jackie hayes

Damn! That whole ANWR thing really did work. Was I wrong on that one!

I hope it goes through, but I don't give any credit to Selig. They JUST reworked this, he could have pushed it then instead of gabbing about how effective this grand new policy was going to be. But occasionally something as petty as grandstanding can lead to good results...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...i-sportsnew-hed An article about Ozzie playing short to bridge the Sox over all these injuries. Zero substance, but a couple fun quotes. My favorite Ozzie quote: It's funny cuz it's true.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 08:27 AM) My point was that the Sox have outperformed the Twins every year, I think, in the run differential stat and therefore should have one the division. So the Twins have, on the positive side, proven the game is beyond stats. The Sox, conversely, have proven it from a negative standpoint. That's one statistic, not The Statistic. It doesn't "prove" that statistics in general are useless. And certainly noone claims that they have The Stat That Is Bigger Than Baseball. That's just spin. The Twins pitching last year was unreal, in person and by the numbers -- by almost any measure. Anyway, everyone's saying 'Oh, Neyer's a stathead' and using that to color his arguments without even looking at the argument, where he's not using any exotic stat whatsoever. He says the pitching has been spectacular (backs it up with that voodoo number "era") -- it has. Who can deny that? Meanwhile the hitting has been unimpressive. Is that in question? While I'm confident the bats will pick up, I think this is a very fair analysis (if it's open to criticism, it would not be for use of rare statistical animals, but for being too obvious to be interesting). The gap between our starters' performances so far and their respective histories is larger than the performance/potential gap in the lineup. We ARE basing our success this year on the hope that Jon and Jose (at least) are better than their career stats. Neyer doesn't buy that, and that seems like a fair position. But we'll see.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 03:55 AM) He probably can't because of his hand. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 03:55 AM) Pablo still cant grab the bat. His wrist is still sore. QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 03:55 AM) His wrist is still hurting. When did Ozuna hurt his leg?

QUOTE(sox-r-us @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 03:48 AM) We better hit a pitcher with a name like Jamie....focking girl's name Totally. Not as manly, as majestic -- as Jackie.

Psych! It's okay, many posters shrink before my awesome logic. You're no less of a man than before...if that is any consolation.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 01:55 PM) So you're saying Wendelstedt is a racist???? AYE'M YOOST KEEEDEEEENG!!! I know what you're getting at, but I really didn't see the call on Crede as a vendetta against Ozzie or the Sox. I just think Crede was too obvious about sticking out the elbow. The timing could definitely bring questions up ( it sure did with Hawk ), but I honestly didn't see it that way. A better acting job by Crede would've gotten him the base, I think. Fair enough. I'm not saying it was or wasn't payback, I haven't seen the play. I was just saying, that's the concern.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 12:52 PM) Should you NOT get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 35 just because someone else never gets caught doing it? I will let this drop, but I just wanted to address this -- if a police officer lets all the white guys go 50 in a 35 but then pulls over a black guy who goes 50 in a 35, then I'd say that ticket is wrong, given the history. And that's similar to the concern here -- you don't want the umps to use the rule book as a cudgel against people they don't like. The Sox should be able to expect the same interpretation of the rules that any other team would get.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 06:36 AM) Please. I never said he was guaranteed to make a big contribution as a kick/punt returner. I said he could. He has just as much a chance as doing that as any of the players you pointed out making huge contributions to their respective teams. That is just the way it goes. He don't know what they will do no more than I do. That was my point. Nothing more and nothing less. I wasn't using Keary Colbert as a perfect comparison to Mark Bradley, that is obviously a ridiculous comparison. My comparison was to how plans change. You may not have plans for him to be a contributor, but then something happens, such as an injury or poor play. YOu just don't know what is going to happen. Just because they don't plan on him playing and starting does not mean he can't or won't. That was my comparison. You took it out of context, but that's ok. I never said they are not guarnteed to be pro bowlers. Where did this come from? A select few are pro bowlers. I believe I said starters or key contributors. If they are not starters or key contributors then the team must be doing something else with them. Maybe this something else would be considered developing them. Maybe they are developing them because they are projects and not NFL ready just yet. That's all. This is hopeless. Everything I can find from Carolina about Colbert shortly after the draft suggests that he was behind Smith, Mush, and Proehl, but still was ready to contribute if necessary (good hands, knows the position well, smart player, etc). The Bears -- not me, mind you -- are saying that Bradley is not ready. Angelo -- not me, mind you -- said that he is a "work in progress". The Bears are even treating him differently. Instead of learning a couple positions as most backups do, he's going to be limited to one position so as to get up to speed. This guy played one year in college, and even then he didn't get many touches, yet you say he's just as ready as a three-year starter like Justin Miller. You argue that he's just as likely as anyone to contribute immediately, when THE TEAM THAT DRAFTED HIM says otherwise. Okay, coach.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 04:56 AM) I've thought about getting them for some time now... I've never seen any episodes, so I guess if I started I'd get them all Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!! Conversion time... All I say is watch the first season. It's easy to get into. No 'give it a chance' or 'stick with it' or anything like that. No Sex & the City 'it'll get better' crap. Start from the beginning, you'll be hooked real fast. I'm a 24 fan myself, but The Sopranos blows that show out of the water. (Anyway, 24 went downhill fast.)

Annie Hall, Hard Day's Night, and that's it. How can you have all those, and not the Sopranos?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:34 AM) Isn't that child pornography? Whatever the origin, I'm pretty sure I'd get slapped if I ever showed that to the fair sex. But that's so random, it might be worth it anyway. Sign me up!

