southsideirish

draft was today. How did I do? 75% TD - 25% Yardage League. Starters QB Kurt Warner - 10th round RB Shaun Alexander - 1st round RB Frank Gore - 5th round WR Marvin Harrison - 2nd round WR Randy Moss - 3rd round WR/TE Jevon Walker - 4th round K David Akers 14th round D.ST Tennessee Titans - My last pick. I switch defenses from week to week - week 1 they play the disgusting NY Jets offense BENCH QB Matt Leinart - 13th round QB Michael Vick - 11th round RB Joseph Addai -7th round RB DeAngelo Williams - 8th round RB Laurence Maroney - 9th round WR Matt Jones - 6th round WR Antonio Bryant - 12th round

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're only talking about 10 seasons. Thats not exactly a large sample size. It's not? Then what is? It is since the birth of the wild card. You don't have anything else to compare it to. Give me a better example then. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You have to look at the second team in the wild card standing to know what it took. A team may have taken the wild card with 98 wins, but if the runner up only had 89 then it actually took 90. Texsox - it really doesn't matter. I understand your point and I totally agree with it, but since the birth of the wild card only one team with 95 plus wins has missed out on the playoffs. To me, that says it all right there.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 08:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is what it has taken to win the Wild Card: year NL AL 2005 HOU 89 BOS 95 2004 HOU 92 BOS 98 2003 FLA 91 BOS 95 2002 SFG 95 ANA 99 2001 STL 93 OAK 102 2000 NYM 94 SEA 91 1999 NYM 97 BOS 94 1998 CHC 90 BOS 92 1997 FLA 92 NYY 96 1996 LAD 90 BAL 88 1995 COL 77 NYY 79 That is great and all, but who really cares? You have a 98.77% chance of making the playoffs if you have 95+ wins since the birth of the wild card. In the American League you can make that a 100% chance. No team with 95 or more wins in the American League has ever missed the playoffs since the birth of the wild card. Only 1 team EVER has missed the playoffs with 95 or more wins since the birth of the wild card. That team is the 1999 Cincinatti Reds. Here the stats: 1995 ATL 90 54 CIN 85 59 LAD 78 66 COL 77 67 CLE 100 44 BOS 86 58 SEA 79 66 NYY 79 65 1996 ATL 96 66 SDP 91 71 LAD 90 72 STL 88 74 CLE 99 62 NYY 92 70 TEX 90 72 BAL 88 74 1997 ATL 101 61 FLA 92 70 SFG 90 72 HOU 84 78 BAL 98 64 NYY 96 66 SEA 90 72 CLE 86 75 1998 ATL 106 56 HOU 102 60 SDP 98 64 CHC 90 73 NYY 114 48 BOS 92 70 CLE 89 73 TEX 88 74 1999 ATL 103 59 ARI 100 62 HOU 97 65 NYM 97 66 NYY 98 64 CLE 97 65 TEX 95 67 BOS 94 68 Missed the playoffs: CIN 96 67 2000 SFG 97 65 ATL 95 67 STL 95 67 NYM 94 68 NYY 87 74 CHW 95 67 OAK 91 70 SEA 91 71 2001 HOU 93 69 STL 93 69 ARI 92 70 ATL 88 74 SEA 116 46 OAK 102 60 NYY 95 65 CLE 91 71 2002 ATL 101 59 ARI 98 64 STL 97 65 SFG 95 66 NYY 103 58 OAK 103 59 ANA 99 63 MIN 94 67 2003 ATL 101 61 SFG 100 61 FLA 91 71 CHC 88 74 NYY 101 61 OAK 96 66 BOS 95 67 MIN 90 72 2004 STL 105 57 ATL 96 66 LAD 93 69 HOU 92 70 NYY 101 61 BOS 98 64 MIN 92 70 ANA 92 70 2005 STL 100 62 ATL 90 72 HOU 89 73 SDP 82 80 CHW 99 63 NYY 95 67 LAA 95 67 BOS 95 67 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Before someone makes mention, I'd like to point out the reason the totals are so low in 95 is because it was a strike shortened season. Either way, you can see that the AL seems to be the league thats harder to win the wild card in (well more wins anyway) and I guess that coincides with the AL's recent dominance in the All Star game. I don't think that is what those records show at all. A 95+ win team in the American League has never missed the playoffs since the birth of the wildcard. The only team with 95+ wins that has missed the playoffs since the birth of the wild card were the 1999 Cin Reds. I don't think the stats or records TLAK presented show anything to be honest with you.

