Paulstar

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 06:18 PM) Interesting. Can they do that? I'd selfishly love it as a fan. Not sure it's always the best thing for the team, though. Yeah, since most NFL teams don't want to do it, the NFL has the power to force a team to do it once every 10 years or something like that.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) Yeah right. You got busted for thinking that site was legit and now you're just trying to defend yourself. Can't fool me. Believe what you want brother. Everyone knows Manning is smart as s***, and I believe I've made my feelings on Manning, Brady, and Luck quite clear a couple weeks ago. I remember reading that article 6 months ago and it was hilarious so I used it because what the other poster said reminded me of that quote.

I agree with raBBit on this argument. I question if Quintana can sustain his success due to the fact he doesn't have that good of stuff, but he is also a damn good pitcher and competitor. I'd love to keep him and EJ, but if we had to trade one to get more offensive help, I'd prefer to trade Quintana because I feel you can get more for him now and that I do feel Johnson can wind up being the better player. Either way, it would be a gamble.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) Read it, all fake. It's Sportspickle. No s***. What wite said reminded me of that, so I posted it.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) Error 404. Link cannot be found. The language filter blocks out s*** in the html. You'll just have to google it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) I also think much of Peyton's quoted intelligence comes from the fact that he shreds defenses like a paper shredder. Over the last 10 years, Peyton Manning led teams are 125-35 and his QB rating is 102.9. The one year he was injured and did not play, his team went 2-14. The dude is one of the smartest quarterbacks in NFL history. I don't think anyone has ever said the dude is one of the smartest people in the world, or that he even has average intelligence outside of football. I don't think we have the capability of knowing that. The only way we know how to judge these guys is based on their reactions, interviews, and actions on the football field. How else are we supposed to judge them, sit down and give them an aptitude test? http://www.sportspickle.com/2013/09/cooper...vestment-equity

I have to believe that Hahn and the organization have a pretty great sales pitch and plan laid out for the future if it makes us contenders for Tanaka since I doubt he wants to go to a club with no shot at winning. I'm excited as much today as I was in the 04-05 and 05-06 offseasons, but I'm beginning to get more and more excited for the future.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 20, 2014 -> 01:33 AM) FWIW, ...told "anyone that calls the Sox longshots in this Tanaka thing are just wrong". Nice to see Kaplan was likely pulling s*** out of his ass, as usual.

If Sherman wasn't a good football player, he probably doesn't get into Stanford. And the high school he went to isn't very rigorous when it comes to grades either. He probably isn't some genius, but he was a great athlete who was smart enough to use whatever tools he had to graduate Stanford with a 3.7 GPA in communications. I'm not going to act impressed by that, but I'm not going to discredit it either. He was smart enough to show up to class, probably sit next some cute girl who he would probably get some assistance from in class, go to his tutors, go to study table and use his hours on homework, talk and kiss up to professors, etc. He played the game and he played it well and good for him. There are people a lot smarter than him in much less prestigious universities who also play football but get worse than a 3.7 GPA in communications. I hate and love the way he acts. Football isn't like other sports and "class" is overrated. Show me a team that isn't "classy" and I'll show you a good team. Football is a game of emotions, it's controlled aggression. You play your ass off to win and compete on every play. I don't like how Sherman dances around and says what he says what he does in public, but what he does say is what is said in the locker room and on the field in between plays. He wants to win, and I love that, and at least when he celebrates he backs it up. Its a lot easier to stomach that dumbass stuff he does when he's that good on the field. You show me the DB out there dancing after he makes a decent hit after the guy catches the ball and holds on to it 40 yards down the field and then I'll want to punch the TV.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 19, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) Expensive in terms of what the Sox would have to give up, but still relatively cost controlled, which will be key if the club does sign Tanaka. Additionally, the incentive to win earlier moves up and that means the Sox can't realistically go into the season with the s*** they have at catcher. If it were me and Tanaka came, there is no freaking way I have the turds we have behind the plate as our every day catchers. I'd make sure at a minimum, we had someone who called a really good game and could control the running game. Castro could be that guy. The more I think about it, the more I think Castro (or a similar type of Catcher) will be on the White Sox IF the Sox are able to land Tanaka. Getting someone like Tanaka is just a huge boost to the whole win now movement (as evident by how much the White Sox would wind up paying to get him), and if you are trying to win now, you can't go into the season with Flowers/Phegley/Nieto as your options at catcher, especially not since this team is also filled with question marks all over the place. Jason Castro sure seems to fit the mold of what the White Sox want on offense (lefty bat with some power, and has potential to cut down on his k's and increase walk rate) and fits the age requirements for building the contender. I would probably be more than willing to see a Quintana for Castro trade IF Tanaka is on the southside. If Tanaka isn't with the White Sox, then it would be a lateral move. If you can keep Quintana and still make a deal, that's awesome, but I wouldn't want to see either Johnson, Danish, or Semien involved in any deal, and that probably isn't a realistic scenario to not involve any of those 4 and still make a deal.

