CubColtPacer

The Colts are fine in the conditions now. Their offense wasn't suited very well to it in 2004 and 2005, but now they have a much better running game and their short passing game is better than it ever was. Add to that a very good defense, and that's a pretty good recipe for playing in bad weather. In fact, the biggest question mark for conditions right now has to be NE. A heavy emphasis on the vertical passing game, and we'll see how their receivers do as the weather turns bad. In response to Cuse's question about who the Colts were playing with, on offense they had Wayne, Moorehead (yes soul, he is the son of Emory Moorehead) and a practice squad player Craphonso Thorpe for receivers. Clark missed the game, and their two tackles were a practice squad tackle and a guard because all 4 of their regular tackles got hurt. Those really hurt the Colts last night (the defensive injuries didn't hurt that badly because the Colts still played well on that side of the ball even with 4 starters out). Add all that into a poor game from Manning (only about 3 of the 6 INT's were his fault, but that's still a ton for Manning), and one of the worst special teams games of all times and the Colts still lost by 2. That game honestly didn't worry me in the slightest. The Colts have to figure out how to beat the Chiefs and Falcons with nobody healthy (which should still be possible) and then they will hopefully have most of the people back by the time the division rivals come calling.

I think most Colts fans were expecting the loss anyway tonight, which certainly softens the blow. To have the players out they did was incredible that they were still in the game. If they don't get some of these players back, I have no idea how they're going to field a team next week. They barely have the mininum number needed in 4 positions: wide reciever, offensive line, defensive line, and linebacker. They already released Luke Lawton and kick returner because they have so many guys hurt, and I have no idea who else they can release. Here's a breakdown of guys that weren't playing by the end of the game. #1 receiver #3 reciever starting tight end starting left tackle starting right tackle backup left tackle backup right tackle best defensive end best defensive tackle backup defensive tackle both starting outside linebackers dime safety

And now it goes the other way. That was interference on Weddle on the 5, or else Moorehead would have caught that.

Yeah, as a Colts fan I'll even admit we got away with one there :D. I do agree with soul though that I hate when that's interference simply because the pass was underthrown that much, but Jackson needed to have his head turned towards the ball for it to be legal under the rules.

5 interceptions? And they're only down 8 points? That's crazy. It's especially crazy when you add in the fact that the Colts have allowed both a kick return and a punt return for a TD tonight. It's been a strange game.

In 2 games against the Ravens, the Bengals now have forced 11 turnovers. Their other 7 games they have forced 10 turnovers.

No. This is a common misconception. Scenario 1: using the timeout before 2 minute warning After play 1-timeout Cleveland after play 2-2 minute warning Scenario 2: using the timeout after 2 minute warning Play 1-2 minute warning Play 2-timeout cleveland, 1:54 approximately left You save time by using timeouts before the 2 minute warning instead of after. The only situation you don't want to use a timeout before the 2 minute warning is if a play ends with 2:05 or under left. If it does that, then calling the timeout before the warning just gives the other team a free passing play (since the clock would stop automatically after the next down). In all other situations, you want to use it before. You got the scenario wrong. After the first play, they had to run a second one before the 2 minute warning regardless of whether or not a timeout was called. There was 2:55 left. Ah. Sorry for the mixup. They only had 1 timeout with 2:55 left? I don't think it matters which play of 1st and 2nd you call it on, it sets up the exact same situation each time.

No. This is a common misconception. Scenario 1: using the timeout before 2 minute warning After play 1-timeout Cleveland after play 2-2 minute warning Scenario 2: using the timeout after 2 minute warning Play 1-2 minute warning Play 2-timeout cleveland, 1:54 approximately left You save time by using timeouts before the 2 minute warning instead of after. The only situation you don't want to use a timeout before the 2 minute warning is if a play ends with 2:05 or under left. If it does that, then calling the timeout before the warning just gives the other team a free passing play (since the clock would stop automatically after the next down). In all other situations, you want to use it before.

