- He couldn't have come close to doing so. The game has improved and evolved that much.

Allen- Ok, let me ask you this. Do you think Rice, who never played a down as a DB would have much trouble covering Hutson?
The game has improved and evolved. Bigger, stronger, faster makes a huge difference in football. Rice was able to dominate for a long, long time in a much better game. He caught 92 balls at age 40, a number Hutson never approached. Hutson was done at age 32.
I think you cited earlier that Rice was voted the best player in NFL history by the NFL network. Where did Hutson land on that list? I believe he was ninth. That was too high.

[donk]

You two have a queer way at looking at record books....Hutson played in 116 games and Rice played in 303 games.....wow, we all can see how Rice's totals are better than Hutson's....and just think how much improved his records would be if he only had to play offense and got a blow anytime he wanted to.....the game wasn't all that different when Hutson played ...and I wouldn't be all that surprised if Hutson could cover any end in today's game if he wasn't distracted by having to play offense, too...and anyone who ranked Hutson 9th should be barred from selecting all time teams....

[Islandboagie]

Allen- Alot of people think that way. I believe Barry was a HOF lock before he started cheating. The issue now is do you want to put cheaters in the HOF? I say no, but that's just one man's opinion. I can't see giving someone who cheated the game's greatest honor.

Boagie- I respect your opinion here, Allen, I think that would be the fair thing to do. Therefor Gaylord Perry should be kicked out. Anyone who ever used a corked bat should be kicked out. Any pitchers who used sandpaper or nail files should be kicked out.

Since Barry was never technically caught taking steriods, then everyone else suspected of taking them should receive the same fate.

I happen to think Rickey Henderson took steriods, lets boot his ass out.

Babe Ruth had some monster numbers. It's suspicious if you compare them to the numbers everyone else from that era put up...Obviously he was juicing, we need to boot him from the Hall of Fame too.

Or we can just let MLB decide, and so far MLB seems to want to keep steriods around.

[allenreed]

Dec 24, 2012 16:49:25 GMT -5 donk said:

You two have a queer way at looking at record books....Hutson played in 116 games and Rice played in 303 games.....wow, we all can see how Rice's totals are better than Hutson's....and just think how much improved his records would be if he only had to play offense and got a blow anytime he wanted to.....the game wasn't all that different when Hutson played ...and I wouldn't be all that surprised if Hutson could cover any end in today's game if he wasn't distracted by having to play offense, too...and anyone who ranked Hutson 9th should be barred from selecting all time teams.

Allen- Don, you're just delusional when it comes to this stuff. The games not that different? Did they even have facemasks when Hutson played? Hutson would be lucky to catch 10 passes a year against the DBs Rice played against. Rice would just run wild against Don's opponents, as he did against the better DBs he played against.

[sharksrog]

Allen- Ok, let me ask you this. Do you think Rice, who never played a down as a DB would have much trouble covering Hutson?

Rog -- With a minimal amount of training, I think Rice would have little trouble. By the way, think how great Willie Mays might have been as a defensive back.

Allen -- The game has improved and evolved. Bigger, stronger, faster makes a huge difference in football.

Rog -- But not much difference at all in baseball. I get it.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2G8KpMX6y

[sharksrog]

Don -- anyone who ranked Hutson 9th should be barred from selecting all time teams....

Rog -- This is the type of ridiculousness I hate seeing from you and Allen. We may or may not agree that Don should have been selected as low as 9th, but no one should be barred from selecting all-time teams simply because he ranked Don that "low."

How about those who rank Don LOWER than 9th? Should they be taken out and shot?

As an aside, I would more than highly recommend anyone here get hold of the movie, "Life is Beautiful." I watched it today for the third time, and I think I cried more than any previous time.

If I hadn't seen the film, I would have been APPALLED at the thought of combining the Holocaust with the word comedy. But if any film can pull it off, this is the film.

To the point where it received a "tremendous" reception and won the award for Best Jewish Experience at the Jerusalem Film Fest.

I should note that not everyone agrees that this seemingly impossible accomplishment has truly been accomplished. Some felt it trivialized the horror of the Holocaust.

I myself felt at least as horrified about that unthinkably inhumane period of our history as before watching the film, but I also came away with a renewed sense of the potential for the triumph of the human spirit.

I would hope that viewers of all faiths would continue to understand the horror here, yet come away with even more respect for the unspeakable horror the Jews endured -- and also a stronger belief in the human spirit's power.

Might I add that the hero of the film is Jewish -- although the creator and star of the movie is not. Until I read otherwise, I would have sworn that the film's creator was indeed Jewish himself.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1401&page=2#ixzz2G8LMztiq