Exile on Waveland
-
Posts
6,468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Exile on Waveland
-
Pomeroy says it's us @ Clemson. That Pitt game still confuses the hell out of me. Yeah, I went through Pomeroy and saw the Clemson ranking (Clemson No. 18, Pitt No. 20). But you'd have a hard time convincing me Clemson has had a better year than Pitt; though obviously that's a personal opinion. Bonus points for it being a true road win, though. Pitt was missing Gilbert Brown and it was Jermaine Dixon's first game back. That helps explain it, at least some. Edit to respond to your edit: I would agree. Beating Pitt and then winning 5-7 conference games would have been great progress to show recruits. However, losing Maurice Creek was a death blow. He was easily the best player on the team (I don't think I'd get an argument if I said he was a near lock for Big Ten Freshman of the Year). Couple that with losing Matt Roth -- who would've been a big help after Creek got hurt. I'd like to think that with Creek, perhaps IU has two more wins, less blowouts and two more decent/good chances at victories. Now if they get one more win I'd be thrilled.
-
What a great game. Hockey and curling make the Winter Olympics, in my book.
-
Oh, and it's official: Indiana has one of the Big Ten's top-3 out-of-conference wins. And the best neutral/road out-of-conference win of the entire conference. Just sayin'.
-
carry on, then. I know you guys (i.e., Illinois fans) are fatalistic, but look at the resumes of some of the other teams on the bubble. Not a whole lot impressive out there. Obviously Illinois better beat Michigan and Minnesota, though. If they do that then top Wisconsin again, they'll be a lock. They may have crappy, inexplicable losses, but they have wins over Michigan State, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, and Clemson. That's pretty darn good.
-
Illinois is going to make the tournament.
-
As Andy said Penn St. missed last year with 10 wins. I don't think we stand a chance with 10 wins. Gut instinct is 11 wins is going to require a win in the 4-5 game. i don't think anyone's ever missed with 11 wins, and i don't think it will start now. A 10-6 Indiana team missed in '05. They were 15-14 overall though. Technically they were 15-13 at selection time. But they were the fourth seed. Do. The. Math.
-
I guess I'm not explaining but rather assuming you know the original Knicks trade for T-Mac. Let me explain what I am meaning. The original Knicks trade for T-Mac that we were rumored to be very close to doing (we were arguing about how high/low the picks would be protected) was T-Mac to the Knicks for Jeffries, Hill, Hughes and the two first round picks in 2011 and 2012. If you look at the trade that ended up happening that is essentially what we got. I am assuming we got Sacramento involved at first to get the Knicks to cave on the protection, which they indeed did. However, the picks and players from Knicks in the final trade is almost exactly what we would have gotten if we just did two separate trades one sending T-Mac to the Knicks and the other sending Landry to Sacramento. This is why I said the trade was essentially Landry for Martin. I was not aware that was the original proposed deal. In that case -- assuming both sides were going to finalize that deal -- I am somewhat lukewarm. The deal as is certainly is a win for Houston; trading Landry for Martin may or may not be.
-
Seriously, the trade wasn't just Kevin Martin for Carl Landry (which I'm unsure if I would've done straight up either). The Rockets also get the right to trade 2011 picks and the Knicks 2012 pick -- I know everyone assumes those picks will be low because the Knicks will sign free agents, but we've all heard that before. The Rockets also get Jordan Hill, who, though I thought he was incredibly overrated in last year's draft, was a No. 8 pick in the draft and still just a rookie. Hilton Armstrong and Jared Jeffries aren't much at this point -- though both are former lottery picks. Armstrong is probably still young enough he could eventually contribute something, and Jeffries is a good defensive player against basically any position (though extremely overpaid and an awful shooter).* The trade was, ostensibly, Tracy McGrady, Carl Landry and Joey Dorsey for Kevin Martin, Jordan Hill, Hilton Armstrong, Jared Jeffries, the Knicks' 2012 pick, and a potential swap of 2011 picks. A lot of those players might as well be nonentities, but Landry for Martin, Hill, a draft pick, and perhaps another better pick is a pretty good deal if you ask me. *I'm assuming the Rockets won't just release either player -- which I'm ignorant to.
-
LOL Brewers to build statue of Selig
Exile on Waveland replied to UMFan83's topic in General Baseball Talk
Huh. -
2010 Chicago Cubs (in your opinion)
Exile on Waveland replied to haubrich91's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Something like 83-86 wins. Kind of ho-hum. -
I really liked that signing when we made it and I still like it quite a bit. He was a very good addition. Scott is definitely a quality player. I hated to see him go, the Colts sure could use him. The Colts evidently only could afford to sign either Scott or Ryan Lilja. The decision looked bad in retrospect last year as Lilja was injured and missed the entire season, but was he was probably the best lineman on the team this year. Wish they could have kept both, though.
-
Jake Scott. :x
-
Any chance I mentioned Texas/Florida previously? That's long been my (conspiracy theory?) outlandish speculation. Doubt I'm on record here, though, obviating my claim to prescience. I said Texas or ND only, you agreed and stated a case for Florida as well. Virtual high-five.
