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
-
I would absolutely love a Colts-Eagles Super Bowl (obviously, I'd love a Colts-anyone Super Bowl).
-
No? They were undefeated and ranked No. 7 in Pomeroy (now No. 10). They own wins over Marquette (22), Ole Miss (32), Texas A&M (46), and Seton Hall (57). I don't think their No. 6 ranking was too far off base, if at all (though, even in their recent wins, they didn't seem to be playing all that well).
-
The Panthers are the only team in the history of the league to have two 1,100-yard rushers this year and also went 8-8, so I guess you and I are kindred spirits in the 'insane rushing numbers with little to show for it' regard. Yes, though I, as I'm sure you would as well, would agree to trade the rushing record for a playoff spot, though. :) That's just more reason, to me, why it's silly to evaluate a football player on how many winning seasons or super bowl rings he has. CJ, Stewart and Williams are now worse because their teams were bad. It's generally only QBs who get this stigma attached to them (i.e. Brady is better than Peyton because Brady has 4 rings and Peyton has 1), but I occassionally hear it with other players as well. It's silly. I know he's Tom Brady and all, but he even gets a ring for losing in the Super Bowl?
-
Well, sure. But I somehow doubt Pomeroy's predictor accounted for the absence of Maurice Creek. Who, you know, was only IU's best player.
-
That's probably exactly what I expect. Ohio State was an easy third -- maybe even second -- with Turner. I've been disappointed in Illinois (not that this board needs a reminder). Thought they'd be better. Michigan obviously hasn't looked so hot. Indiana I still think will finish ahead of Iowa, but losing Creek is a devastating blow. Oh, and people picking Wisconsin to finish ninth in the league were either morons or insane (or both). Seriously. I didn't think they'd be a top-3 or -4 team, but ninth? C'mon.
-
You think they're better than Michigan State?* *(And I hope I eat a lot of crow with the underlying message of this post.)
-
Antoine Bethea should have made the Pro Bowl. Same probably can't be said for Jeff Saturday. Oh well.
-
Watch the Penn State-Minnesota game simultaneously as the erstwhile Citrus Bowl. I've come to the conclusion that officials aren't even trying anymore. After one Penn State basket, a Minnesota player grabbed the ball, hopped backwards and "in-bounded" the ball to initiate a fast break. However, he didn't even come close to establishing himself out of bounds -- in fact, he perhaps had one foot touching the endline with the rest of him in fair ground, so to speak. The official either didn't see it, or chose to completely ignore an obvious violation. I wish I could find a video (or explain it better), but it was egregious (he had Dan Orlovsky's court/field awareness). It's pretty simply, you can't "inbound" the ball while standing in-bounds. I was in-tune to this because the same thing, though less apparent, happened a few times in the IU-Bryant game. Second, evidently traveling has been abolished in college basketball now. Sheesh.
-
Pyrrhic victory for IU tonight. They dominate Bryant but freshman star Maurice Creek is carted off the court on a stretcher with an apparent knee injury. Edit: I didn't see the extent of the injury live. From online pictures, looks like an obvious dislocated patella, Crean says immediate surgery. Crap.
-
That's pretty much where I stand as well. I easily could have stomached pulling people at halftime or even after the third quarter. But pulling Manning backed up against your own endzone, with five minutes left in the third quarter, while leading by five, and likely only needing one touchdown to win (yes, I realize the Jets scored 29, but I really doubt the Colts blow a 22-10 lead to that offense, even with backups) is more difficult to swallow. It felt more like conceding than resting. It's not necessarily the resting that bothers me -- I hate pulling the starters after one series, but after the half makes some sense to me -- it's the blase attitude towards winning the game that bothers me. Further, from reading, it looks like the Bengals-Jets is the most probable Nos. 4-5 first-round matchup. If so, the Colts either play the winner of that crapfest or the sixth seed, which would mean the Patriots were knocked out. Seems like a win-win. So there's (hopefully) that.
-
I really want New England to get the third seed as well. I've wanted some combination of San Diego and New England as the two- and three-seeds for some time. That way, the Colts would only have to play one or the other, but not both. Obviously, I'm coming at this from a different angle than you are.
-
But the Jets will be out in the first round, so it doesn't really matter. Damn it!!! The Colts always play like crap in the playoffs when they sit for the last game or two at the end of the season. I hate this. The Colts wouldn't expect to play the Jets in this scenario. But the Jets making the playoffs would keep out all but one of the Steelers, Ravens, Broncos, Texans, and Dolphins. It would also possibly/likely set up a second-round matchup with the Bengals, who would be the next least-intimidating playoff team (in my opinion). That makes sense, but I still don't understand not telling the players you're going to pull them at some point in the game. Trust me, I hate everything about how this was handled, much less conceding the game. I'm just trying to assign some logic to the decision, especially the decision to pull Manning when one more TD drive ostensibly would have ended the game (at least against that offense).
