CubColtPacer

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).

The league has been pretty consistent on this (for good or bad). Players can tamper however they want. Teams can tamper too privately, but they can't be publicly and flagrantly ignoring the rules. That's what happened here.

I think you have to consider the situation. Jerry Jones throws money at everyone. Made Amari Cooper the 2nd highest paid WR (at the time) in the same offseason. The money for Dak was "very good", but he wanted "great" money. The Cowboys were trying to pay him like Wentz/Goff, when he wanted to get paid between Watson and Mahomes (who signed after Dak was franchised). He proved in the first 4 games he's way closer to those 2 than he is to Wentz. He did gamble on himself. But Jerry Jones has a history of paying players much more, who are much less deserving. And I know you can't pay for past performance, but Dak was a 4th round pick. He was getting a 4th round salary for years as a top 10 QB. Did he though? The key QB metrics have him 6th, 7th, 8th, and 13th through the first four games. He's kind of in between those two tiers, which is where the QB market gets very tricky. Not good enough to really throw whatever money he wants at him, but good enough that some team will likely do exactly that, and so he doesn't want to really take a decent bit less. I agree that Jerry tends to throw money around. I'm not sure why he's taken a harder line towards Dak's contract. And maybe that makes me feel more bad for Dak. It just doesn't make me feel he's been wronged in some way.

As for the Dak contract, I feel like people tend to take sides one way or the other, and I'm not sure that's warranted here. Dallas by all accounts offered him a very good deal. He was well within his rights to want an even better one and he was prepared to take some risk in order to get it. I feel sad for him for the timing when he got hurt, but I don't feel he was cheated. And thankfully from what I heard about his injury today, it should be something that still lands him a good long-term contract. He might not be quite the same guy next year, but he should get back to full health eventually.

I didn’t watch but why not go for the FG anyway at the end? At least then worst case scenario is you go to OT if Seattle gets a TD and the 2 point. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have gone for 2 earlier though. I get you want to kill the game if you have the chance but the ability to not just lose in regulation seems valuable. It is valuable, but so is 1) the chance to end the game right there, which is a pretty good one and 2) the field position difference witch is especially significant with that amount of time left. It's a wash math wise, it's pretty much personal preference.

3 batter minimum is great. It brings some interesting strategy. I would much rather have a situation where the wrong pitcher is in to face a key batter than the other way around. And that's even before you get into the pacing of the game help that it can bring. I like more spots on the roster. More options during the game increases potential strategy options. I like long extra inning games as long as they don't destroy a team, which an expanded roster should help. I understand 7 inning doubleheaders for this year, don't like them normally. I would rather have no DH than DH, DH tied to starting pitcher is better than either extreme. And absolutely not to expanded playoffs.

The sad part is that the Hulu Live interface just changed early this week and it is so, so much better than the old one. I'm not saying the new one is good, but it's a sight for sore eyes after struggling through the old one for so long.

They'd be getting a 50/50 split of the fake numbers the owners crap out to make it look like they somehow lose money every single year while their franchise values double every decade or less. That's a good point, although the current revenue split that is estimated are based off those same numbers. I think in this case the owners beat them to the punch on messaging though. If there is no season the players are likely getting the most blame, and that has less to do with the facts and more to do with how simple the owners pitch sounds.

Did the players miss an opportunity here? Haven't they only been getting around 40% of the revenue the last few years? What if they had turned around and said, ok we will do a 50/50 split, but we want to lock that in for 10 years. I understand their reluctance for a salary cap, but more money seems good however they accomplish it, and a short-term hit for a year or two is made up by huge gains after that.

It's not about the owners revenue sharing with each other. It's about the owners revenue sharing with players that they oppose. The owners want to potentially reduce contracts because less revenues are coming in than was expected when they signed the deal, and the players want no part of that.

as a kid, that was the only of the 6 title seasons where i actually remember thinking they were going to lose I honestly can't remember as a Pacers fan if we felt we were going to win. It was the 3rd time we had lost in game 7 of the ECF in 5 years, twice where we had shots to win in the final minutes. That Bulls game was so dispiriting too. The Pacers kept getting stops, but simply couldn't get the rebound.

This makes complete sense for baseball as a business. It desperately needs more news cycles. Having both more teams involved late into the season and also generating discussions through September about which team should this team pick and so on is very helpful for the brand. As far as the actual quality of the product? It probably is a downgrade as far as trying to balance excitement with rewarding winning, although not a major one.

