dew1679666265

Wonder how this will affect his draft status.

Two interesting notes: Dwight Freeney will miss the next 2-3 weeks. Tyler Thigpen has been traded from the Chiefs to the Dolphins.

That's terrible. Is Johnson a senior or junior?

For what it's worth, Kiffin opened up the Tennessee offense in the first half against Ohio (28 passes in the half) and Crompton had some early success but then began to struggle more consistently after a decent first quarter. I'd think Auburn has a better defense than Ohio, though, so I don't know if that early success will be there for the passing game.

I'm really not that sure what to think. As you said, I don't think Auburn has a particularly good defense, but that may not mean a lot with Crompton at quarterback. If Tennessee is going to move the ball, it's going to have to be on the ground. Auburn has allowed something like 150 yards on the ground a game, so I would think Hardesty and Brown will have success, but there's no reason for Auburn not to have 8-9 men in the box to stop the run. What are your thoughts on Auburn's run defense? Tennessee has a very good rushing offense, but that's all the offense they have. Defensively, I think the Vols can at least slow down Auburn's offense. The Tigers have scored a ton of points so far, but haven't faced a defense close to comparable to Tennessee's yet. Against what I consider a much more potent Florida offense, the Tennessee defense held them to 23 points. I think if Auburn scores 25+, Tennessee loses. If the Tennessee defense can hold Auburn below that number and Crompton doesn't turn the ball over at inopportune times (deep in UT territory, at the AU goal line, etc), then I think Tennessee wins. It should help that the game will be at Neyland. If Tennessee wants to make a bowl appearance this year, this is a key game. After losing to UCLA, we need to beat at least one of Auburn/SC to make a bowl, if not both.

Such a weird start for them. I really don't understand it. It's not the loss of Haynesworth because the line is still getting consistent pressure from both the outside and inside (though a bit less consistently there). The secondary simply isn't covering receivers consistently. The special teams fumbles killed us against the Jets. We were the better team, but they were handed 14 points off turnovers deep in Titans territory. This team really needs to find a safe returner.

Well, the Titans should win. Tennessee's the better team this year and were the better team last year. That said, we're apparently terrible this year so we'll probably lose.

I'm sure we'll have to pay a good portion of his salary, but there was good interest in him before this season. Teams like the potential for production from Bradley and as long as Hendry uses some negotiation (which I think he will), teams should be willing to take on at least some of his contract.

From a purely offensive standpoint, Rowand's OPS has declined each of the past three years and Cameron's has stayed pretty steady. I haven't seen much to expect a huge decline from Cameron.

Yeah, it's the prospects that keep me from being completely gung-ho for the Crawford/Upton idea. Both are good, young players, but I don't know that I'd clear out the farm system for one of them. I could potentially be persuaded, though. The Rays have expressed interest in Bradley and I'd much prefer one year of Pat Burrell to three more years of Rowand. They also might be an option to take Bradley in a package for one of Crawford/Upton. There are other bad contracts I'd take before I took on Rowand. His decline in OPS the past three years makes me that much more apprehensive about him. That would be fantastic. :D I kind of expect payroll to be raised under Ricketts, but I have no idea how much he'll raise it.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better. All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years. As I said Bradley is the better hitter, but it's hard to compare them when Bradley has played the field because he's hardly ever put together a long streak of playing the field. As for your preference on trading Bradley, I really don't think Hendry can trade him "for significant savings or a prospect or two". I think all of this "interest" in Bradley is based on the fact Hendry is going to pay a big chunk of his contract or take a bad contract in return. Not according to what Tim said. And I'd be surprised if no team was willing to pay half of Bradley's salary or so. There was interest in him before this season and as long as Hendry at least puts up the front that the Cubs would be willing to run with him in 2010, I think a team would pay a portion of his salary.

The biggest problem I'd have with acquiring Rowand for Bradley is that he's worse than Bradley and is signed for a year longer. Bradley is signed through 2011, while Rowand is signed through 2012. That extra year is pretty significant when we're already downgrading. I don't think Rowand is awful, he's just well down the list of options I'd like to replace Bradley. Cameron is at the top of my list with making an effort for Crawford/Upton right behind it. As for why Cameron would be better than Rowand, Cameron's a better hitter, better fielder and would cost similar money for a year or two less. Past 3 years OPS (decent sample size, still recent enough to be relevant): Rowand: .889, .749, .744 Bradley: .947, .999, .775 Cameron: .759, .809, .793 UZR past 3 years: Rowand: 10.3, -6.5, 0.6 (CF) Bradley: -2.3 (RF, DH in 2007-2008) Cameron: -10.2, 11.3, 13.0 (CF) Bradley's the best hitter of the three, while Cameron is better than Rowand. Cameron is easily the best fielder of the three.

I do think the wear and tear of playing the outfield may impact his numbers negatively, but Bradley has still been a better hitter even when he's played the field. Not as much, but he's been better. All in all, I'd still prefer to trade Bradley for significant savings or a prospect or two and sign Cameron instead of trading Bradley for Rowand. Cameron is better than Rowand all around and would be similarly priced (or a bit cheaper) for less years.

