Wolverineman

After watching Michigan vs Purdue on the BTN last week that had Chris Martin and some random other person announcing, I ALMOST yearned for Joe Buck. I think all of the BTN football announcers are pretty awful, and last week's game was the first one I'd watched on BTN that didn't miss 7-10 plays during the game because they were showing replays/highlights. I love having the BTN, but they're pretty far behind even FOX, which sucks at everything sports, in terms of production. Also, re: Fans thoughts on teams cheating. I think it depends greatly on the quality of the program. Michigan basketball obviously went through some of the worst of paying players with the Fab Five and Tractor Traylor later in the 90s. Even knowing that would happen, I'd go through it again because it so exciting to watch those guys play. However, I think this is mostly because Michigan basketball hasn't really been an all-time great program. 1 title, some decent teams with Cazzie Russell, and that's basically it. There isn't a great legacy to tarnish. Switch it to Football, and I wouldn't take 1 extra win in any season if the reason was boosters paying players/etc. No on-field success would be worth tarnishing the legacy and tradition of Michigan football. And no I don't consider "we didn't count stretching as practice time" to be on that level, even if the NCAA deemed it a "major" violation.

Agree with this. Our D isn't good enough to win a game where the other team gets a bunch of breaks(first two INTs were a foot away from being TDs, the Roundtree TD drop, the slight overthrow of Stonum for a TD, the fumbled snap MSU recovered, the blocked FG). MSU is a good team and didn't make a mistake today. We're a good team and did. I still think this team wins 8-9 games, but I can't see any game left on the schedule where I think we'll for sure lose so with some actual luck who knows what will happen.

Most smart fans weren't upset after year 1 of Rich Rod because they basically had no offense and a defense that couldn't handle being on the field for 45 minutes every Saturday. One returning starter on offense, and he was a freshman guard. There were a lot of dumb fans yelling and screaming "But we're Michigan, we shouldn't be this bad!" but ignoring that even if Bo was resurrected from the grave he probably couldn't have gotten more than 5-7 out of that team. The system transition made it a bit harder, but I suppose if you're going to make that drastic of a change, you might as well do it at a time that the team was going to be awful anyway. Last year was a bit different, but most people were expecting a 7-5 season, so 5-7 isn't really that far from it. There is still a group of idiot fans that wanted him gone after that season, and they probably still want him gone just because he isn't Les Miles/Jim Harbaugh. Basically, smart fans knew '08 was going to be awful, and while they weren't happy with '09 they aren't calling for Rodriguez's head.

Seems like a bruised knee. They just said on the broadcast he was cleared to play in the 2nd half if he was needed. Should be fine and 100% for the start of Big Ten play.

I'm not that worried about the QB situation. Pryor or no Pryor(even though he's "down to tOSU/PSU", things have gone crazy enough in his recruiting I wouldn't be surprised if he changes his mind again), I think we'll be fine. There are a TON of weapons for whoever does win the QB job to use. That, combined with running a new offense that the Big Ten won't be as used to and our defense, makes me think the season won't be 7-5/6-6 bad like some people are predicting. We didn't lose that much on a defense that was rapidly improving last season. New strength coach Mike Barwis should help a lot over this spring/summer getting the guys in better shape. Despite the lack of depth on the defensive line, I think we can rely a lot more on the D to win games while the extremely young offense figures things out. The only tough games early on are both at home(Wisconsin, Illinois). Three pretty easy games before that to get into the groove, I think we can win 1 of those 2 home games, maybe even both. I figure we'll lose at Penn State, and a loss @ Purdue wouldn't surprise me. The rest we should win until the tOSU game, so at absolute worst 7-4 going into the game, more than likely 8-3 or 9-2. That game is always a toss up, even if we're unranked and 7-4 and they're #1 and undefeated. Should be a fun season, I can't wait for it to start. Low expectations are nice.

Gee, I seem to remember Tampa Bay being up 3 scores with 4 minutes left against the Colts a couple years ago. The Colts then won the game. Any team up 3 scores that just lays down and tries to run the clock out deserves to lose. Hate the Pats for being better than your team or because you dont' like the way Tom Brady looks or something, but don't hate them for playing to win the damn game.

Mallett following Loeffler makes a ton of sense. I was hoping we'd keep him around just so Mallett would stay and how great he's been with QBs in his time at Michigan, but oh well. However if Tennessee hires DeBord too, that would pretty much outweigh the gain they'd get from hiring Loeffler. He's a terrible OC. As for '08, I'm excited about the season despite the millions of question marks. I like the Rodriguez hiring a lot. I'm excited to see McGuffie play. I really like our chances at getting Terrelle Pryor after Mallett leaving/Ohio State losing the NC game. With all the changes, I haven't been this ready for the season to start in a long time.

