ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) I agree. I don't think the Red Sox and Yankees being in the same division and spending four times as much as the Devil Rays has anything to do with the DRays lack of success. It's Crawford's fault for sure. Your math is a bit off... Still, I am sick of hearing about Crawford already. He's good, but he's not suddenly going to make us a 100-win team (or probably even 90 unless some other things change as well).

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 06:17 PM) They will draft someone in the second round out of a small school (think a Charlie Frye type)... their first rounder MUST go to O-Line. I know they couldn't PR-wise, but Byron Leftwich would have been a nice retread to try to fix here. I wanted him bad coming out of school, and I really don't see how he can already be considered a bust (aside from injuries) when he played with a pretty woeful receiver corps and managed an 80.5 QB rating (not hideous). I think with reliable receivers that completion percentage would have soared past 60... anyway, that's a different discussion altogether. It's a good theory, but I don't really know how much better he'd work out here. Granted he's bigger and has a better arm, but he's a statue in the pocket as well. Given the state of our line, he'd still have some problems.

A lot of things are going to have to go our way to be a legit contender next year. To be significantly over .500 at least one young starter is going to have to step up and be a league average or better starter and eat some innings, the Jose that we've seen a bit more of recently has to be there, the bullpen can't be as putrid as it was much of the year, and someone needs to be able to get on base at the top of the lineup. If we don't get any of those things to happen we're probably around 70 wins, if we get some but not others maybe closer to 80. That said, I don't know if it's possible for them to be WORSE than they are this year barring injuries to key guys. As long as we're not starting 4 or 5 of Owens, Uribe, Richar, Gonzalez, and to a lesser extent Fields (gotta love the power, OBP still needs work) on a regular basis, the lineup virtually has to get better. Plus everyone but a handful of guys has performed worse than expected this season, you'd think by the law of averages at least one or two will improve. Hopefully we can get a good return for Garland as well and possibly get some guys that will either help now or in the near future.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Sep 15, 2007 -> 11:58 PM) This is going to sound overreactionary (if that's even a word), but Pat Fitzgerald is a terrible coach. He needs to get his s*** straight. This is 2 years in a row with god awful losses (you could even say last year had 2 embarrassing losses with the Mich St comeback). Granted the team's best offensive player was out, but they still ran the ball decently well. He says all the right things, but the results are pathetic. I have several thoughts... The officiating was flatout AWFUL. NU basically couldn't run the ball (the yards were there, but a 4-yard average against Duke is abysmal, and they had no consistency) because they called a holding penalty virtually every time, and I believe Duke only had one. Plus there were several potential pass interference calls, with NU getting ONE of about 5 potential calls to go their way. There was also the running into the kicker call that really should have been roughing the kicker, that first down would have made a HUGE difference. Granted I was there which always makes things look worse than they are, but that looked like arguably the most poorly officiated game I've ever seen (having almost 200 penalty yards combined is just ridiculous, and it sure seemed like there was more than a 50-yard disparity), and it seemed like NU got virtually no calls. That said, it shouldn't have mattered. As you said, some poor decisions and missed opportunities. They failed on four 4th down conversion attempts within field goal range. Granted the last two they needed a touchdown, but the first two they really didn't. Get 3 points on any 2 of those 4 and it's going to overtime, and if it's the first two times you eek out a win. They also had two seperate drives late in the game where they had a good chance to score the go-ahead TD. NU out-gained Duke by almost 200 yards and grossly out-played them in the second half and had little to show for it on the scoreboard. Between the refs and the missed opportunities, I can't remember the last game I left feeling so pissed off.

That knee scope went downhill AWFULLY fast. I have to think that they would have seen some damage in May/June before the draft. Either they flat out missed it or ignored it, and they'll take a lot of s*** for passing on Durant, possibly deserved. That'd really suck for Portland if this seriously derails his career. The kid is clearly a gifted athlete that has the ability to dominate. It doesn't sound like they expect it to be a major issue, but then again this was a routine scope a few days a go, and it sounds an awful lot like the crap the Cubs used to spew about Wood and Prior.

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 12, 2007 -> 02:48 PM) Do not be shocked if John begins next year in Charlotte, the key word being begins. If they deal Garland and/or Contreras like everyone thinks they will, that simply isn't going to happen. Even if they don't, there'd have to be pretty clear evidence in Spring Training next year that Danks isn't the best option, and I'm not sure how likely that is.

