whitesoxfan101

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 8, 2009 -> 01:03 AM) NIU is gonna try to slow the game down, Ill State needs to avoid forcing the issue, and play their silky smooth Bill Self flavored offense. I go to NIU, Illinois State is playing UNI today, lol. But yeah, I would agree and imagine today's game will be won by whoever can control the pace. I expect that team to be the Redbirds.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Detroit is basically America's answer to Beirut as it is, a complete hellhole (sorry if you live in Detroit, but it's true.) Combine that with the fact that they finished in dead last in 2008, the economic collapse is making things much worse in Detroit and even causing problems in their normally posh suburbs, and you end up with news like the title of this thread. This is big trouble for them though moreso than it even would be for most teams because of all of the contracts/big payroll they have.

QUOTE (kev211 @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 05:49 PM) Nice to see the turn around from you guys on ISU. Just win tomorrow. I've never thought they were bad. I've just said they aren't the best team in Illinois, and their hot start out of conference should have had tempered excitement because they played absolutely nobody. Both points still stand, and obviously a lot of things that have been said by a lot of us about Illinois State here were to antagonize the ISU fans because their homerism was a bit humerous at times. That's all.

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) Creighton is really really really on the bubble. Yep, and 9 times out of 10, if you are really really on the bubble, you are out because there are usually a few surprises in conference tournaments.

The manner in which Illinois State is thrashing Creighton combined with their near collapse last night against a mediocre opponent might cost the boys from Omaha a tournament bid, similar to what happened to Illinois State when they were thrashed last year in St. Louis (although that was in the league championship game, a different situation.)

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 05:19 PM) Illinois State is a force!!! When they can hit their shots, watch out. As much as I and others make fun of the Illinois State homers around here (and they deserve it with some of the things they say), they are a veteran and talented team (especially in relationship to the level the Valley is at this year in those categories, which isn't very good) and seem to have picked a great time to hit their stride. Assuming nothing crazy happens in the next several minutes and they knock out Creighton, I'd expect the Redbirds to win again against UNI tomorrow and punch their dance ticket.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) Mizzou is a product of their home schedule. Yep. They deserve credit for playing great basketball at home, but get them out of Columbia and they aren't much to write home about. There are other teams that also fit that description, but I don't think any to the degree of Missouri. They are just about done being overrated now though I think, they'll fall into that 15 or so range in the polls with today's loss, which might still be a few spots high but is pretty close to accurate. QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 7, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) Michigan and Iowa may have just saved Wisconsin's NCAA chances. For some reason I had this sinking feeling that after the Gopher choke job that Wisconsin would be the last team left out. But if Wisconsin can beat Indiana tomorrow, the worst they can do is 4th place because I believe they have the tie breaker over OSU. IMO no way 4th place wont make it to the tourney. The tourney selection people look at individual resumes, not so much where you place in conference. In fact, they supposedly don't even pay attention to conference affiliation at all.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 6, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) Anybody notice that Joakim Noah has been a rebounding fool the last 15 games or so? I took a quick look at this and can confirm it, as Noah has 150 rebounds since February 1st (and that includes a 1 rebound game to start the stretch on February 3rd against Houston), a span of 15 games. Good to see him hitting the glass, and it was good to see the Bulls playing well last night.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) I agree with everything you said but the bolded part, mostly because even on his 35 year old legs he is better than 90 percent of the WRs in the NFL Not if Kyle Orton is his quarterback. T.O. has always had a quarterback who is at least pretty good, if not really good, throwing him the ball (which isn't a diss on him, the same could be said for most great WR's), but Owens' weaknesses and the decaying of his talent due to age would really be exposed if he had a poor QB, such as Orton, throwing him the ball.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) I think the point is that you cant judge after the first year, and trading a RB like Forte shouldnt be mission impossible because of his first year numbers. Everyone thought A-Train was awesome after his first year and he has flopped hardcore That is the point indeed. A-Train and Forte were two completely different running backs (and the guy who brought up Salaam was smart, it's sad I forgot that, and he was also different than the first two guys I just mentioned.) The one thing they have in common is they had very good rookie seasons, just like a lot of running backs do. Now, if you asked, I would say that Matt Forte will have a better NFL career than Salaam or Thomas did, but you can't just proclaim him great after the first year. In addition, if all it takes to get Jay Cutler is a dime a dozen rookie sensation running back and a 2nd or 3rd round pick, you do it and be glad the deal happened. Jay Cutler would be the best quarterback the Bears have had in over half a century.