I feel like even if the Sox don't get him, they are planning a fairly big move for shortly after Tanaka-thon ends.

I wonder if the Dodgers are in the market for trading one of their outfielders. They have 4 guys (3 who are getting paid A LOT) and not enough AB's to satisfy each player. I would assume Kemp is staying just because he is a "superstar" out there in LA and dating Rihanna and what not and is a damn good ball player when he is healthy and not trying to pull everything for a homerun. Crawford is just way too expensive and not good enough for any team to be interested in having him on their roster for the next four years even at a discounted price if the dodgers pick up a good chunk of his salary. Puig is another superstar in the making out there and the most cost controlled and youngest of the 4, he ain't going anywhere. That leaves Andre Ethier and his 4 years and 70 million to probably be only a part time player out there in LA. I don't know, it doesn't make any sense at all how the Dodgers plan on keeping all four outfielders unless they are pretty confident one of Crawford/Kemp gets hurt (might not be that bad of a bet) or they want to limit the amount of AB's Puig and Crawford see. Personally, I don't see that as a healthy situation as you have 4 guys with probably pretty big ego's and want to play everyday competing for only 3 spots. Plus, I know the Dodgers are showing they don't give a s*** about money and the luxury tax, but I have to assume they would want to start cutting some salary in eras where they have a ton locked up in at (OF and SP), especially if they do get Tanaka. If Tanaka doesn't come to Chicago, I don't think it would be a bad idea to acquire Ethier if you could get the dodgers to pick up a little bit of his salary to get him down to where Chicago would only owe him around 14 mil per season. I'm not sure what it would cost to acquire him, but I don't think it would be to the level of crippling our farm system at all. In this scenario, you ideally find a way to get rid of Dunn as well to make Viciedo the primary DH (maybe not ideal since he and Konerko are both righties, but Viciedo provides more upside for the future of the club and could also be used in LF vs. tough lefties to sit Ethier). Just spit ballin some ideas.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 09:31 PM) And this is why we keep track of stats. You don't believe De Aza is clutch, but the numbers indicate otherwise. Frankly, I'd love De Aza on my team as a 6 or 7 hitter. He doesn't seem to embrace the leadoff mentality, but he has enough power to be a force lower in the lineup. If it wasn't for him playing with his head up his ass last year and pissing off a lot of fans and probably coaches and front office people, I'd say he would have been a lock to be the starting LF for the White Sox in 2014. I think of him as the perfect 6th or 7th spot hitter as he provides a little bit of everything down there where he can drive in some big runs and also set something up for the weaker bats with his speed. Also, I don't think he's a 150 K guy like he showed last year, but more so around 100. I honestly believe Hahn and the organization want to give him another chance but it is a numbers game. I'd say their main goal is probably to dump Dunn so they can get a nice rotation going between DH and LF with Viciedo, De Aza, and Konerko. Something like 400-500 AB's for De Aza and Viciedo each and around 300 for Paulie (a good portion of those coming from against lefty starters and late inning pinch hitting opportunities). However, if they can't find a suitor for Dunn, I see them trading De Aza for a decent bullpen arm. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of teams that need OF help to raise his price tag at all.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) The score is reporting that the Bears have hired Paul Pasqualoni as their LB coach. All 5 years(3 years as a DC) he was in the NFL his teams ran a 3-4. He spent the last 3 years at UConn where, looking at film of Sio Moore and Yawin Smallwood, he ran a bit of a hybrid. He is said to be a good teacher, and that bodes well for a team that just drafted 2 LBs, and it wouldn't shock me to see a 3rd drafted this year....Perhaps the previously mentioned Smallwood in the 2R. The writing has been on the wall for a while that the Bears were going to switch to a 3-4 defense or at least some hybrid of it when Emery was hired. He hired a head coach who ran a 3-4 in Canada, and Emery did do his best work in Kansas City getting guys that fit their 3-4 scheme and we saw how good that defense was with the right coaching. Looking at his drafts with the Bears, you saw a lot more 3-4 guys than tampa cover 2 guys. McClellian was definitely considered more of a LB type than a 4-3 rush DE even in a tampa 2 scheme. Hardin was a big physical corner who didn't fit into the mold of a cover 2 corner. Bostic wasn't a tampa 2 MLB, he's much more of a FILB in a 3-4 scheme because of his ability to run down hill and take on blockers. Greene was actually a good fit as a WILL in the tampa 2, but the WILL and the BILB in the 3-4 are very similar to because in the 3-4, the field ILB takes on the blockers to allow the boundary ILB to run around and make plays. However, I do kind of hope the Bears stick with a 4-3 base but mix in a lot of different looks and play plenty of 3-4. I believe the Bears are the only franchise in the NFL to have never been a 3-4 team. Besides, I really hate the bubbles the 3-4 defense provides and I prefer the 3-4 really only in pass rushing situations to f*** with OLine protection rules and disguising where the 4th rusher or the blitz is coming from. Personally, I love the 2 gap 4-3 scheme the Seahawks run. It's very similar to the 3-4 where you have 3 down lineman who eat up blockers and 2 undersized DE's but oversized LB's on the edge (one stand up, one with his hand in the dirt in the Seahawks scheme). I'm sorry, I can go on for days about this stuff. Either way, I like the hire of Paul Pasqualini, even if he might not be a very good collegiate HC. Whomever they hire as the DLine coach should probably give us a better indication of what type of scheme will be ran. I'm gonna guess it was someone with a background in both 4-3 and 3-4 schemes as I'm definitely thinking hybrid is the way the Bears are going.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 02:29 PM) I'm pretty psyched about Nieto. I know he lacks much experience above A ball but a switch hitting C who might have figured something out last season is intriguing. Probably too much to hope that he makes the 25, but still, the competition ain't that stiff. Right now I'd bet Nieto has a better shot than all the other catchers to make the team unless he absolutely bombs during Spring Training.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) One name I thought was interesting was catcher Kevan Smith. He's not a prospect usually noted among the top 20, or even 30. He's hit well and his catching game is improving, but he's going to turn 26 this year and hasn't seen AA yet. The fact that he was invited tells me the org still thinks he's got a shot. He is a pretty raw 26 year old because of his past with playing football and than not focusing on baseball until later on. He could be one of those guys who comes up when he's 28, 29 and turns out to be a solid hitter.

