UMFan83
-
Posts
94,567 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
67
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
-
Bears game 9: Sunday Nov. 14 vs MIN on FOX
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Other Sports
Fun fact: Bears are 7-3 in their last 10 games against Favre, dating back to the 2004 season. 2004: @ GB - W v. GB - L 2005: v. GB - W @ GB - W 2006: @ GB - W v. GB - L 2007: @ GB - W v. GB - W 2009: @ Min - L v. Min - W I'm not going to go over the pre-2004 numbers vs. Favre, but I will say that the 7-3 stretch brought us to 11-23 lifetime against Favre. -
Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team. "All the talk" from the organization has been that the payroll will basically stay the same, though I'm still unclear if that means staying the same from what it was last year or "staying the same" after guys like Lilly and Lee were off the books. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-cubs-ricketts Looks like it will be lower like I said, but it answers the question if that is pre-lilly and lee trade or post.
-
I'd have to think about it, but I'm almost positive there will be some sort of phasing in period with a new labor agreement. Teams would be making almost no moves if they didn't feel secure that they would have time to adjust to new rules. You certainly wouldn't have seen this FA bonanza with JJ getting a max deal, or Noah getting $12m/year extension, or teams clamoring for Anthony, with a contract extension part of any deal. That said, the only moves I could see for Deng are in a situation like the Nuggets/Melo where Melo is backing the Nuggets into a corner, forcing the Nuggets to trade him or risk losing him, and he stands by his desire to only go to one of a few teams. In that scenario, the Nuggets have to choose between trading him to the Knicks for nothing, convincing Melo that the Nets are as good of a destination as New York, or looking to Chicago for a package that includes a player with probably half the contract of Melo's but gives the team somewhat of an impact player to go along with trade picks and a young cheap player like Gibson. The Nuggets still save money in that deal and have the flexibility to look at a FA player in the offseason.
-
Really? All the talk is about them lowering payroll. Not sure if that means from Opening Day last year's number or end of the season number, but either way, adding a $13 million a year player doesn't seem like it fits in the lowering payroll mantra, especially when there's more than one hole on the team.
-
Who says the Padres are even trading him? Still good to see there's confirmed interest although there's no reason not to have any.
-
This is insane. Pittsburgh is tearing through the Bengal o line on almost every play yet the drive keeps moving. Btw how annoyed must ocho cinco be with TO basically taking over while ocho cinco toils in obscurity.
-
I am. It's turning into quite an entertaining game. I can't help but feel that Carson is gonna throw a pick to end the drive.
-
UC crowd is a bit disappointing in general but it can get loud during big moments and in td playoffs. Weekday games are usually quiet as hell compared to weekends. I've been to a playoff game in Boston and regular season games in Phoenix and Boston and the UC crowd is a little worse than Phoenix and in the playoffs comparable to Boston.
-
There's no way the Seahawks (or whoever wins the NFC West) would be favored over NYG/PHI/ATL/NO in the wildcard round. The only dominating they've done at home has been against other crappy NFC West teams (beat SF 31-6 and Arizona 22-10), who they aren't going to face in the playoffs. San Diego gained 518 yards and only lost because they turned the ball over five times and gave up two kick returns for a touchdown. Then there was the loss to the Giants. They rank 30th in total offense (29th in both pypg and rypg), 27th in total defense (30th pass, 19th rush) and Hasselbeck is one of the worst QBs in the league (30th out of 32 in QB rating, 29th in completion percentage and 31st in yard per attempt. All of this while playing one of the weakest schedules in the NFL. They might win a playoff game, but they shouldn't be favored. Thanks for making me depressed about the Bears loss to them again. I'm dumbfounded at how that happened. Edit: Also, your post reminds me of this article I was reading yesterday about the Worst playoff teams of all time. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=53 The 1998 Arizona Cardinals were #1
-
Then you'd probably really destroy the 23rd ranked Bears if you had a chance to play them. oh wait.
-
Well that makes me feel better about Super Bowl 36. That was Mike Martz's fault. What the hell does the coach of the 2005 version of that team have to do with the 2010 team? That would be like blaming Jauron for the Bears disappointing 2009. He's referring to the Martz led Rams losing to Brady/Belichick in the Super Bowl in what was considered a fairly huge upset at the time (Rams were giving 14 points). Players wise, those Rams teams outgunned the Pats for sure. Yes but they didn't have Tom 'sex pistol' Brady at the helm. I've got a friend that I met 2-3 years after that game who is a huge Rams fan (seriously bigger than any Bears fan I know), and he's never been able to talk to me about that game because he's still pissed about it.
-
Your logic is outstanding. The Bears are better because they beat Green Bay? Sure. And have a better record and better players. It's the only impressive victory on either team's schedule. Regardless, my argument is more about the fact that calling them bad in the preseason was not dumb and is not nearly as big a mistake as calling Dallas good. They are 4-4 and in the bottom half of the NFL. I just wanted to point out that the Rams did beat the Chargers in San Diego. IMO that's more impressive than the Bears beating a Packers team penalized 18 times at home. The Chargers may be 4-5 and may have been in the middle of their annual early season malise, but according to DVOA team rankings the Chargers have been a better overall team this year (7th overall vs. GB's 10th), and I believe the Chargers had the gained the most yards and allowed the least yards in football up until this week. Just wanted to point that out, although that doesn't mean the Rams are better than the Bears by any means. I think there is a small but clear division between the Bears and the Rams at this point.
