ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(crazyman26 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) If the GM is unhappy with the coaches decisions though the coach can be fired. I am sure you know that, do you really think the coach can do things that are clearly against the GMs wishes? Can you come up with examples of any players that have been in the NFL for 3 full seasons, are 26, and have never been an NFL starting QB on their team? Jake Delhomme and Kurt Warner are not examples, they were in NFL Europe and were not top draft picks. I mean somebody who was a top round draft pick and was in the NFL that many years, and are Rex's age, and have still not played more than 2 or 3 games in a single NFL season and playing a full season in the NFL as starting QB at that point? The GM could just as easily get fired for being wrong too, so I don't really see why that matters. He'd take an awful lot of s*** for firing the coach if the other guy performs. The head coach is still going to do what he thinks gives the team the best chance to win, since that is going to be the ultimate deciding factor in his job security. The Bears offense was clearly a lot better toward the end of the season with Rex under center. Besides, there is still nothing that says that Angelo thinks that Orton can handle the job either, which is why the veteran QB's are mentioned. It's kind of hard to switch QB's when you don't have another viable option. I listed numerous guys, and Delhomme wasn't even one of them. Those guys are even better examples that playing early doesn't matter, since they weren't even on a roster. Since when does where they picked matter? They're still quarterbacks with little experience that eventually got jobs. If anything the later picks getting a spot are better examples against your point because there is no reason to play them unless they perform, unlike people like Ryan Leaf that got the spot because they were making so much money. You're still missing the point. There's a difference between someone that hasn't gotten any playing time because they suck and someone that had the job and got hurt. Rex has earned the starting spot and lost it, while many others didn't even get close. There's quite a bit of difference between someone like Rex, and someone like Cade McNown. Hell, Phillip Rivers hasn't even hit the field yet, and no one is giving up on him.

QUOTE(crazyman26 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) This was from another message board. Clearly I was right all along. Angelo was hinting with his statements he really does not want Rex to become a starting QB for Chicago ever, regardless what Lovie may want. In fact Lovie may not get his contract renewed as a result, wanting Rex to become a starting QB for the first time when nobody else in the organization wants it may cost him his job. That still has nothing to do with Kyle Orton. It means that Angelo isn't happy with the QB situation, not that he thinks the wrong guy is playing. Adding one of those QB's would bury Orton on the depth chart.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) I do give Duke credit for one thing. I can't ever remember them having any sort of NCAA violations. At least under Coach K. Its also why I always had a lot of respect for Stanford's programs. They can't just bring in any talented guy they want, they have to also have high acedemic marks (same with my favorite football team...ND). Corey Maggette took money from a booster, so Duke had to forfeit the money they won for finishing 2nd in 1999. That's not really Coach K's fault though. Stanford's requirements are higher than most schools, but they're not ridiculously high. Josh Childress was accepted with a 1250 SAT and like a 3.7 GPA. I know that's still above average and precludes them from taking maybe half of the top 100, but it's nowhere near their normal standards.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) That's not a terrible bracket for us, i'd take that. Hopefully we can do well enough the rest of the way so we can get a 3 and avoid the 4/5 game and the 1 vs 4/5 game, that's my hope. That's definitely a good draw for the Illini. They match up fairly well with the Sooners and Pitt. They can definitely make the Elite 8 if they get that draw.

QUOTE(crazyman26 @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) I realized that but what Angelo thinks means more than Lovie. Basicaly this is how I see it. Rex has never been a starting QB in the NFL. To be a starting QB in the NFL a QB must be starting 12 or more games in the 16-game NFL season, not 2 or 3 which is the most Rex has ever started in a single season. Thus he has never been an NFL starting QB. If he has not been an NFL starting QB by age 26 and 3 years in the NFL he probably never will be, very rarely does a player become an NFL starting QB for the first time at age 26 after 3 years in the NFL. Thus I strongly doubt he will ever be an NFL starting QB. Last time I checked Lovie decides who plays and who doesn't, not Angelo. If the guy blows, the coach isn't going to play him. There are some cases where the backup is a top draft pick making a ton of money and they want to give him a shot, but that's definitely not the case with Orton. The second part isn't really the case. There are plenty of guys that don't make it as a full-time starter in their first couple of years and end up being a starter down the road. Steve Young wasn't really a factor until his 7th year, and that doesn't count the time he spent in the NFL. Kurt Warner couldn't even make a roster and he ended up winning 2 MVP's. Trent Green is one of the better QB's in the league and hardly played early in his career. Matt Hasselback was still only a part time player in his 3rd year. Brad Johnson is a pretty solid veteran that is an occasional starter, and he threw about 40 passes in his first 3 years. I don't see how that matters anyways since he already is #1 on the depth chart and has been for a while. It's not like he's shown no progress whatsoever and has no hopes of doing anything like your average NFL washout.

