CubColtPacer

Well, that didn't take long. I really thought Kentucky fans whined and made excuses a lot, but since this EJ thing, Illinois fans are definitely giving them a run for their money. your right, they are calling white and pruitt exactly the same. :roll: Did they call them the same at Illinois? Not really-the free throw disparity in this game is not big at all.

It makes sense if you think about it though. If he falls past 2 because of Adrian Peterson, a lot of the teams in the 3-9 ranges aren't looking to draft quarterbacks. Maybe Minnesota at 7, but from what I've heard, Cleveland won't be taking one, and neither will Tampa Bay. Arizona doesn't need one, and Washington isn't in the market for one apparently. They should. Seems like Quinn would be a good fit for the offense too. i thought campbell looked okay enough to get a shot next year. I think he was talking about Tampa drafting Quinn, not Washington.

I was thinking this might actually speed up the healing process between Sammy and the Cubs-Sammy fans should actually like this move IMO. I have no problem with it either-the club gave him all the numbers available to wear, and he should be able to wear anything that the club makes available to him.

You would think advertisements would want to sell things-showing NCAA highlights that are painful for one half of the fans watching the game might not be the best (I'm watching UCLA/WVU, and they showed the highlight of Princeton beating UCLA as an ad!)

An interesting stat I think provided by Peter King-in the last 4 Super Bowls played in Miami, the losing team has ran a kick back for a touchdown. That's an amazing stat IMO.

Not to mention the fact that the Bears would be replacing him with another white QB-Rush's comments on this one just don't make any sense at all.

I believe I heard that Hank said he will be there. Plus, IMO Hank has too much class not to go especially after all the crap he went through to break it. Exactly-if Hank congratulates him and is a gentleman, that will just further exemplify the differences between the two men. I'm hoping Hank stays as classy as he seems normally.

The Pacers have absolutely had it with the officiating-and they are willing to tell you about it: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070210/SPORTS04/702100455/1004/SPORTS What I find interesting about this article is that the four people arguing last night were Carlisle, Foster, Armstrong, and O'Neal (after the game). Those are usually some of the coolest heads on the team, so that makes these comments very interesting to me, as opposed if they had come from somebody like Tinsley, who I would most likely dismiss as sour grapes. From what I have heard, the game was absolutely ridiculous last night. Carlisle got tossed in the 3rd quarter. The Pacers started making up the deficit in the 4th, and then the crazy fouls started coming. Foster got pulled down, and finally a whistle blew that everybody thought was for the Pacers-and it was somehow on Foster. DA tried to go over and calmly ask the official what happened (like you're supposed to be able and do) and he got T'd-and then Armstrong just went crazy and had to be restrained from going after the referee and he got ejected. Foster also picked up a T. The Nuggets shot 25 free throws in the 4th quarter-25!

I want to apologize right now for whatever the IU crowd does today-it will probably be ridiculous and silly, and I apologize for that (so everybody knows I'm not really defending it-it may not be wrong, but it will certainly be silly-I'm hoping what happens is not as big as the buildup right now). Second-my area is receiving UCLA-WVU instead of Indiana-Illinois today. That is crazy to me, because out of those 4 programs Indiana and Illinois are the closest two to my location and neither UCLA or WVU is in one of the two conferences that this region usually covers. Oh well-Raisin, I'm rooting for a UCLA blowout so they'll switch games.

Some more fascinating stuff from the same thing from Pat Forde, who was also there, and an Indystar writer who was invited to participate: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2758770 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/SPORTS/702090443/1004/SPORTS Some of the information repeats, but each article has some new stuff in it. These are the kind of stories that I love to read but don't come out nearly often enough, the ones that everybody wonders about the selection process but nobody really knows for sure.

