CubColtPacer

They were going to try to catch the Bears with 12 men on the field. But the Colts should go for it here. Possessions are scarce, and the Colts have a good chance of picking up a 4th and 1. If you don't get it, you don't get it. But you can't meekly punt the ball away down 2 scores.

Looks like a Bears TD to me. Of course, it seems like it takes 23 steps and a jump at times the way they've done replays the last couple years for it to be a catch, but according to the rules this should be a catch and fumble.

I can't really tell on that side of the ball. The Colts offense has definitely shot themselves in the foot several times tonight, but the Bears have also made some good defensive plays. On the other side of the ball, I can tell you a little more definitively. The Bears offense is definitely better than reported. They played really well in the first half. They will never be a juggernaut, but they have weapons and can move the ball. That wasn't a Colts defense issue. The key is obviously turnovers for that offense, but they looked really good. Forte's ability to burst changes everything.

Are the rules different in the pros than in college? Last week, in the UCLA-Tennessee game, all the ball had to do was break the first part of the line to be in the field of play. It definitely did that.

That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best. That's what the announcers speculated was the reason the refs might have a problem overturning it, but all the ref said that the play stood as called. He could just as easily have been ruling that he was actually down by contact as anything to do with which team recovered. Many times on complicated plays like this, you hear the announcers go on and on about how the referee is checking this, when actually they ruled something completely different. I wouldn't base anything on what the announcers believe is the reason. No, they said they confirmed it with the replay official during the following break. Hmm..I didn't hear that. Wow. That is terrible. If there is no clear winner going into a scrum, then you award the ball to the person who comes out with the ball. That was clearly the Bears who came out with the ball. And Madden does it again..he says that last year they liked to play Gonzalez in the slot and Wayne on the outside. The Colts have been playing Wayne in the slot frequently on 3 WR formations for years. It's not any different this year.

One of the most ridiculous things John Madden has ever said. Everybody runs 3rd down draws against the Colts. That's been one of the absolute biggest weaknesses of the Colts defense over the last 5 years.

A ton have..but Forte looks great for you guys. Quick burst and good agility. He looks like a great draft pick.

That's what was ruled, but that's not why the play wasn't overturned. They "couldn't" overturn it because the refs stopped paying attention and therefore couldn't prove that the Bears recovered the ball. It was laziness with a hint of incompetence at best. That's what the announcers speculated was the reason the refs might have a problem overturning it, but all the ref said that the play stood as called. He could just as easily have been ruling that he was actually down by contact as anything to do with which team recovered. Many times on complicated plays like this, you hear the announcers go on and on about how the referee is checking this, when actually they ruled something completely different. I wouldn't base anything on what the announcers believe is the reason.

The only thing I can tell about that call that maybe the ref saw is that even though Roby tripped all by himself, when he fell down a Bear had one hand touching his back. As soon as Roby hits the ground with the Bear touching him, the play is dead..right before the fumble. It's a stupid rule to call that down by contact, but that's what the NFL rules say.

Trust me..it is. It got really loud in that stadium during the high school games a couple of weeks ago. And when the Colts fans are fired up (for any big game) they yell on every play. There is absolutely no piped in noise. Of course, if the Colts keep playing like this, the fans won't be yelling for long. That was a great run for Forte..I wish I had started him on my fantasy team today.

I think most people are watching the Bears play right now, which is why the interest in the minor league games are not as much as normal. From looking at the box though, Daytona's guys are looking great. Good hitting up and down the lineup, and Jackson dominating.

I know, I was waiting... if he shows before first pitch, mods can feel free to implode this thread and let him put one up. He won't be here in time today to make it. Laura did say that he will be ready to do it tomorrow with a win or a loss today. We'll just have to win it without him for a day.

"Blowing resources" implies that Roberts is a bad player and that anyone would have been able to predict that the Cubs would have been able to trade for Harden like they did AND that DeRosa would have a career year. No, it doesn't. The rumored offer was Gallagher/Veal/Ceda/Cedeno and one other (can't remember who...Patterson?) Trading your top 3 pitching prospects plus 2 others for a minimal upgrade at a position that doesn't need it is a waste of resources, especially when you consider that those parts would be needed later on to upgrade positions that actually need upgrading. Of course we didn't know we'd be able to get Harden, but I think it was pretty much understood around here that we needed another frontline starter and trading 5 guys for Roberts would hurt our chances of getting that done at any point during the season. The deal never got quite that hot. The original deal that people liked was Gallagher/Murton/Patterson. In December, when most of the discussion of the deal took place, the deal was Gallagher/Cedeno/Marshall. People were mostly ok with this deal, but not quite as happy as the first one. Then, it morphed into Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Veal,or sometimes instead Gallagher/Cedeno/Murton/Patterson. Those 2 deals received at best lukewarm support from the board. Some jumped ship then, and others stayed in but said absolutely no more. I remember the thought of 5 players, and Orioles fans wanting that, but I don't think there was a lot of serious consideration on this board for a deal of 5. As for the frontline starter, I don't think the need was as apparent as you make it sound during the offseason. Most people thought that Hill would make another step up and be that #2 starter. Lilly was fine as #3, Marquis is ok as a #4, and people thought one of Lieber/Dempster/Marshall could fill the #5 slot. The pitching was considered to be in a lot better of shape than the offense. It wasn't until the hot start by the offense and Hill blowing up for suddenly the need to shift very quickly to a frontline starter.

