rchap24

Ole Miss was a damn good team by the way...I thought you said they'd struggle to out score Texas Tech? That never happened ha, but man did that loss look good at the end of the season for Florida

Meh, Brewers have probably taken a much bigger step back than us, and the only team in the division that I think has improved to have even a faint shot of competing with the Brewers/Cubs is the Cardinals, but I don't think either Milwaukee or St. Louis can compete with us over 162 games. Crazier things have happened though... We took a step back possibly, but like he said I feel like everyone in our division took a step back as well especially the Brewers

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1369181,CST-SPT-cub09.article So break down is 7m in 2009(including 2m signing bonus) 11m in 2010(including 2m signing bonus) 12m in 2011(with 2m buyout if Bradley health is a serious problem) So if Bradley is hurt a ton the next two years, we're risking 2y at 20m. Can't really argue with that. Nice work, Jimbo. Didn't really overpay...let just hope he stay healthy

that mock's about a month old, but Mayhew's telegraphing that he wants to take Bradford #1 (and Garrett as HC to develop him) Still feel Bradford wouldn't drop after tonight? Not looking so spectacular against an actual defense. Bradford should really stick around after tonight. Even if OU won, he still should have stayed another year. I remember seeing from Football Outsiders that one of the best predictors of a QB's success in the NFL is the number of snaps he plays in college. Bradford hasn't been around that long, and I think the success rate for QBs coming out at that stage is pretty low. He's got a great arm, but yeah he should have stuck around for another year regardless if they lost

I'd rather have my opinion attacked than just being blatantly called dumb. If you really believe Oklahoma was the 2nd best team in the nation after tonight, then I don't really know what to say to you. Actually this sums it up right: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/SportsKnowledge/thoklahoma20jim20ross20ow.gif Meh, I don't think OU is number 2, but you can make an argument they played just as well as Florida last night. If it wasn't for their follies inside the 5 yard line, it could have been a vastly different game. They certainly weren't the offense that they were against the weak Big 12 defenses, but they played better than 14 points last night. If Florida really is the best team, then OU didn't really play that much worse than the best team in the country with everything on the line. That said, I'd probably have USC or Utah 2. I'd go 1. Florida 2. USC 3. Utah 4. Oklahoma 5. Texas And 3-5 are interchangeable, but I think no doubt it will be Florida and USC at 1 and 2

He changed his mind. http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/01/lesean_mccoy_will_declare_for.html Good...He has a better shot going pro, then risking getting hurt and coming back for another season

Yeah I'm not saying that they won't keep him there and I'm not saying he isn't athletic enough to stay there, but some teams might want to put him as a LB because of speed and size

Well is sort of is compared to most safeties in the NFL...Not many safeties are over six feet tall

He's a beast for a safety though...It'll almost be hard not to move him to LB At already 6'3 and 230lbs (if you believe his listed weight) he's already pushing the limit on being a safety. I wish I could share your certaintly, but it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up at LBer within two yrs. That size is Urlacher range Isn't Urlacher about 6'4" 260? Yes and that's why he was a freak at safety in college...Mike Brown is 5'10" 207lbs...So Mays is still a beast compared to him...Also two other safties just to give you an example Ed Reed 5'10" 200lbs, Troy Polamalu 5'10" 207lbs, Bob Sanders 5'8'' 200lbs

He's a beast for a safety though...It'll almost be hard not to move him to LB At already 6'3 and 230lbs (if you believe his listed weight) he's already pushing the limit on being a safety. I wish I could share your certaintly, but it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up at LBer within two yrs. That size is Urlacher range

He's a beast for a safety though...It'll almost be hard not to move him to LB

someone should remind them that they have to win the first championship before they can come back for the repeat. Well that be a three-peat...at least for Tebow and I think Spikes, but yeah wait tell ya win I'm [expletive] :oops:

Well 2nd or 3rd round though, but give me Taylor Mays if we can trade up I would love to get Mays, but my concern is his size....will he be a long term S or a LBer? He's huge for a S...Who knows he could pull an Urlacher If Mays can stay at his current he will become a monster of a S, but if his long-term projections has him at LBer, I much rather draft a legit LBer like Aaron Curry or James Laurinaitis. Which reminds, I do think the Bears need to seriously considering drafting Urlacher's eventual replacement. it doesn't have to be this yr, but within 2 yrs they will need to. I agree on all three points....Maybe not this year per say for Urlacher, but in the near future he's getting way to slow for the Cover 2

Well 2nd or 3rd round though, but give me Taylor Mays if we can trade up I would love to get Mays, but my concern is his size....will he be a long term S or a LBer? He's huge for a S...Who knows he could pull an Urlacher

Well 2nd or 3rd round though, but give me Taylor Mays if we can trade up

Yeah, Spiller is that type of exception. I don't think the Bears need a DT or CB in the first 3 rounds. Probably a G, maybe a OT. Bears should take 3 of these positions in the first 3 rounds. DE, OT, OG, WR, FS. RB, C, CB, LB are luxuries if a player slips far. I heard some talk on the radio yesterday that the Bears are pretty interested in grabbing Taylor Mays in the first round. Reading his profile he sounds like exactly the type of player the Bears would want in the secondary. Having him and Kevin Payne as our safeties would worry me. I can't see Taylor Mays being available at 18. I wouldn't mind if we traded up to like 12 for him....Also With the whole taking Ugner or Mack or any of them...I was just saying I can't see us taking just a C, but I could see a G in the first round and I wouldn't be apposed which you said both of them could play

