CubColtPacer

All four top 10 teams were 20+ point favorites, and all of them just slept through their first halves. Interested to see if any of those games remain close. Oklahoma especially just continues to live dangerously.

I would agree it needs to be Mitchell, although I would wait close enough to game time that he will get pushed into next week's free agents and then you might get another chance at him. If you wanted to really risk it, you could even see if there are any decent Sunday night or Monday night kickers, and then decide if you need to pick up a kicker at all as the Sunday scores kick in. But I don't think Mitchell is valuable enough for all that.

*nearly enough credit* just means the Cowboys have gotten too much credit right? Stylistically very different though. The 2 Cowboys QBs in the 21st century would be both in top 3 of Bears QBs all time. substanceBears have done as well as Dallas but for some reason people pretend dallas has been a quality program this whole time and the bears a joke. The Lovie era is grossly undervalued. Who gives a horsefeathers about style points when it’s no better at the end of the day? From my perspective, people make fun of the last 25 years of Dallas more than anybody. For example, the meme that went around showing that Brady has more NFC Championship game appearances than Dallas does during Brady's career. The Garrett era was a constant joke. I agree that the Lovie era is underrated in the national stage though.

The Pacers are hoping better health and way better coaching sends them at least back to where they were two years ago when they had a 50 win pace during the pandemic season. It just shows the depth of the East right now that you didn't even think of them and mentioned 10 teams!

I'm fond of pointing out that Philly made the 2nd round the year before they launched The Process (I know they only did because Rose's knee exploded) and still haven't been past that round since. It should be noted that they traded their best player the offseason after they made the 2nd round (Iguadola) along with a future pick and a couple of their young players (including Vucevic) and proceeded to miss the playoffs because they player they traded for didn't play a single game with the team (Bynum). That's why they started the Process, because they did a huge win now move and it blew up in their face. But yeah, it's no guarantee. Although looking back, the 76ers had the worst GM's in the league for a couple years there. They had so many riches and squandered them.

Wrigley gave a good explanation but let me try a bit simpler. Teams with cap space can do whatever with that space. Teams who are over though have various restrictions. Teams above the cap can use a mid-level exception (this year around 10 million) that can be used on one player or split among multiple. Teams in the luxury tax can use a mid-level exception too, but theirs is smaller (around 6 million this year). Teams when they are trading have to match salaries within a certain percentage. This is done so that a team doesn't use trades to add tons of extra salary to their team. But let's say a team trades to a team who has cap space. In that case, they don't have to match. The team with the cap space takes the expensive player, the team without takes a cheap player or draft pick. That generates a trade exception. The trade exception basically is you reduced your salary by this much, which means we will allow you to make the opposite trade (trading a cheap player for an expensive one) for one year. But the trade exception can never be used to acquire a player that is more expensive than the original player was. So this is where the concept of favors comes in. A team with cap space can just sign a player outright. But they can also do a sign and trade with their original team, and their original team gives them an extra asset in order to do that. They do that so the original team can generate a trade exception.

Growth from Pat Williams and acquiring a PG would push them into playoff territory. Probably not enough to get them past the first round but Knicks fans had a lot to be excited over this year and unless you get another true superstar you usually need to crawl before you run They need some more shooters and big improvement on defense. How realistic are the chances of getting Lonzo? I've been kind of assuming they'll be a playoff team next year. Probably wrong of me but LaVine has improved every year so far. Him and Vuc for a full year will be enough for a 6-8 seed IMO. Williams improving and I have faith they'll get a PG. Lavine is kinda recruiting Lonzo, but he won't be cheap or without options. I do think AK will pull off something. My bold prediction is a trade for Malcolm Brogdon. Sent from my SM-A115AZ using Tapatalk As a Pacers fan reading this you piqued my interest. What do you think the Bulls would be willing to give up? My only warning is that even though I may want to go backwards a little bit, the Pacers don't, and their hiring of Carlisle makes that even more clear. They won't make a deal unless they think it makes them better next year.

I noticed when I looked at realgm that the question I had asked about the draft pick protections and what happens if the Bulls move up in the lottery have finally been answered. Here's the full details: Protected 1-4 this year (this part we already knew) If the pick doesn't go out this year, then protected 1-3 next year. If the pick doesn't convey next year, it turns into two second round picks instead. Two years after the first pick conveys (or in 2023 if the first pick never conveys), follow the exact same process for the second pick.

