bmags

I wish Trey didn't fade so much in the second half. Really hope he starts to show power next year, as that slugging % is really low (honestly, surprisingly low to me considering the HRs/Doubles)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 10:27 AM) If it is an NFL dump, it makes Goodell look like a bumbling idiot. Does it? I guess part 2 changes things. Part 1 just seems like an outline of "the whole rest of the league thought the patriots had it coming after spygate and so this was a makeup call, here's how bad the Pats cheating was".

It was a good read on how organized spygate was, and I didn't read all of it to see the stuff on the rams, however: - To me it's annoying with the timing I can't help but find it to just be an NFL dump to espn to gain favor - Honestly, I am not sure I followed spygate that well, as I thought it was all about the Rams not about taping defensive signals. I'm a little surprised that is illegal. Otherwise why do coaches cover their mouths as they talk, or try to obscure the signals at all?

QUOTE (soxfan49 @ Sep 7, 2015 -> 07:31 PM) Who can beat Ohio St? Maybe vatech

Didn't get to that part. Spent all day trying to get oil filter off. Went all over getting different tools. Not meant to be. Biggest waste of time on a nice day.

Changing my own oil for first time today now that I have a garage. Hope I don't total car.

Sports are funny. Mizzou enetered the season with nice lb/db depth and questionable RB and OL depth. So what happens in the first? Our starting RB and C go down with ankles.

Will be interesting to see how long Mauk can hang on as a starter. Lock just looks so much better in every facet

Really wanted the team to be .500 this year, thought that would give me some excitement of a wild card race late into the season. But outside of about 6 weeks of nice baseball, man. In some ways I'm very optimistic about this team, but putting it all together just seems so impossible.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) Fairly certain we will be really bad. We don't even have any wideouts right now and have zero tackles. This team is set up to be very bad. Defensively you have no anchor's / young proven playmakers. Now the hope is some of those guys emerge but this team is seriously devoid of proven (still in its prime) talent, especially in the secondary. You have deficiency in safety, but you also have the possibility that Amos is a legitimate starting safety getting real coaching. You have deficiency in ILB, but you have Pernell mcphee, and possible real player in Christian Jones. Dline may be legitimately exciting to watch, as Sutton/Goldman/Ego are young and have shown flashes. There is so much more to watch for than last year. There are no young proven playmakers, but that doesn't mean they won't become then. We finally have a coaching staff that is coaching defense.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 12:02 PM) That Bears secondary could be the worst in the NFL. If they don't put pressure on a QB, they are going to have some ugly games. Which would be an improvement from "ugly game every time out"

The bears last year had 3 straight games where they were down by 30 points or more at halftime. I don't know if you assume that by people thinking the bears will improve means that they are the seahawks, but, no I do not expect the Bears to have 3 straight games giving up 30+ points at halftime. I expect the one of the best game planning defensive coordinators in football to create more effective defenses than Mel Tucker. The secondary, to me, does not seem appreciably worse than last year. The linebackers are going to be better, the line better. Does that mean top 15 d? No, but is that an improvement to last year? yes.

If you think this defense is going to be worst than last year, I don't know what to tell ya. Also, likely due to a more balanced offense we will hopefully see a better TOP.

Senorise perry on IR to get to 75. Obviously.

If missouri makes the playoff in my lifetime I'm going to guess it's within the next 4 years. Drew Lock looks like the best QB we've ever had.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:31 PM) Conferences without championship games are hurt much more by early season losses and bad schedules than ones that have that title game built in. Bama could lose to Wisconsin (not likely) run the table and still get in the playoff. But isn't this what bowl games are for, anyways? I would not want to compromise a season by playing a game too early. Very happy Missouri is playing SEMO on Saturday, with 8 true frosh on our 2-deep. This team on saturday will be nowhere near the team that plays in October, yet in people's heads they hold it as equal. Screw that, get a few games to get ready.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:25 PM) Theres a pretty nice statue of one right outside the stadium. I wish the worst thing Bobby Hull did was that.

Which, btw, was an example of an OOC home and home. As a fan of a team, I'd never advocate a big OOC game early in the season. There is no preseason for college football. I respect Oregon and LSU for that series, but imo it was stupid. You put a blackeye on your season when you have had no chance to see who your best players are. "Cooking the books" muah. Apparently "direction u" is so much worse than having Illinois on the schedule, "north texas".

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) Im specifically referring to the entire conference's bowl performance. Their end of the season "rest" game didnt help much at all. They s*** the bed as a conference collectively. 7-5 as a conference, SEC East ("the worst division in football") 5-0. That's the "bad bowl season" for SEC. Bowls are stupid indicators of conference strength anyways. Does that prove SEC East > West? No, but for people who need selective back-patting, they'll use it when it helps.

At this point, would not be shocked if Alshon is put on IR today. 3 weeks of "day to day".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:01 PM) There is a large difference in logic and motivation here. With steroids, it was all about guys trying to win. With gambling, the chances is there that someone is trying to lose. That makes a very big difference to me in terms of punishment. Someone who is purposefully trying to lose should never be allowed to play professional baseball again, period. With steroids you have players honestly motivated and trying to compete, in the other, you have the absence of competition. Not unfairness within competition, but the absence of it. That's a huge deal.

There is no complaint too petty against the SEC.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) Technically they were always banned, they just weren't tested for. Alright, sure, but stuff like this was going on that is banned now: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/27/opinion/...-pep-pills.html

That is such bull. Would anyone watch baseball if there was serious doubt over whether the games were fixed? Would you watch baseball again if it turned out the White Sox lost in the world series because the umpires were paid off? People certainly answered whether they would watch baseball if there were players on performance enhancers. The difference on the real "integrity of the game" is so gigantic it's not even debatable.

Steroids were not even banned during Thomas's time. ANd frankly, even if they were, to pretty much everyone not making cheap points, purposely throwing a game is a completely different level than taking performance enhancers. There is a huge difference when you are changing the game so that the result is fixed.