-Redskins punter Hunter Smith has more all-purpose touchdowns for the season at this moment than JaMarcus Russell.
-Prior to today's games Chris Johnson had 162 more rushing yards than the ENTIRE Cleveland Browns team.
-While it would be more elegently symmetrical if the Rams were 0-8 and not 1-7, the 8-0 Saints are struggling against the punchless Rams and are tied at halftime, 14-14.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Does Anyone Really Prefer Alternate Endings?
I've just started Mass Effect (the first one, 2 years or so late), and while I tend not to enjoy this type of typical BioWare-style RPG (I couldn't get into Knights of the Republic), it was just too cheap not to take a chance on. I assume that it'll have multiple endings based on your choices in the dialog trees, and I already don't like that aspect. One of the things that I've always appreciated about Japanese RPGs is that the plots are generally always fairly immutable and very linear in their unfolding.
Admittedly, I never really liked those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, but at least they were tolerable because they were short. If you made the wrong decision and fell into a pit of spikes, you only lost about 10 minutes of your life. A game, on the other hand, has probably taken 40 hours or so by its conclusion. The general principle of assigning consequences to your actions, I don't have a problem with. But in practice, it's a nightmare, because you have no idea how some of your obscure actions will affect the ending. I hate getting the shitty "fake" ending because I didn't collect the special orb and give it to the old man who lives in the hut on the edge of the town that only shows up if you talked to the princess in the beginning and told her that she resembles your sister.
Admittedly, I never really liked those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, but at least they were tolerable because they were short. If you made the wrong decision and fell into a pit of spikes, you only lost about 10 minutes of your life. A game, on the other hand, has probably taken 40 hours or so by its conclusion. The general principle of assigning consequences to your actions, I don't have a problem with. But in practice, it's a nightmare, because you have no idea how some of your obscure actions will affect the ending. I hate getting the shitty "fake" ending because I didn't collect the special orb and give it to the old man who lives in the hut on the edge of the town that only shows up if you talked to the princess in the beginning and told her that she resembles your sister.
And that, guys, is why you're the worst team in the NFL
Down by 14 points already in the first quarter, and with a chance to run one more play before the end of the quarter, the Skins just let the clock run out. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? You're down by two touchdowns, you need all the time you can get with the ball in your hands. Play with a little passion, what do you have to lose?
Sunday, November 01, 2009
The Absurdity of NBA Coaches
In honor of the start of the NBA season, I will bitch about NBA coaches instead of NFL coaches for a change.
One thing I've never understood is why coaches bench a player who gets into early foul trouble. I mean, I know that when you get too many fouls, you foul out of the game. But when the coach benches you, you're ALSO OUT OF THE GAME. It seems to me that for a guy in early foul trouble, the decision comes down to either benching him early in the game or (the ref) benching him late in the game.
But I still don't understand why you would do it voluntarily--you don't know what the player would do for the rest of the game, foulwise. When you bench a guy for 10 minutes in the first quarter, you lose 10 minutes of production for certain. If he fouls out, you might lose 10 minutes of production at the end of the game, but he also may be able to stay in. Why would you give up 10 minutes of this guy for sure when there's a chance you might not even have to?
Now, in certain situations, I can see the logic of pulling a guy. Maybe he gets too mentally soft with lots of early fouls. Maybe the guy's fouling because he's rattled. But otherwise, if a guy averages 3 fouls or whatever per 48 minutes, I don't necessarily think that having two clustered together in a short period of time really means that much.
One thing I've never understood is why coaches bench a player who gets into early foul trouble. I mean, I know that when you get too many fouls, you foul out of the game. But when the coach benches you, you're ALSO OUT OF THE GAME. It seems to me that for a guy in early foul trouble, the decision comes down to either benching him early in the game or (the ref) benching him late in the game.
But I still don't understand why you would do it voluntarily--you don't know what the player would do for the rest of the game, foulwise. When you bench a guy for 10 minutes in the first quarter, you lose 10 minutes of production for certain. If he fouls out, you might lose 10 minutes of production at the end of the game, but he also may be able to stay in. Why would you give up 10 minutes of this guy for sure when there's a chance you might not even have to?
Now, in certain situations, I can see the logic of pulling a guy. Maybe he gets too mentally soft with lots of early fouls. Maybe the guy's fouling because he's rattled. But otherwise, if a guy averages 3 fouls or whatever per 48 minutes, I don't necessarily think that having two clustered together in a short period of time really means that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)