bukie

Actually they're 2nd to last...the Texans are last. But your point stands. Note, based on 2006 data alone, the Saints rank 11th. Overall score includes projection data based on last year, which is why the Saints are so low, and Tampa is so high. Their rankings according to just data from this year: 1. Ravens 2. Chargers 3. Bears 4. Bengals 5. Jaguars 6. Eagles 7. Falcons 8. Seahawks 9. Bills 10. 49ers 11. Saints 12. Rams 13. Colts 14. Patriots 15. Jets 16. Cowboys 17. Vikings 18. Giants 19. Chiefs 20. Steelers 21. Redskins 22. Packers 23. Panthers 24. Broncos 25. Cardinals 26. Dolphins 27. Browns 28. Lions 29. Texans 30. Bucs 31. Titans 32. Raiders Of course, like any computer rankings system, the 2006 list will improve with more data, but this is a fairly accurate portrayal simply of how well these teams have played so far this year.

To be fair, everyone has the Lions covering 8 points, not necessarily winning. Which, given even the common Bears M/O from last year (averaging 14 pts per game offensively), is a big line. Harmon's Forecast did predict the Bears to go 0-17 last year, though (predicted a loss each week, including the playoffs...hey, they were right 6 times).

Really, the only thing that has kept Penn State's score so low is 3 stupid PSU mistakes and the huge difference in time of possession. Notre Dame's defense hasn't really stopped PSU. I can somewhat see why Weis wants the offense to stay on the field as long as possible, but it could bite them if there's an injury.

Seems like everybody's in a hurry to get out of Houston.

For both teams. Course, as long as it doesn't go out, it's as effective as a strikeout.

I'm in now, as First MLB Surgical Rotation.

27th place team. Just passed Tampa Bay.

This thread is the epitome of everything Cub fans dislike about Sox fans.

I can't say I really enjoy listening to either of these bands. Not that they aren't historically significant, I just can't stand em.

the bears were overlooked last year by the experts, who seemingly picked them to lose every week. bad predictions make me happy, because the experts know nothing about predicting football. Dr. Z from SI picked them to be 32nd ranked in the league. And Harmon's Forecast predicted the Bears to go 0-17.

Trying to come up with a Cub equivalent of what the Nats gave up... Williamson, Eyre, Perez, Cedeno, Jerome Williams perhaps?

I find RHCP songs tedious due to over-repetition to stretch out the length.

You present your own twisted view of the facts. When the Cubs gave him the chance to win one game in 2003 to be in the NLCS, he came through. Came through all month in September to get the Cubs to the playoffs. But you're right, one start in game 7 ruins his whole career. He was nowhere to be found in 2004 because of his overuse in 2003, which he's still feeling the effects of this day. Perhaps if you didn't let your personal bias and hatred of Kerry Wood get in the way, you'd see that very little of the last 3 years is actually Kerry Wood's fault.

Vance, your education is not yet complete. Today's lesson-Lyman Bostock. Bostock was an OF with the California Angels in the 1970's. He signed a long term contract. Bostock's 1978 season started off a disaster, with him batting only .150 for the month of April. Bostock went to Angels' owner Gene Autry and attempted to give back his April salary, saying he hadn't earned it. Autry refused, so Bostock announced he would be donating his April salary to charity. Thousands of requests came in for the money, and Bostock went through each of them, trying to determine who needed it the most. Tsk..tsk. So, once in the 70's. Must be the running standard then. Why are you trying to pick fights and instigate in every post you make?

John Hollinger. He's one of the founding fathers of APBRmetrics -- basketball's answer to SABRmetrics. He's an Insider columnist. ESPN makes a number of his basketball metrics available to Insiders. Do you have an Insider membership? Hollinger's latest article answers your comments so perfectly, it'd be a shame to have to summarize it. I do not have an insider subscription. What makes him say that the Bulls are runaway winners so far this offseason?

