iamshack

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:22 PM) All I'm saying is the team came out ill-prepared and the veterans have played flat. Lovie needs to make a statement and start sitting the vets that don't play, etc and being agressive to let people know that enough is enough. He finally did that with Tommie Harris and I comment him. And I still think the Bears are a playoff team, I just think there has been an overall lack of accountability going on in Chicago for a couple years under Lovie and it is getting old. Ron Turner was okay last year, but he's had some abysmal years calling shots, specifically the year after the superbowl where Turner was awful. Bob Babich got a year too long and Lovie ultimately needs a lot of heat for what went down on the defensive side of the football. Rivera is a scapegoat and gets far too much credit, but at the same time, when you get rid of a guy that was donig a good job and being very creative on his blitz schemes (it was a hybrid cover 2) and than switch him for a buddy and that guy fails your going to take heat. San Diego was raving about Rivera last season, this year they've been decimated with injuries (and someone will for sure point out how the Bears were this year...although I think Urlacher is the only key injury and Pisa was a luxury). And no I don't think Rivera is all that great either. Bottom line though, the tone of this team has been poor and it has gotten worse. We haven't seen much development out of any of our young players (sans our Wr's) over the past 3 years and our vets have gotten nothing but worse but seem to continuously get a free pass as they continue to play. I agree with a lot of this. I just happen to believe that in the NFL, you need to really stay away from making harsh judgments as things can look really bad or really good based on very little...Personally, I need to see more.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:18 PM) I think an NFL head coach is far more involved and responsible for his teams successes and failures than an MLB head coach. Yeah, probably, although we've been discussing this over the past hour or so...definitely some interesting points to be made.

Do we really need to egg him on, guys?

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) I've heard that Al Michaels is an epic a$$hole from people who've encountered him and have worked with him. Cris Collinsworth clearly doesn't like him based on comments he makes towards him and body language. What does everybody think of Jon Gruden? I think he's not quite ready for primetime yet. Gruden says too many over the top sayings like "The Eagles are better at running the scramble play than any team I have ever seen," and "Shawn Merriman eats nails for breakfast." I like him because he brings a midwest flavor to the table, but he uses absolutes a bit too much for my taste. I think he'll get better. Mike Patrick is the same way. He falls waaayy too much in love with whomever the players on the field at the game he is calling at the time. Those exact players are always the best in the league.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) I think there are some situations where the matchup between the coach and the team is perfect and it really does help (i.e. 2005 white sox) but otherwise, take your examples. LaRussa has won when he's had really good teams. Even in 2006 when his cardinals sucked in the regualr season, they were a lot healthier down the stretch and in the playoffs. Bill Parcells did some amazing things but he also built some amazing rosters. Belichek, ditto. Guy was run out of Cleveland and literally destroyed the franchise before he got his hands on Tom Brady, those linebackers, and some digital recording equipment. I really just don't feel like a great coach is a fix for a beat up roster or a roster with a lot of holes, unless that coach tries to run a scheme that perfectly fits his roster while another coach was refusing to. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I am not trying to argue that a coach can turn a terrible team into a good one. We were just comparing the affects coaches have in different sports. Personally, I don't think firing Lovie is a good idea.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) And I tend to think the exact opposite. There really is no such thing as a super-coach who you can hire and suddenly make every come up wins. You can have the right coach for the right mix of players, you can have some coaches/players who don't work together and some who do, but unless a manager is totally clueless, switching coaches really doesn't do what some people would like to think it does. You're telling me a good argument couldn't be made, or you are just saying you disagree? Because personally, I pretty much agree with you, but I think you could certainly argue that what Tony LaRussa has done (as opposed maybe to Torre or Cox) is pretty damn remarkable considering some of the rosters he's had over the years. And looking at what Bill Parcels has done in the NFL Is pretty amazing as well.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) I agree with your point but I still think that's apples to oranges. I just don't see how dumping Ozzie and hiring another manager is going to suddenly turn the franchise around the way that, say, hiring Shanahan would do for the Bears (although that'd mean that Cutler would become a 4000+ passer again but the defense would be s*** but that's beside the point). I think you're comparing apples to oranges though as well. You're talking about bringing in an elite football coach but not the possibility of bringing in an elite baseball manager... If we hired Shanahan, would be suddenly become a powerhouse in the NFC? If we hired LaRussa, would we suddenly become a powerhouse in the AL? I tend to think you could make an argument for both...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) IMO the manager in baseball has the least amount of impact on any of the major team sports so the comparison here doesn't really work. In football he evaluates dozens of personnel and installs complex schemes with complex gameplans, in basketball he break down matchups and has his players going with a certain style, in baseball he makes a lineup, tells players to steal bases, and decides when the pitchers come and go during a game. I was anticipating this argument and I almost didn't bother to make the comment above in order to avoid this, but I guess I will bite... I think you're right in terms of strategy - baseball managers don't have nearly the impact that other head coaches do - but I do think they have other duties that are largely psychological in nature over the course of a 162 game schedule that they do not really receive credit/blame for. I think there is probably something to the fact that Bobby Cox, Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and a few others seem to lead their teams to solid season after solid season (I know they have talent, but we have had plenty of talent here throughout the years as well).

