CubColtPacer

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves. Gordon definitely deserved to make it and Deng could've made it too, but I understand Deng not making it. There were two Pistons that made it, two Wizards (both very deserving, so I won't say anything about that), and two NETS that made it. How can two Nets make the All-Star Game? Kidd's had a good year, but Carter hasn't really been as good as he usually has been this season. Gordon deserved to make it over VC and probably one of the Pistons as well. Carter has more points, rebounds, and assists per game than Gordon. Also, Carter has less TO's-Carter has been better in every single category. Hamilton is the same way except for assists, where he is tied with Gordon. Billups is the only interesting case-but they wanted another point guard, and Billups is averaging 18 points, 7.6 assists, 3.5 rebounds, and 2.2 TO's, while Gordon has 21.5 points, 3.6 assists, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.1 TO's. Billups really edges him out in that comparison. Yeah, the only other reason you can make a case for Gordon over Billups, is Gordon played 10 more games. Carmello missed 15 games and isn't on the team, so the 10 games Billups missed could have put Grdon over the top. I forgot that-good point (although I think if Anthony had missed 15 games due to injury instead of suspension, he probably would have made it).

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves. Gordon definitely deserved to make it and Deng could've made it too, but I understand Deng not making it. There were two Pistons that made it, two Wizards (both very deserving, so I won't say anything about that), and two NETS that made it. How can two Nets make the All-Star Game? Kidd's had a good year, but Carter hasn't really been as good as he usually has been this season. Gordon deserved to make it over VC and probably one of the Pistons as well. Carter has more points, rebounds, and assists per game than Gordon. Also, Carter has less TO's-Carter has been better in every single category. Hamilton is the same way except for assists, where he is tied with Gordon. Billups is the only interesting case-but they wanted another point guard, and Billups is averaging 18 points, 7.6 assists, 3.5 rebounds, and 2.2 TO's, while Gordon has 21.5 points, 3.6 assists, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.1 TO's. Billups really edges him out in that comparison.

Have to give it to both teams there-Virginia made a great shot, and then that was quite a pass by McRoberts to set up an unbelievable look for the win there-Paulus just didn't make it. Great win for Virginia.

Make a case-who should have made it from the Bulls? I can't see anybody who could beat anybody out that got picked for the reserves.

regardless of their record and ranking this year, duke really doesn't impress me this year Even though they beat IU when they played at Duke earlier in the season, they didn't impress me either. IU was really tight, and Duke still barely pulled out the victory. If it was anywhere but Cameron or later in the season, I don't think Duke would have won that game-they simply don't have enough offense this year.

Now you're hitting it. That could be more of a problem for the passing games.

That's original-why didn't you just use the one that's been used for 20 years, count on losing this Sunday :D I don't think rain is all that bad for the Colts-it's been snow that's been trouble.

The reality is that most schools are so similar that top players like this really sign with a coach instead of a school. You're right though-Gordon and his dad had the responsibility of informing Weber. They were the ones who made the verbal committment, and they were the ones who re-opened the commitment. That was a mistake-the sad part is to see the fanatics in the UI fanbase make a mistake as well by doing things like threatening Gordon. No side is completely clean on this one unfortunately. In this case, if he truly signed with the coach then why didn't he commit to OU while Sampson was there? Or even have OU on his top list? It's just my belief that Sampson or someone from his staff contacted Gordon after his verbal. From my understanding it's an unwritten rule to not contact players after they have made a verbal commitment. Some kids like Gordon want to stay home. It was always Gordon's dream to go to IU, but they didn't like IU with Mike Davis at the helm. Once the coaches changed, Gordon took a second look-there could probably have been several coaches that Gordon would have signed on with in order to get the chance to get to IU. As far as the contacting part? From the small amount of time that people have talked about it, it seems pretty clear now that it was the Gordons who initiated contact with Sampson shortly after he got the job.

The reality is that most schools are so similar that top players like this really sign with a coach instead of a school. You're right though-Gordon and his dad had the responsibility of informing Weber. They were the ones who made the verbal committment, and they were the ones who re-opened the commitment. That was a mistake-the sad part is to see the fanatics in the UI fanbase make a mistake as well by doing things like threatening Gordon. No side is completely clean on this one unfortunately.

I hope this is as good as his career gets. Good luck with that. Kelvin Torbert Bracey Wright, it has happened before. That said I don't think it will here. Or Frank Williams? Uh...what? Frank was one of the best players Illinois has seen. Sure he didn't have success in the NBA, but he was a great college player. Bracey Wright was supposed to be one of the best players in all of college basketball and he was nothing but a constant disappointment. To throw Frank Williams in that list is kind of a joke. True, but I don't really consider Bracey a bust because of talent, but more because of injury. He was great the first part of his freshman year before his back injury, but he stopped taking the ball to the basket after his back surgery-which only left him with his good but incredibly streaky outside shot. Add to that an Indiana team that forced him to throw up contested 25-30 footers constantly, and a really bad situation quickly results.