-
Why? They have 4 losses, none of them to good teams. It's not that hard to make a top 8 list of NFC teams anyway. There may be 12 AFC teams in that discussion. The Bears lost to the Seahawks and Redskins at home. The Rams beat those two teams by a combined 30 points. The Bears are 27th in points scored and fourth in points allowed. The Rams are 29th in points scored and seventh in points allowed. Looks pretty even to me. The Bears beat the Lions, and you lost to them by 38 points. The Bears have 5 wins in 8 games, the Rams have 4 wins in 8 games. The Rams play in the worst division in football and are matched up against the worst division in the AFC. The Bears are in a middle of the road division with no true cupcakes, and are matched up against arguably the best divsion in the NFL.
-
1. Giants 2. Falcons 3. Packers 4. Saints 5. Eagles 6. Vikings 7. Buccaneers 8. Bears I'd get to that point before I started considering the Rams for #9. I think the Eagles and Vikings, even with their season, are clearly better than the Rams. The Bucs and Bears probably are, but its not as clear cut.
-
Only 1 non-BCS team ranked 12 of higher is guaranteed, which would of course be TCU. Does that apply for the title game? If TCU were to make the title game, would one of the BCS bowls have to pick Boise State because of that rule? Just looked it up to make sure: It doesn't say anything about the National Championship game having any effect on a 2nd non-BCS school getting an automatic bid.
-
For whoever said they almost feel bad for Phillips, I'm not. He is probably relieved right now. What incentive did he have to finish the season with the team? He was gonna get canned no matter what, the team has completely quit under him, so the chances of him salvaging some of the season with a 5-3 finish or that would make him more appealing for a future job are pretty much non-existent. Cutting him loose right now helps him just as much as it helps the Cowboys. There was no benefit, other than a small amount of financial benefit for the Cowboys, for either side to remain married.
-
haha. I'm not sure what's worse up to this point -- Minnesota and Dallas at 3 and 4 or Tampa Bay and STL at 30 and 32. Neither Tampa or STL is good. Tampa has beaten some crappy teams and lost to everybody that posed a threat, plus they've been outscored by a wide margin. They could both easily finish in the bottom 10 of the league, while Dallas and Minnesota have no chance of being a top 10 team. STL plays in a crap division and their AFC division opponents are also the weakest. St. Louis is probably a upper 20s in terms of ranking. They've showed some promise, not as a team that can be good this year or maybe next year but as a team that's improved and could certainly win that putrid division. TB is just so young, I don't feel like they know they're supposed to suck. The D is fairly decent though. They're probably in the 17-20 range in rankings imo.
-
Also, as far as the Lakers go....I haven't watched any of their games or seen more than a couple highlights, so I am confused as to how there seems to be this growing hype of their dominance. I know they are 7-0 but it's not like they've destroyed every team they've played. 2 point win over Houston, 8 point won over Phoenix, 12 point win over Sacramento, 5 point win over Toronto. I guess I don't see how this is different from other years when the Lakers start off well.
-
Yup. I remember them losing the 2nd to last game of the season against Indiana on NBC by one point. It annoyed me so much because A) I wanted the Bulls to lose less than 10 games. 73-9 sounds much cooler than 72-10, and B) Indiana was the only team to beat us twice in the season, and them the Sonics, the Nuggets and the Suns were the only 4 teams the Bulls didn't have a winning record against in the regular season that year. How spoiled was I back then to actually be mad about that? Also while I'm talking about this time period, after that Indiana loss, the Bulls last game of the year was preempted by a Sox game and was shown on tape delay several hours later. That would never ever happen in this day and age. There would be an outcry if a late September game between the Pirates and Nationals was not broadcast for an inning.
-
Even so Auburn has to lose twice for LSU to make the SEC title game. Without that I don't think they have enough to leap in front of TCU. Although that could be the final piece to destroy the BCS. I think the final piece to destroy the BCS would more likely be a Boise St/TCU Championship game and not a team from one of the power conferences jumping them to be in the Championship game And then as of TCU or Boise State wins the game, a 1 loss Wisconsin team wins the Rose Bowl and the AP selects them as their National Champ.
-
Even so Auburn has to lose twice for LSU to make the SEC title game. Without that I don't think they have enough to leap in front of TCU. Although that could be the final piece to destroy the BCS. Whoops, I did forget about that. Auburn could lose twice. They are a good team but I don't think they are so good that beating Georgia is a formality. And despite Alabama's up and down play, they are certainly good enough to beat Auburn, and might even be slight favorites in the Iron Bowl. But yeah it is pretty unlikely, though not impossible, that Auburn loses both.
-
Bears game 9: Sunday Nov. 14 vs MIN on FOX
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Other Sports
I'd hope that they wouldn't sacrifice a lot of attention from an intradivision game for a non-conference game a few days later. I mean, they're all important, and the Bears should probably win both if they want to be serious playoff contenders, but if you had to pick one, the vikings game is clearly more important. -
Bears game 9: Sunday Nov. 14 vs MIN on FOX
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Other Sports
Speaking of Peter King.... I just skimmed his entire MMQB article, and there was not one single mention of the Chicago Bears, or the game they played yesterday. He did mention the Bills in the form of the Merriman signing, but no reference to the game, no Bears in his fine 15, nothing he liked or disliked about the game, nothing. I don't think I've ever seen a game get completetly ignored in one of his columns. In fact, up until now, I thought he had some short of guideline where he would make it a point to mention every game in his column, even if it is just a 5 word sentence about something he liked in the game. -
lol ESPN now pimping the Lakers/72 wins discussion. Wonder if they will have a "Laker Index" special section in the coming weeks. Speaking of ESPN special team pages, all the hype and discussion about the Heat really died down after the first couple of games didn't it? Wonder how many hits the Heat Index is getting. When I went there last week I didn't see anything about their quest for 72 wins and their LBJ Triple Double progress like they promised when they launched it.
-
Imagine if that Tennessee too many men on the field penalty was the thing that kept a TCU out of the National Title game. I personally don't think LSU will win the rest of their games, but still.
