[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.music.classical.guitar

please ignore, just testing

Angel de Vicente

7/5/2011 11:14:00 AM

only testing
9 Answers

Andrew

12/18/2011 3:16:00 AM

0

On Dec 17, 6:16 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:27:48 -0500, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:28:06 -0800 (PST), "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 16, 11:18 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:59:23 -0800 (PST), "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >Yeah, well there are counter-examples too.  Including a couple of
> >>> >recent Super Bowls: Colts over Bears and Rams over Titans.
>
> >>> >If you don't think GB has been dominant, I have to suspect that you
> >>> >haven't seen many Packers games.  I actually predicted after the
> >>>> >>>playoffs last year that GB would potentially go undefeated this year.
> >>> >They have taken out several teams with dominant defenses and good
> >>> >running games--the Bears, the Lions, the Giants.
>
> >>> Stop right there.  The Giants have neither a good running game nor a
> >>> good defense this year.  Trust me on this.
>
> >>Well now, the Giants held the Patriots to fewer points than any other
> >>team has this year.  They maybe haven't been consistent, but when they
> >>put it together, they are very strong defensively.
>
> >Most teams can put together one really strong effort, that says little
> >about the quality of their offense or defense.  Over the course of the
> >season the Giants have given up far too many yards and (more
> >importantly) far too many points.  The running game has been horrible,
> >but Eli has raised his game considerable and turned Victor Cruz into a
> >star (at least for this year).
>
> To add to this a little - the Giants defense is based on having the
> front four get lots of pressure on the quarterback.  When they are
> healthy they are very good at doing this, it allows them to cover up
> weaknesses at linebacker and in the secondary.  However, Tuck has been
> hurt most of the year, Osi has been in and out, only Jason Pierre-Paul
> has been consistent at getting the QB (and blocking field goals and
> whatever else needs to be done - he no longer looks like he was a
> reach pick).  Against the Patriots the Giants were fairly healthy up
> front and thus were able to pressure Brady and make plays.

Man, I loved Pierre-Paul in college - all raw talent, capable of
making multiple phenomenal plays in a game, but just as capable of
disappearing for an entire game. It seemed like his entire game was
based on just being a superior athlete to everybody else on the field
with him and I didn't think that would carry over to the NFL. But, not
only is he still often the best athlete in the field, he's also really
been coached up. Can't say enough good things about the Giant coaching
staff's handling of him. He reminds me of Jevon Kearse when Kearse was
still The Freak. Here's hoping that guy can avoid injuries long enough
to continue to put on a show for a good stretch of years here...