-
No? He was ranked No. 20 by Rivals and No. 14 by RSCI. Perhaps that was the Duke effect, I don't recall how he was ranked prior to commitment/recruitment by Duke.
-
Any chance I mentioned Texas/Florida previously? That's long been my (conspiracy theory?) outlandish speculation. Doubt I'm on record here, though, obviating my claim to prescience.
-
If not Notre Dame, the Big Ten is going to go after Texas or Florida. I'm usually laughed at when I say that. However, this is pretty compelling: Average TV revenue (per Outside the Lines): * Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school) * SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school) * Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school) * ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school) * Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school) * Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school) Still don't think Texas would listen?
-
a. dmac b. john wall Correct. Wall does get to the line more and shoot FTs better, but McCamey compares favorably to any player not named Evan Turner right now. ORtg %Poss %Shots ARate TORate 2FG% 3FG% Player A 110.3 26.2 22.5 37.5 21.5 55.6 37.8 Player B 111.4 26.7 23.0 34.9 24.9 50.3 37.3 Player C 133.8 22.6 22.8 28.0 12.4 49.6 39.5 Player D 114.1 33.7 30.7 38.2 19.7 59.6 25.0 Guess Player C and Player D Scheyer and? Evan Turner.
-
I know you're being a homer but c'mon sulley. McCamey is averaging 15.4 points per game, 6.4 assists, 3.1 rebounds, is shooting 49 percent from the field and 38 percent from 3 and scoring 1.43 points per shot (I can't do all this for conference games only). However, Evan Turner is averaging 19.7 points, 9.4 rebounds, 5.7 assists, 2.0 steals, is shooting 56 percent from the field, and 1.41 points per shot (Turner missed two Big Ten games and wasn't his normal self the first game back). In conference, Turner is leading the Big Ten in scoring at 20.9, is fifth in rebounding at 7.4, is fifth in field goal percentage at 55 percent, is second to McCamey in assists with 5.7, and first in steals at 2.4. McCamey's been really good, but Big Ten Player of the Year is a runaway.
-
He had the distance. Yes, but to make kicks you have to have distance and accuracy. At that distance, he has to just kick it as hard as he can, with no accuracy at all. That's not a recipe for success.
-
Oh, and Caldwell has done an outstanding job this year but going for the 51-yard or whatever field goal was a huge mistake. That's no longer in Stover's range.
-
Garcon's drop was huge. As you said, the Colts were rolling offensively at that point with a FG and a TD on their first two possessions. Their only other drive after that in the first half was the one starting at the two where they tried to run out the clock and/or get the Saints to call the timeout. Their offense was basically off the field for an hour. I was really worried after Garcon's drop. Knew the Colts were going to have to score a lot and keep the Saints' offense off the field. I felt really good about how the offense was playing up to that point; then it seemed like the Saints exclusively had the ball after that. I was expecting a loss after the onside kick and ensuing touchdown though. I am really surprised looking at the box score that the Colts out-gained the Saints by 100 yards, had more first downs, and only lost time of possession by 22 seconds. Did not seem like that at all, outside of the first quarter. (Obviously the pick-6 -- from a Hoosier -- skews those stats.) I don't know if posting is making me feel better or worse.
-
Congrats Saints. They were clearly better; they deserved it. I think the two game-changing plays were Garcon's drop on the third series when it looked like the Colts were rolling, and then the onside kick to start the second half. That was really a gutsy call that changed the momentum completely.
-
Yeah, you're wrong. I just watched the first three Saints possession on my DVR and only twice did Bushrod have help. Bushrod has turned into an extremely good tackle this year as evidenced in part by the fact of how few times Brees has been sacked. OK, obviously I should have clarified; I painted too broad of a brush stroke. No one is going to double team Freeney on running plays or even most quick/short passes. Of those first three drives you cite, as per ESPN's play-by-play, the Saints had 17 plays with five being runs and eight passes described as "short." It's the 3rd-and-long, the obvious passing downs where Bushrod got help. I'm certain that in those passing downs, the Saints would have left two guys in to block Freeney (though it wouldn't surprise me if they now give Mathis the same treatment). That is what may give the Saints a huge advantage.
-
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Jared Allen didn't even touch Brees and only had 2 tackles. Bushrod had help. lol, every LT gets help sometimes. Are you trying to set this up to where if the Colts lose you can blame it all on Freeney not being 100%? My God. Are you intentionally misconstruing what I'm saying? I'm not setting anything up; football players get hurt and teams have to deal with that. If the Saints win, they win. Doesn't matter who was out. On the flip side, of course Freeney being banged up changes the game. I'm not sure why pointing that out is offensive to you; it's not an excuse, it's the truth. And while all left tackles get help sometime, the Saints had two guys blocking Allen pretty much every snap (going on recollection here and reports, obviously haven't studied game film). Bushrod wasn't on an island with Allen, he wouldn't have been on one with Freeney. The same respect won't be afforded Brock, freeing another player to run routes.
-
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Jared Allen didn't even touch Brees and only had 2 tackles. Bushrod had help.