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) But when you start, your going to take the heat. Your a professional getting paid to do a job. I wish he could make the plays, but if I don't have the skill-set and forced into something at my job that I'm not prepared for and fail, I'm going to take heat, just like he's going to take heat. Plus when I've heard all about how good Roach and Williams are, yet they have never emerged as a starter it makes me wonder why. Maybe we now know why? Maybe its a bunch of BS and they really are just special teamers. In which case, Lovie/Jerry, how about we start developing guys or drafting better players. I can agree with some of what you are saying here...but I think maybe there is some over reacting going on in response to just a horrendous game...I'd like to see how we look about 4 games from now before I make some of the definitive statements that are being made the last few days in here...

I really can't believe how much s*** Lovie is taking in this thread. Funny how everyone wants Lovie gone but the same people don't seem to be calling for Ozzie's head. Seems like they are awfully comparable to me...

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) The only way the Phils have a shot is if Cliff Lee absolutely carries them and they win all 3 of his starts. Otherwise I think this series goes about 5 games, 6 max and the Yanks take it. Hammels has been bad, Phillies pen isn't good, and there offense isn't near as potent as the Yankees who have the ace in CC and better secondary starters than the Phils (plus a much better pen). Like I said above, no way the Phils take this, barring a dominant performance by Cliff Lee. I don't get how you can say the Philly offense is nowhere near as potent and their secondary starters are better. The Phillies' lineup is really tough top to bottom between Rollins/Victorino/Utley/Howard/Ibanez/Werth, and with Ruiz hitting well, that gives them a top 7 that compares pretty closely to the Yankees' Jeter/Damon/Teix/Arod/Cano/Posada/Matsui. I know Hamels has not been himself, but he and Pedro match up just fine with Burnett and Petitte. I really think this series is going to be closer than many think. The Yankees hold the edge in their bullpen but Joba and Hughes certainly have not been dominant, and Lidge has pitched well for the Phillies.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) Hey, wait a minute...oh, nevermind Anyway, I just never liked Steve Phillips. I couldn't take his opinions seriously because of how badly he did as a GM. I mean, does anybody really want to hear what Matt Millen has to say on ESPN? Phillips had the same problem that Sean Salisbury had, they harped on one thing all the time. You could have a drinking game over how many times Phillips said "Big Papi blah blah blah" or how many times Salisbury mentioned Tom Brady. Honestly, I respect your opinion a lot because I know you have some insight that a lot of us don't, with you being so close to the Barons and all, but come on, man. Being the GM of a professional football team is one of the most demanding and difficult of jobs there are. The men and hopefully soon to be women serving as General Managers are all incredibly intelligent, or they wouldn't have gotten to the point that they are or were. To claim that you can't value their opinion in regards to their respective sports because they didn't get the job done while they had the job is ridiculous. Steve Phillips has infinitely more knowledge regarding the game of baseball than any of us has here, and you can't listen to him because he failed with the Mets? And yet you come here to read the posts of random whackjobs like us on a message board?

