Exile on Waveland

didn't know you were such an expert talent evaluator when it comes to Conference USA quarterbacks. vance nicholson, jack of all trades. Well, I just think it's quite pathetic that you'd rather your team lose than have a chance to win it all. Of course, I guess that happens when your team has never won anything. If your team was eliminated, wouldn't you want your team to suck more to get a better draft pick? That's not what he said. He said he'd rather his team get a good draft pick than lose in the Super Bowl. Even if my team lost, I'd rather see my team in the Super Bowl each and every year. My bad. Yes, you are correct. Too bad the Browns aren't stinking it up for you guys. I mean, I'm happy about it, but its a case of "oh, what could have been" had they sucked as was expected. True. But we'll still have 2 first rounders with not a lot of holes and with the exception of receiver, a fairly young team. So, while I hoped the Browns would completely suck, it still looks like their pick will be in 22-24 range and last season we gave up the 22nd to make the deal, so it's ok by me. There are a lot of Patriots fans speculating as well that the Patriots will trade down with the pick that they get from San Fran and the most likely suitors for that pick would be the Cowboys trading their 2 first rounders for it. I would be stunned if the Patriots don't trade down -- unless perhaps SF randomly wins out and ends up picking like 8th or 9th. Even then, I think the Pats would look to trade down.

didn't know you were such an expert talent evaluator when it comes to Conference USA quarterbacks. vance nicholson, jack of all trades. Well, I just think it's quite pathetic that you'd rather your team lose than have a chance to win it all. Of course, I guess that happens when your team has never won anything. nobody is going to beat the patriots this year; nobody has a chance to win it all... if there's a year we're going to suck, this is a good year to do it That's not true. Pats are definitely capable of losing in the playoffs -- starting with their first game. I don't think they'll go 19-0.

U.S. News & World Report disagrees with you...this in no way is trying to spark and argument, because i don't really care, just was curious on how the schools ranked nationally in a variety of statistics...so i looked it up and that was the first link i found that gave a list. I was getting ready to post this. There is very little reason to think Missouri is a better school than Illinois. It's obviously arbitrary, but Illinois is a better school.

The Cowboys could beat the Colts, I agree. I also think they could beat the Pats. Both are better teams than the Cowboys, but that isn't everything in one game.

Or perhaps Pittsburgh is simply getting exposed? The Steelers had the 32nd ranked schedule coming in, including no games against top-13 teams. Let's not forget the Pats last two games. This game is a lot closer with Troy Palamalu playing safety. Yes, I agree. Safety help was awful twice, and thus an integral part in two long TD's. I think Pittsburgh is a good team, but we didn't have much to go on until today. This is a team that lost to the Jets and beat Miami 3-0.

Or perhaps Pittsburgh is simply getting exposed? The Steelers had the 32nd ranked schedule coming in, including no games against top-13 teams. Let's not forget the Pats last two games.

You do realize that even if my picks are "more right" than others, the odds are that I won't win this thing, right? It's like playing hold 'em with pocket rockets and five guys in for the flop. You're the favorite, but the odds of you leading after the flop are pretty low, although higher than any other individuals. I didn't realize it was weighted. I have little to no desire to sift through 32 games and rank them in order. I picked and gave up after a couple of minutes of ranking.

Floridas recievers laugh in the face of Meyer as they are transferring to the U of I as well. Oh god. :roll: What? I think you are getting a little nit picky. Heaven forbid I ever use the word "the" before saying U of I, considering it sounds stupid without the word "the", but whatever. And with that I will post this. Mizzou commit London Davis TE from Cahokia Il, has backed out of his commitment, to come join THE Zooker. Wait, Illinois recruited a player after he had verbally committed to another school?!?!?! Oh the humanity!!!! That said, "U of I" needs the "the" in front of it.

First playoff week and Green Bay's D/ST has 26 points on three TD's against me. Unbelievable. Thanks for nothing, Oakland.

Different, could be cool. Wonder when the last stadium with such low seating capacity (34K) has been built. That's small, though they obviously have no fan base/fans.

Ugh, that hurts me. This is the first week of my fantasy playoffs and I have Holt. What's wrong with Brock Berlin? He was one of the best High School QB's ever. Oh, right. My bad. :lol:

Is there any defensive metric that doesn't? They all seem relatively unreliable to me. If there is, which? If there isn't, which is the best?

Trust me, to Indiana fans, watching Cam Cameron tank is plenty entertaining. May that loser go 0-16 and get fired.

The Cubs should be all over Pie for Greene, regardless of what happens with Fukudome. I'd be all for both moves, though. Greene would be a significant upgrade -- especially moving from Petco to Wrigley -- at the Cubs worst offensive position. Theriot is not good, Greene is.

That depends if the best player in the NFL is a guy that will average probably like 12 games a year (that's a completely random number, obviously). Peterson is a stud, no doubt, but he's extremely injury prone (upright style doesn't help). We'll see; I hope so, because I have him in a keeper league.