I would both agree and disagree with this statement. Most of the problem is his awful games, yes. If he could turn those into average games, he'd be a much better QB. At the same time, there are some games that aren't mentioned in his awful games or even close where Grossman had a low completion percentage. Minn (first game)-56% Seattle-54.8% Giants-60% Jets-50% STL-56.5% Det (second game)-55.5% Seattle-55.2% NOR-42.3% None of these games are mentioned under awful rex, but they are all poor completion percentage games (really with the exception of the Giants game, but I threw that one in there for comparison). Now, a QB can survive some poor completion percentage games-I'm not saying that he had bad games in all of these games, or even most of them (in fact, in a couple of them he was quite good). It's not just the awful games that are bringing his completion percentage way down though-his average games would have him around a 55-56 percent anyway, which needs to improve if he's not at all a threat to run either. Otherwise, defenses will do like the Colts did-rush only 4 each play, drop 7 back in coverage, take away the deep ball, and make Grossman dink and dunk for small gains and see if he can move the chains that way.

I'm beginning to wonder if any of you ND-haters on this board read. The Louisville player we got decommitted after the coaching change. The Iowa player we got wanted to come to ND all along, just never had an offer - Kirk Ferentz pretty much admitted as much. Once he was offered (because ND lost out on other players it wanted more at the time, and because Corwin Brown's new scheme as DC made Brian Smith a much better fit), he committed pretty much immediately. I don't know the circumstances of the SC player we got, but considering Steve Spurrier's been pissing on Notre Dame ever since we kicked his ass in the 1992 Sugar Bowl, right down to lowballing us in every coaches' poll every year for no apparent reason, I'm not exactly crying for him. I've explained the first two of those situations already, but I guess the "different situations" tag you just gave to Chris Little don't apply if it gives you guys a chance to trash Charlie or ND. (Also of note: Weis said the two decommits on NSD were completely different situations. My guess is, he's not that mad at Chris, since there were other factors in his decision. But Greg L. decommitted from us not until NSD - while leading everyone at ND to believe he was still coming as late as the night before - and with no explanation.) Actually, I did read it - and the Louisville coaching change was the only one that I'll give you credit for, since that's applicable to changing schools. I did also notice that you didn't try to defend Lemming. At least you can admit that he, too, is a ND homer and actively recruits kids to ND - while supposedly being unbiased. Wait a minute-you give Little a pass because a spot at Georgia opened up at the last minute that he could fill, but you don't give the Iowa player a pass for coming to ND because a spot opened up at the last minute? What's the difference? I never gave Little a pass. I said that it was Bush League for Weis to call him out on it when he esentially did the same thing. Ok-that makes more sense, I was just a little confused. Sorry about that.

I'm beginning to wonder if any of you ND-haters on this board read. The Louisville player we got decommitted after the coaching change. The Iowa player we got wanted to come to ND all along, just never had an offer - Kirk Ferentz pretty much admitted as much. Once he was offered (because ND lost out on other players it wanted more at the time, and because Corwin Brown's new scheme as DC made Brian Smith a much better fit), he committed pretty much immediately. I don't know the circumstances of the SC player we got, but considering Steve Spurrier's been pissing on Notre Dame ever since we kicked his ass in the 1992 Sugar Bowl, right down to lowballing us in every coaches' poll every year for no apparent reason, I'm not exactly crying for him. I've explained the first two of those situations already, but I guess the "different situations" tag you just gave to Chris Little don't apply if it gives you guys a chance to trash Charlie or ND. (Also of note: Weis said the two decommits on NSD were completely different situations. My guess is, he's not that mad at Chris, since there were other factors in his decision. But Greg L. decommitted from us not until NSD - while leading everyone at ND to believe he was still coming as late as the night before - and with no explanation.) Actually, I did read it - and the Louisville coaching change was the only one that I'll give you credit for, since that's applicable to changing schools. I did also notice that you didn't try to defend Lemming. At least you can admit that he, too, is a ND homer and actively recruits kids to ND - while supposedly being unbiased. Wait a minute-you give Little a pass because a spot at Georgia opened up at the last minute that he could fill, but you don't give the Iowa player a pass for coming to ND because a spot opened up at the last minute? What's the difference?