The other thing that has not been mentioned is the grass is greener effect. If Fields starts and struggles in two of his first three games, but the Bears look fairly solid otherwise, there will be a lot of pressure to put Dalton in the game and not throw away a possible playoff season. It doesn't really matter if it's a Foles like situation last year where the backup clearly wasn't the answer, there just has to be a perception he might be. Then you just have a controversy every week. While if you let Dalton start and fall on his face, Fields comes in without feeling like somebody is breathing down his neck every week (assuming Foles is gone, if he isn't it gets very complicated).

There was a section talking about the Boston/Chicago titles and the similarities/differences between the situation, fanbase, etc. (no surprise more time was spent on Boston). A large part of the interview talked about ways that MLB is looking at to hopefully increase contact and things fans like to see like triples, doubles, and stolen bases.

They got people to give up something of value for Jimmy G and Jacoby Brissett based on this fake narrative. Sickens me. The Colts had already seen enough of Dorsett to know that he was not good when they traded him for Brissett. And they have been proven right on that. And of course, people talk that Jimmy G could be traded for just as much today.

I've been trying to figure out the exact protections on these Bulls picks to the Magic. Normally, RealGM would give us some detail of what happens next if the first pick falls under its protected range. It might say it's protected the year after. It might say it's unprotected. It might say it turns into two second round picks instead. Or it might say it is extinguished. But a month after the trade, it says nothing. Just protected 1-4 in 2021, that's it. And the only clue on the 2023 pick is that it says if conveyable. Obviously if the 2021 pick rolled over to 2022 the 2023 pick wouldn't be able to be traded since you can't trade picks in consecutive years. But normally you will see in a scenario like that the second pick is just labeled as two years after the first pick conveys. This pick doesn't, nor does it explain what the future protections on that pick would be after 2023. Does anyone have any idea what the actual details are?

Carson Wentz has $59M guaranteed left on his deal and was the worst full time QB in the NFL last year. I don't understand why it isn't incumbent on them to pay us for the favor of taking him. It's not quite that bad for a team that trades for him. It's basically a 2 year, 47 million dollar deal with two team options after that. As for compensation, it's mostly a competition thing. If multiple teams think they can fix him and have his value go way higher, then that's going to raise his trade value significantly. And the Eagles don't have that much incentive to trade him this year without getting something.

No, that's not true. That's better for fans because it keeps drama in the game longer. But for the team who is trying to win the game, it's better for them to know ASAP. That way they don't plan their strategy around a 2 point that was going to fail. If it's going to fail, you want time to plan a new strategy, no matter how much of a long shot that new strategy is. Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk LOLWUT? Let's take a simpler example to illustrate. Let's say your team is down 15 and scores a TD with 5 minutes to go on the clock. Should they go for 1 or 2? Most people would say 1 and make it a 1 score game. But the problem is if you plan to score one more time, you get your TD with less than a minute left and miss the two, you just lose by two. There's no time left to make up for that missed 2 point conversion. However, if you go for two now and miss, you have options. You can onside kick with 5 minutes left, you can take more risks with your offense the next time you get the ball, you can do the get the quick field goal trick and then onside kick. Your best chance of winning by far is to just make the two point conversion. But if you're going to miss, you would rather do it now than later. If you do it now, you can occasionally win the game even missing the two. If you wait until the very end, you just lose.

Romo was 100% right on that. You kick the PAT there to get you to a 2 score game. The odds are still miniscule at that point but by failing on the 2 point conversion there you kept it at a 3 score game which ended their chances completely. No, that's not true. That's better for fans because it keeps drama in the game longer. But for the team who is trying to win the game, it's better for them to know ASAP. That way they don't plan their strategy around a 2 point that was going to fail. If it's going to fail, you want time to plan a new strategy, no matter how much of a long shot that new strategy is. Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Ever since they moved the extra point distance back, going for 2 is almost never a terrible call. It's basically double the points for double the risk. But you are right on the end of the game. Being down 7 makes going for it a much more obvious decision.

I couldn't believe it. I thought it was an awful decision at first. But gaming it out, I don't think it's quite as crazy as it initially appeared. I think people are underrating 1) the 2 point conversion only being a 50/50 chance, 2) Tom Brady having the ball and timeouts only needing a FG to win the game and 3) OT only being a 50/50 chance if it gets there. It's obviously easier to convert a 4th and goal from the 8 than to 1) stop them and 2) drive with likely no timeouts to score a last second TD. Quite a bit easier. But is it easier enough to also have to essentially flip a coin 3 times and have them all come up heads? That's where I'm not sure and I would like to see a better description of the math. I looked up on numberfire, and GB's win probability went up over 3 percent when they successfully kicked the field goal.