I'm personally not worried about him. As we all said at the beginning of the year, he probably shouldn't have been in the majors this year but he was the best of our 5th starter options. It's not like he's having problems with his velocity, he just hasn't really learned how to pitch yet. He still goes up there trying to strike everyone out, which jacks up his pitch count and leads him to more walks than he really should have. Eventually once he learns how to pitch to contact and realizes that he can't throw his fastball by everyone all the time, he should turn into a solid pitcher.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) 1 of West Virginia/Louisville could run the table as well. Neither team has much of a defense, but they could outscore their opponents until they meet up. I see that being a lot like last year, where it comes down to those 2 and Rutgers and no one comes out of the round-robin unscathed. South Florida is a potential pitfall too, as they've already taken down Auburn and do have some talent.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) You know what? LSU is going undefeated, I just took a look at their schedule (admittedly for the first time) and I don't see a game on there I can even imagine losing. At Kentucky is a trap and by far their hardest road game (Woodson is an amazing QB), but besides that I can't see them losing because all their other tough games are at home, and I don't think any of them are against a team that is as good as Virginia Tech. And the BCS better hope Texas beats Oklahoma, because if they don't (I think Texas will lose to somebody else even if they win that game, especially with their schedule), I could see OU, Penn State, and LSU all going undefeated. And if that happens, uh oh. Florida and Arkansas at home aren't total pushovers, they can't afford a down game against either of them. Plus there's the SEC title game where they'll get Florida, Tennessee, or Georgia at a neutral site if things go as planned. That's a HUGE issue with SEC teams going undefeated, it's tripped up a few potential title-game teams in recent years. The same goes for Penn State and OSU at home for Penn State. Yeah, being at home helps, but they're still playing fairly comparable teams and you never know what happens. Also, no USC? Their schedule does have a few more pitfalls, but they'll still be favored in every game, and they typically seem to get better as the year goes on. Their level of athleticism is pretty ridiculous.

QUOTE(bulokis @ Sep 9, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) I went to the Brunswick store in Wilmette and I was impressed with their tables. Brunswick though are expensive but they do have a Contender brand made by Brunswick. Anybody have a Contender pool table? Any problems with it that any of you has heard of? Im thorn between spending a little more to get an actual brunswick to spending less and get their contender brand of pool table. DO NOT actually buy your table at the Brunswick Pavilion. Back when we were pricing it we got the exact same table brand-new from Cue N Cushion for over a grand less (probably closer to $1500, don't remember the exact price). Granted that was on a Gold Crown 4, but you're still paying full retail there when you generally don't have to. Granted they've kind of got you over a barrel now that they don't sell them to smaller retailers anymore, but I'd imagine that you could get a comparable used one for considerably less with a little research and effort. Can't really help you on the Contender brand, but in my experience Brunswick's are worth it.

I gotta admit, we weren't as worried about the price when we were shopping for a table. Most of that is because we bought like a 7-foot non-slate Brunswick table for like $600 (think retail was like $1200, but that didn't really matter) before this one and weren't very happy with it. Because of that, we went a little nuts with this one and spent a lot more than we really had to. Our personal view was that we're going to have the table for a LONG time if we got a good one, so we didn't really want to skimp on it.

Well, a couple of things I would say: 1) Make sure it's a slate table, the balls will roll a lot better. I'd personally recommend Brunswick, though a lot of people swear by Olhausen and Diamond Tables as well (gotta admit, Diamonds are pretty nice if you can find them). 2) Unless you have a way of getting it in there in one piece, you need to go with a 3-piece slate table, and professional assembly is HIGHLY recommended unless you or someone you know knows what they are doing. You really need to make sure that the supports, playing surface, and rails are attached correctly, otherwise the quality of play could suffer dramatically. 3) Make sure you consider how much space you have where you plan to put the table. You need to consider not only the size of the table but also the length of the cues you intend to use. Most tables are going to be 8x4 or 9x4.5, which means you need a fair amount of space. 4) If price is a major factor, I'd definitely look at used tables. You're probably better off getting a quality used table than a lesser new table for a similar price. As for picking out the exact table, I'd consider playing at local pool halls a bit (if you haven't already) to get a feel for what you like/don't like. A good used table will still probably cost about 2 grand though unless you find a good deal. 5) We bought our table at a place called Cue N Cushion in Elmhurst. Solid pool supply store with good selection. The only problem is that they no longer sell new Brunswick tables, so his supply of used ones will be less impressive. That'll be the case with most of them, though you can check out what your local dealers still have. Brunswick decided to screw over all of the local dealers and open up their own places. Too bad, they make quality stuff. For that I would check out The Brunswick Pavilion in Wilmette. I wouldn't recommend buying your table here as their prices are pretty steep and they're mostly new tables, but it lets you check out a lot of tables and accessories. You also might want to check out Suite Play, which I believe used to be the Rec Room. There's one in Downers Grove and one in Deerfield. They have a ton of different accessories there, though the tables are again newer. The best choice nowadays might be Cue-U in Rockford (check out Their website. Don't let the prices scare you, not all of them are that expensive). The owner refurbishes a lot of old tables and you can probably get a good deal. Granted we know the guy, but IIRC he was willing to give us a Brunswick Gold Crown 3 in good shape for about 3 grand, which is a hell of a deal.