Andrew

12/18/2011 9:19:00 PM

0

On Dec 17, 8:29 am, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:41 am, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:59 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 7:30 pm, Andrew <amuraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 1:47 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 13, 1:11 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > news:b8fd0988-7553-4461-beec-Folks are pretty appalled by the Pats defense
> > > > > > around Boston.  We all
> > > > > > love Belichick, but his personnel decisions in the secondary over the
> > > > > > past 3-4 years have been, well, "below abysmal" is the only way to
> > > > > > describe it.
>
> > > > > > Peace,
> > > > > > Neil X.
>
> > > > > > ========================================================================================
>
> > > > > > well below.
> > > > > > for some reason he won't pay DBs and he thinks he can scheme for any bum
> > > > > > back there.
> > > > > > why any team ever runs the ball against the Pats puzzles me..
>
> > > > > > I hold few hopes for a SB win this year.
>
> > > > > I'm not certain there is any AFC team  that can beat GB (or NO, for
> > > > > that matter.)  But I think the Pats have as good a chance as anyone.
> > > > > Their offense can put up points to match GB.  Teams that depend of
> > > > > shutting down the other guy's offense are doomed against the Packers.
> > > > > The only team in the AFC that has a chance against GB is the Patriots,
> > > > > IMO.  Not a very big chance, but a chance.  The challenge will be
> > > > > getting to the Super Bowl in the first place.
>
> > > > I don't see the Pack as even remotely dominant, for some reason. Maybe
> > > > I'm just old-fashioned, but given their weak running game and a
> > > > defense that is hardly dominating, I could easily imagine them getting
> > > > knocked off. I'm aware of the current state of the NFL enough to know
> > > > that strong running games and dominant defenses are getting to be
> > > > quaint ideas anymore, and certainly pass-first offenses and stop-the-
> > > > pass-first defenses are the norm, but I've seen enough football to
> > > > know that it is easier to get that type of team out of sync than it is
> > > > to get a more conservative team out of sync. As a Patriot fan, I would
> > > > think you'd have learned that lesson in SBs XLII and XXXVI, if nowhere
> > > > else.
>
> > > Yeah, well there are counter-examples too.  Including a couple of
> > > recent Super Bowls: Colts over Bears and Rams over Titans.
>
> > I don't think either of those qualifies as a counter-example, since
> > neither the Titans nor Bears were dominant teams. My point is not that
> > pass-first teams can't win Super Bowls, just that I don't think I'd
> > ever call any of them dominant because a good defensive team and a
> > team built on ball-control offense can take pass-first team out of
> > sync rather easily, certainly far more easily than the other way
> > around.
>
> > > If you don't think GB has been dominant, I have to suspect that you
> > > haven't seen many Packers games.
>
> > No, you're right, I haven't. Looking back at their schedule, I saw
> > their first three games (NO, @Car, @Chi, their game @Atl, then didn't
> > watch them against until Thanksgiving. I actually recorded the Oakland
> > game last week, but that got out of hand quickly enough that I don't
> > think I watched a full quarter of that abortion.
>
> > > I actually predicted after the
> > > playoffs last year that GB would potentially go undefeated this year.
>
> > Predicted they "would potentially go undefeated"... Heh. Well, you're
> > right on that one...
>
> > Along a similar vein, I predicated the Rams "would potentially go
> > undefeated" as well and nailed that one... Too bad they had to play
> > some games to kill that potential...
>
> > > They have taken out several teams with dominant defenses and good
> > > running games--the Bears, the Lions, the Giants.
>
> > The Bears have the 20th ranked defense in the NFL and an average run
> > game. The Lions have one of the worst running games in the league
> > (especially since Best went down) and a young and immature defense
> > that has more upside than actual ability at this point... And their
> > linebackers are god awful... And the Giants defense is ranked next to
> > last in the league, giving up almost 400 yards per game and a running
> > game that is dead last in the league. Not my idea of dominant run-
> > first teams by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> > That aside, my point is not so much that the Packers can't beat that
> > type of team, but that type of team can beat the Packers.
>
> > >  I'd be shocked if
> > > they didn't win the Super Bowl.
>
> > Really? Shocked? Like Casablanca shocked or actually shocked?  I think
> > they're the favorites to win the Super Bowl by a slim margin, but if
> > you took the Packers and I took every other team in the NFL, I'd feel
> > comfortable thinking that the eventual champion would come from my
> > bunch of teams...
>
> Yeah, really.  Shocked.  The team with the best chance to take them
> out, IMO, is the Saints, followed by the Patriots.  I really don't see
> a team like Pitt or Balt having enough offensive firepower to beat
> them.  But that's why they play the games.

Would you still be shocked?

marcman

12/19/2011 3:30:00 AM

0

On Dec 15, 4:47 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm not certain there is any AFC team  that can beat GB (or NO, for
> that matter.)

Be certain.

> But I think the Pats have as good a chance as anyone.

At least as good a chance as Kansas City.

> Their offense can put up points to match GB.  Teams that depend of
> shutting down the other guy's offense are doomed against the Packers.
> The only team in the AFC that has a chance against GB is the Patriots,
> IMO.

The NFL has a really funky way of making prognosticators look really
funky stupid. Trust me, I know.

> Not a very big chance, but a chance.

Neil, you're a scientist (I think) you should know that ANY team has a
chance on any given Sunday . . .