No disrespect to anyone posting in this thread, but I am not sure any of us have anywhere near the expertise required to accurately claim whether the Tampa 2 or Cover 2 defense has been solved by opposing offenses. The NFL is such a competitive league. The most minor of advantages or adjustments can create such mismatches or make a scheme look absolutely horrible when in fact only minor adjustments are necessary. I know enough to tell that having Urlacher would help a lot, but what I don't know (and seriously doubt any of us can know) is whether this style of defense has run its course in the NFL or not. I suspect it has not. I happen to believe our issue is personnel related, especially considering the injuries we have in our linebacking corps as well as our currently weak line play. But that's just me.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 07:14 PM) I would think the whole point of a petition is to associate my name with it... that's just me though. Otherwise why bother getting actual names? You could just make s*** up. Bob Stevens, Ed Jameson, Lakeshia Harris, Victoria Hoffman, and Terrence Wimbley all agree with this post. Ooh! Ooh! Where can I sign!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 05:51 PM) If Hamels was pitching like he was last year, I'd agree. But as far as I can tell, the Yanks 2 and 3 starters are simply head and shoulders above where the Phillies 2 and 3 starters are. Lee and Captain Cheeseburger is pretty much an even matchup on paper, so the Phils can't exactly expect to sweep the 3 games lee starts, which means to me they're going to need at least 2 wins from Hamels and Martinez, and then Lidge can't blow those wins on top of it. I really don't find Burnett to be head and shoulders above anyone, let alone Hamels. I know Hamels has struggled, but I think facing the different league might help him out more than most other pitchers. We'll see though. I, for one, am pretty excited about this matchup for the WS.

I honestly think the Phillies have a decent shot here - at least as much as any other team could have. Their lineup is probably the most potent in the postseason other than the Yankees, and they have the starting pitching to make this happen. Not saying I think the Phillies should be favored, but I do think they have a better chance than anyone the Yankees have faced yet this Postseason.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 04:37 PM) Wow, you're going to take a jab at me days later? I thought you got it off of your chest and we left it alone like adults. You're a forum moderator. I've been taking jabs at posts like those for a long time. I'm sorry, but when you make comments like that all the time, without backing them up with anything, I'm going to take shots. I take no issue with people who seem to be negative the majority of the time, but I at least ask that you explain your commentary. Take fathom, for instance. He is admittedly pessimistic about nearly everything. But he takes a sentence or two to at least explain his position, usually with fairly good reason, and so I can respect that. However, when a poster jumps in and merely reiterates something negative, without adding anything of substance to the thread, it becomes tiresome. You may think this is personal, but it's more coincidental; you have a habit of posting this way and I have a habit of calling you out on it. And yes, I understand I am a forum moderator. That does not prohibit me from being harsh at times. On the contrary, I have a duty to call out posts such as yours because I AM a forum moderator - that is part of my job here.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) Didn't mean to confuse matters or anything, you're coming at this from a much grander scale than myself, I don't really care what anyone else said in this thread, I'm strictly speaking for myself here. You were upset that people were just ripping on TV commentators without offering the names of analysts they DO like and since I did state my dislike for Phillips I figured I'd fill your request and offer up a few personalities that I do enjoy. Yeah I agree. When you start getting responses like that usually what you're dealing with is someone who doesn't have any real personal feelings on the matter so they go ahead and parrot the popular opinion on the subject and because of this you're not going to get particularly satisfying reasoning when you call them on it. No, I am glad you added a few guys you enjoy. I share your opinion on a few of them. Just wanted to make it clear that I was not sticking up for Morgan here. I would love to hear some of the other commentators that are well-liked. Personally, I enjoy McCarver, Phillips, Hershiser, Tom Grieve (Rangers color commentator), Bob Brenly, Steve Stone, of course Vin Scully, and as you mentioned, Dave Campbell and Rob Dibble. I think the two worst I have heard are Morgan and Dick Stockton.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) Joe Morgan is the number 1 color guy on ESPN and has been for something like 20 years now, I'd say that's a pretty good job. So his name wasn't brought up directly but he does qualify. I get what you were saying by "top of the totem pole" and that's why I mentioned Leiter, he's done playoff games for FOX and was a color guy for the YES network, that's pretty big time and I think he's great at his job. This was an attempt to eliminate bias. Saying McCarver can't form a coherent sentence is hyperbolic foolishness, I just don't think he brings great insight to the game at this point in his career unlike say 15 years ago when he was really good. He misses a lot of opportunities to expound on in game situations, things that your average broadcaster picks up on. But the point is no one defended Morgan. I made a general statement and you're attempting to lump everyone into it when I did not. I think we both agree that for the most part, his knowledge is antiquated and therefore inaccurate. Obviously this is entirely subjective, so there is no point in arguing over it. Leiter talks about pitching and is entirely biased by the fact that he was a pitcher, much like Phil Simms and Ron Jaworski are because they were quarterbacks. I know McCarver was a catcher, but he manages to talk about all facets of the game, not just things limited to calling a baseball game. I enjoy his perspective. But again, there is no point is arguing over something so subjective. The point I have been TRYING to make in this thread is that NOTHING worthwhile is communicated when people post or say Steve Phillips or Tim McCarver or whomever "cannot form a coherent sentence" or similar absolutely worthless commmentary.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) There's nothing run of the mill about either, when he was with Comcast I'd probably agree that Plesac was nothing special but he's done a 180 with the MLBN his energy is incredible. I have a tough time thinking up negatives about Leiter, he's just as solid as they come. Reynolds is alright, he's a little cliche for my tastes. If the top of the totem pole is McCarver and Morgan then count me in and it has absolutely nothing to do with their success in the field, they're just far past their expiration date. Both should have been purged from the airwaves years ago before they lost their minds. Though in all fairness McCarver is far less offensive than Morgan. I don't know who else qualifies as "the top of the totem pole" but if Phillips is up there then Leiter is higher. When I say top of the totem pole, I mean they work for the top networks or do their work on the prime stage. So they have the best jobs, not that they are necessarily the best at what they do. Why you are bringing up Joe Morgan, I have no idea. At no point has anyone in this thread mentioned he was good at anything. Personally, I find McCarver to be solid. But obviously I am in the minority there. The point I am trying to make is that when you are on a network or in a job that is seen as much as ESPN or Fox during the postseason games, people start making comments and they tend to stick. But far fewer people watch Dan Plesac or Rob Dibble and so they don't immediately say stupid s*** like "So and so can't form a coherent sentence."