I think Weis is getting hit harder because he complained publicly, and he probably should be getting hit harder right now. Of course, the level of hatred being spewed right now is...puzzling, but Weis should be getting criticized the most right now.

Without quoting the post directly above me by carniby (which is detailed and a nice analysis)-let me address one point real quickly. I don't think the Green Bay game changed much nationally for Grossman. Truthfully, it really didn't even get watched by that many people. Everyone was off to their parties for New Years Eve, there was nothing to play for, and many people (like me) didn't want to hear Favre retirement talk for 3 hours when everybody knew he was coming back. Good Rex and Bad Rex had already been firmly established by that time. Grossman's reputation became bad because of the Arizona game-and then it exploded with the Miami, NE, and Minnesota games. By the time of the Green Bay game, no one was sure what to expect out of him. I really don't think the stories would have changed whatsoever or anybody's perception of him now if he hadn't played GB or if he had a decent game against them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ZuIXI1VgM Well, I'm not saying they aren't thugs-just that it should be above an official source like a newspaper to be saying that about college kids-professionals sure, but I just think college kids should be shielded a little bit-not from the fans, but at least the people that work in the field.

Actually, what you heard was that season ticket prices would not be increased -- which is still true. Effectively, season ticket holders are able to get the same tickets for $2 less than the general public. The Cubs said that they didn't think general ticket prices would increase, but that they hadn't made an official decision yet. Word got out a week or two ago that they were going up. I thought that the ticket price hikes were announced at the Convention? That's where I remember reading it in the notes from that.

I'd like to say that I completely approve of all of that. It might be funny(ish), but I'd like to see the school paper make better decisions than this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/snoodmonger1/KSCS11002080415-1.jpg While you can't really control what the crowd is going to chant during the game, and considering some of them aren't sober, I have to say that I think the newspaper was out of line in printing what they did. It would be one thing for one person to write a column on the subject and use that terminology but for the paper to print a full page spread like that is taking it a too far. I definitely agree because that spread attacks his players also-and while the lines are ambiguous on a coach, I definitely think that a newspaper has no business whatsoever attacking college kids like that spread does by calling them "thugs".

Agreed-but with the Cubs desperation to not put Jones in CF (they wanted to put another CF in until Soriano was willing to play CF, but now they are willing to stay pat) seems to indicate that they don't think that Jones can play CF.