We don't know this though. He didn't make the most of the opportunity he had, he just had the most opportunity. I really wish I could find a location with more archived stats than 2000, but given sabermetric stats I do have access to, Smith certainly hasn't been close to the best running back in the years since 2000. Here's a decent article looking at raw, unadjusted stats (basically the equivalent to a year-by-year analysis of hits, runs, HRs and RBI for hitters...not great, but not bad): http://www.thehuddle.com/classics/04_best_rb_ever.php Smith lasted the longest, so he set the career records. At the peak of his career, he was overshadowed by Barry Sanders. There wasn't a single year where you could say without a doubt Smith was the best RB in the league. That isn't the case for the other 3 all-time greats.

Question: Was there a year in his whole career that Emmitt Smith was considered the best RB in the NFL? From 90-98, Sanders was the best RB in the NFL. 99-2001 Marshall Faulk/Edgerrin James, maybe. After that, LaDainian Tomlinson. Smith piled up the yards from 91-94, but even then Sanders was right with him on yards, had a better yards per carry average, and did it with a lot less help. I'm looking for sabermetric stats that go back a bit further than 2000 (during which point Smith wasn't top 10 in RBs, let alone arguably the best).

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration. Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield. You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did. I agree that Sanders was fun to watch and Payton was a great back. Payton is number two on all the lists that have Smith as number one. Payton definitely has the numbers. I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice? Rice is considered the greatest reciever ever because he has the numbers to back it up. But would Rice have been as good without Montana and Young throwing to him all those years? Could another receiver have been just as good with those QB's in the same system? Maybe. But those didn't and Rice did. He put up the numbers and so he's the best ever. No argument. Smith put up the numbers. Yardage. TD's. Championships. He's the best in my opinion. I'd rank the best backs: 1. Smith 2. Payton 3. Brown. Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever. Your argument is akin to the argument that Pete Rose is the best hitter ever because he has the most hits. Or Cy Young being the best pitcher ever because he has the most wins. And championships? Championships is a personal stat now? If championships and intangibles counted towards the best player ever, they should just induct Jeter now.

Smith deserves points for longevity, which is why he has many of those longevity-based records. YPC-wise, though, it's Brown-Sayers-Sanders-Payton-Smith, and unfortunately, 4 of those careers were cut shorter than they needed to be. Smith didn't do anything spectacular, he just did it long enough to get his all-time records. Watching Brown, Sayers, Sanders, and Payton was spectacular. Smith deserves consideration due to his longevity, but the other 4 were simply better at what they did for less time.

Well, they pitched to Lee, and it paid off for the Brewers.

Be surprised if Lee sees a strike here.

Well, managed to get through Blanco-Perez-Pierre with 2 on, and the only contact being a sacrifice and Pierre-on-ball. Possibly the best-case scenario, really.

I deal with Cub fans every day. We should never trade with them, either. It's not THAT different in Chicago, unless you have some sort of jealous envy towards Sox fans because their team won the World Series last year. Of course, if you just want something to rub in their faces, that's being no different than the fan base you despise. The White Sox have no bearing on the Cubs making the playoffs or winning their division. None AT ALL. Even if Sox fans are predisposed to be concerned about the Cubs, relaying the favor is doing nothing to make any Cub fan look any better as it is. I married a die-hard Sox fan. She went to all the parades, saw 3 playoff games last year, got a ball signed by their whole team, got on TV at the parade in her fully decked out Sox gear and partial tattoos and face paint, and enjoyed every minute of it. My feelings on it? More power to her. Congrats on something long coming. Didn't affect the Cubs at all.

I know it's not likely, but what if the Czechs win by more than 2? Wouldn't we have to win by less than 4 goals then? If the Czechs win by 2, the US would need to win by at least 3 and have scored more goals than Italy (so if it was 2-0, the US would need to win 3-0 to advance). Of course, the US is automatically through if they win 5-0.

Ecuador 3, Costa Rica 0. Germany and Ecuador are through to the second round. Germany needs to win the match between them to win the group.