Here is the football outsiders article preveiwing the SB (and no, he doesn't make a prediction)-this is some great analysis of the game. While I never agree with everything, this is always the deepest analysis out there: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/02/01/ramblings/game-previews/4913/

Why are you upset about what Paige says? Everybody with a working brain, knows that the Colts/Bears in 2004, are NOT the same teams in 2007. The Colts are slightly weaker then that team, and the Bears are remarkably stronger then the 04 version. So, if Paige is suggesting that the Colts will beat the Bears something like 41-10, like they did a couple of yrs ago, then he clearly not working on a full tank. Look, I have no problems with the Colts, but I'm tired of the media hyping the Colts as this "unstoppable" machine, that the Bears have no hope of beating. And that is the reason why if I am the Colts, I would be worried, cause the media gave the Saints they same type hype, and look and what the Bears did to the Saints. While I agree that the 2004 results have nothing to do with these teams on Sunday, the Colts team this year is definitely better than the 2004 team-I'm not sure why everybody thinks they are weaker than that team, other than that team scored a lot of points in several games (due to the way that certain teams played them, specifically blitzing a lot). This Colts team is not quite as good as last years, but they are certainly a better bunch than that 2004 squad. Do you think the running game is as strong now as it was in '04? I do, but it's a minor quibble (imo). Their running game was at its peak before Edgerrin's injuries. I agree with that-Edge pre-injury was an absolute monster. Post-injury, he got great yardage because he was a very smart and patient, and because the passing game allowed the lanes to open up on the stretch play. He just couldn't do some of the things he used to be able to do though.

Why are you upset about what Paige says? Everybody with a working brain, knows that the Colts/Bears in 2004, are NOT the same teams in 2007. The Colts are slightly weaker then that team, and the Bears are remarkably stronger then the 04 version. So, if Paige is suggesting that the Colts will beat the Bears something like 41-10, like they did a couple of yrs ago, then he clearly not working on a full tank. Look, I have no problems with the Colts, but I'm tired of the media hyping the Colts as this "unstoppable" machine, that the Bears have no hope of beating. And that is the reason why if I am the Colts, I would be worried, cause the media gave the Saints they same type hype, and look and what the Bears did to the Saints. While I agree that the 2004 results have nothing to do with these teams on Sunday, the Colts team this year is definitely better than the 2004 team-I'm not sure why everybody thinks they are weaker than that team, other than that team scored a lot of points in several games (due to the way that certain teams played them, specifically blitzing a lot). This Colts team is not quite as good as last years, but they are certainly a better bunch than that 2004 squad. Do you think the running game is as strong now as it was in '04? I think it's actually slightly better. While the 2004 version put up a few more yards, they had significant drawbacks. The running game could only work if the passing game was working. Second, the running game could not do anything on short yardage or goal line situations. That made the Colts rely on the pass-they couldn't have done anything like run the winning TD like they did last week. This running game can be effective in those situations against just about any team.

Why are you upset about what Paige says? Everybody with a working brain, knows that the Colts/Bears in 2004, are NOT the same teams in 2007. The Colts are slightly weaker then that team, and the Bears are remarkably stronger then the 04 version. So, if Paige is suggesting that the Colts will beat the Bears something like 41-10, like they did a couple of yrs ago, then he clearly not working on a full tank. Look, I have no problems with the Colts, but I'm tired of the media hyping the Colts as this "unstoppable" machine, that the Bears have no hope of beating. And that is the reason why if I am the Colts, I would be worried, cause the media gave the Saints they same type hype, and look and what the Bears did to the Saints. While I agree that the 2004 results have nothing to do with these teams on Sunday, the Colts team this year is definitely better than the 2004 team-I'm not sure why everybody thinks they are weaker than that team, other than that team scored a lot of points in several games (due to the way that certain teams played them, specifically blitzing a lot). This Colts team is not quite as good as last years, but they are certainly a better bunch than that 2004 squad.

Lovie was a first-year coach. Berrian, Tank and Vasher were rookies. Ogun, Urlacher, Tillman and Grossman were hurt. Craig Krenzel was the starting QB. No Moose or Benson or Mark Anderson. I could keep going. Of course, a good portion of the media would probably have you believe that Craig Krenzel is no worse than Rex. Also, just to add, no Hester in 2004, who I think will be a huge factor in this game. Not to mention that Edge is gone and the Colts defense is weaker. Well, that doesn't really help. Addai/Rhodes is actually better than Edge post-injury, and the Colts defense is currently stronger than it was during the 2004 season.

They are not going anywhere-what I heard originally was that they weren't planning to re-sign him after the year, and so they might as well trade him now. They get a prospect or two out of this deal that could help them later on-I don't see this as awesome from their side, but it's not so terrible to think its completely unreasonable.

