Exile on Waveland

I wouldn't mind seeing Vince in a Wildcat type formation or contributing to the offense in some way. I am a bit surprised they haven't worked him in it in some capacity. I'm expecting Fisher to at least break it out some in two weeks against the Colts.

I expect them in the World Series. Ugh.

To be fair it is easy for good QB's when they get 5-7 seconds to throw every play. Yeah, it's not Manning, it's the offensive line that consists of a second round pick, a fourth round pick, a sixth round pick, and two undrafted free agents. For one it does not matter where players are taken. Saturday was undrafted yet is one of the best centers in the league. For two I said good QB's. I wasn't putting down Manning. I was merely pointing out that good QB's will dominate any game that they get 5-7 seconds to throw every pass. It's why you can't sit back and try to drop into coverage. A good QB will find the holes. You have to get pressure. Obviously draft position isn't dispositive of the quality of player. In fact, the two undrafted lineman are actually the two best (and the second-rounder perhaps the worst at this time). However, the consensus in this thread seemed to be the Colts line was full of blue-chippers. It's not. The Colts don't have an offensive line stocked with studs, of which draft position is often indicative (what they do have is one of the best line coaches in the NFL in Howard Mudd). Manning makes the line look much better than it actually is by (i) generally checking out of plays that aren't conducive to success, and (ii) getting rid of the ball quickly.

To be fair it is easy for good QB's when they get 5-7 seconds to throw every play. Yeah, it's not Manning, it's the offensive line that consists of a second round pick, a fourth round pick, a sixth round pick, and two undrafted free agents.

I played him today with Julius Jones, Knowshon Moreno, and Beanie Wells on the bench. I was starting to think that was a huge mistake. I was vindicated.

Really, costs me a point.

They're definitely in the hole. But Houston and Jacksonville are probably both about to be 1-2. Colts are 2-0, but are likely to lose tonight in Arizona (short week, tired defense, plus pass defense missing Kelvin Hayden, Gary Bracket, Bob Sanders and banged up Jerraud Powers and Marlin Jackson), and the Titans have two left against them. It could be worse, but they're in an extremely tenuous position.

Iowa at #6? Let's not get silly here.....you're going to lose 2 or 3 games this year. Really? Name them. either at wisconsin or at michigan st, and at ohio st. Agreed. I doubt they win at the 'Shoe, and back-to-back roadies against Bucky and Sparty figures to be a difficult task (though, individually, Iowa is superior to both).

Iowa at #6? Let's not get silly here.....you're going to lose 2 or 3 games this year. As has been said, I owe to allegiance to Iowa. I'm a Hoosier. I don't view the polls as entirely predictive -- I say entirely because even though I'm starting to believe Alabama is the best team, they would remain behind Florida in my hypothetical personal poll (which is, naturally, entirely an exercise in futility). Iowa has accomplished a good deal -- more than most teams, in fact. Do I think they're the sixth best team in the country? No. But what I think is often wrong.

Iowa at 13 is much closer to correct/fair than 17. They should be higher than either ranking -- I would have them top-10 easy, maybe even at No. 6. The UNI squeaker hurts, but they're a tough team and Iowa's other three wins have been impressive (Arizona is looking real good -- a win at Oregon State is a nice victory). And, honestly, LSU hasn't been terribly impressive -- I'm not sure they've distinguished themselves from Iowa so far.

Arizona.

I'm starting to think Alabama may be the best team in the nation.

hey, you guys have had 3 winning seasons the last 15 years or so. that's not horrible, i guess. actually it's probably worst in the BigTen, but it's probably better than Vanderbilt or something. Unfortunately, Indiana says hi.

ones on ABC and the other is on ESPN i thought here, OSU/Illinois is on ABC and ESPN is blacked out Same here. Why? ESPN is specifically reserved for the secondary game in a market. Why aren't we getting it? I don't want to watch Illinois-OSU when VT-Miami and Cal-Oregon are playing.

That's BS. Sure, IU should've scored TD's, but that is an abysmal call -- that even stood on review. I've never witnessed IU beating Michigan, that was a great chance. What an awful, awful call. I'm apoplectic. I think I managed to post without profanity. So there's that.

Allowing CCP to handle the Colts comments, the Titans have lost by a combined six points on the road to the defending Super Bowl champions and against everyone's up-and-coming sleeper team and they're down? They may be 0-2, but that's a damn good football team in Nashville.

Not being able to get off the field defensively against Miami shows how bad the defense is. The offense scored but Miami was 25th in pass defense last year and 23rd so far this year so it was a team they could score quick on. What happens when they play top teams who can actually stop the pass? It was one game against an anomalous offensive scheme -- one that perplexed an 11-win Patriot team last year to the tune of 38-13 in Foxboro.