QUOTE(brijames @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ozzie has been saying the last few weeks that 95 will get you in but I'm saying 96 to be safe. That means the White Sox have to go 20-12 in their last 32, the Twins need to go 20-13 in their last 33. The Tigers who I still believe will win the division need to go only 14-15 in their last 29 to reach 96. The RedSox and Angels pretty much have no shot at the wildcard and would have to win their division. Looking at the remaining schedule you have to say that the Twins have the advantage as the White Sox have 3 at Boston then that killer 6 game trip to Oak and Anaheim, then have to finish with 3 at Minn. Losing 2 of 3 this past weekend was a real killer. At this point the Sox just need to approach every game as a must win and just get to that 96 wins and see where they stand. They can't worry about the Tigers or Twins but only about the team they are playing. This is going to be a huge prediction, but I predict the Tigers miss the playoffs. I think they go 10-19, the Sox go 20-12 and the Twins go 21-12. That is what I think happens. The Sox win the Wild Card and the Twins win the division.

Some people. Jeeze.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Aug 24, 2006 -> 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Blasted Royals series might come back to bite the Sox in the ass. Should have taken 3 there. 1 more game? OK, but then that can be said about a lot of games we should have won.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yikes. Thanks for doing this, BTW. That's barely above .500 ball, which is absurd. The two out of three rule I thought wouldn't be that hard to accomplish. Oh well. How does that suck? Are you out of your mind? 2 out of 3 at Toronto lost to LAA 2 out of 3 against the Yanks Swept 3 against Detroit Split 2 of 4 against KC Took 1 out of 3 AT Minnesota ( I don't know how you expected to do more than that at Minnesota. The Twins are play .700 (.6875 to be exact) baseball at home. To expect anything more than that is crazy) Split 2 of 4 AT Detroit I would say, considering our opposition, it has been a great 24 game stretch. The combined records of our opponents during this stretch is 411-350 (.540 Winning PCT). Take away KC and it was a 365-268 (.576 Winning PCT) stretch. I don't think you will find a better record during a stretch like that against those types of teams. We played 5 of the top 8 teams in the AL and went 10-7 against them. You are freaking nuts if you think that is not great.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 11:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, no he has not. He's put up .308/.430/.569/1.000 in August, there ain't a damned thing average about that. Everyone loves to harp on the 3 HRs and 8 RBI but that's directly correlated to the bottom of the order and leadoff hitter sucking for the past month especially. He has 8 2Bs already this month after hitting 4 last month, he may not be knocking in runs at a crazy rate but he has scored 14 runs which is only 4 less than he scored in July and there's still a week left in August. That is not average. Just curious, but how is is K rate and hitting with RISP? To me it seems like he has been striking out more and hitting worse with RISP. That is just from watching the games and I could be totally off and it is just standing out to me more. Do you know the actual stats? QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be hard to replace Thome for an extended period. His power has been a big help to us this season. His power has dropped off lately, that is why it is not hard to replace at this moment. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 24, 2006 -> 06:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The mood of the board is we're done. Then an injury to Thome is veiwed as a big plus. I've given up trying to understand the average Sox fan. I think it is ONLY seen as a plus if he is able to rest his injuries and come back as strong as ever. If he isn't then and he is out for longer than 10-15 days, then it would be a downer for sure.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't see what Rock posted? Yes, and I agree with him only because Jim Thome is not hitting like he has been in the beginning of the season. Hopefully he can rest his wrist and hammy and be back to how he was in the beginning of the season. When healthy, he has a huge presence in the lineup. Lately he has been an average joe. So, yes switching Dye to 3 does change the lineup drastically. Batting Dye 3, Kong 4 and Crede 5 would be pretty good in my opinion. Not many teams can even match that. It is not more effective than a lineup with a healthy Jim Thome, but it is still very good.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alright then. I can agree with this. But in no way shape, or form, is this a more effective lineup without Jim Thome. I don't care what he's hitting against lefties. Of course it's not. Jim Thome makes others in the lineup better by being there. I don't think anyone is denying that. Maybe I am reading some posts wrong, but I don't believe anyone has said that.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that if it turns out he's hurting. But some (you to a lesser extent) are making it sound like it'd be a cinch to replace him. I don't think anyone has even come close to saying it would be a cinch to replace Thome. I think what some are saying is that he is not the most irreplaceable player on this team. AJP, Crede, and Dye are more irreplaceable than Thome is and I think most everyone would agree on that. It would be much more difficult to replace AJP, Crede, or Dye for 15 days than it would be to replace Jim Thome. I don't even know how that can be argued.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seems like people want the '05 offense back. I know I don't. Not with this year's version of Podsednik/starting pitching. Just a question, but could the '05 offense really feature this year's Podsednik? Why would that be? If we want last year's offense, then I think that is because we would want last year's Podsednik. Just a thought. Just throwing that out there. I don't miss last year's offense at all. I like this year's much better. However, the Jim Thome in the beginning of the season is the Jim Thome I want to see. Not the Jim Thome post all-star break. I think some rest could do him some good. Just as long as it isn't too much time missed.