One more thing I'll add to the whole Jerry thing is he's also not getting any younger and he probably realizes that his best chance of seeing another White Sox World Series while he's on earth is if they go all out in this retooling/rebuilding process and splurge on a potential game changer like Tanaka.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 05:04 PM) Watch all of them and youll see the difference with Wilson. He is impressed by the fact he knows multiple offenses and the different route trees for those offenses. So yeah like I said, watch some tape, then come back. (edit) And you still havent explained the Tebow comment. The big knock on Tebow was weak arm. Wilson is generally considered as having a + arm, so not sure what you were getting at. First off, don't worry about me, I've seen plenty of "tape" (who do you think you are, his coach?). However, I'm actually able to watch Russel Wilson play with an unbiased eye because I don't adore Wilson because he played at my favorite school for one season like you do (I can only assume that you are a Wisconsin fan and that is when you fell in love with him, even though I bet you had no idea who he was before he got to Wisconsin). Maybe you should take off your I LOVE RUSSEL WILSON SO MUCH blinders and realize he hasn't done anything that amazing yet. He's so far been a really good game manager on a team with probably the best defense in the league and one of the best running games. That's a pretty luxurious situation to be in for any damn QB EVER. AND OMG!!!! JOHN GRUDEN SAID HE IS IMPRESSED THAT HE KNOWS MULTIPLE OFFENSES AND DIFFERENT ROUTE TREES????? OMG... big whoopie dee doo. Do you know how big of a fanboy you sound with a statement like that? He said he loved Tebow to and that he should be given a chance, so apparently Tebow is a great QB as well if what Gruden says during a TV show FOR MONEY means that much. I love watching the QB Camp thing and have watched most of them. And one similarity in all of them is that he praises all the QB's he has on there. Why would anyone go on there if John Gruden was just going to piss all over these guys and just point out the stuff their bad at? Come on man, think with your brain and not your hard on for Russel. And guess what, last paragraph was the first time I mentioned Tebow so get your facts straight before you come at me for something I didn't say. Overall, I've been a fan of Russel Wilson since I first saw him play at NC State. And I liked him at Wisconsin to, but also there is no doubt he was in a luxurious situation there as well as Wisconsin was absolutely loaded that year with a great defense, arguably the best OLine in college that year, a great running back, and a couple really good receivers. Russel made a living off of the PA pass that year, throwing it up to Toon or JA who was always wide open 50 yards downfield after they sold power up front. I think Wilson is a really good player with potential to get better. If the 2006 Bears had a Russel Wilson type instead of Rex Grossman, I bet they win the Superbowl. However, I think I want to see how he does if you put his back against a wall and down 38 to 10 at halftime vs. the 49ers before I consider him a great QB by any stretch. Right now he's good with the potential to be even better than that. But potential doesn't mean s*** until you actually see him go out there and do it like Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady have done.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 04:37 PM) Watch the pre-draft episode where Wilson works with Gruden. Gruden basically states he is excellent at all of these things and that its criminal people arent thinking of drafting him higher due to his height. But lets not let facts get away with myths. You do know that in college Wilson broke the NCAA record for QB rating, better than Luck/RGIII and he played for a running team. /shrugs http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year...v=IA&dest=O Hes not just some fluke. (edit) Tim Tebow??? Have you ever even seen Wilson play? He can throw the ball with the best of them. Gruden gives high praises to every QB in the QB Camp thing he does.

