UMFan83
-
Posts
95,285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
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 UMFan83
-
Yeah I don't get this at all. The point of following a team is to watch them win a Super Bowl. Of course there's a limit where I might choose long term success over 1 Super Bowl (ie one guaranteed super bowl vs a 50% chance of winning each Super Bowl for the next 5 years) but almost always you take the title. A smaller scale example is the Giants 2 Super Bowls where they were 9-7, snuck into the playoffs and no one gave them any chance of winning. When they won, haters tried to downplay their run as lucky but I know no Giants fan gives a [expletive] because they got to celebrate, they got the parade and they got the banner.
-
I don't know if that was a good move by Thibs. Rose might get pissed and sit out to spite him.
-
Uhhh...but isn't the point to win the Super Bowl? Again, I would prefer long-term sustained success over a fluky run that would ultimately hurt the team in the long run. A guaranteed super bowl or the possibility that you might compete for a super bowl over the next 10 years? This isn't like the Cubs deciding to strip down and rebuild for a chance at sustained success. In that scenario we knew we were now being run by a successful and innovative FO that represented a great improvement over the previous team builders. In your scenario you are talking about hiring a new coach with a chance to be at least decent while likely being run by the same person who put together the current team which isn't good enough to win a title. Anyways this is an argument based on a hypothetical situation, but I just cant anyone how you wouldn't take a guaranteed title vs. a slightly more optimistic future.
-
Uhhh...but isn't the point to win the Super Bowl?
-
(assuming you are a falcons fan?) If your biggest fear involves your team winning the Super Bowl, you are living a nice life.
-
I know they got blown out by UK last week but what tonight made you say this? I assumed they lost again, but then checked to see they won a game by 27 points after outscoring their opponent 51-22 in the first half.
-
After Ortiz retires, I'd bet that's the plan. Isn't he actually a pretty good defender, or at least decent? -
Welp I lost by 1.9 points last night, marking the 4th time this year I've lost by less than 2 points. How does that happen? 4 losses by less than 2 in 12 games. And the only reason I lost is because Arian Foster and my bye week TE last second decided to miss the game and the emergency pickups I got on Sunday at 11 am combined for 6 points instead of the 30 I was projected to get with Foster and Clay. As a result I am 5-7 despite scoring the 2nd most points in the league. Luckily I'm somehow in 8th place and the only way I don't make the playoffs is if I lose and one team wins. With my luck I'll score 150 points and lose by 2 and the other guy will score 100 points and win.
-
So unless an NFC South team finishes 4-1 or better, the champion will have a losing record
-
sulleys "only my teams" scenario. Butler continues to dominate, wins MVP, Bulls forced to sign him to Derrick Rose exception max.
-
They just signed a manager for 5/25. Did people forget this or something? Also next year's SP FA crop is better than this years. Yes they continue to spend really big (relatively) on infrastructure
-
My favorite part of the offseason so far was when I was down on the Zimmerman trade reports because I figured why give up prospects when we can just sign our stud ace outright like we had a definitive choice between the 2.
-
The email hack is an interesting angle and I dunno how they're doing it but I am pretty sure I hate them. Until they break something positive for the Cubs
-
Maybe Theo is feigning interest in Lester so he can silently swoop in and sign his preferred target, Max Scherzer.
-
Is that what our payroll would be if all we signed is 1-2 middle tier arms like Masterson and maybe a backup catcher?
-
Backstory on the kid: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/24/jake-wesley-mlb-twitter-account-broke-red-sox-signings-of-hanley-ramirez-pablo-sandoval/ Sounds like all the momentum is heading their way. Like bukie pointed out, their rotation is bad, they wouldn't have signed Hanley and Sandoval without knowing they had enough left for a top of the line starter.
-
Week 13: Bears (5-6) @ Lions (7-4) Thu 11:30 AM CT CBS
UMFan83 replied to UMFan83's topic in Other Sports
I think Del Negro completed a 2 year contract and the Bulls decided to let him walk. It was definitely during the offseason though as the Bulls didnt want that stooge representing them at the LeBron meeting. -
I wonder how much of it is on the OL. It seems to have regressed pretty badly, largely due to injuries. It's not just impacted the passing game, but it seems like the run has been spottier, too. I don't know how valid FO's offensive line rankings are but they have the Bears at 10th best run blocking line and 13th best pass blocking line. But I think the only criteria they use for pass blocking is adjusted sack rate which seems really simplified. Last year they were 20th in run blocking and 5th in pass blocking according to their system. I have always felt like Cutler goes into a shell when he gets too much pressure in a game where he gets rid of it quickly regardless of whether there is pressure on that play, or if there is pressure goes into a shell and gets sacked when maybe he could have scrambled. He could have just permanently snapped into that mode because a lot of times it seems like he's checking down too early in a play. Just my observation.
-
Week 13: Bears (5-6) @ Lions (7-4) Thu 11:30 AM CT CBS
UMFan83 replied to UMFan83's topic in Other Sports
Haha, I remember the backlash when the Bulls fired Scott Skiles on Xmas eve -
I guess I don't understand why. Line blocking a little worse? Yeah. Jeffery with a step down? Yup. Marshall having a down year? Yup. But those can't account for the 2nd best offense in the league turning into somewhere in the late teens. Is it on Cutler? Trestmans play calling? Or a combo of a lot of things. It's rather perplexing. The league has figured out Trestman's offense and Trestman doesn't know how or have a counter move. Maybe to some degree. But Trestman/Cutler have neutered the offense. Very few passes downfield, everything is screens, short routes and checkdowns. Maybe that's his "adjustment" to other teams figuring out the offense, maybe its Trestman no longer trusting in Cutler and handcuffing him, who knows.
-
Week 13: Bears (5-6) @ Lions (7-4) Thu 11:30 AM CT CBS
UMFan83 replied to UMFan83's topic in Other Sports
1) wouldnt be a long week, the Bears play on back to back thursdays so only 7 days in between games 2) At this point there's no point in firing Trestman during the season unless you believe someone on the current staff is a possibility for your next head coach and you want to make them interim for the rest of the year. If anything you want Trestman to finish the year to complete the downward spiral. -
Week 13: Bears (5-6) @ Lions (7-4) Thu 11:30 AM CT CBS
UMFan83 replied to UMFan83's topic in Other Sports
If the Bears win out (they won't) it will be very hard for them to not get in as a 10-6. It would probably mean no 10-6 teams get in. ETA- the Bears would have h2h against Dallas, Detroit, and San Fran. Philly, and Ari have conference heavy schedules so if they falter, Bears will get that tie breaker. Probably only concern is a 10-6 Seattle and 11-5 Dallas but I haven't been able to create that scenario yet, it keeps coming out with all 11-5 teams. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk SF/Seattle and Dal/Philly play each other twice to end the year. One of them sweeping the other would be ideal. Ironically all 3 matchups (those 2 plus Lions/Bears) all play Thursday and all play in the next 3 weeks. Ideally, Seattle and Philly would sweep as the Bears would have tiebreakers over Detroit, Dallas and SF if they win the next 2 at least. But if Philly got swept by Dallas, they still play Seattle (at Philly) so that's potential for 3 NFC losses. Likewise, if SF sweeps Seattle, they still have to go to Philly and Arizona and they have been beatable on the road, so they could have 3 NFC losses left. Wouldn't we want SF and Seattle to possibly split? Arizona is still the favorite to win the division, so either of them sweeping increases the odds of that team taking one of the 2 WC spots.