QUOTE(MSHAWKS @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> AJ, with his s***ty OBP and Slugging percentage, is extremely replacable. Oh yeah? WHo is catching full time then? Alomar? AJP would be extremely hard to replace. OBP and slugging percentage are the last things I am judging my full time catcher on. But hey, that's just me. QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 10:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. I think the lineup will be more effective without him there. If they put Dye in the 3 hole, the lineup changes drastically, and we already hit LHP better. agreed

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 23, 2006 -> 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jim Thome pre-wrist injury was a difference maker. However, he just hasn't been as effective since his bat started to slow down. I know he's still put up great OPS numbers, but those haven't translated into a lot of runs lately. Also, if Gload does take his spot in the lineup, it will hopefully make us a little less station-to-station. I have been hoping that they would rest Thome's wrist for a while now. He just isn't the same hitter since that has been bothering him. I agree with you about that. Maybe this will give us a chance to place him on the DL and give him some much needed rest and he can come back even stronger. I don't know if I like Gload or Macko better. I think both would do a fine job in the lineup. Neither are as big a threat as Thome, but not many players in the league are from the left hand side of the plate. I also agree that AJP, Crede, and Jermaine are the most irreplacable players on this team. If AJP goes down our catching situation would absolutely suck. There is no one even close that can replace Crede or Jermaine Dye. It is always easier to replace a DH, but I am not saying anyone will put up the same numbers as Thome did before the injury to his wrist.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Teams like to help out the Red Sox for some reason. They are helping the Red Sox, helping them fall further from contention. Hinske sucks major ass. He is of no help to the Red Sox at all. Come on now.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=145175 That would be a pretty good reason to me. They had the talent to split the carries and not get either worn down. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Got them all the way to the national championship game. That is the only reason? Just because they had LenDale White? I think the real reason was because of your second comment. It was not to let either get worn down or injured. Also they were used differently. LenDale White was the inside back and Bush was the outside back and receiver. For comparison's sake only, LenDale White is Jerome Bettis and Reggie Bush is Fast Willie Parker. How White/Bush were used at USC is how Bettis/Parker were used last year. Was Willie Parker only used that way because they had Jerome Bettis, or were they concerned about Parker handling the pounding of being an every down back? It seems as it is the second, as they will used Duce Staley in Bettis' old role. So would any other LenDale White type of back produced the same situation? I think it would have. You are correct, they both worked. However, that does not make Bush as good as Barry Sanders or Clinton Portis. It may make him as good as an undrafted free agent like WIllie Parker though. Willie Parker also looked much better in his championship game with the Steelers than Reggie Bush did in his championship game with the Trojans. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. You are entitled to your opinion and I am glad you have one. However, there is no winning this argument at the moment. We will just have to wait and see what he does or doesn't do. No need to be mad because I or anyone else don't/doesn't have the same opinion of Bush as you do.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Honestly, I don't know. I'd have to look at the stats. My impression has been that he is roughly the same build as Portis but does look a bit longer and leaner than Sanders. My main point was just that ssi wasn't talking about height at all. Whether it's significant, I dunno. But in absolute terms, no, he's not small. He's no Dunn. True, I was not speaking about height. He may weigh about the same, and I may be wrong, but he just doesn't look as thick as Portis or Sanders to the naked eye. I could be wrong, who knows. And, no, he is not small, he is not Dunn, he is not Joe Morris. However, there is some reason he was not a full time ball carrier at any point in college. There is a reason that he is in that same situation in the pros. He didn't even look like the best RB on his own team in the national championship game last year. I'm just saying that I am not going to get all giddy over one preseason play and declare him the next Barry Sanders and have his bust ready for the hall of fame. Nor am I going to get all excited because I just drafted him in a keeper league. It was one play in a preseason game. Will he be good? Sure. How good will he be? How long will he last? How long will his career be? Well, lets wait and see.