I'm pretty sure the people who were arguing that Roberts wasn't much of an upgrade over DeRosa were doing so because they saw Roberts as a question mark to put up big numbers. I'd love to see the posts where somebody thought that DeRosa would put up the season of his life, and so that's why Roberts wouldn't be a big upgrade. They might have been right in the level of the upgrade, but they were for absolutely the wrong reason. Of course, things magically worked out for the Cubs this year. But DeRosa would have had plenty of at-bats this year. In fact, the likely scenario is that after Pie busted out, Fukudome and Johnson would have likely platooned in center and DeRosa would have been the full-time RF at least until Soriano went down. Even with the way it played out, DeRosa has more than 200 AB's at a position other than 2nd base this year, and looking through the lineups I could easily find another 80-100 more that would have happened if Roberts were here (mostly when Soriano was out), and probably find even more than that if I took a 2nd look. Plus then you add in another 30 at-bats or so from 2nd base. He would have gotten 350 at-bats or so this year even if the Cubs had kept Fukudome in RF and acquired Edmonds, and more if they didn't. If the Cubs had traded for Roberts, we would have been saying how it was a really good move. Roberts is having a very good year. The people we would have traded for him are having bad years (with the exception of Gallagher, who has been fine for how young he is, but definitely a rocky year). It would have been one of Hendry's praised deals. The fact that everything has worked out to the absolute best case scenario (DeRosa has a year out of line with the rest of his career, Cubs pick up a great OF off the scrap heap, the Cubs manage to luck their way into a great trade that was almost universally labeled as a steal that couldn't have been predicted that they would have to pay so little, the Cubs backup second baseman also has an absolutely outstanding year getting some of the at-bats that DeRosa would have gotten off of the bench) shouldn't change that fact. It should make us happy we didn't do the deal of course. It's obviously worked out better for the Cubs this way. But that's not a reasonable way to evaluate a trade or a non-trade. Most of those were things that nobody predicted. A Roberts trade backer could come back and say the Cubs should have traded for Roberts using the original rumor (Rich Hill and Felix Pie). That would have only helped the 2008 Cubs and the future if they did that. It doesn't make it right though because the reasons for it being a good trade (Hill completely collapsing) weren't really predictable, and nobody did predict it. In the same way, DeRosa being so unbelievable and everything else wasn't able to be predicted either. Roberts has done exactly what the people who wanted to trade for him expected, and what the people who said he wasn't much of an upgrade said he wouldn't do. The other players in the trade also played badly just like the trade backers predicted. It's just that the rest of the puzzle changed dramatically and unexpectedly.

I think he's going to have a tough time finding work because of that. If the Cardinals are going to let him go after the year, they might be better served by him dropping to a B. Is any team really willing to give up 2 draft picks for a pitcher that sat on the free agent market for 6 months just last year? I think if he's an A, it will just end up that he accepts arbitration. Teams don't give up draft picks, do they? They just gain 2 picks in the supplemental round if they don't sign a type A free agent, correct? I mistyped it the first time. The team who signs the type A free agent does lose a draft pick, but only 1. If they are drafting in slots 16-30, then that team has to give up their 1st round pick to the team that lost him. If they draft in slots 1-15, then they give up a 2nd round pick. If they sign multiple type A's, then they give up the first eligible pick to the team with the highest rated type A they signed, then give up their next pick to the one after that, and so on. The team who loses him also receives a supplemental pick. This comes from MLB and not the league. So 1 pick from the other team, and 1 pick from MLB. The reason why I said the Cardinals might be better served to have Lohse be a type B is that if somebody signs a type B, the team that loses him gets a supplemental pick, but the team that signs him loses nothing. So there is no real risk in signing a type B player. But there is a significant price to pay for a type A player (either your first or second round pick). Teams have been more protective of their draft picks lately, and while they will be willing to give them up for players like C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, they are much less likely to be willing to lose that to overpay Kyle Lohse.

I think he's going to have a tough time finding work because of that. If the Cardinals are going to let him go after the year, they might be better served by him dropping to a B. Is any team really willing to give up a high draft pick for a pitcher that sat on the free agent market for 6 months just last year? I think if he's an A, it will just end up that he accepts arbitration.

