jersey cubs fan

It's a mailbag, quite tame, and quite lame.

I think 7-9 and 9-7 teams are all very similar. There are some 7 win teams on the way up and some 9 win teams on the way down. But there's a fairly signficant difference between 6 and 10 wins. It's not just chance.

Yeah, and so what. You were still overstating the notion that all that stands between 6 wins and 10 is 4 plays. Teams come out of nowhere, but there's usually a reason. Detroit didn't win 10 last year. Cleveland got a tremendous upgrade in offensive line play and solid quarterbacking. They didn't luck themselves into 4 plays for that improvement. Tennessee winning 2 more games than the year before proves absolutely nothing. You are insinuating that 10 wins is just a few lucky breaks away. It's not nearly that simple.

I think you are really overstating it there. There are plenty of teams every year that don't have a legit shot for 10 wins. Every year there's at least 1 team that comes of out nowhere and does well. Think of last years Lions team. They were not very good but they almost made it to 10 wins. The Ravens 2 years ago ( I think) were the same way. Yes, there's one team that comes out of nowhere, that doesn't mean everybody is a couple breaks from 10 wins. Detroit was so close to 10 they got 7, and they were lucky to get there.

Hasn't Edmonds been pretty good despite his low BA recently? An .880 OPS in August and a 1.122 so far in September. A 653 OPS in the last 14 days. And again, a 1.122 in the past 7. I can do the small sample size thing, too. The guy's production has been declining from his midsummer high, but he's far from a black hole at this point. Now if he posts a .700 OPS for the entire month of September, then I'll worry. But as long as there is a strict platoon, I don't see it being a serious issue. I understand, I wasn't trying to say much with that other than, his past month has been a bit of up and down. He's disappeared a couple times, but seems to wake up with a big game now and then. I think the rest is good for him.

I think you are really overstating it there. There are plenty of teams every year that don't have a legit shot for 10 wins.

Hasn't Edmonds been pretty good despite his low BA recently? An .880 OPS in August and a 1.122 so far in September. A 653 OPS in the last 14 days.

oh really? i hadnt been paying attention to the Mets Yeah, he's been out for a long time and the Phillies haven't taken much advantage. His last game was August 2nd, when he blew a save and lost. Philly was 1.5 up then, and are 1.5 down now.

I thought Payne looked pretty lost at times on Sunday. That's definitely the weak link of the defense. It's possible to survive the loss of Brown, if he's the only loss. But what I'm worried about is multiple injuries. Brown + just about anybody else could be a disaster, or at the very least, weaken them to the point where they are just barely above average defense. This team still needs a dominant D to go anywhere.

As do I. Defensive injuries and a collapse by the offensive line are probably the two easiest ways for this team to stumble. I'm also a little concerned with their boisterous response to proving skeptics wrong. If they need that attitude to play with an edge, fine, but I think their cockiness played a role in the team suffering last year. Hopefully they stay a little bitter for the rest of the year.

Adding guys to the 40 man right now doesn't mean there won't be spots available for the rule 5.

What's Josephine got going on? obsolescence

Did you see the weird story about Fisher calling the cops after fearing for Vince Young's emotional well being?

Haven't started bye weeks yet, and most of them are western games. With no NY team playing in prime time, one of them always plays at 4pm.

What sort of weather are you expecting Ike to create in Tampa on Sunday? Heavy wind and rain. But, it's sounding like Florida might be in the clear from this storm. Maybe I will take Tampa. I have a few more days before I need to submit my pick. http://www.accuweather.com/forecast-15day.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=1&zipChg=1&zipcode=33601&metric=0 Every forecast I've seen has Ike in Mexico or Texas by Sunday.

Only one early game involving 2 undefeated teams, and it's 2 of the 3 biggest underdogs from week 1. I wonder if Fox is considering making it the featured game of the week. Doubtful, but there aren't any other games that are obviously more interesting. I could see Indy/Minnesota being the featured game, as both were expected to contend this year and probably still are, and one of them will go 0-2. AFC road team means CBS game.

http://www.footballlocks.com/nfl_lines.shtml

Only one early game involving 2 undefeated teams, and it's 2 of the 3 biggest underdogs from week 1. I wonder if Fox is considering making it the featured game of the week. Doubtful, but there aren't any other games that are obviously more interesting.

What sort of weather are you expecting Ike to create in Tampa on Sunday?

At the expense of what else though? There's no real downside.

The forecasts I've seen are now saying it should be going well south of Houston.

DVR the game, watch it in 20 minutes.

41-year old swimmers don't know anything about baseball.

But looking at the schedule, did they look like a better team than Minnesota, Green Bay, Philadelphia, Tennessee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Tampa or Detroit? Detroit was a better team last year, and New Orleans was looking to be much improved. The Bears didn't look much like an improved team. All those 8 teams? Those were the home games. The only real winnable games looked to be the ones vs. Detroit, and the games at Atlanta and St. Louis. Sure, the possibility existed of stealing wins against unprepared teams, but 7 wins against that slate was asking a bit much, I think. Considering the offseason, preseason, and line issues, they looked to be one of the 4-5 worst teams in the NFC, and the rest played in the NFC West. Now? If they play like they did Sunday all year, they could sneak into the upper half of the NFC with Dallas, Philly, New York, Green Bay, Minnesota, and whoever the best team in the NFC South decides to be (NO/Carolina/Tampa). I was really down on the team, but still didn't see the 4-5 wins as likely. When Vegas had them at 8 wins, I was taking the under no question. When it moved to 6.5, it was really hard to take the under. This team is no worse than the one that won 7 games last year. And they have every single important player that played on the 2006 team. Last year's defensive letdown was clearly health related. As for that schedule, Detroit was not better. Detroit beat them, but the Bears beat GB twice and they weren't better than the Packers. New Orleans at home in December is very clearly a winnable game. Tennessee is a very similar team to the Bears, and since they play at home, I would say that's clearly winnable. And while Philly and Tampa are both definitely tough, neither was a juggernaut and both play in Chicago, either game is winnable. 7 wins was probably a good bet going in, and now that they've won a game that was a clear loss, 8-9 seems very reasonable.

They were last year too and look what happened. Playoffs are a crapshoot, over the 16 games Dallas was the best team in the NFC and are likely better this year than last. Eh, they still haven't won a big game in the Romo era. They didn't impress me against a mediocre Bears team early last year, not doing much until Bears defenders began dropping like flies. I think the 2006 Bears were more clearly the best NFC team than the 2007 Cowboys were. The playoffs are not a crapshoot, as much as they are a who is playing their best now thing. Teams don't win and lose in the playoffs based on chance. Football in general is a game that can swing at any point. They were a very good passing team, but nothing special on defense or running the ball. It should not have surprised anybody that they would potentially have trouble in the playoffs.