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) I absolutely love Mitch Williams, lots of guys on the MLB Network. Leiter and Plesac are outstanding as well. Dave Campbell is also very good. Rob Dibble might be the most entertaining color guy in the game, basically the only reason to watch the Nationals this past season. I have no use for Steve Phillips. I like Soup as well. Plesac and Leiter I have to disagree with you about - they seem run of the mill to me. Agree about Dibble, he is very entertaining. I like Harold Reynolds a lot. I think many people have the instinct to rip on the guys at the top of the totem pole, but cheer on your Dan Plesac's that you watched start out at the bottom.

Again, I love how you guys rip on every single tv commentator. I would love to see a list populated of who you guys actually respect and believe to be good at what they do.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 24, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) I just realized, even though we've gotten all extra psyched about this Sox-Sox trade...does anyone have a link? It's just something that was mentioned on AM 1000 by Buster Olney.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 24, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) If Strasburg had been allowed to negotiate with all 30 teams he could have tripled that figure, easily. Chapman is nowhere near the pitcher Strasburg is, not even close. Chapman shouldn't get $40-60M at all, but the Yankees will have a ton of money available over the offseason and you can never count them out of a bidding war for a top international player. The Yankees have $13M for Damon, $13M for Matsui, $6.5M for Nady, $5.5M for Pettite, another $8.5M+ in spare parts like Gaudin, Hinske, etc., all coming off the books, plus Wang who made $5M is a non-tender candidate. They could have over $50M in departing contracts. I agree in general that most teams will be out of cash. I was just checking some of the Yankees contracts in response to your post. They'll be paying 4 players a total of $96 million next season (ARod-$32m, CC-$23m, Jeter-$21m, and Teix-$20m). Unreal.

QUOTE (onedude @ Oct 23, 2009 -> 06:32 PM) really? Who else does FOX have to do the games? From 97-99, NBC's coverage of the playoffs was pretty good with Bob Costas, but he had Joe Morgan at his side. Wish I had MLB network so I could watch the games Bob does on thursdays. Are you kidding me? They could hire anyone they wanted to do the games. It's not like they are your local high school or something, they can bring in whomever they want. Hell, they're bringing in Ozzie to do pre and post game stuff during the World Series.