Boogua

Coop will fix him.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 10:30 PM) Congratulations, you guys accomplished what we did last year, lose at home in the NFC Championship game Hey! He'll take that superbowl!... that they won in 1995....

Sam is absolutely atrocious. Not smart either. I hope he costs Weber his job.

Florida St. had a pretty gross week. They probably have the two best wins now. UNC at home by 100 and duke on the road.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 10:16 PM) That last play should get Weber fired on the spot. Maniscalco shouldn't have even been in the game let alone the 2nd option. So f***ing sick of this s***. Seriously. He falls in love with slow white guys that have "intangibles". I thought I might have been done watching that type of garbage when Bill Cole and Mike Tisdale graduated, but I guess not.

Like I've said numerous times this year about Sam. This isn't the MVC.

QUOTE (SnB @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 10:01 PM) maniscalco makes my eyes bleed. +100000000000000000000000000000

Over the back is legal for the home team.

Sam pounding the ball at the top of the key for 10 seconds. At least Abrams gets rid of the ball and runs around. What exactly is Sam contributing right now? What can he do better than Abrams at this point?

Please take Sam out the game. He's just not there right now.

Sam airballing threes and turning the ball over. So there's really nothing he's doing better than Tracy right now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 19, 2012 -> 08:40 PM) Lol, terrible. Flagrant on Bertrand. What s***. 5 point swing. Didn't look malicious at all. Gotta love B1G road games.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) Absolutely. I feel right now is a new Golden Age in the NBA, whereas that threepeat team was just outside the last Golden Age. In terms of story lines I guess I'd have to agree with you. I just get frustrated with this topic because I hate when I see guys like Steve Nash be put up there with all time greats, when I don't think his game translates well at all to the 90s. I understand that he was fantastic in this era. Both MVPs came directly after the handcheck rule was implemented though (coincidence?). I think the early 90s was the golden age in terms of skill+athleticism and I always wonder how guys from that era would translate to today's era. I mean, I can't even begin to think of what KJ would be in today's NBA. It's a scary thought. And he's just one guy. Sorry if it seems like I'm trolling. And Felix, I'm glad you made that last comment. That's all I was really looking for.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) It's almost comical every time CSN airs a Bulls game from the playoffs in the 2nd threepeat. Every game winds up something like 88-85. The game today is quite entertaining... and guys like Rose (obviously) and Rubio are big reasons it gets more fun to watch with each passing moment. Just sit back and enjoy the evolution of the game. Because the Bulls were much older and played in the half court almost exclusively. Look at the first 3 peat teams. Do you think today's NBA is more entertaining than that one? I agree that today's NBA can be entertaining, although frustrating, but I don't know if I'd describe it as evolving.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) Have you heard of Jason Kidd before? Haha, I knew he would come up. Kidd was pretty solidly built though and a very physical guard. Look at his rebound numbers. Rubio and Kidd aren't the same player. Rubio is much closer to Nash stylistically, sans the jumpshot. Kidd is also one of the few guys that could get away with that style of play too. The wolves have two guys, in Barea and Rubio, that show how the NBA has gotten bad. Don't get me wrong, they're fine in today's game, especially Rubio it looks like, but they wouldn't have been very good players in the past. It is what it is. Derrick Rose wouldn't win an MVP in the past either. Although with his size, speed, and athleticism I think he could have possibly been a Zeke type player (if he focused on passing) or an AI type (if he solely focused on scoring). There's tons of evidence showing how that handcheck rule changed the NBA. There was a reason that they had to implement it too, obviously. The players could no longer score at a high level under the old rules (due to lack of fundamentals).