How are you doing now raw? Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

The issue you guys are talking about is the reason I have lost most of my interest in the sport. The charm of college football was knowing there were these teams that were favored to win, but any given Saturday that could all come crashing down and a new team join the party. Now not only are these teams very unlikely to lose, but even if they do lose during the season they still will make it. I almost feel like the only solution is for several of these schools to form a different division and only play each other and then a couple rivals from the lower division each year. Then you could maybe have some sort of promotion/relegation between divisions. I don't think that will ever happen, but that's the only real way to bring drama back into the sport.

This discussion led me to watch every pick 6 from the 2019 season. There were a few themes. The 5-10 yard out is likely the biggest culprit on there. Next would be the 5-6 yard pass usually to a tight end in the middle of the field, although there were a few busted quick slants as well. A couple RB screens, one RB in the flat. No WR screens on there. It was so funny seeing Jameis appear over and over and over again on the video.

Yeah, if that's true you definitely have to swing for the fences. Here's my best look QB: Josh Allen, Tom Brady RB: Derrick Henry, Alvin Kamara, Chris Carson, Cam Akers WR: Davante Adams, Diontae Johnson, Marquise Brown, Allen Robinson TE: Travis Kelce, Austin Hooper K: Rodrigo Blankenship Defense: Washington If one of your QB's only plays one game, your lineup is probably finished. And you want to maximize your QB games. So in this lineup, I put wildcard teams in different conferences, and made sure to put the teams facing them in kicker/defense. I think you have enough differentiation points to put some studs in there, so that's why Kelce/Adams/Henry are pretty much locks IMO. I went back and forth on Baltimore/Seattle, but because Metcalf is facing Ramsey this week and Seattle wanting to run the ball made me go that way. I like that line up. I just think its a cash game line up. Its top chalk at literally every position. 78 is a fair amount and payout is very top heavy. I might even get more wild than where I went with my previous line up. I understand that thought. But I think over 2-4 games, the variance becomes a little smaller and fading the absolute stars becomes harder than it does in a 1 week lineup. You have to pick your spots carefully to try to differentiate. I think if you were going to go wilder you should do it based off teams you don't expect to advance. That's probably the best way to pick a crazy scenario (for example, picking Roethlisberger or Lamar Jackson at QB, Taylor at RB, etc).

Yeah, if that's true you definitely have to swing for the fences. Here's my best look QB: Josh Allen, Tom Brady RB: Derrick Henry, Alvin Kamara, Chris Carson, Cam Akers WR: Davante Adams, Diontae Johnson, Marquise Brown, Allen Robinson TE: Travis Kelce, Austin Hooper K: Rodrigo Blankenship Defense: Washington If one of your QB's only plays one game, your lineup is probably finished. And you want to maximize your QB games. So in this lineup, I put wildcard teams in different conferences, and made sure to put the teams facing them in kicker/defense. I think you have enough differentiation points to put some studs in there, so that's why Kelce/Adams/Henry are pretty much locks IMO. I went back and forth on Baltimore/Seattle, but because Metcalf is facing Ramsey this week and Seattle wanting to run the ball made me go that way.

Yup, the Colts could potentially be the 2nd team in the last 30 years to go 11-5 and miss the playoffs. Every other year of that only had 6 playoff teams. The Dolphins miracle last night really hurt, and then blowing the big lead today was another gut punch. As Raw said, it all depends on who tries in week 17. If the Steelers and Bills play, I am pretty confident in at least 1 of them winning (or the outside chance of the Titans blowing 2 games). If they don't try, it's going to be really hard for the Colts to get in.

I am a Pacer fan as well. Wasn't sure I wanted to post on the Bulls thread :) I agree with most of your thoughts, although I want to see the team for a few games first. But the new Nate potentially modernizing the offense is going to be really helpful. Playing more aggressively on defense and letting Myles clean up any mistakes on that end is a good strategy as well. Basically, my thoughts are that this Pacers team has a lot of ifs to it, but if most of the ifs are answered correctly their upside is higher than most people realize.

If people want less 3's, the most obvious solution that will never happen is to make them worth 2 1/2. That would make 3 point shots and midrange shots much closer in overall value and open up other spots on the court. The main problem I have with dealing with 3's is that right now the best things you can get are shooting fouls and 3's. If you take away the value of 3's, my worry is that basketball is going to turn into a lot of players crashing into players looking for calls. As for players teaming up, that's a much thornier problem. I don't think the 1 uncapped player idea would work because small market teams already have an issue spending all the money they are allowed to because of the way that revenue is split in the NBA. There are other solutions out there, but they are all kind of farfetched (3 players can only take up a certain percentage of the cap combined for example).