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 26, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) I understand your point about the strikeouts, and it really depends on how much they are valued in the league. Both Duke and Cain will post low ERA's and WHIP's while winning games, which is why I don't exactly understand naming them "the worst starting pitching". If strikeouts are valued high, then Duke and Cain woudn't be the best options, but I think their other virtues are enough otherwise. His point was that if those are your top two pitchers, you're probably in trouble. That definitely seems to be the case. If he had two other stronger pitchers (or at least one stud), there's no problem with those guys.

Neither is a stellar option. Those are your two best? If you have to take one, keep Blalock because of the park he plays in and the offense around him. Bonds is a higher risk and probably has 2 years left tops.

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 26, 2006 -> 02:02 AM) Just out of curiousity iWiN4PreP, why do you consider Felix Hernandez a stud (and Brandon Webb), but not Cain or Duke? Both Duke and Cain had better years last year than both pitchers, and both Cain and Duke are excellent prospects that are major league ready. Is there something about them that I don't know, or is it just that their names aren't household names? Felix is widely considered the best young pitcher since Dwight Gooden, and there is nothing that he's done to suggest the contrary. He's been very good everywhere, including in the majors last year. Just look at the numbers he had once he made the majors. Another major thing is he strikes out a lot more guys, especially in the majors. He isn't even really throwing his slider yet, which is probably his best pitch. The only guys who really compare to him when he came up were Prior and Zito (was pretty solid when he came up). The other guys are solid, but there's a lot more uncertainty. Cain has been a solid prospect, but nowhere near as strong as Felix, and Duke has been a little more of a finess guy since he got above A ball. They're decent options, but #4 type fantasy starters. Felix is more of a strong 3 or decent 2, with the potential to be a top 5 starter.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) Last team for sure: For hitting stats are: Runs, Hits, RBI's, Homers, and SB. For pitchers: IP, Walks, Saves, Runs, HR's, Wins and K's. It can't be your last team, you've still got to get beat in my league. That offense is a monster, and the pitching is pretty good.

QUOTE(iWiN4PreP @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) New team C J. Posada 1B P. Fielder 2B J. Cantú 3B E. Chávez SS M. Young OF C. Floyd OF M. Holliday OF J. Francoeur Util J. Gomes BN Mi. Sweeney BN W. Peña Pitching SP P. Martínez SP R. Johnson RP B. Ryan RP D. Turnbow P R. Harden P B. Jenks P A. Benítez BN J. Blanton BN E. Santana BN C. Reitsma Im very happy with the team. Obviously my First base position is weak. And I am in love with my new strategy. What i do is, first pick : Pick the best player, which in this draft was m. Young, then my next 3 picks, are all SP, and then i pick the rest of the team next, its been working v. well for me. I got a great team i think here, minus some problems like first base, and my outfield / UTIL isnt as deep really as it could be. But deff. aint bad. The pitching is okay, but the offense looks weak as a whole. Young is solid and Chavez and Cantu are alright, but the rest looks bad. You're low on power and speed, which doesn't bode well. For using that strategy with pitching, you didn't make out that well. You should probably lean the other way, because pitchers are more inconsistent and injury prone. I'd trade one of the closers for another bat now, and still try to find another one somehow.