This is a tough choice. My gut says to lean towards Williams or Harrison. Perry is going to be sharing carries against the Ravens defense. Kevin Smith probably has the most upside of the 4, but I don't think his chance is high enough to reach that upside to risk starting him. I can tell you that every report out of Colts camp says that Harrison is still the same guy he always was. He's being severely underrated right now because of his age and the drama of how last season unfolded. I don't know if the Bears will respect him or Wayne more. Until the injury, Harrison was the one getting the double coverage still. It's close enough that I don't really want to give a pick for fear of bias interfering. It probably depends on how you feel Manning and Pennington are going to do week 1.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the evidence points to the fact that there is no effect at all. I would tend to agree that a cause isn't always needed to be known in order to say that an effect is probably real. I just don't see an effect anywhere (which I realize now wasn't really the point of what you were trying to get across and you were instead going more hypothetical). And it's true that there is continuity from year to year, but the Cubs have had very little of it. 3 players are left from the 03 team. Only a couple more were added that are still here from 04. Even the turnover from 07 to 08 has been fairly significant, especially when you consider what the roster was in the first half of 07.

And the NL starting pitchers are out. First, the biggest note up front. According to this guy, Dempster will be classified as a relief pitcher, not a starter. This is because he appeared in more games as a reliever than as a starter over the last 2 years. That's probably going to hurt his value considerably. I hope it isn't really true, but I suspect it is. The Cubs people on the list (all non-free agents): Carlos Zambrano A Ted Lilly A Chad Gaudin B Rich Harden B Jason Marquis (no compensation)

I agree the possession receivers are the biggest key to this game for the Bears. The Colts zone can be exploited. I would add Forte out of the backfield as a big key in the receiving game for the Bears. They need to do short passes a lot on first down. Running the ball might work for a while, but especially for a team like the Bears to want to have offensive success the whole game, it would be much smarter to come out passing with short passes, then work in the run game. The Colts are going to be crashing their gaps hard early expecting the run and fueled by the new stadium. A run could be broken for deep yardage, but it's more likely just going to be stuffed. As for their defensive strategy, as a Colts fan I would beg the Bears to try to blitz a lot on Manning. That would be the dream scenario for Colts fans. It would be like the reactions of Bears fans if the Colts decided to go ahead and test their special teams against Hester (which Dungy better not overrule the special teams coach on that like he did in the Super Bowl). There is a ton of uncertainty on the Colts offensive line right now. They have 3 new starters in the middle. Letting Manning find open receivers by blitzing would be a huge mistake IMO.

If you believe in clutch ability, we've got a whole separate set of problems. Nope. But I believe, for example, in pitchers wearing down. Is that something we've seen a lot of examples on with the Cubs in recent years? Something that could perhaps be systemic to the organization itself? Cubs rank in runs in the 4 potential playoff years 2003: 9th 2004: 7th 2007: 8th 2008: 1st Cubs ranks in September of those 4 years: 2003: 5th 2004: 10th 2007: 5th 2008: 15th (in 3 games) Cubs ranks in run allowed: 2003: 3rd 2004: 3rd 2007: 2nd 2008: 2nd Cubs ranks in run allowed (September): 2003: 1st 2004: 1st 2007: 5th 2008: 8th (in 3 games) Now obviously this is a very quick and cursory look at the numbers and is prone to error. However, I see no real evidence that Hendry teams consistently play badly late in the season at all, let alone that there is a clear reason for this problem. The 03 team was better in both pitching and hitting in September. The 04 team was better in pitching, worse in hitting. The 07 team was better in hitting, worse in pitching. And the 08 team so far has been worse in both with a terrible sample size.

There have been rotations similar to that who have won the WS, so sure, they could. I wouldn't put their chances as any higher than any other team in that scenario. They'd have to hope for some luck. But if two of Lilly/Marquis/Marshall get hot (and we've seen that happen at certain times of the season both last year and this year) then they could absolutely do it. I mean, realistically, we're talking about a pitcher needing to have 3 of 4 good starts. Almost any pitcher can do that.

Probably Hart and Marshall. I think they'll trust Lieber as the second option over Hart. Marshall definitely is the 1st.

Lineups Astros Bourn Wigginton Tejada Berkman Blum Pence Newhan Quintero Wolf Cubs Soriano Theriot Lee Ramirez Soto DeRosa Johnson Cedeno Dempster

Since June 1st: Pitcher A: 31 IP, 40 H, 30 R, 26 ER, 9 HR, 11 BB, 32 K. 7.55 ERA, 1.645 WHIP Pitcher B: 35 1/3 IP, 45 H, 25 R, 25 ER, 7 HR, 5 BB, 27 K. 6.37 ERA, 1.415 WHIP Pitcher A is Jose Ascanio. Pitcher B is Bob Howry. Ascanio isn't getting called up anytime soon.