Jump to content
Cubs vs. Nationals — Today's Game Thread is Live! Click to Join » ×
North Side Baseball

JudasIscariotTheBird

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,391

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by JudasIscariotTheBird

  1. JudasIscariotTheBird
  2. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I’m in the same boat. It would have to be in the neighborhood of the Bogaerts extension for me to do it, anything much more (or certainly if he’s thinking 150-200+) I’m good letting it play out. I hope that Tom RIckets is required to write out a check for half a million dollars made out to "El Mago" before every meal until his demise. Anyone who does not agree is not a fan of the Chicago Cubs and/or fun. Extend Javy for insane money for insane years. Now.
  3. JudasIscariotTheBird
    https://twitter.com/barry/status/1223683909411639296
  4. JudasIscariotTheBird
  5. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Hell, the only time I legally bet on sports without it being DFS was on Bovada. If you want to make some prop bets, just PM me and float what you like, and I'll maybe I'll give you some action, sans the vig.
  6. JudasIscariotTheBird
  7. JudasIscariotTheBird
  8. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Heh. My point was, you could just as easily say "they want to run the ball 5 yards a play, and switch to balance if it's not working." I don't consider just doing what's presently working a "plan." Okay? Bottom line, they're not going to "try and run the ball 40 times". ...unless it works? They are going to go run heavy unless they get down big. I think that's obvious.
  9. JudasIscariotTheBird
    So the game plan is to be balanced, unless just running the ball works, but if it doesn't, don't? Yes, he will abandon his game plan if they're getting 4+ easy yards on every run. Heh. My point was, you could just as easily say "they want to run the ball 5 yards a play, and switch to balance if it's not working." I don't consider just doing what's presently working a "plan."
  10. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I think a final score in the 27-20 range is a pretty realistic. SF will try to keep the game low scoring by running the ball 40 times. I'm not sure that will be a winning formula but it will limit KCs chances. I think KC will score but they aren't going to put up 30+ against SF's defense. SF's offense looked good against the Packers but they were a mirage. I don't see them putting 30+ against KC. I like the under. I'm sure Tenn planned to run the ball 40 times too. Doubt SF is going to go in without a balanced attack ready. If they're picking up 10 yards a carry again he won't abandon it, but that's not the game plan. So the game plan is to be balanced, unless just running the ball works, but if it doesn't, don't?
  11. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Hultzen is official. Brothers was at one point a solid reliever for the Rockies and we traded for him in 2015 before releasing him in the spring. Lefty with big K numbers. Cuevas is your standard AAA reserve. I'm happy we're bringing Hultzen back and think he can be a solid reliable option in our bullpen this year, and hopefully all his health problems are behind him now. I remember seeing Rex Brothers at the 2016 Cubs Convention a few years back lol. The dude has excellent stuff, but unfortunately his control will never be good enough to get called up. I mean maybe it all clicks one of these years? 2011-2013 he was pretty damn good, but I think that ship has sailed. I used him a lot in fantasy leagues that really valued K/9 and holds more than they should.
  12. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Full up with a better one already Bryant can play the outfield. Put it this way, there is literally nothing, within reason, the Cubs can do right now that would increase their chances of winning a title this year more than going to get Arenado. Especially if the most likely alternative is him playing for St. Louis. This is entirely true, apart from the fact you are implying that trading for Arenado is included in the "within reason" realm, knowing what we know about budget constraints that are obviously being imposed.
  13. JudasIscariotTheBird
    ...how about out of 8-8 teams?
  14. JudasIscariotTheBird
  15. JudasIscariotTheBird
    This was about a 10-6/11-5 team. It was Rodgers and an ok OL and an above average defence, and nothing more. I think they'll be just as good next year. If they strike gold with a WR draft pick and some other complimentary D piece, I think they are better next year. Above average defense? What was above average about it? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/opp.htm
  16. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Well, the game isn't over, so at the moment, the chance that the Pack makes the SB is INFINITELY better than that of the Bears. Not any more....
  17. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Well, the game isn't over, so at the moment, the chance that the Pack makes the SB is INFINITELY better than that of the Bears. It’s just that we’ve seen actual good GB teams and this one doesn’t match up to those, really in any way except Rodgers. They scrapped by with a lot of riff raff which is cool, but this game was what they really were when matched up against quality. I’ll admit some jealousy because the Bears NEVER turn horsefeathers to gold like GB, but I’ve watched enough football and so have you. This wasn’t a good team. That’s not an insult, just being real. This was about a 10-6/11-5 team. It was Rodgers and an ok OL and an above average defence, and nothing more. I think they'll be just as good next year. If they strike gold with a WR draft pick and some other complimentary D piece, I think they are better next year.
  18. JudasIscariotTheBird
    This probably reduces their average playoff record to 1-1.13!!! FRAUDS!!! Think it reduces their 2019 Super Bowl appearances to that of 2019 Bears - 0. Well, the game isn't over, so at the moment, the chance that the Pack makes the SB is INFINITELY better than that of the Bears.
  19. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Even that random ass website had their average outcome as 9.7 wins (which, if you aren't good at math, is closer to a 10 wins team). They had a lot of games where they took the lead early and sat on their wins by milking out the clock...and they got sh1t kicked by the 49ers and somehow the Chargers. Ok. Sure, 8-8 it is. Whatever. "Frauds" whatever that means. 8, 9, 10. I don’t give a horsefeathers, this team just wasn’t that good. If you’re good at math 9.7 is closer to 8 than 13. They are and were frauds and 13 wins wasn’t indicative of their true talent level. A perfectly solid season, they achieved more than most probably expected and thought. Just don’t think they were particularly good. If you looked at any ol team through history that actually reached 13 wins, and then looked at the number of teams that were "expected" to win 13 or more games based off of point differentials, you'd probably reduce your list of teams by a good 70%. The Packers were a pretty good team this year. Edit: For instnace: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nor/2019.htm https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2019.htm
  20. JudasIscariotTheBird
    What does 34-7 (nee 14) have to do with 10-7 and 21-13? Sweep?! I mean come on, join reality with me. nee 13 This probably reduces their average playoff record to 1-1.13!!! FRAUDS!!!
  21. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Yes, that is indeed their pro football reference page. Well spotted. 34 - 7 What does 34-7 (nee 13) have to do with 10-7 and 21-13? Sweep?! I mean come on, join reality with me.
  22. JudasIscariotTheBird
    I’m not a Bears fan or fan of any NFL team. The Packers were frauds, this happens every year with a few teams over performing. Their true talent was definitely more of a 8 or 9 win team or so, they just weren’t very good. Certainly not 13 win good to me. Even that random ass website had their average outcome as 9.7 wins (which, if you aren't good at math, is closer to a 10 wins team). They had a lot of games where they took the lead early and sat on their wins by milking out the clock...and they got sh1t kicked by the 49ers and somehow the Chargers. Ok. Sure, 8-8 it is. Whatever. "Frauds" whatever that means.
  23. JudasIscariotTheBird
    So? horsefeathers GB
  24. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Yall are salty merely because the Packers are not the Bears. 13-3 is most assuredly the upper end of what they could have done, but they were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the NFC and it isn't really debatable. Claiming they should have been an 8-8 team is just trolling powered by extreme salt.
  25. JudasIscariotTheBird
    Yes, that is indeed their pro football reference page. Well spotted.
×
×
  • Create New...