UMFan83
-
Posts
94,553 -
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
-
Pretty mediocre slate of games. TCU-Texas is the big one as it relates to the national championship picture but Alabama-Ole Miss has lost a lot of its luster, though perhaps an Ole Miss will will propel them into the CFP discussion as the number of 1 loss P5 teams are dwindling. Locally I know Illinois-Purdue is a big one for many posters here. I'm looking forward to that one.
-
Yeah those reports have dampened my enthusiasm a little for this offseason. Not to say that the Cubs cant cobble together a playoff team with shorter term additions, but the Cubs definitely need a big bat at some point. I know Jed is obsessed with his principles around long term deals and is probably petrified that Ricketts is going to screw him over with another hard cap for spending but seems like the Cubs should be able to afford at least 1 long term deal. If it turns into another Heyward, it shouldn't be something that destroys the Cubs chances to contend in the future. I just don't like the idea of having this unbreakable rule that the Cubs cant sign anyone for more than 4 years.
-
-
I know some were hoping that somehow Willson would miraculously decide to accept the QO but that is officially not the case.
-
A bit late but PFF grades from last week. Fields continues to be graded highly but still largely on the weight of his running
-
That's strange. But we're in the rapid transfer/NIL era so I'm sure they can build another team in a hurry, and I believe they have a top 10 recruiting class coming in next year.
-
Ok the Ricketts have officially gone too far
-
-
Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)
UMFan83 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Other Sports
Love isn't it. screen shot of their last 11 1st rd picks It's amazing to have Rodgers as a Qb and be that concerned with the defense on draft day Watching the Packers trade up to draft Jordan Love after all the complaining from Rodgers about getting him help at WR was one of the funniest things ever. -
Not a bad idea. Fields' schedule is pretty friendly too for the rest of the fantasy regular season. Unfortunately the Bears bye comes the last week of the fantasy regular season which might be rough if you are fighting for a playoff spot the last week. Also his fantasy playoff opponents (Philly, Buffalo) are pretty tough
-
If you win half the available titles over a decently long time period, you’re a dynasty. Bama won 5 in 9 years or 6 in 12, however you want to split it up. They also lost 2 other title games in those 12 years. So I’d say Bama certainly is a dynasty. Yeah that's fair. I didn't feel like going back and seeing how many titles they won lol.
-
Sammy had 6 more bWAR in his career than McGriff, so at an absolute minimum if he's on this thing Sammy should be. And 16 and 18 more WAR than Mattingly and Belle respectively. If I had to guess on their logic, they are only considering steroid guys that seem like obvious HOFers and then throwing some other good guys from the era on there. The fact that McGwire is also not on the list validates this. I love Sammy but his case is not great if you are penalizing the years that steroid use was likely. That said, we all know Sammy did steroids but he never officially tested positive or appeared on the Mitchell Report nor has he admitted it. There was a report that he tested positive in the 2003 anonymous testing but there's been a lot of questions about the validity of the leaked reports. So you are going to penalize a guy because you think he did steroids?
-
Why the horsefeathers isn't Sammy in this group? I'm guessing its because his vote % was way lower than the other guys but that's bullcrap. Don't get me wrong, he was nowhere near as good as Bonds or Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro but I feel like his candidacy deserves discussion if the worlds biggest horsefeathers Albert Belle and Mattingly are on there. Or maybe I'm just a Sammy homer
-
Justin Fields and some other guys will play the Lions on Sunday. People that said the Bears wouldn't be favored in another game this year were wrong, though certainly being less than 3 point favorites against the Lions at home is nothing to brag about. Lions had been having nothing but shootouts to start the season but seems like their offense has regressed quite a bit the last few weeks. I'm sure they will relish the opportunity to "get right" this weekend. They can move into 2nd in the NFC North with a win and Packers loss.