Dr. Kevorikan and Art Vandelay are my two favorite on there. I bet Konerko was Art Vandelay, he seems like he would be a Seinfeld fan.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) No, I see what you are saying, and I agree that Luck has been asked to do more because of his defense. But if you actually just watch each guy play the qb position, Wilson has been extremely skilled at passing the ball, running the ball, pocket awareness, etc. He's been outstanding since about the 4th quarter of the Bears game last year, as far as I am concerned. And having that defense actually does work against you to a point as a young qb as well. Wilson is not always "allowed" or it isn't usually prudent to take risks. He isn't asked to go win many games. Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe we haven't seen the best of what Russell can do because of that defense he has. See, we do pretty much agree. Right now, all I view him as is a really good game manager and a really good athlete with the potential to get better. However, I am not ready to anoint him as a top QB right yet. I want to see how he preforms with his back against a wall, where nothing is going right, and he takes charge and leads the team to a victory. That right there, in my mind, is the difference between a good and great QB. And I think they will beat San Francisco next week, and I am really excited to see him play vs. the Broncos/Patriots as that could be his signature moment as a QB as that is a game where early on it could be a struggle for the Seahawks in all facets and it will be on Wilson to get the team rolling.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) Oh you are right...Luck has had no talent on the offensive side of the ball...and right again, Wilson has had complete studs around him... You do not see the big picture at all, do you? Luck isn't granted the privilege of having the top defense in the league and one of the best ground attacks to support him with. The Colts are a QB driven team. If Luck fails, the whole team fails. If Luck is going good, the team is going good. Wilson can go 0-10 passing, but if Lynch is in beast mode and their defense is playing lights out like they have all season, they still have a shot. I don't understand what is so tough to realize about that. EDIT: Just to clarify, I don't think the Seahawks need to upgrade their QB or that there is anything wrong with having Wilson as their QB. But if I had a choice of having any young QB I wanted, it would easily be Luck 10 out of 10 times.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 02:29 PM) Cmon now. He was 9th in passing TDs, 7th in QB rating, 16th in yards, and 4th in yards/attempt. And only Cam and Pryor had more rushing yards. He's a very good quarterback. Im not saying he isn't a good QB, I'm just questioning how good would he be if he wasn't put in such a great situation. This is how I'll put, the Seahawks have won more games in the past two years because of their defense and running game than because of Russel Wilson. And this isn't anything against Russel Wilson, I like him a lot as a QB because he does what he is asked to do. With a team built on defense and running the ball, having someone like Wilson at QB who can manage a game is not a bad thing at all. But what happens if they make it to the Superbowl and face the Broncos or Patriots and they are able to shut down Lynch and Manning/Brady is able to find the holes in their secondary? Do you think Wilson is good enough to be able to put the game on his shoulders be able to dual it out with one of those elite QB's? I highly doubt it. Whenever that has happened these past two years, I bet they lost or it was at least a really close game where the other team had a shot to win it late. Kaepernick is in the same boat, but he has better natural running and throwing ability. However, I doubt either will ever be elite. Luck on the other hand is so close to elite it is scary. I said it before, and I'll say it again. You put Wilson or Kaepernick on a team like the Colts and you have a team that is average at best. You put Luck on the 49ers or Seahawks, you have a superbowl favorite team.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) Has any team ever tried running a substantial amount of Cover 2 out of a 3-4 base? I'm sure its been done. Basically with cover 2, you need 3 or 4 LB's dropping back for underneath coverage. However, a lot of times, the personal with these 3-4 defenses, the LB's are bigger and better in the Run game than they are at dropping back into coverage. If I had to guess, I bet Wade Phillips' 3-4 defense probably ran a lot of cover 2 because he is big into the 1 Gap 3-4 system which really isn't much different than what the Bears and Lovie did upfront as both use penetrating DLineman so they don't have to blitz and can drop the LB's back. I think I also read Bob Diaco's 3-4 at Notre Dame ran a lot of Cover 2 the year they went to the National Championship.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2014 -> 01:43 PM) I think Wilson is going to be head and shoulders better than Kaepernick. I look at Wilson, I see a guy who is well-rounded, cerebral, modest, well-spoken, equally as talented running the ball as throwing it, with a special gift for understanding what play needs to be made at any given moment in a game. I look at Kaep, and I see an athletic freak and a reasonably nice young man, but not much else. As for Luck, HE's the guy I think is overrated. The guy is special, he just has a lack of talent around him which has led to him trying to make too many things happen all by himself. He basically turned a 2-14 into a playoff team all by himself because nothing much else changed on that team from 2011 to 2012 except their defense. Wilson is the overrated one in my book. Right now he is a glorified Trent Dilfer. Unlike Dilfer, I actually like Wilson though and think he is much more talented than Dilfer to. But so far in his career, he's been in an easy situation to thrive in. He isn't asked to throw the ball much, and has a great defense and running game to support him. Plus, he has a great home field advantage in Seattle to. Put Wilson on the Colts and Luck on Seahawks 2 years ago, and people probably aren't talking about Wilson and instead Colt fans would be saying how much they miss Peyton. In Seattle with Luck, they're probably going to back to back Superbowls.