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 15, 2006 -> 10:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We all know Reggie is blazing fast. The main question now is how durable he will be. He has a thick body, and didn't have much injury problems at USC, which would lead me to believe he ok in the NFL. He seems to have the very important ability to adjust his body just before the hit to deflect some of the force, ala Barry Sanders. He's going to be a special "slash" player. As for Mario Williams, don't count him out at all. He came out of the combines as impressive as Julius Peppers. Granted, Julius gained 25 pounds in the NFL and actually improved his 40 time, but Mario is still a freak of nature, in the same class athletically as Freeney, Peppers, and Kearse. We will see if he shows the same production on the field. I don't believe he has a thick body though. He is not small and thick like Portis or Barry Sanders. He just seems small. He didn't have many injury problems at USC basically because he was not pounding the ball inside and he wasn't getting as many touches as he will in the pros. I really don't believe he is an every down back and will be very shocked if he is ever used that way. We will see of course, but I wouldn't get all hyped up over one preseason play. That is kind of silly.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Aug 12, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bye bye, Pods. I don't like Pods either, but who leads off? Do we get a SS that can leadoff? If so, who? Does Iguchi leadoff and, maybe Crede, BA, or Uribe hits second? I don't really like that scenario. This just creates a huge hole at the top of the order, which I don't like.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Aug 12, 2006 -> 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why would I care how you feel... I dont care if your sad/mad/happy whatevr if your being an ass your still being an ass. But anyways no he wasnt as raw as Matt Jones is as a WR but he was still primarily a QB and he wasnt tuning his skills as a WR in college like other elite WR's in the NFL were. Im not saying he is top5 but he is pretty close and I can see an argument being made for him. IF you don't care, then why did you post "don't get all pissy pissy over it". Obviously you care at some point or you wouldn't have wrote it. He was primarily a QB but still played enough WR to have the 2nd highest yards in school history as a WR. He must have played that position a lot more than other receivers at his university during his college career to do that. How do you know he was not tuning his skills in college like other elite WRs in the NFL were? You know for a fact how Torry Holt, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, and others like them were coached in college? I don't think you do, and I think you are assuming way too much. There is no argument that could be made for Hines Ward as a top 5 WR. Top 10 yes, top 5, no freaking way. He just doesn't have that type of talent. He is not in the same category as Torry Holt, Terrell Owens, Larry Fitzgerald, Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss... He fits in with the group after that, not any higher.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 06:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He was primarily a QB though wasnt he. You really need to lighten up no need to get all pissy pissy over this. Of course he was, but that doesn't mean that he came into the league with absolutely no concept of how to play the position. The fact is he did play the position in college and he did receive coaching in college at that position. He is the 2nd leading receiver in the history of the University of Georgia. He is not Matt Jones. Don't judge on how I write or post about how I feel about a subject. You really shouldn't do that.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> lmao, how can I argue with that? or this: As a wide receiver for the University of Georgia Bulldogs (1995-1998), Ward's 144 career receptions for 1,965 yards landed him second on the school's team history. You can't. He was a receiver in college. Hmmmmm. Now what can you base your ridiculous arguments on?

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Take this for example. That is simply not true. Do you honestly think college coaches don't teach players how to run proper routes? Do you think it's some magical line of thinking that only clicks in the NFL? Of course players get by more on talent at the college level, but that line of thinking can be said for every position and is obsolete. Receivers in the NFL for the most part have been coached by WR coaches for atleast 4 years, Hines had no coaching in the area until the NFL. That is a reason why this argument is over. Are you kidding me? WRs come from college and know how to run routes? You can't be serious. Just as RBs do not know how to properly block in the NFL. There are exceptions to both of these rules, but they are not the norms. You know for a fact that WRs in college are taught how to run routes? If that is the case then WRs like David Terrell, Charles Rogers, and Mike Williams are horrible learners. Why do you think that it is normal for must WRs in the league to bust out in their 3rd or 4th season and not before hand? Because they lack talent? Come on now. Give me a break. Plus then we get this bit of information: As a wide receiver for the University of Georgia Bulldogs (1995-1998), Ward's 144 career receptions for 1,965 yards landed him second on the school's team history. He also played tailback and quarterback, and totalled 3,870 all-purpose yards, second only to Herschel Walker in Bulldogs history. Coming out of college it was discovered that Ward was missing an ACL. Some say this negatively affected his position in the NFL draft. He received his bachelor's degree in consumer economics from UGA, where he became a member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity. Hines Ward didn't play WR in college, nor was he coached by WR coaches in college? Really? That's definitely true? How about Anquan Boldin was he? He played WR and QB in college as well. He seemed to adjust to his new position a lot faster than Ward did. And that was before Denny Green took over the Cardinals. The argument is over because you don't have a leg to stand on in either the Brooks argument or the Ward argument.