What's funny is that Texas only beat Arkansas State by 8 points and you're hearing NOTHING about it. A different bounce here or there and it could have been two colossal upsets in one day and Michigan wouldn't be getting nearly as much crap. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they lost to TCU this week.

Michigan should still win this game relatively easily (not like 50-point easy, but like at least 38-21 easy). The problem is that Brandon Minor inexplicably got 13 carries in a game that was close (and hurt them big time by tripping over his own feet twice, fumbling the first and blowing a 2-point conversion the next), Henne had a pretty bad day throwing the ball, and the defense is replacing an awful lot of guys. They were clearly not playing anywhere near their capabilities outside of Mike Hart and let a team with some talent hang around.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 08:32 AM) I don't know! I was going to ask ya'll that because I submitted my picks, yet it has zero points. I don't understand that. My guess would be that you didn't fill out everything. You've got to double check to make sure it's entirely complete, and make sure it says "picks completed" when you're done.

Judging from what I'm reading, Lair turned out to be a flop because of un-responsive controls despite good graphics/story and occasional good parts. Too bad, it sounded like an awesome premise. Also, it sounds like Warhawk is a must-own for PS3 owners, assuming of course that you can play online.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) Nah, I'm just saying it's not all passing or nothing like Hawaii etc. You can play in a system like Tech and rush for a 1,000 yards, especially as the talent has been improving around the system each year. I just get the feeling that a lot of people around the nation seem to think it's a gimmicky offense that only works against crappy teams. To me the spread offense is the future of college football. Okay, we basically agree then. The spread offense definitely can create a lot of advantages for the offense, it helps create a lot of one-on-one matchups and lets you spread the ball around to your playmakers at wide receiver a bit more effectively than a traditional set. Plus you still have the flexibility to run out of it with regularity like NU usually does, and with the defense spread out more there are a lot of creases for a speedy RB. It's getting a lot harder to just line up and pound the ball on every play like Nebraska did so well for so long, though obviously some teams can still do it.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 01:09 AM) Actually Shannon Woods rushed for 926 yards and 10 TD's last year, http://texastech.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/...e.html#TEAM.IND Taurean Henderson rushed for 872 yards and 17 TD's in 05 http://texastech.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/...e.html#TEAM.IND Taurean Henderson rushed for 840 yards and 16 TD's in 05 http://texastech.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/...e.html#TEAM.IND 2003 was more of a RB by committee with Henderson getting 700 yards and 9 TD's, but they still built up over 1200 rushing yards total from the RB's alone. Heck Taurean Henderson ended his career in 05 with 3,241 rushing yards, 2,058 receiving yards, and 69 total touchdowns. Shannon Woods is doing even better. Tech hasn't had any household names from the Leach era group, but the guys have all been getting looks in NFL training camps and several have stuck around. Wes Welker earned himself a very nice paycheck, Manny Ramirez as a rookie is challenging for the starting guard spot for the Lions, Dylan Gandy, OL, is challenging for a starting role in Indianapolis, Daniel Loper, OL, is challenging for the starting role for the Titans. Others like Joel Filani, Gabe Hall, and Jarret Hicks who were rookies this year were among the last cuts last week on the Titans, Jets, Chargers etc. TTU has never had a pro potential QB in the Leach system, until Graham Harrell now. It will be interesting to see how much of a look the NFL gives him in a few years. As for the system making the success, not quite. Spike Dykes won 7-8-9 games a year at Tech for the 12 years prior to Leach using a basic, bland style of running the football. Texas Tech seems to be stuck in a 7-8-9 win monotony for eternity, though it could be worse. My bad, was editting and screwed up my wording, forgetting about Woods in the process. Still, are you really trying to say that Texas Tech is a balanced offense? 1200-1400 rushing yards a year for the entire team isn't all that many. Even in a DOWN year Northwestern rushes for about 1700 yards total, and they're not exactly a power running team either. In the last 5 years TT has finished 108th, 99th, 105th, 101th, and 98th in total rushing yards. It's pretty clear that the passing game carries the vast majority of the load. Granted in a different system they'd likely put up better numbers and recruit a bit differently to bolster the running game, but that's not the case. Their bread and butter recently is the passing game with the running game being more of an afterthought, I don't really see how you could argue otherwise. They can run effectively when they do it, but that's not really what I was debating earlier (actually, not really debating, more like using them as an example. Not that there's anything wrong with that, my guys run the same kind of system, and Tech has had success that way. Yeah, before this stretch they did have some pretty solid runningbacks and pounded the ball in the running game a bit more. The other Ricky Williams, Byron Hanspard, and Byron Morris all did some damage. Henderson still could have thrived in that setup, but I'm not as sure about Woods. He's a smaller guy that could struggle in a power running game, much like Tyrell Sutton (which is a major reason that NU was able to get him).

