KaiserCesar

I'm pretty sure they will give Shealy the nod there since he can't play elsewhere and a few of their other big hitters in the organization may end up being 1B/DH types I believe.

If I was the Browns, I would have taken Peterson. Why can't you now? They didn't draft Jamal Lewis BTW, I would take the QB available, with the diluted RB market and their short lives, getting one of the top 2 would have much more value.

Good time for the best cover safety in the draft.

Also, I put this in the Bears offseason thread by accident Jamal Lewis to the Browns link http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2791313

He is everything Zach Hilton (no relation to Paris) ever wanted to be. Good move by the aints, but their defense probably wont overacheive to the level it did this past year, though. Adding a playmaker like Kevin Kaesvaharn and adding a solid MLB in Simmons will help considerably. They are still in the running for some of the top CB's still on the market. Playmaker eh? Here's a little snippet from Nov 28, 2005 from profootballweekly http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/AFC/AFC+North/Cincinnati/WWHI/default.htm?channel=2005 Reserve role for the Bengals? Ouch. He probably lucked into a few picks this year and the team's scheme took advantage of their explosive offense. Kaesviharn does not a defense make.

He is everything Zach Hilton (no relation to Paris) ever wanted to be. Good move by the aints, but their defense probably wont overacheive to the level it did this past year, though.

You are simply wrong. 2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment. Explain the '87 - '93 flap then. Should 15-20 year old attendance figures really be used to classify the current fanbase's mentality? I'm saying no such thing. I've already said current Cub fans are expecting more, and showing a renewed willingness to express their displeasure. But I think based on the numbers you could say this trend started much earlier than last year.

http://www.pedmonds.force9.co.uk/immortals/fitz3.jpg

Is that 3 non-whites on the Astros? They are really making progress

You are simply wrong. 2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment. Explain the '87 - '93 flap then. Should 15-20 year old attendance figures really be used to classify the current fanbase's mentality?

I don't think so because of his low IP in recent years and the need to gradually stretch him out. I talked about this in another thread maybe a week ago. But the quote from Lou probably tells you that he is aware of Guzman's situation. I think Marquis gets a grace period no matter what and they'd like to have Guzman starting in Iowa for a litlte bit. Also I understand recent dissapointment in Prior, but Guzman has had just as much due to injuries and has never really been effective enough since to make me as convinced. A 4.04 AAA ERA and 7.39 in the majors? Even terrible Prior last year in the majors bested him at 7.21. I love Guzman's potential, but you can't ignore Prior's as well. If I had to make a choice, I'd take the guy who has done it before.

I'm pretty much with this. I'll take Olsen, but after that I wouldn't waste a decently high pick on anyone. Maybe we can pick someone up that was undrafted thats just as good as Gabe Reid. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think this would require a change in philosophy. Clark's weakness comes from poor blocking for the most part, poor route running and poor YAC and often poor hands. The tight end in the sytem acts like a safety valve and YAC ability and route running are the most important. I think the "burner" tight ends are overrated and will be drafted high, too high to get enough value out of these types in the Bears offense to justify a higher pick. Not to argue with you Kaiser, we have done that enough, but actually Clark is regarded as one of the best blocking tight ends in the NFL. I think the whole burner thing is just to have another viable weapon on offense, which is what they need. I think you could have both Clark and Olsen on the field and would create alot of matchup problems. I would be annoyed if they drafted another WR, you dont need a high round runningback, plus you dont get much more useless than john gilmore and gabe reid. I'd say Clark isn't bad at blocking, but Troy Aikman did a good job of building him up quite a bit towards the end of the year and in the playoffs, but I don't know about one of the best blocking tight ends. Nonetheless, I agree that another TE outside of the useless Reid and Gilmore would be nice and Clark would be a good backup #2 who can servicably fit the TE role in this offense. I really don't know if you want to just jump into 2 TE all of a sudden because that likely means no fullback and an overall philosophical change in the running game and the whole offense. In terms of WR, I don't believe in drafting them high ever due to their overall touches in a game, and you can normally find one that fits your teams needs later without going top 20. With Moose on the decline, that could definitely be an area that needs improvement. Overall, a TE and WR are on my wishlist but I wouldn't stretch too high via trade for either.

The NFL salaries are almost in the MLB Starting Pitching salary category. Exactly, but MLB salaries can just keep going up and up-the cap is not going to go up by enough each year in the NFL to be able to justify this escalation in salaries-teams will be in salary cap problems by signing mediocre players to these huge deals. Money ain't guaranteed like it is in MLB

So really what you are saying is that Ichiro was helped by the fear to get his pretty good numbers. If that is the case, the fear can only go away and further hurt Ichiro's numbers that already have trouble standing up to Murton's. P.S. I don't believe in the fear idea for Ichiro at least

I'm pretty much with this. I'll take Olsen, but after that I wouldn't waste a decently high pick on anyone. Maybe we can pick someone up that was undrafted thats just as good as Gabe Reid. That shouldn't be too difficult. I think this would require a change in philosophy. Clark's weakness comes from poor blocking for the most part, poor route running and poor YAC and often poor hands. The tight end in the sytem acts like a safety valve and YAC ability and route running are the most important. I think the "burner" tight ends are overrated and will be drafted high, too high to get enough value out of these types in the Bears offense to justify a higher pick.

