Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Mike Aller

Verified Member
  • Posts

    1,408
  • 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Mike Aller

  1. They've been saying it's over since there were 7 minutes left in the game.
  2. Hm, a delay of game call would have been nice for the Bears there.
  3. Yeah, facemask negates it.
  4. No doubt, clearly not a touchdown. Then again, I was saying something earlier today along the lines of "that is clearly an interception".
  5. Great game between MSU and OSU. Double overtime. Buckeyes lose by 3, 62-59. :(
  6. I really hope this doesn't happen. :(
  7. 94 wins. :D
  8. I really don't think Texas 2nd INT was an INT and it was the right call. He caught it, did not establish posession, fell down, and dropped it. He didn't take two steps or anything that would of established posession, he simply had in his hands and dropped it as soon as he landed. He had the ball tucked into his hands, wasn't bobbling (lol) it at all, and his back hit the ground. That's possesion. So when did he establish possession? He did nothing that would establish possession before he let go of the ball. If he had held on to it when he hit the ground, it would of been an INT. But he didn't , so he never had possession of the ball. When his back first touches the ground, it's possesion. The the jolt knocked it out. I am pretty sure in college football if a WR catches the ball in the air, and drops the ball when he hits the ground it is not a catch. He has to hold on to establish possesion of the ball. Same would go for a defender, meaning unless he had established posession in a tenth of a second or so before the ball popped out, it would not be an INT. Hrm, you may be right...but the fact that they didn't even review it is ridiculous. Even the accouncer (don't remember which one) when he saw the replay said it was an interception. He may have landed on his butt first then his back hit, I don't remember exactly.
  9. I really don't think Texas 2nd INT was an INT and it was the right call. He caught it, did not establish posession, fell down, and dropped it. He didn't take two steps or anything that would of established posession, he simply had in his hands and dropped it as soon as he landed. He had the ball tucked into his hands, wasn't bobbling (lol) it at all, and his back hit the ground. That's possesion. So when did he establish possession? He did nothing that would establish possession before he let go of the ball. If he had held on to it when he hit the ground, it would of been an INT. But he didn't , so he never had possession of the ball. When his back first touches the ground, it's possesion. The the jolt knocked it out.
  10. I really don't think Texas 2nd INT was an INT and it was the right call. He caught it, did not establish posession, fell down, and dropped it. He didn't take two steps or anything that would of established posession, he simply had in his hands and dropped it as soon as he landed. He had the ball tucked into his hands, wasn't bobbling (lol) it at all, and his back hit the ground. That's possesion.
  11. How was the Texas INT a bad call? They got it right. The other one, right after the "Young's knee" call. Kelso(sp? #4) picked off a pass and his landing on the ground jarred out the ball. It was ruled incomplete and wasn't reviewed, even though replay's showed it was a pretty clear interception. Yeah. Sorry, didn't specify. Ground can't cause a fumble. :(
  12. At least the game was pretty balanced in the bad calls. :lol: The big ones of course being Vince Young's knee and the Texas interception.
  13. He should make a pretty decent bench player for the Indians. :?
  14. Hey, that jersey might be worth a lot of money in a few years. :D But yeah, Notre Dameis a good team, but they have been getting pumped up by the media all year. Everyone wants to see an unbeatable Irish team so much that they try to make one that isn't into one. I think that will be further proved when Texas wins.
  15. Good game so far. But it's about time Notre Dame got to see a real defense.
  16. Exactly. The move doesn't make sense at all.
  17. I vote yes. But I have a sort of bias where I actually got to see him play all the time and judge him more on that. Plus, I kind of liked his attitude...until he left for Chicago.
  18. Be patient.
  19. Ramirez and Clement? Wow.
  20. Go Albert Belle and Orel Hershiser! :lol:
  21. He can't, and I'm one of his biggest fans. Well, okay, maybe he can be a marginal 2. He's got no shot at being a 1. Yeah but even for a dominate 3 let's say and a top 3 SS for a 1/2 pitcher? I think it would be worth it. Not when the top 3 SS will decline over the next 3 years, wheras the 1/2 pitcher is 3 years away from FA and still reaching his peak. This is the only post I've read in this thread.
  22. Even though it is the MLB, doesn't 1.25 seem a bit pricey?
  23. If there was an impact PF or C available via trade, I would trade Gordon and a pick for him right now. Gordon is a great scorer, but he's awful defensively, and he turns the ball over WAY too often for my tastes. I'd sooner deal him than any player on the team, because you'd get a lot in return, and I don't think you'd miss Gordon as much as you think. Even though Artest isn't really a big inside presence, is Chicago still in the running for him? (I think every team is)
  24. The Bulls have problems that go much further than the coach. As stated, they have no middle presence. And if they aren't shooting well, they lose.
×
×
  • Create New...