Wow...TT, are you joking or drunk? The SEC has 11 bowl eligible teams this year...11. I think we'd played this game last year, and your SEC hatred is again clouding your judgment a bit, IMO. The SEC's weak teams consist of Ole Miss and Ole Miss alone this year. Vandy isn't bowl eligible yet with only 5 wins. The SEC has 10 bowl eligible teams, tied for the most with the Big 10 right now (not that the # of bowl eligible teams means that much for a conference's strength).

Cements Dorrell's fate. :D But seriously, the only guys you can find to lateral the ball are the offensive lineman? It's great seeing 300-lb Micah Kia rumbling witht he ball...and then throwing it forward. I couldn't believe he started running down the field on that play. If you're an offensive lineman still 20 yards or more from the end zone, don't run until you are almost tackled to pitch it. Find somebody to pitch it to immediately, and then block down the field like you're supposed to. As soon as he started running I knew he'd mess up the pitch.

It's Tejada. He's gonna get traded for way less than he's worth. The Orioles are idiots. I'd have to see it to believe it with Tejada. Angelos has blocked Tejada trades so many times that I can't believe he would ok a Tejada trade now for less than he's worth.

I just don't understand Hendry's logic on this. Where is Matsui going to play? Is he going to split time with Theriot at SS? Matsui has shown he's not capable of being a good shortstop in his time with the Mets. That's why he was moved to 2b. So does that mean Matsui is going to take over 2b? That seems like the most likely option, but why do you replace DeRosa with an inferior player? Just because he has some speed? Does this mean DeRosa is on the trading block, or is DeRosa just going to be some super utility player? I just don't understand. The only thing I do understand is that this sale of the Cubs needs to move faster because Hendry and Co. need to be replaced already. They have no idea what they're doing. Hopefully this means they think DeRosa can play SS, which puts DeRosa at SS/Matsui at 2nd against RHP, and Theriot at SS/DeRosa at 2nd against LHP. There is one thing that is true. If you're going to have DeRosa playing 3rd and the OF on any kind of a regular basis, you need another MIF. Matsui basically replaces Fontenot's spot on the roster, which is an upgrade, although how much of one remains a question.

And it's probably because of quotes like these that the Raiders lose. Lane Kiffin on if he's going to kick it to Hester or not: Why don't you try a double reverse pass on every play Lane. That sounds fun too :D

Really? The game on Sunday showed how close the two teams are. The Colts probably got the benefit of some calls and they had the home field advantage. The Pats had the big advantage of injuries. Harrison and Ugoh's replacements went a long way towards costing the Colts the game on Sunday (Johnson and Moorehead were absolutely awful). Keiaho, Hagler, and Gonzalez were missed, and the Colts didn't even really have enough linebackers to play a base defense at any point during the game in addition to only having 2 healthy receivers. I didn't see anything on Sunday that could lead you to believe that one team is better than the other. The Patriots will have home field in the playoffs, and the Colts should be a lot more healthy. Should be a fun matchup as long as they can take care of business until then.

CR, Just a guess on my part: if he signs Wood, he won't look at a closer. If he doesn't sign Wood, all bets are off. I agree with this. Hendry will sign one free agent reliever this winter. I think it will be Kerry Wood. If it isn't him, I don't know who it will be.

I was talking about when the Cubs traded Moore, that Moore in late 2007 and Harben in late 2006 were comparable prospects, and Harben was probably seen as slightly better.

11th best Twins prospect in 2005 and 2006. Can top out at 97, above average slider, decent change with good mechanics. His numbers had some shaky indicators in it, but he still projected well with his stuff. He was at least of good as a prospect as Moore was at the times each were traded.

Marshall's big thing has been durability. Can he stay healthy, and can he stay effective beyond the 100-110 inning mark? They showed signs of him having a tired arm last year (the biggest sign that they simply weren't losing faith in him was them pulling him earlier and earlier in games that he was effective in). If he can't put 150 innings on his arm, he isn't much use as a starter that you pencil in to the rotation.