Looks like we have a full league now. Sweet.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) On that I won't disagree with you. The only part i took issue with was talking about his strikeout numbers. I know strikeouts aren't everything, but for non-strikeout pitchers giving up a lot of free passes (Wang was on pace for about 55 if he pitched 200 innings) is more harmful than a guy that has a high strikeout total.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) Wang is a sinker-ball pitcher, so just like for Garland, Strikeouts aren't necessarily that important for him. Garland also cut his walk rate considerably from previous years to this year. If you're pitching to contact while putting that many guys on, you're playing with fire.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Chacon was always a somewhat decent pitcher...he was an All-Star in 2003 and was off to a fairly good start as well...then Colorado f***ed with him and put him into a closer's role, which was probably the stupidest thing they could have done at that point...and he was again off to a solid start in Colorado this past year before being traded to the Yankees, where he put up a 2.85 ERA in 70 some innings to go along with a 1.22 WHIP...the WHIP isn't outstanding, but it is still fairly solid. Wang is only 26 and has put up fairly solid numbers throughout the minors, and while he may not be able to crack the Sox 6, he isn't bad...probably better than mediocre. Given, it was his rookie season, and the league hadn't seen him yet, so perhaps they will adjust to him and start hitting him harder next year...just have to wait and see. I'm just looking at the numbers, and the only thing even close to encouraging from either of them is what Chacon did for the Yankees in the second half of last year. Even then, his WHIP was pretty high. Before that he only had one year with an ERA under 5, and that was at 4.60. It wasn't just Coors Field that killed him either, he was also pretty bad on the road. Plus he's never pitched over 160 innings in a season. I'm considering the second half of last year a major fluke until further notice. As for Wang, he was decidedly mediocre last year. His ERA was respectable, but he had very few strikeouts and put a lot of guys on base. That's not a good sign for the future.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) But we're going to get 2 nice top-5 draft picks, and hopefully 1 of them will turn into Aldridge. Or even better, maybe Oden next year.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:37 PM) actually it is probably happening next year. this is from mark tupper's web log on feb. 2: blog link and for the record, weber has said throughout his tenure at illinois that they would schedule southern as soon as the players he recruited were off the roster. that would be next year. and when the pigs fly, will they be wearing capes? Oh man, there is a great Simpsons reference for that, but I'm already over my quota for the month.

I went with Rose, because he seems to be an increbily arrogant malcontent that thinks he's star when he's only played like one for 2 or 3 years out of his career (and I'm still using the term loosely). Definitely a tough call though, they have a lot of ballhogs. So Hammer, what's the over/under on years before Ben Gordon is a Knick? 2.5?