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm going to let this go, so others can have the thread back. Fun argument. If it is fun, then please keep it going. I don't see how you can possibly keep it going.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hines first two years in the league he was transitioning from his college QB position to learning the WR position. He's the most complete WR in the game. He gets 1,000+ yards each year in a run dominated offense. Lets take a look at some teams passing numbers from last year. Arizona, passed the ball by far the most in the NFL, with 44 more attempts than the next closest team. Passed the ball 670 times. St. Louis, 4th on the list with 599 passing attempts. Cincinatti, 12th in the league in pass attempts with 538. Pittsburgh? Last in the league in passing attempts, 10 away from the next closest. 379 attempts. Arizona threw the ball 44% more of the time than Pittsburgh, St. Louis 37% more, Cincy 30% more. Yet Hines still almost managed another 1,000 yard season. Hines accounted for 33.3% of his teams passing totals. Compared to Holt's 32.9%, Fitzgerald's 31.8%, Johnson's 37.5%, and Smith's ridiculous 47%. Hines compares very well. You can't possibly be saying that Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, or Thomas Jones are top 5 RB's in the NFL are you? Hines Ward is barely 30 years old, he's not exactly a geezer on his way down. As for Aaron Brooks, have you ever actually watched him play QB? Take a look at 4 of his last 5 years, not counting last year when he was without any running game, and a banged up Joe Horn for most of the year. 2001-2004 average season for Brooks. 3,690 yards, 57% completions, 25 TD's, 15 INT's, 240 rushing yards, 2.3 TD's Compare to say, Donovan McNabb Donovan McNabb's 4 best seasons. 3,422 yards, 58% completions, 24 TD's, 11 INT's, 422 rushing yards, 3.5 TD's Not bad huh? I know he was switching positions, but I don't care. All college WRs have to make huge adjustments when they get to the NFL. That is just the way it is. Basically none of them know or understand how to run routes. In college they rely on pure god given ability. In the pros there are a lot of things that they have to learn and adjust to regardless of the position they played in college. That was a weak argument. It is nice how you use the stats that ONLY backup your argument and twist them in that way. It is not my fault, nor other players' fault who and what team they play for. They can do nothing about that. So I don't care what system throws more than others. As far as percentage of a passing offense, Hines Ward is only close to comparable because he was the only passing weapon they had. Antwan Randle El is a 3rd down receiver, not a good #2. Fitzgerald has Boldin, Holt has Bruce and whatever 3rd receiver they decide to use in any given year, Johnson has Houzehmanzeda (or something like that), Smith -47%- again because he had no one else to throw the ball to. To compare % of passing offense is ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense. When did I ever say that Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, or Thomas Jones are top 5 RB's? I said they are better than Corey Dillon and Curtis Martin are at this point in time. Just as Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Smith are better than Hines Ward are at this point in time. Just because one player has a longer history of being good does not mean that the younger player is not better. Ward is only 2 years younger than Dillon and 3 years younger than Martin. Ward is not a geezer, but he is not young. He is not 23 or 27 as Fitz and Steve Smith are. Ward is as good as he will get, this is it, he won't be getting any better. Fitz and Smith may and even if they don't, they are still better than Hines Ward is or ever was. Aaron Brooks had to GOOD years. The rest were s***. His yards were high, but TD to INT ratio? Horrible. 2001 - 26TDs/21INTs, 2004 - 21TDs/16 INTs, 2005 - 13TDs/17INTs, for those 3 years he has a TD to INT ratio of 60/54. That is what you call a good QB? And it isn't like he has been getting better, he has actually gone backwards. 2002 and 2003 were his 2 best years. 2004-2005 combined he has a TD to INT ratio of 34/33. That is absolutely horrible. Whoever said McNabb was a great QB? He has had 1 great year with the rest so-so. McNabb's QB skills are not what makes him a great player. He is a great leader. That is something Brooks definitely is not and never was. Brooks is a mediocre QB at best. He is a fill in until Andrew Walter or someone else is ready to become the number 1. That is all he is. QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LT, why have people started to overlook him for LJ? Simple. LJ is better. LT breaks down at the end of the year and kills your playoffs and championship hopes.