Terrell Owens hasn't been on the field for a playoff win by his team since January of 2003 (remember, he didn't play in any of those Eagles playoff wins that got them to the Super Bowl). To quote a wise man, he's 35 years old and he's not going to get a whole hell of a lot better. He's still put up some numbers recently, but it's pretty clear he's on the downside of his career. And none of that includes the fact he's one of the biggest, most toxic locker room cancers in recent memory. I would say no thanks to this guy, especially if I were a team like the Bears with no quarterback to speak of because he'd lose his mind (if not what is left of his game) pretty quickly. Great decision by the Cowboys to get rid of him.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 02:15 AM) I just want to laugh at everyone who was so sure Missouri was overrated. That was the 2nd time OU has lost with Griffin this year. Shut up people, shut up. Also, go Northwestern. Big win at Purdue. Maybe they are back on the bubble. Add the fact that Kansas lost so Mizzou still has a 1% chance of splitting the Big 12 title and the Bulls won and this was a spectacular basketball night for me. You are really good at home, congrats. You are still overrated and won't go very far in the NCAA Tournament. Mizzou's absolute best case scenario is sweet 16, and considering they are going to be ranked in the top 10 (or very, very close) heading into the NCAA tournament and have been ranked in that area for a long time now, yes they are overrated. Top 10 teams should be final four threats, and Mizzou is not, unless of course they play the NCAA Tournament games in Columbia, in which case you could make a Final Four run. And good luck with getting a share of that Big 12 title, Kansas won't get caught with their pants down twice. Mike Anderson will probably win the national coach of the year though, and deservedly so. Still doesn't change the fact Mizzou isn't nearly a top 10 team.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Mar 5, 2009 -> 07:42 AM) You would trade Forte and potentially a first day pick for Jay Cutler? ANYBODY would trade Forte and a 2nd or 3rd rounder (you said that more specifically later in this post, 3rd round isn't 2nd day anymore but I know what you meant since it was through the 2007 draft) pick for Jay Cutler. The Bears haven't had a proven, franchise quarterback since Sid Luckman, and running backs like Forte are a dime a dozen and very easy to find. A trade like that is not a particularly difficult decision. However, the Bears are going back to the old days of "tossing nickels around like manhole covers" (a saying which I really hate but does apply this offseason) so it's not like they'd make a move or something. Anthony Thomas rookie numbers: 278 carries, 1,183 yards, 7 TD Matt Forte rookie numbers: 316 carries, 1,238 yards, 8 TD Forte did have a much better rookie year receiving (about 300 more yards), but a large part of that is the fact that it can be said literally and without hyperbole that the 2008 Bears had one of the worst WR groups in NFL history. Would YOU have traded Anthony Thomas and a 2nd or 3rd rounder after his rookie year for a franchise type QB? I would have, and I'd do the same damn thing in the case of Forte.

There is no doubt in my mind it was rigged, and this is not the first time they've rigged the draft lottery either. The entire origination of the draft lottery was so that the league could fix the thing and send Patrick Ewing to New York. Even now, there is a reason the ping pong ball drawing is done in private. The only way the NBA would ever convince me they don't fix the lottery is if they did the ping pong drawing on television for everybody to see, and even that wouldn't change the fact that the NBA has picked and choosed spots to fix the thing for the last quarter century. I am amazed that "no" is winning this poll right now, but considering this is a board full of Bulls fans, maybe I shouldn't be.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 2, 2009 -> 07:45 AM) Oh, that would suck so much. Long contracts for pitchers are a bad idea... even for Johan Santana. ESPECIALLY for Santana. He's a small guy for a pitcher (6 feet tall and 200 pounds I believe) and he threw A LOT of innings in Minnesota, especially his last 4 or 5 years. With very few exceptions, pitchers arms only have so many bullets in them. You would think the Mets would have learned their lesson with dominant, small starting pitchers who threw a ton of innings after the way things worked out with Pedro Martinez (who, if I recall, was very good his first year in New York and has been a major letdown since), but not so much.

Alfonso Soriano, considering the economy right now and his skills, has to be one of the 5 worst contracts in all of sports.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) The problem with that metaphor is...if the White Sox fail this season, it doesn't drag down the other 30 teams in MLB with them. If people lose their jobs, it drags other people down with them. Well yeah, that's why I said it's a loose analogy and that what happens to the White Sox is nowhere near as important as what happens to the economy. My basic point still stands though, which is you can't be so arrogant as to hope you are right and find the accuracy of your own opinion to be more important than what is best for your country (or in the sake of the White Sox and my opinion, I don't find my opinion more important than what makes me happy, which is White Sox success, so I'd rather be wrong.) Don't take the analogy too literally or think it through too hard because I'm not as smart as you are. (sad but true.)