Yeah, Spiller is that type of exception. I don't think the Bears need a DT or CB in the first 3 rounds. Probably a G, maybe a OT. Bears should take 3 of these positions in the first 3 rounds. DE, OT, OG, WR, FS. RB, C, CB, LB are luxuries if a player slips far. Actually, I wouldn't mind a center. You can take a guy like Max Unger (Oregon) or Alex Mack (Cal) and move him over to guard for now and then slide him back to center when Olin Kreutz is gone. Plus, this would make it easier to let Olin go when the time comes rather than keeping him around and paying him far too much as he ages. Kreutz is so overrated and is the cause for all of the fumbles between him and the QB...I think that would be a good move, but we probably would have to draft a C with the first pick...Do you think that would upset Kreutz? Kreutz rebounded this season after what I thought was a pretty bad 2007. You can get a guy like Unger in the 2nd or 3rd round, and keep Olin at least for the 2009 (maybe longer) and play Unger at guard. Hasn't Unger been in some mock drafts in the first round? I wouldn't mind having to play Unger at gaurd though

It's an upgrade to what they've had the last few seasons, but it won't make or break this team

Yeah, Spiller is that type of exception. I don't think the Bears need a DT or CB in the first 3 rounds. Probably a G, maybe a OT. Bears should take 3 of these positions in the first 3 rounds. DE, OT, OG, WR, FS. RB, C, CB, LB are luxuries if a player slips far. Actually, I wouldn't mind a center. You can take a guy like Max Unger (Oregon) or Alex Mack (Cal) and move him over to guard for now and then slide him back to center when Olin Kreutz is gone. Plus, this would make it easier to let Olin go when the time comes rather than keeping him around and paying him far too much as he ages. Kreutz is so overrated and is the cause for all of the fumbles between him and the QB...I think that would be a good move, but we probably would have to draft a C with the first pick...Do you think that would upset Kreutz?

not even close. lowe is much better than garland. Yes Lowe is a much better pitcher than Garland.....did you mean no even close Lowe is much more expensive than Garland? I said I could be wrong on Garland asking for not so much money....I've been a huge supporter of Lowe there's not question he's much much better than Garland What they are asking for isn't really the issue. Like the housing market, there's still far more supply than demand. That tends to drive down prices. He might get what he wants, but there is no guarantee. He could refuse to pitch for $5m, but unlike with a house, where deciding not to sell is a realistic choice, deciding not to pitch for a year until prices rise is pretty stupid. I don't know what he'll get. I do believe some guys are going to get a lot less than they expected. And those guys aren't going to want to sign longterm at the lower prices, so 1 year $5m is probably out there for some mediocre arms, like Garland. Yeah and I said I admit I could be wrong on how much money he asks for or gets, but in the past he got way to much money

not even close. lowe is much better than garland. Garland's success always seemed like a mirage to me. He didn't strike guys out and was susceptible to the long ball. I don't think he had a fantastic ground ball rate either. He just pitcher 210 innings a year and relied on his defense to make plays. His career ERA+ is just over 100, and he's had one truly good season (only WHIP under 1.3 and only ERA+ over 112). Every other seasons was more or less just below or above average. He's basically Marquis with fewer walks. I never said Garland was better than Lowe! It's not even close I agree Garland was always overrated on a good hitting AL team where he had a little strikeouts and a high ERA

I don't agree with that at all. The only players that matter in this comparison are Wood, DeRosa, Gregg, and Bradley. Bradley is the player with the most impact of the bunch. Yes Gathright, Vizcaino, and Miles are poor choices and easily in the bottom 5 of the 10 listed, but none have key roles. Maybe Miles and his .700 OPS gets to battle for starts. No doubt Wood and DeRosa will be missed, and sentimentality is involved with that. But Bradley is a stud. He likely won't duplicate that '08 .999 OPS, but he has a shot to immediately become the team leader in OPS. That is worth the loss of DeRosa (who did have a career year at 33), who probably puts up an '09 OPS closer to .800 as a versatile 2B/3B/OF. And Marmol is perfectly capable of filling Wood's shoes. Gregg looks perfectly capable of filling Wood's shoes if Marmol doesn't get the nod as I expect. It looks like an upgrade to me at starter, a wash at 8th/9th inning, and a downgrade at bench. It's definitely not a landslide 6x greater for the players lost. I will miss Wood and DeRosa, because I loved rooting for both guys. Both guys had a lot of doubters 2 years ago, and both guys shut them up pretty soundly. That type of performance hits the heart. But I think you're exaggerating here on the bottom line. Ok I don't agree with the left side of players being better than the right in the first place, but if your going to try to make that comparison why would even include Howry and Blanco...That just worsens your case

not even close. lowe is much better than garland. Yes Lowe is a much better pitcher than Garland.....did you mean no even close Lowe is much more expensive than Garland? I said I could be wrong on Garland asking for not so much money....I've been a huge supporter of Lowe there's not question he's much much better than Garland

Garland was the name that popped into my head earlier when I was wondering about the 5th starter spot after Marquis deal became official. You'd probably have to pay more for Garland than for Lowe I'd doubt he signs one year $5m, but who knows

I think everyone who is saying it was a good move is saying that because of the money mostly....and the possible potential with Baldelli