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:31 AM) contribute? Hmmm, I am sure Bradley will be contributing on special teams. I thnk they plan on making him a kick or punt returner. You can make a big contribution doing that. I highly doubt ALL those guys are going to or are guaranteed to make a contribution that could be as significant as that. Ah, but he's "guaranteed" to be a huge guy on returns. Okay. Sorry, perhaps he's Dante Hall, but most special teamers are just not that important. Or maybe I've forgotten how far that Chad Morton signing got the Redskins. Funny, btw, that you use Keary Colbert as an example: "Holds the University of Southern California career record with 207 receptions, sixth on the all-time Pac-10 list, topping the previous mark of 204 by Kareem Kelly (1999-2002)...2,964 career receiving yards rank third on the Trojans all-time record chart (eighth on the all-time Pac-10 list), surpassed only by Kelly (3,104) and Johnnie Morton (3,201, 1990-93)...Gained more than 100 yards receiving in six contests and caught a pass in his last 36 consecutive games...Joined Keyshawn Johnson (1,362 yards in 1994 and 1,434 in 1995) and Mike Williams (1,265 in 2002 and 1,314 in 2003) as the only players in school history to gain more than 1,000 yards receiving in a season twice in a career." From http://www.nflplayers.com/players_network/...k.aspx?ID=35662. Kinda maybe a little more experienced than Bradley? And maybe that helps. Could you stop with all this 'they're not guaranteed to be pro bowlers anyway' stuff? We know that, that's not the point.

"...and "I Support Your Vagina" for boys..." Where can I gets me one of those? God, that's funny!

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:11 AM) That is exactly what I was saying. Most picks in the 2nd round do not have the skills/experience to start now. s***, a lot of 1st rounders don't even have that. Bradley may be a higher risk, but he will also be a higher reward. "Start" was the wrong word -- I should have said "contribute". Just a mistake, sorry about that. Every one of the guys I listed is more ready than Bradley to contribute in 2005/2006.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 03:05 AM) Ok, so most of the players in rounds 1-3 are not projects? They are for sure NFL starters? Nothing to work on? No busts? They are ready to step into the NFL right now and start? What the hell are you smoking? That's not what projects means -- you might be as ready as you're ever going to be and still bust. That's not a project -- those guys don't need teaching, they need another vocation. A project is someone who simply doesn't have the skills/experience to start now. I'm not saying Bradley won't be good -- eventually. Maybe he will. But he's a much bigger risk than most 2nd round picks (none of which is a sure thing, we all agree on that).

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:42 AM) All those guys are projects. Give me a break. Who knows when he will contribute? Neither you or I know that. I would never project something like that. Who knows? Well... Angelo SAID that he won't contribute this year, so apparently the Bears know. From a Sun Times article: "Angelo expects him only to contribute on special teams in 2005". Angelo even knows that Bradley is a project, moreso than other players. In his own words, "We liked Reggie Brown and think he's more prepared to play right now. But Bradley brought something to us that we coveted more, and that was speed. And he's very tough. He's more of a work in progress, but he certainly has taken giant steps..."

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:29 AM) Who is not a project in the 2nd round? Half of the 1st rounders are projects. That is a really ludicroud statement to make. Very few players are ready to start in the NFL right out of the draft. Matt Jones is a project, I'll grant you. But he's also switching positions while making the leap. Mark Bradley already made the switch to wr, and he didn't do much of anything. Now the Bears are saying he won't do much of anything for at least a couple more years. This sounds good? Who is not as much a project as Mark Bradley: Looking at the list, I'd say basically the entire 2nd round, excluding Bradley. But for sure: Baas, Pool, Brown, Ruud, Cody, Bullocks, Burnett, Arrington, Roth, Nugent, Barnes (still a project, just not so much), Cody, Miller, Babineaux, Thurman,... Every draftee is a project in a sense. But a high second round pick, and the guy won't contribute until next year at the earliest, that's some real faith, right there.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:25 AM) Who is not a project in the 2nd round? Was there anyone else in the 2nd round this year with as little college football experience as Bradley? Fewer plays? Who? (Nugent does NOT count. )

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:23 AM) haha your not supposed to use your EARLY 2nd round pick on a project like that... they should have made a smarter WR choice or a complete diff pick My thinking too -- which is why all this praise for picking the guy is really confusing me. (Some people have questioned it, but a lot of people -- including Kiper, but not just him -- have said that this was a very smart pick. I dunno.)

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:16 AM) Bradley wasn't even an impact player on his college team, so I'd be surprised if he made an impact on the Bears right away. JA did say something like this after the first day of the draft, to the effect that they don't expect much of anything from Bradley this year except on special teams. He's your prototype project. Edit: For practice: No, really, I meant exactly what I said.

I should really start using green again.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:07 AM) 58 receptions 780 yards and 8 TD's is pretty solid for a rookie on a team that had like 3or 4 diff QB's start for them last season.. Yeah, but Az's clearly screwed with Boldin and Fitzgerald. Two 4.5 40 guys who can do nothing besides "catch the ball well" and "run routes well", pfft. How will they ever spread the field? I hope the Bears don't trade Bradley for either one of THOSE guys.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) I think your memory is a little hazy concerning last year's rankings. I read an awful lot of material before the draft, and he was far and away the #2 WR on pretty much everyone's board behind Roy Williams. I think Williams will be a very good receiver, and I agree with most of what you say about him -- but you are forgetting one Larry Fitzgerald, who was kinda a pretty good prospect himself...