They went 10-6 last year and if Brett Favre can pass against a good defense like the 49ers it means they are quite a bit better than last year's team because the offense isn't one dimensional. Considering the team with the best record from last year is 0-2, the Superbowl champ is 1-1, the Colts don't look as good as last yearand have lost some key players and the Patriots are 1-1 they might be the top team. It would be between Minnesota, Giants, Atlanta, Jets and Baltimore. This week the Giants are on the road, Jets play Tennessee and Atlanta is at New England. The only one who has a true easy win is Baltimore but even they play a rival in Cleveland. Why are you ignoring the Broncos? They beat two teams of the same quality (or better) than the Vikings did. More seriously, why are you ignoring New Orleans? They've been the most impressive NFC team so far if you ask me. I'd also like to add to this vis-a-vis the Colts. Last year at this time, the Colts were 1-1 with a home loss to the Bears and a road win over the Vikings in which they rallied from a 15-0 third quarter deficit. So far, the Colts look better than last year (and I think that will continue, though who knows what that means record-wise). Second, the "key players" they've lost are: Marvin Harrison, end of list. Now, Harrison is one of the greatest receivers of all time, and one of my favorite players of all time. However, he's unfortunately been a cipher since 2006. The past two seasons he combined for 80 catches and six touchdowns while playing only 20 games due to injury (for comparison's sake, that's worse than every season of his since Manning's rookie year). Love him, but he was no longer a key player -- see his current unsigned status. Anthony Gonzalez is currently hurt, and if he can't come back to near full strength, that would likely be a devastating injury to a key player. And, obviously, I'm not exactly ready to dismiss teams like the Steelers, Patriots, Titans, etc. For what it's worth, Baltimore has probably been the most impressive team so far to me. The Colts were a better team last year. The Colts struggled to start last year but that was mainly because Peyton was getting his timing down. Right now they have no Marvin and Gonzalez is hurt with no guarantee of being what some think he could be. They have Wayne and Clark, which is much better than most teams but not as good as what it has been. The defense is the same crap defense, plus Sanders is hurt, and the offense isn't as good. Again, Harrison was a cipher the last two years. We can pretend the Colts lost the 1999-2006 Marvin Harrison (average season: 16 games, 103 catches, 1,402 yards , and 13 TDs); however, they lost the 2007-08 Marvin Harrison (average season: 10 games, 40 catches, 441 yards, and three TDs). Devastating loss that is not. This year's Colts team is more talented than last year, with bigger and more talented DT's, a first-round RB to pair with Addai, and, so far, a superior offensive line. The only place -- repeat, ONLY -- area they have less talent is at WR. That deficiency will be diminished once Gonzalez returns (if he does, which is obviously a major concern). There is very little reason to believe this year's version is worse than last year's Colts -- besides anachronistic Harrison worship, or believing the loss of Dungy will be debilitating. Now what record all that will translate to, who knows?

The old Yankee Stadium sucked.

The 24 points Baltimore gave up against the Chiefs included a blocked punt returned for a TD and a 2-yard TD pass following a 70-yard interception return. The Ravens allowed a total 188 yards and only 29 rushing. The Chargers gashed them pretty good -- through the air only, though -- but they have a strong offense. I think it's fair to assume the Ravens defense is better than that, regardless.

Hey, that's one I haven't been too (and, tooting my own horn, I'm pretty much the trump card when it comes to stadiums visited). Though I'm going to need another trip to New York. . . If you can exclude weather -- hard I know -- I preferred Comerica to Petco. I'd also have Busch, and maybe Anaheim, above Miller Park.

I'm not letting anything cloud my judgement of the cell. I'll happily go see a baseball game in person regardless of who is playing and compared to places like Camden or PNC the Cell is a dull as can be. And what about compared to Great American, Busch, or Miller? You compared it to what many consider to be two of the top recent stadiums. Let me guess, it isn't as nice as New Yankee Stadium either :) . The fact of the matter is the place is a fine place to enjoy a ballgame. The recent renovations greatly enhanced the Cell. However, it's still worse than GAB, Busch, and Miller. It's better than LandShark Stadium, the Metrodome, Oakland Coliseum, and Tropicana Field. That's pretty much the exclusive list. That's not coming from bias -- I don't live in Chicago and hardly know any White Sox fans -- because I barely even have a Sox-bias. Cards? Sure. But Busch is still better.

If you think the Cell is a beautiful park you either (i) have never been to another park or seen another park on tv; (ii) have the worst taste ever; or (iii) are a troll.

They went 10-6 last year and if Brett Favre can pass against a good defense like the 49ers it means they are quite a bit better than last year's team because the offense isn't one dimensional. Considering the team with the best record from last year is 0-2, the Superbowl champ is 1-1, the Colts don't look as good as last yearand have lost some key players and the Patriots are 1-1 they might be the top team. It would be between Minnesota, Giants, Atlanta, Jets and Baltimore. This week the Giants are on the road, Jets play Tennessee and Atlanta is at New England. The only one who has a true easy win is Baltimore but even they play a rival in Cleveland. Why are you ignoring the Broncos? They beat two teams of the same quality (or better) than the Vikings did. More seriously, why are you ignoring New Orleans? They've been the most impressive NFC team so far if you ask me. I'd also like to add to this vis-a-vis the Colts. Last year at this time, the Colts were 1-1 with a home loss to the Bears and a road win over the Vikings in which they rallied from a 15-0 third quarter deficit. So far, the Colts look better than last year (and I think that will continue, though who knows what that means record-wise). Second, the "key players" they've lost are: Marvin Harrison, end of list. Now, Harrison is one of the greatest receivers of all time, and one of my favorite players of all time. However, he's unfortunately been a cipher since 2006. The past two seasons he combined for 80 catches and six touchdowns while playing only 20 games due to injury (for comparison's sake, that's worse than every season of his since Manning's rookie year). Love him, but he was no longer a key player -- see his current unsigned status. Anthony Gonzalez is currently hurt, and if he can't come back to near full strength, that would likely be a devastating injury to a key player. And, obviously, I'm not exactly ready to dismiss teams like the Steelers, Patriots, Titans, etc. For what it's worth, Baltimore has probably been the most impressive team so far to me.

Red Sox 2009 opening day payroll: $121,745,999 Cubs 2009 opening day payroll: $134,809,000. I was referring to the decade as a whole. They outspent the Cubs prior to '08. True, but the gap had been closing and the Cubs eventually surpassed Boston this year. I don't think that constitutes a "different stratosphere" at all.