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) Last team you guys will have to judge....maybe Your offense is good but not stellar. A-Rod, Dunn, Hafner, and Martinez are a pretty good core, although I've said before that Martinez typically goes way too high in the draft. If some of your outfielders stay healthy, you do have the potential to kick some ass though. I'm not 100% sold on Crosby. I'd look for a backup SS and a non-injury prone OF. You have two great SP, one pretty good one, and some other decent options, so that should work well. You're really taking some risks with your closers though. Foulke mayb not be healthy, Benitez is coming off an injury and often struggles when healthy, and Reitsma isn't all that likely to keep his job all year. I'd try to jump on the first new guy that becomes available.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Who are you taking out of the staff to get RJ in though? That's my question. Of all the Yankee pitchers, he was probably the most arguable...but considering USCF and how much the wind benefits RHB and the fact that he's a year older, I'm just not sure I could even see him putting up a sub-4.00 ERA. Also, from how Chacon pitched in the second half of last year, one could argue him over Vazquez or McCarthy - same thing with Wang. I just so happen to love Vazquez having looked at his peripherals from the past couple years and think he is in for a very good year with the Sox, so I'm only ever going to argue for him. McCarthy one could argue over, but it would be hard to with no bias. For the long haul, I wouldn't take him since he is ancient. For this year, I'd take him over anyone but Buehrle and Garcia. Contreras and Garland have 2 decent years between them thus far, Vazquez is still a question mark until he starts pitching like his old self, and McCarthy has about 12 career starts to his credit. To be fair, there's no guarantee that any of our starters puts up a sub-4 ERA, although Buehrle is very likely and Garcia has done it the last two years. You could also argue that our guys benefited from a very good defense much like Randy benefited from a very good offense. Our staff is good, but it's not like our #3 starter won the Cy Young last year. Don't give me that crap with Chacon and Wang though. Those guys aren't very good at all.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) I might need another for league one. We still haven't heard from Mathew, altough the draft isn't until March 19th so there isn't a big rush, yet. I still need like half a league for #5, and to the best of my knowledge there are still two open spots in league #4, and possibly some in league #6, they're still signing up. I have no clue what is going on with League #8. I'm going to get in touch with some people and see if I can resolve some of this mess.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) You think Weber is a better coach than Izzo? In terms of getting the most out of his talent, yes. Izzo has slipped a bit from his ass-kicking of the conference a few years ago. His team was absolutely loaded last year, and they would have been a major disappointment if they didn't get hot at the right time. This year's team is even worse. There is no reason that they shouldn't be killing the Big Ten this year. In terms of talent, they are better than last year's Illini team, and I don't think it's that close. Williams is the only guy I'd call an elite player on that team, while MSU has 3 guys with Big Ten POY talent. Plus Neitzel has all the tools to be a very good PG, and Gray/Trannon should be more effective at PF than they are. I have nothing against Izzo, and he's a better overall coach because he's a solid recruiter. He's definitely got a better resume, and in no way is he a bad coach. But Weber has put together two pretty good seasons the last two years without having the best talent.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) 1. Harris was not on the team last year. 2. Wilkinson did not even get drafted in the NBA. This team is more talented than the team last year, it is more talented than the team 2 years ago. Tucker is going to make a push for being Big 10 player of the year, Taylor is making an argument for most improved player in the Big 10, and Nixon/Butch have been nice offenisve compliments, especially since Butch's ankle has been better and Nixon has become more comfortable at guard. Illinois did beat Wisconsin at home, but that was more Illinois playing well compared to anything Wisconsin did wrong, it also was perhaps the worst coached game by Ryan (why he never thought to post Ray Nixon who was being gaurded by Dee Brown I will never understand.) My biggest complaint is people coming in here and saying MSU this, OSU that. Well Wisconsin beat both of them, and completely hammered MSU. It all depends on the day, pretty much the top four teams in the Big 10, MSU, OSU, Illinois, Wisconsin all have equal chances depending on the draw. ::shrugs:: I think there is plenty of evidence to support that. 1) You decided that somehow what Wisconsin did since 2000 was important to what's happening now, which is why I mentioned Harris. 2) Wilkinson was a highly productive player in college and a senior leader. He'd make a difference. I think the NU game last night showed you that this team clearly isn't better than last year's. It's virtually the same roster, only Wilkinson and Chambliss are gone and Butch plays more. He let NU block his shot on a few occasions, that shows you how soft he is. I never said Tucker or Taylor couldn't play, it's the rest of the team. Butch is a very unreliable third option, and Nixon is even worse. I don't get why you're infatuated with a guy averaging 6 points, shoots 42.5% from the field, 37.3% from behind the arc, and offers virtually nothing in rebounds, assists, or steals. He's highly mediocre. There are very good reasons that people have more faith in the Illini and OSU than Wisconsin, and most of the love for MSU is because of their talent level. First off, Illinois nailed them head to head, and OSU split a home and home, winning by 10 in the other game. Wisconsin has now lost to 4 bad teams on the year in NU, ND State, Purdue, and Wake Forest, and only have three good wins against MSU, Iowa and OSU at home, two of those coming very early in the conference season when they were playing better. On top of that, their 8 losses are by an average of 9 points. Illinois' only bad loss was PSU, and they have several more quality wins. OSU doesn't have any bad losses, has a few good wins, and has been within 3 points in all but one of their losses. Those teams also have only 5 and 4 losses respectively.

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 08:30 AM) I AM STILL LOOKING FOR A LEAGUE TO JOIN........LET ME KNOW IF ANYONE NEEDS A SPACE FILLED. I'll get back to those of you that are currently in the roto league. That doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and it seems like I might have space issues in League #5. I'm going to see what I can do.

QUOTE(iWiN4PreP @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 10:23 PM) My team I just now drafted has a s***load of hitting. I drafted all hitting positions first, just to see what i could come up with Of : B. Abreu, C. Crawford, M. Holliday, J. Francour, H. Matsui 1b : J. Morneau, T. Helton 2b : M. Giles SS : J. Peralta 3b : T. Glaus C : V. Martinez I dont really have any pitching. Oh and yeah, i do draft alot, im nearly on comp every second im home just because im here, in my room, and not much other to do. Damn man, I think you do as many drafts as I used to. How many teams do you have? I think the most I ever had was about 20. Of course there was no way I could stay active in all of them.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:19 PM) you have been very consistent in your support of michigan. i could see them putting it together if they get in, and right now i think they are in. I put quite a few qualifiers on that though. I figured that they could have a good year for quite some time. They haven't exactly kicked ass, but they haven't sucked either, and the injury problem has come back to bite them again. It's not as bad as last year, but Abram is a major asset, and they lost Harris at a bad time. If he doesn't get hurt in that game, they might have beaten OSU, they probably don't lose at Purdue, and they're probably more competitive at East Lansing if that isn't his first game back. We'll see what happens. For them to make serious noise, they need Abram. That gives them a really good perimeter game, and enough big guys to hold their own. If they don't have him but Harris and Hunter are back at full speed, I think they're in a similar spot as the Illini. In their current state, they'll struggle to get out of the second round.