> The challenge will be
> getting to the Super Bowl in the first place.

Yes, yes indeed, that is quite a challenge!


>
> Peace,
> Neil X.

Neil X

12/19/2011 4:51:00 PM

0

On Dec 17, 9:16 pm, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:27:48 -0500, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:28:06 -0800 (PST), "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 16, 11:18 am, Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:59:23 -0800 (PST), "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >Yeah, well there are counter-examples too.  Including a couple of
> >>> >recent Super Bowls: Colts over Bears and Rams over Titans.
>
> >>> >If you don't think GB has been dominant, I have to suspect that you
> >>> >haven't seen many Packers games.  I actually predicted after the
> >>>> >>>playoffs last year that GB would potentially go undefeated this year.
> >>> >They have taken out several teams with dominant defenses and good
> >>> >running games--the Bears, the Lions, the Giants.
>
> >>> Stop right there.  The Giants have neither a good running game nor a
> >>> good defense this year.  Trust me on this.
>
> >>Well now, the Giants held the Patriots to fewer points than any other
> >>team has this year.  They maybe haven't been consistent, but when they
> >>put it together, they are very strong defensively.
>
> >Most teams can put together one really strong effort, that says little
> >about the quality of their offense or defense.  Over the course of the
> >season the Giants have given up far too many yards and (more
> >importantly) far too many points.  The running game has been horrible,
> >but Eli has raised his game considerable and turned Victor Cruz into a
> >star (at least for this year).
>
> To add to this a little - the Giants defense is based on having the
> front four get lots of pressure on the quarterback.  When they are
> healthy they are very good at doing this, it allows them to cover up
> weaknesses at linebacker and in the secondary.  However, Tuck has been
> hurt most of the year, Osi has been in and out, only Jason Pierre-Paul
> has been consistent at getting the QB (and blocking field goals and
> whatever else needs to be done - he no longer looks like he was a
> reach pick).  Against the Patriots the Giants were fairly healthy up
> front and thus were able to pressure Brady and make plays.


OK, so I think what you're saying is that the Giants have a good
defense when they're healthy, but they haven't been healthy for most
of the season, so they haven't been that good for most of the season.
I agree with that.

I just read that there is a plausible scenario where the Eagles win
the NFC East. If Dallas, Philly and the Giants all finish 8-8, the
Eagles win the NFC East. This happens if the Eagles win out, Dallas
loses to Philly and the Giants, and the Giants lose to the Jets.
Amazing. I'd love to see the Eagles in the playoffs (and also see
Jerry Jones' head explode if the Pokes somehow miss the playoffs.)

Peace,
Neil X.

Neil X

12/19/2011 4:55:00 PM

0

On Dec 18, 10:30 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 4:47 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not certain there is any AFC team  that can beat GB (or NO, for
> > that matter.)
>
> Be certain.
>
> > But I think the Pats have as good a chance as anyone.
>
> At least as good a chance as Kansas City.
>
> > Their offense can put up points to match GB.  Teams that depend of
> > shutting down the other guy's offense are doomed against the Packers.
> > The only team in the AFC that has a chance against GB is the Patriots,
> > IMO.
>
> The NFL has a really funky way of making prognosticators look really
> funky stupid. Trust me, I know.
>
> > Not a very big chance, but a chance.
>
> Neil, you're a scientist (I think) you should know that ANY team has a
> chance on any given Sunday . . .
>
> > The challenge will be
> > getting to the Super Bowl in the first place.
>
> Yes, yes indeed, that is quite a challenge!


This was a GREAT weekend to be a Patriots fan. Houston and Baltimore
both lost, putting the Pats in the drivers seat for a first round bye
in the playoffs. The Jets lost (which is always fun to see) and Green
Bay lost (meaning the the Pats remain the only team that went 16-0 in
the regular season, and the Pats' consecutive victory record remains
intact.) If the Niners can beat a Steelers team that will have, at
best, a seriously injured starting QB, it sets the Pats up for the #1
seed in the AFC. That would be really helpful.