That was the most satisfying win since beating Washington State in the '98 Rose Bowl. Winning Carr's last game, against Tebow and Florida.. such a great feeling. Loved seeing what this offense will look like next year. Now go Illini! Back to back upsets would be fantastic for the Big Ten.

Has there been any talk about the Indians dealing either Peralta or Cabrera? That has always seemed like the best way to go if it's possible. I haven't seen any reports that they're looking to deal one or the other, but with the price tag on shortstops being high at the moment I figured they would be looking to make a move. I like both guys, I'd probably prefer Cabrera since he'd be cheaper and I like his upside, assuming the reports about his excellent SS defense are true. Thoughts?

Why? They're overloaded in prospects anyway. Now if they could get the return that people were talking about for Santana(Kershaw, Kemp, and Loney lets say) then yeah sure I'd pull the trigger but that would be Kazmir-Zambrano bad for the Dodgers. Crawford is the type of player the Rays need(i.e. proven success, not just potential) and he means more to the team than he would wherever he'd be dealt. I don't see how dealing Crawford for 2 or 3 decent to very good prospects makes the team better now or in the future. http://www.raysbb.com/phpBB2/index.php

Jason Bartlett is a nice pickup too. The Rays terrible run prevention last year wasn't just bad pitchers. The defense behind those pitchers was just awful. Bartlett is a very good to elite defensive SS. Even if he isn't any better than replacement level on offense, he has a lot of value for Tampa. And if Brignac shows he's completely ready, Bartlett isn't so good you can't bench/trade him for the new guy. As a Rays fan, I like the deal. Trade from a source of depth to get lots of value where we're weak. I hate to lose the potential of someone like Young, but I feel it's worth it. I don't think Garza will ever be a #1, but that's not what the team needs. A solid #3/possible #2 is exactly what the team does need. Another good thing, in my opinion, is this deal reinforces what I've believed for a couple years: There's almost 0 chance the Rays will trade Crawford for prospects. It never made any sense to me that people thought the team would trade him unless it was for an elite pitcher(Oswalt, Santana, Zambrano. etc.). He signed a below market deal to stay in Tampa. He's been an all-star and the face of the franchise. Only way it'd make sense to trade him is if 1) he was in the last year of his deal and 2) he refused to sign an extension. Neither of those things are anywhere close to being true.

No doubt that Jim Brown was a better NFL player than a college player, but he was still a great in college. His stats were a bit low on the counting side, but there's a few reasons for that. One obviously being that Syracuse only played 8 games a season then. Another is that Brown played multiple positions. He was the team kicker and one of the top defensive players(I forget if he was CB, S, or LB). I'm pretty sure he played on the offensive line too when he wasn't running, and did it well. If I remember right there was some politics about the Heisman that year and him finishing only 5th, but I'm going off memory of reading about it so I can't say that as a fact. Elway was certainly deserving of being on the list, I just feel Brown not being at least in the top 10, if not the top 5 is a joke.

Not only is Elway 15th, he's 3 spots ahead of JIM FREAKIN' BROWN. The whole "top 25" thing lost all credibility having Jim Brown that low.

Should be channel 218

So a team should get credit for trying to hide themselves breaking the rules? I don't see a difference. It was obvious they weren't going to call it based on the way they were calling the game and the way refs have been calling games all year(I don't have proof, but it seems like holding has been called a whole lot less in both NCAA and NFL and I've heard many other people claim the same thing). Whether you were sneaky about it or not is irrelevant.

Welcome to the Michigan "Special" teams unit. This walk-on kid Lopata looks decent but he's only been kicking for a couple games now. Before him I would have been scared to attempt an XP, let alone a 39 yard field goal. As for the officiating, I have no doubt a lot of you are right about the refs not calling holding on Michigan when they did hold. I also have no doubt that Illinois held quite a bit but was never called for it. I don't remember a single holding call on either side. It's possible one team held more than the other, but it's really impossible to say without studying the game film. I do know that most of the "big" calls the refs made appeared to be the right one. The late hit was close but he looked to be out to me. Personally I'd rather late hits have to be very very blatant to be called, but they always call that play the way it happened in the game tonight.