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 10:22 PM) Or for that day when we need to add that franchise in rural West Virginia. No, I don't think we'll be expanding any time soon.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 10:15 PM) OK, we filled the vacant spot, mods can delete this thread. Might as well leave it up for the next round, you know how things go.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 08:17 PM) People get the misconception that the TTU RB's don't get the ball very often when in fact the leading TTU RB each year runs for between 900-1,000 yards and also catches between 500-700 yards. In some cases the spread offense is used to offset recruiting struggles, but that's not a problem at Tech. TTU has pulled in top 20 recruiting classes every other year for a while now. Here's a typical TTU offensive line size, using this years starters for example. LT: 6'7 314 (Rylan Reed, White Sox former pitching prospect) LG: 6'6 335 C: 6'4 303 RG: 6'7 374 RT: 6'7 355 That's not quite true. No Tech runningback has cracked 900 yards since Kliff Kingsbury took over the spread offense, and the high carries total in that period was 162. That's around 14 carries per game or less, compared to at least 40 attempts per game for their quarterbacks since 2000 (I'm not arguing their efficency in the passing game). They run it enough to keep teams honest, but power running isn't a major part of their game. The key part of that phrase was "dominant". Obviously they don't have total scrubs with the success they had, but they're not consistently turning out NFL-level prospects at those two spots. If they tried to run a more traditional attack like many of the powerhouses do things would likely go much worse.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 12:42 AM) If the system is so successful, why don't more teams use it? Just about half the country uses some variation of the spread offense now, which is essentially derived from the run-and-shoot. Teams like Texas Tech, Northwestern, and Purdue have been using it for some time, and several others like Florida and Texas have started using it pretty heavily recently. Plus just about every team out there will occasionally use some of the principles. The difference is that a lot of teams run the ball out of it a lot more often than Hawaii and Texas Tech do. As for those that don't, as Tru said, a lot of these teams have more dominant linemen and running backs as well as stronger defenses, so it doesn't make as much sense for them to spread the ball around and sling it with regularity. If you can keep the ball on the ground and still move the sticks while keeping your opponents off the scoreboard you don't need to take as many risks in the passing game.

It's too damn easy if you do it without the spread, there are only like 4 or 5 games that are really difficult every week out of the 15.

Oh man, Eckstein, Erstad, Owens, and Richar in the same lineup is just awful. I could MAYBE deal with Eckstein since he does actually get on base at a higher clip than a lot of guys on this team, but not in combination with those other three. I hope he's just theorizing, otherwise we're going to have to keep some posters away from sharp objects next year...

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Aug 30, 2007 -> 10:02 PM) Harold Martinez could end up challenging for the 1st pick in the draft. If he continues to develop he will inevitably be compared to AROD and will be hard to pass up. He would be a nice consolation prize if we can't get Pedro. That was the guy I was trying to remember that they were talking about in that ESPN article. You never know, with a big year, especially with more scouts following him this year, it's conceivable.