No other restrictions? If so, I'd probably take the plunge on Goedert for Philly, especially if Ertz is looking out closer to gametime. On first glance, this is the most talented team you could assemble: QB: Jackson/Wilson RB: Jones, Henry, White WR: Thomas, Hopkins, Hill TE: Kittle, Goedert K: Dan Bailey Def: Bills I think Jackson/Kittle are the easiest locks on the board. The obvious picks for their teams on two teams likely to go a long way. Unless you decide Dalvin Cook is just too talented to pass on especially with runningbacks being very barren, his recent injury combined with the Vikings being decently big underdogs puts Bailey as a safe pick for me. Thomas is an obvious pick. QB2 is the hardest position to pick, Wilson is the pick partially because there is absolutely nobody else to pick on Seattle. I could pick Hill or Kelce from KC, went with Hill because of wanting to get Goedert in for Philly. Henry is in despite being possibly 1 and done because of the barrenness at RB. Hopkins is the easy pick left for Houston. Bills defense and White were my last two picks, those two and Henry were really dependent on who you think is going to win this weekend. If you really believe KC is going to make the SB, then Mahomes becomes the pick at QB. You probably grab the Seattle defense in a situation like that because matchups with the Eagles and then maybe the 49ers don't scare you that much, Singletary for the Bills, and Edelman for the Patriots.

I think the one big thing you are missing is that the injury was supposed to be minor. Luck gets hurt. He thinks it's going to get better in a couple weeks, and the doctors back that up. It just needs some rest. There's no reason to think about retirement at that point. Now fast forward four months. It still hasn't healed. 3 different MRI's have been taken, and nobody seems to quite know what's wrong. So now it's turned into a long period of exploration/rehab/playing through pain. It's probably been very frustrating for him, and that's why suddenly the retirement thing started looking better and better. The Colts are likely in the same place if he had retired in June as now. Obviously if he had retired before the draft that isn't the case, but that's right around when he got hurt.

Why wouldn't they be happy about getting a bunch of picks? A bunch of picks including their All-pro guard as a rookie and their starting right tackle. Even knowing this news, I'm not sure I would undo that trade. If the line wasn't fixed the same thing would happen to the next guy. The Colts have been pushing Brissett as good over and over again for the last year+. It's time to see if he's actually better than he was two years ago now that he has an offensive line and a good coach, which he didn't have either one last time he played.

Agreed the last two years have not been his greatest, but that isnt a sample size large enough for me to start saying they arent an elite FO or that they should be replaced. And again we are right in the thick or the playoff race. The stated goal or this FO office has always been continued success where we are always in the playoff picture. Statistics have always shown baseball playoffs as a crapshoot, the key is getting in as much as possible. Some years you will curbstomp teams with 100+ wins, some years you might sneak in with 88 wins (hopefully this year). Some years you might miss altogether (Red Sox this year, maybe Cubs). But be in and around the dance as much as possible and you are setting yourself up for success. I'm fine with being the second best team in the NL, and taking our shot against the Dodgers every year. Hell, I'm not even going to stress about the Braves. But we should not be struggling against the Brewers and the Cardinals to avoid the wild card game, for two years in a row now. I get that the wildcard game is the postseason, technically. To me, we missed the playoffs last year, so the whole 'getting in as much as possible' thing didn't work there. Maybe that's not fair, but whatever. To be fair, last year they finished with the 2nd best record in the National League, so they hit your goal. It just happened that the best team record wise was in their division. This year of course is completely different.

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle. So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc. Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

I never played again after one game lasting several years...a game that I pretty sure CCP was involved in. I'm guessing it was a progressive bonus game? Those are the worst. Nope, flat rate cards. 3 of us got big enough and had similar enough armies that if we went after somebody the 3rd person would win, so it was a stalemate. After a few weeks, basically nothing happened for the next 5 years until I got so busy that I forgot to log in for 3 days and got kicked out. Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I'll be the contrarian and say that I really like all these changes. I like the most important innings in the game to have a flow to them and not have 3 minute breaks multiple times during the inning. Limiting pitching changes and mound visits really helps with that. Baseball has already talked about trying to change the disabled list to prevent manipulation, I doubt they will implement something like this without some way to slow down the fake injuries. The extra roster spot and the cap of pitchers on the roster is also good IMO. Those extra bench spots for things like a pinch-running specialist bring something different to the game. The September restrictions are kind of meh for me, I don't really care either way.