your strange and pointless micro-analysis does little to shed light on the issue, here. I think the reason that most QB's don't have a performace jump in their 5th year is clear and it doesn't apply to Grossman. By the 4th year, most QB's have played enough games to see what they have to offer and most development will probably have occured by then. Not the case with Grossman. That's why I tried to show a page ago about QB's who came in during their 3rd season or so for the first time. Those QB's had more success then either Grossman or a QB who starts from his rookie year. All I'm saying is that Grossman is behind the curve. He doesn't have the same amount of success that normally a player who is just starting for the first time in his 3rd or 4th season usually does. That certainly could be because of his injuries though. As I said also, one of the reasons that I'm skeptical of Grossman's development is completion percentage. Here are the QB's with under 57 percent completion percentage since 2002: 2002: Blake, Vick, Brooks, Plummer, Carr, Matthews, Ramsey, Hutchinson, Harrington 2003: Collins, Blake, Carr, Johnson, Harrington, Gannon, Ramsey, Boller, Stewart 2004: Bledsoe, Vick, Collins, Harrington, Boller, Dorsey, Feeley, Brunell 2005: Bollinger, Brooks, Collins, Eli Manning, Ferotte, Orton, Losman 2006: Leinhart, Hasselbeck, Favre, Plummer, Grossman, Gradkowski, Walter, Vick, Young There are some good names on this list that were good prospects. In 2002, Brooks was in his 3rd year and having a good year except for a bad completion percentage. Carr, Ramsey, and Harrington were in their rookie years. 2003-the 3 rookies appear again, and Boller is a rookie. 2004-Feeley is being developed in this year, along with Harrington, Boller, and Vick 2005-Eli appears, along with Losman, who only threw 228 passes that year. 2006-Leinhart and Grossman appear in their first year starting. There's one big thing on this list-nobody who started out with such a bad completion percentage is developing, with the possible exception of Losman (who was only in for a few games the year he made the list). Brooks, Carr, Ramsey, Harrington, Boller, Feeley, Eli, Vick-all supposed to be great QB's, none could improve their completion percentages. It's not easy to do, which is why you see very few here who appear on this list and then develop. That's the other big reason why Grossman is in trouble unless he can break the mold. Why just take those few years? That's hardly a signifigant sample size. In any event, many QB's have had poor completion % and have improved them over the course of their careers. Matt Hassleback had a 54.8 completion % in his first year starting. Alex Smith had a 50% completion % in his first year and a 58.1% this year. Quite an improvement. McNabb had a 58% and a 57% in his first 2 years starting. Delhomme had a 59.2% his first year with the Panthers and a 58.2 the next year. He had a 61% last year. Drew Bledsoe had a 49.9% in his first year starting. Troy Aikman 52.9% and a 56%, before posting a 65.3% in his third year. Carr went from 52.5% to 56% the 61% and has improved to a 68% this year Trent Green had a 54.6% his first year a 60% his second year and a 56% his third year Jesus man, even Peyton Manning had a 56.7 completion % his first year starting. Do I need to keep going? What tend does Grossman have to buck here exactly? Most of their QB's were actual rookies-those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Mcnabb's completion percentage is actually still quite low, but he makes up for it with his deep passes and by running the ball well. Those are some good numbers though, and some good examples of QB's who broke through-I just went with the info I had in front of me. You cant take those numbers with a grain of salt. The reason a qb is not as good his first year as subsequent years is game experience(the speed of the game, the progressions and reads, familiarity with the system including size of play book and terminology. The only way a quarterback becomes better is by playing in more games. The learning curve is different for some quarterbacks but the rule is the same. The more you play, the better you get. A couple things that have not been disputed that I think are important: 1. He is still young with the "ability" to improve. 2. He can make every throw and possesses a better arm than most quarterbacks in the league. The reason I take those numbers with a grain of salt is that it can be shown that QB's who sit on the bench for a year or longer have better first years than QB's who start immediately-therefore QB's who start as rookies are on average going to have lower numbers anyway. I agree fully with your two points.

Exactly. CubColtPacer, the point you're ignoring in saying that most QBs don't make a jump in their 5th season is that Rex hasn't been on the field as much as any of these QBs. If you look at starts or games played, Rex is exactly where he should be and has a great chance of progressing and developing further. I don't believe that's true-I think he's behind other QB's who have gone into years 3 and 4 with few professional starts, and I tried to show that with the stats of their first full years a page or two ago. I do understand though the dead horse argument though, so I'll try to find the stat I'm looking for and not keep hitting the same point over and over :D Something else to consider is not only was he not playing games (Grossman) he was not practicing much of that time because of the injuries (unlike the other guys you mentioned). That also is a very good point, and certainly a reason for optimism.