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) I don't understand the Republicans with this 'Obama must fail' I don't understand that, they could just say, we understand that something needs to be done to jumpstart the economy, we believe it can be done with tax cuts and giving businesses more incentives. We understand and hope that the spending of the Obama administration will work, as any spending will create more jobs, but we feel it is irresponsible and beyond the role of the government to commit those jobs." Hoping something will fail because it doesn't jive with your beliefs is in my opinion almost the definition of counter productive. Rush Limbaugh and his friends hoping Obama will fail because they don't agree with his policies is like me hoping the White Sox are a mediocre, .500 team this year because that is what I think they are. Obviously the White Sox aren't as important as Obama or even close, but it's the same concept they are playing here. It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face, sometimes it's just better to be wrong. I'd rather be wrong about the White Sox and see them win the World Series, and although I don't agree with a lot of Obama's economic ideas, I'd rather see them work because it's better for the country. Not a hard concept to grasp. Disagreeing is ok, but hoping for failure is just stupid.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) He doesn't actually think America is an inferior place, he just thinks that a lot of people overlook our own obvious flaws due to blind patriotism and likes to call it out when he sees it (I know this from talking to him all the time). I don't overlook our flaws. I think our entire political system is a mess, find our justice system to be a bit of a joke, and am 50/50 on if we'll ever recover from the current economic mess we're suffering. That doesn't mean we should just back off and listen to/do whatever the rest of the world wants us to.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 06:49 PM) I dont care if this is your opinion or not, it's wrong. What constitutes being the best country? Sure, we've been great at accumulating wealth but wages in America have remained stagnant relative to inflation for 30 years now. Have you actually thought about this at all, or are you just being a homer? I'm sure part of it is just being a homer, but if you really think we aren't that good and think that we are some kind of bad people for becoming the world's lone superpower, maybe you shouldn't live here. I don't really think I've ever met an American crazy enough to think that America is some kind of bad, inferior place, other than apparently you. Look no further than the worldwide impact our economic crisis is having if you think we aren't, by far, the most important and powerful nation on the planet. You'd be a PERFECT fit at the UN though, I will say that.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 08:04 AM) Ask Japan about what should, and should not be, options. In a world where in one moment we could kill hundreds of thousands of humans, and destroy ecosystems for hundreds of years, losing our right to Rush Limbaugh and the New York Times, seems rather small. Speak for yourself.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Reminds me of the talk of the permanent majority the GOP knew they had. They thought all they had to do was blame nancy pelosi and and crazy liberals and they would always win. The Democrats are going down the same path, no ideas just need to blame GW Bush and Rush Limbaugh for everything. It might work short term, but if the economy is crap and things are going bad in 2010 and 2012 using Limbaugh as a strawman won't work. Blaming Bush won't either. After a couple years people aren't going to except that. It's going to beabout what the Democrats accomplish/have happen to them. Now this I completely agree with. I really don't think either party has much of any ideas right now to be honest though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) Rush Limbaugh polls lower in national polling than George W. Bush. If people like Rush Limbaugh run the GOP, it is simply going to turn into a geographically specific regional party. It will be able to get votes in the southeast, Texas, Utah, and some parts of the midwest/great plains, but that's it. Some might argue that's already happened with how the GOP does in big cities, but it will only get worse if the party keeps moving further to the right.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) I agree that it would be stupid to go after Rush. Let that jackass hang himself, just give him all the rope he wants. This couldn't be more true. My current anger at the GOP is due to the fact they REFUSE to call out Rush and are basically admitting he is the most powerful voice in the party right now. I simply can't support a party whose most important and powerful voice is a man who I completely disagree with on most things. The democrats going after him has nothing to do with my anger at Rush or the GOP, and I think the democrats going after him is just a waste of time honestly. I can't see how it will do anything of relevance.

As much as people like Rush Limbaugh HATE to admit it, the GOP cannot sustain any sort of relelvant power without gaining moderate votes. And as long as the GOP caters to Rush Limbaugh, they will not win the moderate vote. There are simply too many moderate voters (like me, and I hate to speak for anybody, but I feel safe in doing it here) who realize that Rush Limbaugh is a dumb hack and will not stand to listen to his nonsense. It is pathetic that he is the most powerful and relevant voice in the GOP right now, but that really is the case at the moment and it's sad to see the party has fallen that far.