Peace,
Neil X.

marcman

12/19/2011 5:03:00 PM

0

On Dec 19, 11:54 am, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:30 pm, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:47 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not certain there is any AFC team  that can beat GB (or NO, for
> > > that matter.)
>
> > Be certain.
>
> > > But I think the Pats have as good a chance as anyone.
>
> > At least as good a chance as Kansas City.
>
> > > Their offense can put up points to match GB.  Teams that depend of
> > > shutting down the other guy's offense are doomed against the Packers.
> > > The only team in the AFC that has a chance against GB is the Patriots,
> > > IMO.
>
> > The NFL has a really funky way of making prognosticators look really
> > funky stupid. Trust me, I know.
>
> > > Not a very big chance, but a chance.
>
> > Neil, you're a scientist (I think) you should know that ANY team has a
> > chance on any given Sunday . . .
>
> > > The challenge will be
> > > getting to the Super Bowl in the first place.
>
> > Yes, yes indeed, that is quite a challenge!
>
> This was a GREAT weekend to be a Patriots fan.  Houston and Baltimore
> both lost, putting the Pats in the drivers seat for a first round bye
> in the playoffs.  The Jets lost (which is always fun to see) and Green
> Bay lost (meaning the the Pats remain the only team that went 16-0 in
> the regular season,

That season reminds me of the near perfect game that Seaver threw in
1969 against the Cubbies. Jimmy Quarrels got a base hit with one out
in the ninth. They call that the "Imperfect Game."

The Patriots fans should call that season the "Imperfect Season." :)

And by the way, it was a great day to be a Jets fan, too, sure the
Jets lost, but so did everybody else that matters so they remain
locked into the 6th seed. The tie breaker with Cincinnati is
incredible, I believe it goes all the way down to strength of
schedule, which the Jets win by ten games - whatever that means . . .
but I digress, when you;re a fan of a mediocre team, it can still be a
great day to be a fan even if your team loses.

> and the Pats' consecutive victory record remains
> intact.)  If the Niners can beat a Steelers team that will have, at
> best, a seriously injured starting QB, it sets the Pats up for the #1
> seed in the AFC.  That would be really helpful.

Yes, it would. Frankly, I'd rather not get the Pats in the WC game.
I'd rather win a WC game against somebody else, Denver would be great,
although I think it's looking like Houston, which is winnable for us,
and then play you guys in the next round.


>
> Peace,
> Neil X.

Andrew

12/19/2011 6:05:00 PM

0

On Dec 19, 9:02 am, marcman <marcmanstud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And by the way, it was a great day to be a Jets fan, too, sure the
> Jets lost, but so did everybody else that matters

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr................

Paul L

12/20/2011 2:41:00 PM

0

On 12/19/2011 10:02 AM, marcman wrote:

> That season reminds me of the near perfect game that Seaver threw in
> 1969 against the Cubbies. Jimmy Quarrels got a base hit with one out
> in the ninth. They call that the "Imperfect Game."
>
> The Patriots fans should call that season the "Imperfect Season." :)
>
> And by the way, it was a great day to be a Jets fan, too, sure the
> Jets lost,

Great was better in the 70's.

Brad Greer

12/20/2011 9:37:00 PM

0

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:41:01 -0700, Paul L <paul@kbtrans.net> wrote:

>On 12/19/2011 10:02 AM, marcman wrote:
>
>> That season reminds me of the near perfect game that Seaver threw in
>> 1969 against the Cubbies. Jimmy Quarrels got a base hit with one out
>> in the ninth. They call that the "Imperfect Game."
>>
>> The Patriots fans should call that season the "Imperfect Season." :)
>>
>> And by the way, it was a great day to be a Jets fan, too, sure the
>> Jets lost,
>
>Great was better in the 70's.

The Jets lost pretty consistently in the 70s as well. In fact, the
70s were pretty much the dark ages of New York area football.