QUOTE (Felix @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 11:55 AM) How are we defining "pretty good"? Rose shot 42% from 10-15 feet last year (league average was 40%). He shot 50% from that range in 2009-10, so that'd be pretty good, especially since it was a drastic improvement over his 38% mark from that range as a rookie. In his career (including his 31% mark from that range this year), that'd be 42%, which is basically average. His 42% last year would have still have him above Deron, Conley, Wall, Rondo, and Felton. It would also have him just about equal with Paul. Two years ago when he was carrying less of the load and was taking efficient shots we saw how much better his midrange game was. Whatever. A Ricky Rubio type player wouldn't even have been in the league 10-15 years ago. Look at Nash's first 4 or so seasons. That would have been Rubio.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) "Huge Bulls fan" complaining about point guards that are quick and can't hit jump shots? I'm so confused right now. Why's that? Derrick Rose actually has a pretty good midrange jump shot. He just tends to fall in love with shooting 3s. With that said, I will still gladly concede the fact that Derrick Rose wouldn't have averaged 25 and 8, at that age, even 10 years ago.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 17, 2012 -> 08:44 AM) He's no LeBron, obviously. But he's a pretty sweet consolation prize. I've never, ever seen this many electrifying PGs in the league all at the same time. Rose, Wall (who dropped 38 last night), Rondo, Deron, Irving, Paul, Westbrook, Conley, Lawson, Rubio and probably a couple others I'm forgetting. There's a reason why all these guys are "electrifying". The reason is today's NBA is pretty much a joke. I still watch and I'm still a huge Bulls fan, but the game has gotten so much worse from the 90s. Ever since they implemented the handcheck rule in 04-05 the game has been a guard dominant league. It was only a matter of time before it became a PG dominated league because they are the quickest guys on the court and can take full advantage of the rules. There's only a few on that list that can actually hit a consistent jump shot. It's a joke.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Jan 15, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) Maybe not, but Duke did the same thing at OSU. I saw this coming. Indiana won't have a problem with Illinois. I don't think it's going to be as easy you're making it sound. It's really contingent on two things really (for IU): getting Meyers Leonard into early foul trouble (likely because the game is @IU) and shooting a good % from 3. I did research on some IU games (6 B1G games + 1 tough OOC game) and I found some interesting things. Out of those 7 games IU shot 60% or better from 3 in three of those games (kind of absurd). They won those three games by a total of 9 points. In the remaining four games they shot under 40% from 3 in each and are 1-3 with the point differential being -31, including a home loss to minnesota. The one game they won they got OSU's best scorers into foul trouble. All of them. None of Sullinger, Buford, and Thomas were able to play 30+ minutes in that game (and they all do in tightly contested games- well over 30 minutes usually). I'm not saying UI is going to win, but I'd calm down before making IU sound like a powerhouse. Shooting 30-40% from 3 is much more likely to happen than shooting 60% from 3. When that happens it usually doesn't bode well for IU when they play a team with a pulse.

I guess that loss to KC really helped the Packers. Took the pressure off and let the Pack get some rest. Oh wait.........................................

Everybody knew that was a fumble. National Fixed League?

Indiana gets duke-like respect at home. Dear god...

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) How is a team that goes 15-1, outscores their opponents by over 200 points over the course of the season and just beating another playoff team with mostly their reserves on the decline? I understand that since this is a Sox board there are a lot of Bears fans. However, I'd like to hear some reasoning for this "decline" other than just stating it as fact without any actual explanation. The regression on the Packers D can be attributed to a few factors in my mind. First, they lost one of the best safeties in the league in Nick Collins which I believe someone else mentioned earlier. Also, they lost Cullen Jenkins at DE who had a very nice end of the year last year. Without Jenkins getting pressure from the D-line it gives teams a lot more freedom to double guys like Matthews and Raji. Raji has not regressed much in my mind. The issue is that he is getting doubled up a lot and is being forced to play more of a run stuffing role than a pass rushing role. Despite the fact that they are giving up a lot of yardage they still lead the league in interceptions. People are saying they're on the decline because they looked like much more of a complete team last year. The defense has definitely regressed and we saw what happened when the Chiefs were able to control the clock and not give that Green Bay defense the turnover's it need. Raji has, without a doubt, declined. He has 13 tackles, three sacks, one qb hit, and 16 hurries. That's on 885 snaps. And of course he's double teamed, he's a nosetackle. It doesn't mean he's allowed to be invisible for most of the game.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Serious question...wasn't the Packers D quite a bit more banged up last year than they are right now? Can anyone give a reason why that Packers D would be much stronger last year? One reason: B.J Raji. There are more, but he's the nose tackle and he's been absolutely awful this year. Much, much better last year. Charles Woodson has also taken a step back, but nothing close to what Raji has done. I think he played too many snaps last year and it might have affected him this year. It's the only thing I can come up with.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 10:49 AM) System quarterbacks don't lead the NFL in touchdown passes thrown outside the pocket. They do when lots of the plays call for rollouts... And he isn't strictly a system QB. That's an exaggeration, but I think it showed just how helpful the system and weapons are to a QB. Matt Flynn just put up, arguably, the best game in Packers history. Against a 10 win playoff team that was playing for seeding. A few weeks back people were making the argument that the Packers would be bad without Rodgers. Something like 8-6 at best (at the time). I think, or at least hope, that those people can realize that the Packers are much more than just Rodgers. He's surrounded by great talent and outstanding coaching. It's a plug-and-play type system. Would the Packers be 15-1? Probably not, but they more than likely still have 10+ wins.