According to reports I read over the years, the Cubs recommended surgery on a couple of occasions. Prior was the one who chose to try to go the non-surgical route in hopes of getting back faster. I dont remember that at all. And even so, thats fine after the first 6 months go by, but after that the Cubs could have, and should have said surgery time, no more wasting time. The Cubs don't have the right to say that. They can't force the player to have surgery. If they want to cut him because he refuses to have surgery, that's their right, but a club cannot do more than recommend that a player goes under the knife. Should the Cubs have told Prior that he was either going to have surgery or they were releasing him? IMO, no. That would have been way too drastic, and there would be some legal issues I think even with a threat like that.

I would say right now Zambrano and Lilly are the only ones that you can say are sure will be in the rotation next year. Hill or Marquis could easily still be traded. Marshall might be replaced or traded. I wonder if this means the end of going after Kuroda.

According to reports I read over the years, the Cubs recommended surgery on a couple of occasions. Prior was the one who chose to try to go the non-surgical route in hopes of getting back faster.

So now Pie is a guy who needs platooned? Come on, how is a kid supposed to learn to hit lefties, when he never faces them? Let Felix play, and lets see if he makes his normal adjustments like he has at every level so far. he hit 190/254/547 in AAA against lefties last year in Iowa and that's not even bringing up his struggles at the majors vs. lefties in 2006 256/322/649 in Iowa in 2005 he hit 253/295/743 in West Tenn If the cubs were not contenders I would be okay with him learning on the job. However, they are not and you can't have a guy in the lineup who hasn't shown he can at least hit somewhat marginally vs. southpaws. You do realize that hitting .253 and .256 would mean he can hit them somewhat marginally, right? .253 and .256 is not very good when combined with a below average walk rate and horrible power against left-handers. I'll combine some of the stats he posted above. Between the majors and AAA, Pie batted .159/.225/.223 against LHP in 102 plate appearances. He had over a 400 point split between right-handers and left-handers in the majors, and had almost a 600 point split in AAA. That's after Pie had a horrible winter ball season (.216/.263/.296) specifically because he was mainly put in against left-handers at the Cubs request. The Cubs did that because of his .256/.322/.327 effort the year before against left-handers, which is pretty close to what Jacque Jones has done in his career against left-handers. Could Pie get better against left-handers? Possibly, he's still very young. At the same time, it's about as automatic of an automatic out as you can get when he does start against a left-hander. He did hit them a little better at lower levels, but even though he made the adjustment to right-handed pitching very well at AAA he still hasn't figured out left-handers at AAA in 2 years. Considering the Cubs have some troubles against left-handers already, putting Pie in there against left-handers pretty much makes sure that the Cubs will be terrible against them for another year. Those ISOP's especially are horrifying for a player of his type.

The only thing I can possibly think of is to clear 40 man space from players they didn't want anymore anyway and didn't have much trade value (Moore had some, Cherry probably didn't have much at all) but throwing Renshaw in even hurts that argument. It was a bad deal no matter what, and it's hard to say if it was a bad deal or an absolutely horrific deal. I would lean towards bad because I don't think the players the Cubs gave up are going to turn out to be much in the major leagues, and the 40 man space did help a little bit. Renshaw does start to push it towards absolutely horrific though.

The 3 million for Prior is much better spent looking at 2009 and beyond for him. You're not likely to get 3 million of production out of him next year, but if he comes back and re-signs he'll make up for that in the years following. At the same time, that means the club has to be reasonably certain that he'll re-sign with the team. Obviously, a club option is the best way to do that. If a club option isn't possible, the team has to figure out why Prior does not want to sign that option. If he's refusing because of a low money figure, that's one thing. If he's refusing because he doesn't want to re-sign with the Cubs after 2008, then the club cannot waste the money and sign him. If the Cubs cut him loose, I'm not sure we'll ever know if it was a mistake or not, because Prior isn't likely to come out publicly and say that he didn't want to sign with the Cubs again even if that's what he thinks.

We've gotten one or two before. Adam Harben is somebody who springs to mind from a minor August deal.