By September a lot could change, and it is feasible but still lets not get ahead of ourselves, he has only had half a season at high-A

I think a few people are disregarding the value of trading up in the 2nd round. Lets just look at this through draft points http://www.theredzone.org/2006/draft/draftvaluechart.asp 63rd pick - 276 pts 37th pick - 530 pts Gain in pts - 254 pts Rd 3 pick 3, 67 overall - 255 points So, in terms of draft points, its like trading for an early 3rd rounder.

Prove it! How is Benson a step up from Jones? Success rates were similar last year, but Benson had higher DVOA. I also think Benson is in the "improving" category while Jones' production may be stagnant or declining. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb.php Football sabermetrics for the win! Benson had a higher DVOA then these running backs as well: Larry Johnson, Tiki Barber, Steven Jackson, and Frank Gore. You think Kansas City will trade LJ for Ced Benson. Maybe we can get a pick from them also? DVOA only tells part of the story, albeit a compelling one. BTW I Love them both, and im excited for Benson to get 260 plus carries. Way to miss the entire point. Albert Pujols is slightly better than Derrek Lee, should we trade for Albert Pujols immediately? Just because someone is marginally better than someone else doesn't mean they need to be replaced immediately. All KaiserCesar was saying was that the loss of Thomas Jones wasn't a big deal because Benson is more than capable of playing just as well, if not better. Benson certainly didn't get as many carries as those other backs, so he might be suffering from "low sample size syndrome" Another recent sufferer is Matt Murton from 2005. I didnt miss the entire point at all!!! So he brought up DVOA as the way to prove that Benson is a "step up actually". I brought up those other backs to show that DVOA is a statistic that by itself does not illustrate a backs worth. DVOA is actually skewed to favor a back who hasn't had as many carries. Wheras DPAR, which Jones is ranked higher, is skewed to those who have more carries. I bolded your first paragraph to show that actually you missed the entire point of what I was illustrating. This paragraph makes no sense. I was saying that since Benson has a HIGHER DVOA than Larry Johnson, using Kaiser's criteria of the value of a running back, you would think the Chiefs would be excited to trade for Benson. It is a ridiculous statement. Absolutely, but its ridiculous because DVOA is not the end all be all measurement of the running backs worth. How is Pujols for Lee, relevant? If Lee had a higher Value over replacement(which he doesnt) than Pujols, then I guess you could make the analogy to my example by saying: "STL should trade Pujols for DLEE straight up." But how you phrased it, does not apply to my analogy. Instead of disagreeing with him outright that Benson is ALREADY a step up from Jones. I wanted to hear why he thought that. I didnt mention once what I thought until the second post. You could have read that and saved yourself trouble. [/b] Your whole counter-argument is that DVOA puts Benson on a level of 4 running backs in terms of their 2006 performance, which is so out of the question that the use of a statistic that makes this conclusion shouldn't be trusted. Well, Gore had a lot of yards, but doesn't have anything else to fall back on in his career to make you think his DVOA was the anamoly, not the yardage. Jackson is another back with 1 great year of total yardage where it makes no sense to assume that the cumulative statistic is the true measure of worth. LJ has a great 2005 to fall back on which may explain the hypothetical reluctance to swap. Barber has been lower in the past and a little bit this year due to his fumbles and has had durability on his side and has accumulated a lot of yards to achieve his current status, but put up 2 great DVOA years around +15%. Is it so hard to believe that Benson in his duty played better on average than these backs last year? Back to the original point, Jones has been traditionally not so great in terms of DVOA despite 1200 yard seasons, which means he will not be missed that much especially with a back who performed at a very high level last year already on the team.

Prove it! How is Benson a step up from Jones? Success rates were similar last year, but Benson had higher DVOA. I also think Benson is in the "improving" category while Jones' production may be stagnant or declining. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb.php Football sabermetrics for the win! Benson had a higher DVOA then these running backs as well: Larry Johnson, Tiki Barber, Steven Jackson, and Frank Gore. You think Kansas City will trade LJ for Ced Benson. Maybe we can get a pick from them also? DVOA only tells part of the story, albeit a compelling one. BTW I Love them both, and im excited for Benson to get 260 plus carries. Why is it really all that obsurd that Benson might have played better than Gore, Jackson, Barber and LJ in his limited duty? Total yardage over the course of a season or two (in the case of everyone except Barber who may have been declining)?

If the Bears find a way to trade up and get Quinn, no matter what I'm happy.

Ha, you could subsitute "baseball" with "manufacturing" or "education" and the statement still holds true, for Asia that is. or food distribution.....

Prove it! How is Benson a step up from Jones? Success rates were similar last year, but Benson had higher DVOA. I also think Benson is in the "improving" category while Jones' production may be stagnant or declining. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb.php EDIT: If you have the time, check out Peterson's ridiculous DVOA in 2005 in limited duty

McMichael isn't much of a blocker, and the TE is currently used as more of a safety valve. I'd change the scheme for some, but McMichael isn't good enough for it. I'd rather look for a guy who can become a good blocker, someone who can run good routes, get some YAC and has good hands(Zach Miller?). Also, I wouldn't consider something a waste of a pick just because a need might be able to be filled in free agency. Drafting gives you a longer term solution where stop-gaps are the norm.

If the numbers you use are wins, then yes he was better than indicated. Overall, I think people (myself included) want to see him in the bullpen this year. I'd be content with him in there forever, but a "wait and see" approach would be acceptable whether or not he should start. I just don't think he will be needed to start for this club in the forseeable future.

Yes, the unit as a whole was unbelievably good. If I was given a choice though, I'd rather take his positive contributions to offense over ST. If he can be as good as he has shown in flashes, his ST role is much more easily replaced.