-
But the Jets will be out in the first round, so it doesn't really matter. Damn it!!! The Colts always play like crap in the playoffs when they sit for the last game or two at the end of the season. I hate this. The Colts wouldn't expect to play the Jets in this scenario. But the Jets making the playoffs would keep out all but one of the Steelers, Ravens, Broncos, Texans, and Dolphins. It would also possibly/likely set up a second-round matchup with the Bengals, who would be the next least-intimidating playoff team (in my opinion).
-
After much profanity-laced ranting and raving -- and don't get me wrong, I'm still pissed -- the Colts wanted to lose so the Jets made the playoffs. They did the same a few years ago with Denver. Conspiracy theory perhaps, but I think they wanted the Jets in. Doesn't mean I'm not still furious.
-
He's a virtual lock to beat Faulk's record for yards from scrimmage in a season. He's at 2355 and needs 75 yards to break that. What a fun player to watch. At the Colts game a few weeks ago, the crowd almost in unison gasped every time he touched the ball (as did I). Seems like he could go for 80 every touch. Wish the Colts weren't doomed to face him twice a year for the foreseeable future.
-
This was unfortunate. I know there was some debate if bringing him back could result in a situation like Marvin Harrison in 2007-08, but, at worst, it would have been nice to have Gonzalez back as insurance. Hopefully he's fully recovered for next season. Oh, and not to your post, but it's been pretty apparent that San Diego was a top-3 team for quite some time.
-
A wise poster a few weeks ago was saying how overrated the Vikings were. . . The Vikings pass the "smell test" as they are big and physical and have a dominating running back. Those things make purported football experts weak in the knees, just as wins, batting average, speed, and defense are loved by the purported baseball cognoscenti. The Vikings also benefited from looking impressive while playing an exceedingly weak schedule -- ranked 31st by Sagarin before this weekend, Jeff hasn't yet updated -- though they are a very good 4-1 against the top-6. However, the Vikings are only 15th in team efficiency, whereas the other three bye teams are first (Colts), second (Saints), and third (Chargers). On the most-likely-bye-team-to-lose, they potentially could have the toughest match-up in the fourth-ranked efficiency Eagles (who beat them last year in the playoffs as well). (Note: Obviously if the Pats wake up they'd be the toughest second round match-up, in my opinion.) What some people believe the Vikings to be, really hasn't been borne out on the field. That said, the Vikings obviously have a ton of talent and could win the Super Bowl (Adrian Peterson plus that run defense gives one a chance).
-
Nah Dext, think I'll be here. Just like the demise of Rita, anxious to see how the next episode turns out. WTF is this? Are you serious? You can remain an ignorant, win-loving Luddite for all I care. However, you just spoiled one of my favorite TV shows that I've been to busy to catch all the way up this season. This isn't even the TV thread, which I've avoided for this very reason. Besides not adding anything to the baseball discussions on the board -- I would say you detract, but SSR's post was so great I copied it for future reference -- you're an inconsiderate jerk. *I'm sorry if this is inappropriate.
-
It probably has something to do with him never cheating and being one of the best coaches ever. Who bitched and moaned more than Bobby Knight when someone had the temerity to criticize his obvious, sociopathic behavior? He didn't criticize someone for being an oppressive, belligerent ogre. Instead, he criticized someone for cheating. I'm not sure any coach in any sport has a higher moral ground than Coach Knight on that front.
-
Preach it, Coach Knight: "We've gotten into this situation where integrity is really lacking and that's why I'm glad I'm not coaching. You see we've got a coach at Kentucky, who put two schools on probation and he's still coaching. I really don't understand that. " http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4752725
-
He he . . . too bad Pitt lost by double digits to a lower-tier Big Ten team in Big East territory this year then . . .
-
I'm not certain Florida would dismiss the Big Ten out-of-hand. Maybe. Florida has burgeoning academics and might be interested in the Big Ten jump for that reason. Not that I think that is very likely. Also, I couldn't agree more that the Big Ten should go big or stay home. No reason to add a middling university. Eleven teams -- despite the misnomer -- is fine.
-
The NCAA (Final Four) and the NFL (Super Bowl) disagree with you.
-
Rankings of what? Quality of pizza on campus? http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings I think you'll find the Big Ten is primarily concerned with the doctrinal research capabilities of any would-be addition. While Pitt may stack up based on overall rankings, I'm not sure that's the pertinent issue for the conference. (Note: I am completely ignorant of Pitt on this point.) Quickly scanning, wikipedia, it looks like Pitt would fulfill this criterion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities (Second Note: That list is also interesting for who it excludes, as I know several professors doubt that school's ability to compare research-wise).
-
They woke up because they finally remembered you're allowed to actually run the ball, especially when you're ahead. Morons.