Yeah, Peterson and Willis are probably the top two rookies. Marshawn Lynch, Joe Thomas, Tony Ugoh, David Harris, Dwayne Bowe all have also had very good seasons. Calvin Johnson has been impressive when healthy (not surprising at all). That was off the top of my head, so I'm certain I forgot a couple first-year standouts.

Yes, agreed. I saw that on ESPN's fantasy updates, and laughed because I had no idea Berlin was even in the NFL.

Ugh, that hurts me. This is the first week of my fantasy playoffs and I have Holt.

Me too. Honestly, I think it's just a matter of when.

I'm personally glad Harrison isn't playing. First game back against the Ravens defense sounded like a recipe for a re-injury. I expect he'll miss next week at Oakland then return for Houston at home. No inside info, just a hunch with how the Colts generally handle injuries. That said, can't wait to have him back. Raheem Brock also won't play for the Colts, making their defensive line very thin and young. That's three projected starters (Dwight Freeney, Booger McFarland and Brock) out. Brock will return, though likely not until either the playoffs or right before. Colts may struggle against the run in the meantime.

Don't know. I expect he'll play, though no idea how effectively -- well, at least relative to his normal self.

Yeah, I've been reading that as well. I just don't see that happening. I can't see him leaving Iowa. I also don't know how I would feel about that. He turned around an Iowa program a couple years ago, but his teams have been down the past couple of years and he can't even beat Iowa freaking State. Decent point. Michigan is a selector when it comes to recruiting though and that may make a big difference. I don't think Fernetz has the talent at Iowa like you guys do and he does a lot with what he has. I'm sure the Iowa fans would know more about his X's and O's but I think he'd be able to recruit very well for you. Does Michigan want a 3 yards and a cloud of dust guy or are they willing to except a different philosophy? That's what I don't think anyone but the higher ups at Michigan knows. It's always been about tradition, but the run-left crap hasn't worked for them for a while now. They need a new philosophy or they're going to get left behind and end up like Notre Dame and Nebraska. That's why this hire is a huge deal. I don't think Michigan needs to hire the big name like Ferentz. They just have to think outside the box and look at guys like Petersen from Boise State or Kelly from Cincinnati, or even Martin from GVSU. What did Peterson do before Boise? I just wonder if he's not successful because of Haskins before him or was that his philosophy that made them better? Before head coaching, he was the OC at Boise State. Do you think it was him or Haskins that made that team better? Haskins hasn't done too well at Colorado. It's Hawkins, not Haskins. And I'm not sure you can say he hasn't done well. Overall, his record is garbage, but they went from 2-10 (2-6) to 6-6 (4-4). The program was decimated with allegations of practically everything. I know there have been some time-management issues, and I'm not close to the situation, but it seems he inherited a mess.

Yeah, I've been reading that as well. I just don't see that happening. I can't see him leaving Iowa. I also don't know how I would feel about that. He turned around an Iowa program a couple years ago, but his teams have been down the past couple of years and he can't even beat Iowa freaking State. Decent point. Michigan is a selector when it comes to recruiting though and that may make a big difference. I don't think Fernetz has the talent at Iowa like you guys do and he does a lot with what he has. I'm sure the Iowa fans would know more about his X's and O's but I think he'd be able to recruit very well for you. Does Michigan want a 3 yards and a cloud of dust guy or are they willing to except a different philosophy? That's what I don't think anyone but the higher ups at Michigan knows. It's always been about tradition, but the run-left crap hasn't worked for them for a while now. They need a new philosophy or they're going to get left behind and end up like Notre Dame and Nebraska. That's why this hire is a huge deal. I don't think Michigan needs to hire the big name like Ferentz. They just have to think outside the box and look at guys like Petersen from Boise State or Kelly from Cincinnati, or even Martin from GVSU. Wait, they need a new philosophy or they're going to end up like Nebraska? Oh, the irony.

It's a good start! I'm sure USC is also playing ND....is OSU playing any other BCS team? You might want to check other thread's for OSU's past schedules; they always play at least one BCS team, and it's usually a good one. Florida also plays FSU every year, and I believe they play Hawaii next year. And USC plays ND every year. It'll be in LA next year. Florida plays Miami, Hawaii and Florida State next year. Didn't know they played Miami again. That's certainly not ducking people, regardless of how strong those programs are. Especially when coupled with an SEC schedule. There are many culprits in weak scheduling. But OSU, USC and Florida are not among them.

It's a good start! I'm sure USC is also playing ND....is OSU playing any other BCS team? You might want to check other thread's for OSU's past schedules; they always play at least one BCS team, and it's usually a good one. Florida also plays FSU every year, and I believe they play Hawaii next year. And USC plays ND every year. It'll be in LA next year.