I don't know if Lou is expecting Murton to hit .500, but the expectations must be insanely high. He actually gave Murton some consistent playing time recently(6th through the 20th). First 10 games he hit .315/.366/.579. He then goes 0-9 in the series against St. Louis and is sent right back to the bench. Granted they were both small sample sizes, but that's being pretty tough on the kid. He's never really been given a chance to start consistently( this year(look through his game log if you don't believe me), so it's no wonder he's been more aggressive when he has been given a chance. The team's basically told him if he doesn't hit every single game he starts, he's not going to start. That makes no sense to me, but I guess if Lou's thinking he'll only be here a year or two, why should he care if he ruins the young players for the future? He won't be here to deal with it.

GRCubsfan mentioned a lot of the things I was going to. Howry is closing, etc. etc. I think it's a very comparable situation because both managers seem to have the same mentality. They'll talk up and play a young position player as long as he HITS HITS HITS HITS HITS and the minute he stops hitting, he's benched. The only big difference is Lou seems to give them an extra couple games before benching than Dusty did. Soon as Fontenot struggles for a week or so, we'll see Izturis playing more again. I don't really mind it with Theriot/Fontenot, they're both no-upside utility infielders and riding them while they're hot isn't a bad idea. But when you have players with considerable upside that need time against both lefties AND righties, benching them after struggling for a short time is very short sighted and detrimental for the team, especially when they're being replaced by the likes of Jones and Pagan. So is it just that they're both very similar managers, or is it a problem coming from Hendry and the managers are just following his orders? I have to wonder the more Lou reminds me of Dusty.

Of course they have, they need a few more years to completely destroy his development and confidence so they can deal him for a couple crappy A-ballers. Also, this whole situation makes me wonder if the veteran problem we had under Dusty was really Dusty's fault or if he was just following orders. We got a new manager and the same things are happening. Of course it's quite possible it was Dusty's fault and Lou is just as bad as Dusty, but I have to wonder if it's almost all on Hendry instead.

It's no wonder why the Cubs are absolutely terrible at developing young hitters. If you don't hit very well, consistently, from the instant you're called up/season starts, you get benched for the first crappy veteran player the team can find. If you struggle at all to start you're benched. That's some insane pressure to put on anyone. I wouldn't be surprised, if Theriot does poorly for a week or so, if Izturis is back in there every single day. It saddens me that the only difference between Lou and Dusty in that regard is Dusty wouldn't have given them a week of struggling before benching the young player. I'm starting to agree with the idea that we should just trade away any offensive prospects we have before we let the ML team ruin them. We'll still suck, but at least we won't be pissed off about letting more promising young players rot on the bench.

C Brad Ausmus 1B Sean Casey 2B Mark DeRosa 3B Chone Figgins SS Cezar Izturis LF Scott Podsednik CF Juan Pierre RF Randy Winn SP Russ Ortiz SP Jason Marquis I wasn't as pessimistic as I was last year about this season until I did this and picked 3 Cubs. :(

While I can see that point, when we're talking about the majors, each pitcher is going to have that happen what, 4-5 times a year max? The worst SS make around 35 errors right? Each starter will be in for what, 1/6 or 1/7 of the total innings pitcher? That's gonna mean they get at most 6 of the SS's errors on the season, and while I have no idea what % of SS errors are balls that are booted vs. throwing errors, lets say all 6 are booted. A good SS will probably only make 10-15 errors at best, right? Simplying it down because it's nearly 4 a.m., that SS might only make 2 or 3 errors for that pitcher during a season. You're basically saying that 4 more errors over the course of 30+ games is that big of a deal to the pitcher's psyche? I just don't see it. Obviously a good SS is better than a bad one, but I have a hard time believing that a pitcher at the major league level can be effected that much by having a fielder behind him make 2-4 more errors than a good fielder at that position would have. (Yes, I know errors are a terrible way to evaluate fielders. But I feel my point still stands, the amount of non-errors of good vs. bad SS still will be very small coming for just one pitcher.

Hah, maybe this guy is actually Jim Hendry in disguise then. But in all seriousness, that is a pretty decent team. As long as this is more of a fun league than it being super serious that you want to win, anyway. The team could be either really good or really really bad. I basically did the same thing as I was bored and wanted to draft a team right away. You can look/laugh at my team if you wish(found here)

I am also interested, so count me in if you have room. I'd like to be in 4 custom leagues instead of doing a default Yahoo league with crap stat categories.

I don't even like the Bears and that was easily the worst Superbowl ever. [expletive] Peyton Manning. Ah well, I can still keep hoping he gets Theismann'ed by Shawne Merriman or some other good pass rusher next year. And for a tiny sliver of good side, at least Marlin Jackson and Cato June got rings.