That's a very good point-I'm off to look for that stat now to see what it holds. I'm calculating the numbers for the QB's because I can't get the stat anywhere: Average Y/C (2006) Mcnabb: 14.7 Romo: 13.19 Bledsoe: 12.93 Warner: 12.75 Huard: 12.69 Big Ben: 12.55 Palmer: 12.45 Brees: 12.41 Cutler: 12.36 Grossman: 12.18 Peyton Manning: 12.15 Vick: 12.12 Grossman is up there-there are some interesting names on that list, that's for sure.

your strange and pointless micro-analysis does little to shed light on the issue, here. I think the reason that most QB's don't have a performace jump in their 5th year is clear and it doesn't apply to Grossman. By the 4th year, most QB's have played enough games to see what they have to offer and most development will probably have occured by then. Not the case with Grossman. That's why I tried to show a page ago about QB's who came in during their 3rd season or so for the first time. Those QB's had more success then either Grossman or a QB who starts from his rookie year. All I'm saying is that Grossman is behind the curve. He doesn't have the same amount of success that normally a player who is just starting for the first time in his 3rd or 4th season usually does. That certainly could be because of his injuries though. As I said also, one of the reasons that I'm skeptical of Grossman's development is completion percentage. Here are the QB's with under 57 percent completion percentage since 2002: 2002: Blake, Vick, Brooks, Plummer, Carr, Matthews, Ramsey, Hutchinson, Harrington 2003: Collins, Blake, Carr, Johnson, Harrington, Gannon, Ramsey, Boller, Stewart 2004: Bledsoe, Vick, Collins, Harrington, Boller, Dorsey, Feeley, Brunell 2005: Bollinger, Brooks, Collins, Eli Manning, Ferotte, Orton, Losman 2006: Leinhart, Hasselbeck, Favre, Plummer, Grossman, Gradkowski, Walter, Vick, Young There are some good names on this list that were good prospects. In 2002, Brooks was in his 3rd year and having a good year except for a bad completion percentage. Carr, Ramsey, and Harrington were in their rookie years. 2003-the 3 rookies appear again, and Boller is a rookie. 2004-Feeley is being developed in this year, along with Harrington, Boller, and Vick 2005-Eli appears, along with Losman, who only threw 228 passes that year. 2006-Leinhart and Grossman appear in their first year starting. There's one big thing on this list-nobody who started out with such a bad completion percentage is developing, with the possible exception of Losman (who was only in for a few games the year he made the list). Brooks, Carr, Ramsey, Harrington, Boller, Feeley, Eli, Vick-all supposed to be great QB's, none could improve their completion percentages. It's not easy to do, which is why you see very few here who appear on this list and then develop. That's the other big reason why Grossman is in trouble unless he can break the mold. Why just take those few years? That's hardly a signifigant sample size. In any event, many QB's have had poor completion % and have improved them over the course of their careers. Matt Hassleback had a 54.8 completion % in his first year starting. Alex Smith had a 50% completion % in his first year and a 58.1% this year. Quite an improvement. McNabb had a 58% and a 57% in his first 2 years starting. Delhomme had a 59.2% his first year with the Panthers and a 58.2 the next year. He had a 61% last year. Drew Bledsoe had a 49.9% in his first year starting. Troy Aikman 52.9% and a 56%, before posting a 65.3% in his third year. Carr went from 52.5% to 56% the 61% and has improved to a 68% this year Trent Green had a 54.6% his first year a 60% his second year and a 56% his third year Jesus man, even Peyton Manning had a 56.7 completion % his first year starting. Do I need to keep going? What tend does Grossman have to buck here exactly? Most of their QB's were actual rookies-those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Mcnabb's completion percentage is actually still quite low, but he makes up for it with his deep passes and by running the ball well. Those are some good numbers though, and some good examples of QB's who broke through-I just went with the info I had in front of me.

Exactly. CubColtPacer, the point you're ignoring in saying that most QBs don't make a jump in their 5th season is that Rex hasn't been on the field as much as any of these QBs. If you look at starts or games played, Rex is exactly where he should be and has a great chance of progressing and developing further. I don't believe that's true-I think he's behind other QB's who have gone into years 3 and 4 with few professional starts, and I tried to show that with the stats of their first full years a page or two ago. I do understand though the dead horse argument though, so I'll try to find the stat I'm looking for and not keep hitting the same point over and over :D

That's a very good point-I'm off to look for that stat now to see what it holds.