-
Here we go. I'm going to devour every second of this video later tonight
-
You are never going to get people to agree on the definition of dynasty and its driven me nuts for years. I'm very conservative on what I consider a dynasty. Jordan Bulls? dynasty. 60's celtics? dynasty. 2010s Alabama? Maybe dynasty. 2010s Blackhawks? Not a dynasty. I see it as a term reserved for only the very greatest runs of all time where one team wins several championships over a 5+ year period. The Blackhawks didn't even win back to back titles (though they should have won 3 in a row between 2013-2015). The Astros have won 2 titles in an 8 year period of contention and one is heavily tainted. They've been a consistently contending team but a dynasty is laughable. Maybe if they win the next 2 titles (please don't win the next 2 titles)
-
Trust me, I'm aware. Having the double bonus of watching Fields turn into a star for my favorite team and my fantasy team is incredibly fulfilling. I don't know if there has ever been a Bear that has been top 3 option at any position ever except the defense. Forte was a clear RB1 for awhile but usually in that 5-7 range overall. Marshall was a backend WR1 but I don't think he was ever a top 3 guy. Also Fields performance was the 75th best performance in fantasy football history (dating back to way before FF was played) and 17th best by a QB (note: Trubisky vs. TB was 65th and 13th respectively). The reason I love my league is its ridiculous weighted for QBs. In my league Fields outscored Mixon yesterday due to 6 pt passing TDs, and 7 bonus points for rushing for more than 175 yards.
-
the offense almost doesnt need to be upgraded at this point. maybe accented, better interior OL perhaps, more time developing Fields/Mooney/Claypool/Kmet I think that's a little extreme. The OLine needs multiple pieces this offseason. We need more than 2 NFL caliber WRs. We lost the game yesterday because of the defense but you saw at the end where the offense falls short. Getsy did a great job calling a nice mix of plays, but most of them were short quick passes designed to get people space to gain yards. There were some deep shots but not many 15+ yard passes to the middle of the field. Fields Y/A yesterday was the 2nd worst in his career (4.4, only the Cleveland disaster last year was lower). It works and I have no issues with it, but when you get to the end of the game and you are still doing that, it says to me that Getsy doesn't trust the offensive line to hold up on any plays that take time to develop. When we did go down the field more, you saw the failure of guys like Brown. Sub out Brown with a competent 3rd WR and the drive probably continues and the Bears get in position for a FG or TD.
-
Probably won't be Baylor. They're up 35-10 on Mississippi Valley St If someone is going to lose I'll pick George Mason over Auburn. George Mason is a fringe top 100 team and Barttorvik has Auburn lower than their ranking. Though Barttorvik has Michigan 39th so screw them :D I guess Michigan could get upset too. Their entire rotation except for Hunter is new (there are holdovers but taking bigger roles) and Purdue FW won the Horizon league last year and brought almost everyone on their team back.
-
The whole tiebreaker where teams with harder SOS pick lower is so stupid. On the surface the logic makes sense but it annoys me that you punish a team for playing a disproportionately difficult schedule. I think the logic is opposite. They aren't punishing teams for a difficult schedule, they are pitying teams who couldn't win against a lesser schedule. Sure, that's just how I chose to frame it. It sucks when your team is garbage but you also played a difficult schedule and you drop from like 5th to 9th because of it. There has to be a better way to break ties.
-
The whole tiebreaker where teams with harder SOS pick lower is so stupid. On the surface the logic makes sense but it annoys me that you punish a team for playing a disproportionately difficult schedule.
-
2022 Bears
-
Gigantic Willy Style - The Willson Contreras Thread
UMFan83 replied to Sammy Sofa's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
That is very Dusty -
Some praise from the opponents:
-
So let’s take stock of where Fields is right now amongst starting QBs Definitely better at this point: Allen, Mahomes, Burrow, Hurts, Lamar, Herbert, Tua I realize he has to get better as a passer but outside of that group who can you confidently say is better than fields? You have the old guard who have better track records than Fields but currently not playing better. That includes Rodgers, Brady, Russ, Stafford. Then you have guys who are solid but don’t have the ceiling Fields does. That group is pretty much Cousins and Carr. After that it’s people that are clearly worse than Fields right now. Yes that includes Kyler, Lawrence, Goff, Jimmy G, Geno.
