bukie

Oh, come on.

Hey, maybe they are an opportunistic defense today. Although they really could've used that "fumble" on the first drive.

Looks like the Juice we know and love out there today, as opposed to the actual QB that was around for the OSU game.

1) A once-good offensive line got old really fast, starting midseason last year (the major difference between 1st half 2006 Rex and 2nd half 2006 Rex was a distinct difference in the time he had to throw). They were simply awful this year. Several times, teams would send 4 and all of them would get through. Not a strong point in the line. 2) DL injury issues with Harris, Walker, and Dusty Dvoracek, leaving them no choice but to put the 4th string DE (Idonije) in at starting DL for a while. No pressure from the front 4, and the defensive scheme simply doesn't work. 3) Starting DB combo: Tillman, Vasher, Brown, Archuleta. Brown had a career-ending injury week 1, Vasher went down for basically the year week 2 (he played for a bit in the Minny game a couple weeks ago but he's now just shut down for the year), Tillman was gone for half the year with injury, and Archuleta was simply awful from the outset. So, for half the year, they were playing 4th string Ricky Manning Jr. at starting CB, and he's only decent in nickel sets on the slot WR, played Danaiel Manning at the other CB since he was so awful at SS last year (formally known as the guy who left Reggie Wayne alone in the SB last year), and 2 rookies filled the other slots. One of the worst pass defenses in the NFL mixed with a defensive line that couldn't get any pressure made for a bad situation all-around. Even Urlacher was limited with an "arthritic back". I'd like to say the Bears aren't as far away as they seemed this year, but they really need improvements in both lines and healthy DBs to make the jump.

In my head-to-head league, I won my last 7 matchups to win my division by a game. Then, everyone on my team forgot how to score TDs for the first playoff round and I got blown out. McNabb, Tomlinson, Owens, Edwards, Welker, Shockey, Vinatieri, and rotating 2nd RB/Def ended up being a solid team.

Banned, yes. There was no penalty policy on steroid use until after 2002, though.

So people are now taking rumors of appearances in the Mitchell report as fact that said player used steroids? I'm going to bump this post in 30 minutes. Bump :lol: I did say I really don't care if he used or not. Be careful not to backpedal too fast, or you might trip.

That looks more like Houston's basket than the Cubs'. Too many brown ones in that basket. Tejada, Lee and Wandy. Looks to be more in the rear bottom. I'm sure they have minority talent buried in the minors somewhere.

What, you're concerned about the validity of a glorified witch hunt/McCarthy communist report?

I doubt there will be any sort of baseball-related penalty for anyone on the list, considering that the report is based on a time when there was no penalty for steroid use in baseball.

Even if that's why they did take it for injury recovery, does that make it less of a baseball sin? I don't care why they took it. It helped them "perform"...whether it was for strength or for injury recovery. No, it doesn't make it less of a baseball sin. I just think it would explain a lot about the drastic reduction in recovery time for serious surgeries. Although, I would then have expected Carpenter on the list as well if that were the case.

Assuming the list to be accurate (which even if accurate, is inaccurate), I am curious how many of the pitchers on that list took them to recover more quickly from injury and/or surgery. Seemed kind of odd that players had more recently been able to recover magically quicker from TJS than they had been before.

Wasn't a math major but I don't think about 30 (active) players constitutes "1/2 the league." I was a math major and it's exactly half. Go look it up! 30 teams X 25 players = 750 total players 30/750 = .04 or 4% which is a lot less than 1/2 or 50%. Did you really take that seriously? I think his sarcasm detector is broken. That, or he really wanted to do some quick multiplication.

I see the youth movement is in full swing in SF.

Endy Chavez? I'd rather keep Marquis. As of yesterday, I don't think the Cubs need any outfield help.

I'm in. You can all now rest assured you won't lose.

My wife went to Notre Dame. Not all fans have a sense of entitlement, and many just enjoy seeing their team have a chance on a national stage.

That's silly. If they used that logic, everybody in the Big XII south would've played Nebraska or Colorado. None of these programs are guaranteed to be good. The imbalanced schedule is a problem, but that's not a solution. nebraska and colorado haven't been very good in recent years. texas and oklahoma have. Fine, then who are the sure thing teams in the BXII north that everyone has to play? There aren't any. Just like there aren't any sure things in the south, either. The John Blake/Howard Schnellenberger OU days aren't that long ago. It's a silly proposition. There are no "surefire" good teams. Yeah, basically the only way to "guarantee" good games intradivision would be a logistics nightmare, like playing everyone in your division first, and then setting up the intradivisional schedule after that based on those results.

That guy! I love that Illinois is basically in a no-lose situation. Everyone expects them to get blown out, so they can only impress.

I have more of a problem with Illinois getting in and not Mizzou. I don't like these bowl tie ins and it screws up the rest of the system which is bad enough as it is. But Illinois getting in had nothing to do with Missouri. Once Kansas was in, Missouri couldn't get in. Same deal with Florida. Really, the only option better than Illinois that the Rose had was Arizona State, and they weren't about to schedule a conference rematch.

I think the thing nobody is getting here, unfair as it may be, Kansas would've been selected for a BCS spot regardless of whether they would've beaten Missouri or not. They were selected because they are the more attractive team. And they would've only had one loss either way.

I for one welcome Illinois' position as this year's Notre Dame of BCS participants, a team that nobody thinks measures up to the rest, and is universally considered in only because of politics and tradition. First Rose Bowl in 24 years, though!

If it helps, once WVU lost, a Missouri win would've helped Illinois more, so I was rooting for you.

I fully expect Illinois to lose, and I fully expect USC to be favored by 2 TDs. My hope is that Illinois makes the game competitive and has a chance to win in the 4th quarter, just like every game this year.

So now what do the Big 10 teams have to do to look good in bowl season? Win the game at LSU, the game at USC, or the game at Florida?