I sure hope you are right. Ichiro in the top 2 of this lineup makes us a very very dangerous team. Through 6 seasons he has a .331/.376/.438 line. Last year he was 45 of 47 on steal attempts. He is a legit gold glove player every year with a cannon arm, and he plays almost every game. Soriano Ichiro Lee Aramis Murton/Floyd Barrett DeRosa Izturis Zambrano, Lilly, Hill, Prior/Miller, Marquis Wood, Dempster, Howry, Eyre, Ohman, Wuertz, Cotts Floyd/Murton, Ward, Blanco, Theriot, Cedeno That team would have the ability to win it all. If we could sign him to an extension I would give them Jones and let them have the pick of anyone in our system. 4 years ago Corey Patterson was just as "untouchable" as Pie is now...to get a guy like Ichiro to put at the top of the lineup I'd trade what Pie could be for what Ichiro IS. I might be ok with giving up Pie (and I'd have to think about that more) if they didn't give up Gallagher-definitely not both.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D Watch it someone got in trouble for saying something like that before. I'm confused, but I'll edit it anyway just to be safe-thanks. How can someone get in trouble for telling someone to "go with the flow"? It's a Bobby Knight joke. "If rape is inevitable, then sit back and enjoy it." Oh-I forgot all about that quote, that was awful. I apologize if anyone thought of that quote when reading my post, because that was the absolute furthest thing from my intent.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D No, I'm not going to go with the flow and enjoy it. Going with the flow means admitting that Rex Grossman is the worst quarterback to ever set foot on a football field. The criticism was ridiculous 2 months ago. Its even moreso after playing well in 2 playoff games and getting to the Superbowl. Enough. I'm pissed. I understand-I mean, I've heard about the silly Manning face for years now, and have always hated the use of that crazy term. I guess things have changed because the Colts are actually in the Superbowl, so when Simmons looked in his article for the "perfect Manning face" I thought it was hilarious-and I almost never find Simmons funny. I don't think laughing at the picture automatically means you ahve to believe that Grossman is terrible-I certainly don't, and I laughed. From the comments earlier about the respect thing-I'm getting a little concerned with how much respect the Colts are getting this week-I wish the media as well would give the Bears the credit they deserve (although I do think Bears fans are overstating it a tad, but that's an understandable part of fandom). The only thing that makes me happier though is that 3 out of 4 people on Cold Pizza picked the Bears this morning :D

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious, so just go with the flow and enjoy it :D Watch it someone got in trouble for saying something like that before. I'm confused, but I'll edit it anyway just to be safe-thanks.

I actually thought that article was funny. It makes fun of all the obvious jokes, both Bears and Colts-he wasn't trying to be really serious.

That would be an interesting deal to say the least. I have to wonder if we'd be given up too much depending on the ptbnl. If we get Ichiro, does Soriano play right and Ichiro CF or is it Soriano in CF and Ichiro in right? I think Ichiro would play CF in that scenario. This deal certainly seems plausible. Seattle was rumored to let him on the market, and Ichiro seems like Hendry's model for a top of the order hitter (a good OBP player fueled by an exceptional average with great defense as well). I'm with Vance-if the PTBNL is a very good prospect, then no. But if it's only a decent prospect, I'd pull the trigger. Ichiro has the potential to make the top of the order dynamic-even if they bat him 2nd. Soriano Ichiro Lee Ramirez Barrett Murton That first 6 especially would score a lot of runs.

You only post it because the Colts won, be honest. I almost posted that I would have done it anyway, but I just can't be sure-at least that prediction has Grossman playing well for you guys.

One more completely irrelevant prediction-this time from the Madden video game: http://sports.espn.go.com/videogames/news/story?id=2744222 I only posted it because I used to love when they would play the video game to find out the winner on the SB pre-game show, and one year a friend and I played the Denver-Green Bay game a few hours before the game, and ended up with a score of Denver-31, GB-24-sound familiar? :D

Really, it was Hub who was fanning the flames on that one. BTW - I can't say I'd be completely disappointed if Lovie went to the Cowboys for multiple first rounders and Rivera took over as head coach. Of course, I'd love to keep Lovie around. But in the NFL, multiple first round picks are huge. Just for sake of discussion...Imagine adding 4 first round talents to this team in the next two years. Of course, one or more could always bust. How did that work out for the Raiders? I think that's a disastrous idea. It doesn't suprise me to hear Hub Arkush thinks its a good one.....he's another guy who has been wrong about Lovie and wrong about this team the entire time. I'm sorry, but one failed example isn't enough to convince me that it's a bad idea. While coaching in the NFL is more important than in other sports, talent on the field is still the most important factor in terms of winning football games. If you can add premiere talent in exchange for a coach, and then promote a coach out of your own system who you have every reason to believe is very qualified to take the position (Chico), you have to, at the very least, consider it. You'd be doing yourself a disservice not to. Do you mean to tell me you have no interest whatsoever in adding more of that caliber of talent to this team? BTW, you could also ask-how did that trade work out for Tampa? Sure, they won the Super Bowl with Gruden-but that's more because they finally added a QB who could throw the ball to go with their great defense (Brad Johnson). Gruden hasn't exactly done much since then down in Tampa. The Raiders didn't fail because of the trade. They failed because their GM couldn't make good draft picks of the ones they got (their 2 first round picks the next year I think both busted, at least neither of them are impact players), and the team was old. They had to replace virtually their entire offense, and obviously they haven't done a good job of that just yet-if they had Gruden, they would be in the same predicament.