Well his first game was a 26 rating. It'd be awfully hard to not improve from that. I dunno... I guess I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over a guy who's "improved" to an average QB rating against one of the worst teams in the league. I'm not writing the guy off, but he's a rookie QB, and like most of them (although less of them lately), rookie QB's tend to be....unsteady. The QB rating hasn't been good yet, that's true. But, lowering his INTs, even slightly, while at the same time improving his completion percentage significantly is a good sign. I'm not really trying to read anything into it, just commenting that he has indeed shown improvement.

Bradley (2009) .257/.378/.397/.775 Rowand (2009) .264/.320/.428/.748 Bradley (career) .277/.371/.450/.821 Rowand (career) .281/.340/.450/.790 Did I cherry pick the wrong stats? Do you see any significant difference except OBP? Factor in (as pointed out by hossdriver) Bradley plays worse defense, is a clubhouse cancer, and misses a ton of games each year and I don't see how "they're not close". As I pointed out before, I'm sure there are more obscure stats somewhere to prove your point. It's not about using obscure stats. Career numbers for 10-year veterans is a flawed method, though, because both Bradley and Rowand are different now than they were 10 years ago, yet partial season numbers when the players were 22-24 are counted equally to when the players hit their prime. This is the worst year Bradley has had in a while, whereas Rowand has had a number of .700-something OPS years. This is Bradley's first season in the past six years where he's had an OPS below .800. Rowand has now had four. Bradley's best offensive seasons have also been significantly better than Rowand's. Bradley has a much better recent track record of success and that bodes better going forward. I doubt Bradley will get close to his past two years worth of numbers (.900+ OPS), but he's more likely than Rowand of putting up an .800+ OPS. Rowand plays better defense, but Bradley has the advantage of being paid of being under contract for one less season.

From what I heard when they took Patton last year, they seem to think he has a fairly high ceiling. He definitely has a live arm and some nice stuff, but he certainly wasn't ready for the majors this year. The upside of a guy like Patton is that he's another live arm to add to the system and hope that he can provide some low-cost innings out of the pen. If he makes the major league roster, then that's a worst case scenario. Had the entire pen performed better throughout the season, having Patton use one of the spots wouldn't have been much of an issue (especially since the Cubs kept 12 pitchers). This is purely a guess on my part, but I'd think he'll start in AAA next year and be a bullpen replacement for any injuries that occur. Long term, I'd guess their hope is for him to be a cheap middle reliever/set up type pitcher.

If our basis of "improvement" is going from 3 picks to 2 picks from week 1 to 2, I'm calling the difference negligible. It's also because of a 17% increase in completion percentage. That's not negligible. His QB rating also increased significantly from Week 1 to Week 2. Nobody has said significantly better. He's shown improvement and that's a good sign for a rookie QB. And again, even if you don't look at the Washington game, Stafford has still shown improvement. He improved from one week to the next and continued that trend in the third game. There may be something to the trend, or there may not. But the trend is there.

Not to determine future performance, just to show the improvement a rookie is making. Whether that continues or not is still in question, but Stafford has shown definite improvement since his first NFL game. The "improvement" also goes right along with the quality of football team. NO, Vikes, Washington. Is it really improvement? Or just decrease in the level of competition? The Saints' defense is better than Minnesota's? Gregg Williams is a good defensive coordinator, but there's no way he's making that big an improvement. Stafford showed improvement from Week 1 to Week 2 going against a better defense and then showed improvement again in Week 3 going against an admittedly worse defense (though still a pretty good one, the Redskins were a top 10 defense last year according to yards and points allowed).

Not to determine future performance, just to show the improvement a rookie is making. Whether that continues or not is still in question, but Stafford has shown definite improvement since his first NFL game.

Haven't watched him a lot personally, but he has a GG and average to above average fielding stats for a CFer. I was merely making the point that he would be an overall better player than Bradley. I don't think anyone here would pine for Bradley to win any fielding awards in the near future. There is also the likely chance that Rowand commits suicide taking a header into the bricks at Wrigley. I think if you get him back into a potent lineup like he had for CHW and PHI, his numbers would come back as well. UZR has Rowand as about an average defender (roughly) in center field and Bradley as slightly below average in right. Rowand is definitely the better defender, though he's not great.

Detroit may be headed in the right direction, but saying they are because their numbers improved against a terrible Washington Redskins team doesnt mean much to me. Their 1st 2 games of the year they played 2 pretty good teams, and Stafford struggled. Id like to believe that Lovie will come up with a gameplan with a lot of different looks and blitzes to confuse the hell out of Stafford. Our run D does scare me a little as they struggled at times for Jones yesterday, but they should be able to key the run against the Lions. Im picking a score of something around 28-10 Bears. The point I think raw was making is that Stafford has gotten better each week - hence the INTs dropping from 3 to 2 to 0. His completion percentage also jumped from 43.2% in Week 1 to 60% in Week 2. He, and the Lions as a team, is definitely improving. Now, how good a game they'll give the Bears I don't know. If Cutler is on, it's probably not much of a game by the fourth quarter. Seeing them hang around til halftime with Schwartz's gameplanning wouldn't surprise me, though.

The problem with using career stats is that you're weighting the players' 22-25 year old seasons as much as the past 2-3. Neither Bradley nor Rowand are the same player today as they were 10 years ago, thus using stats that compare them from 10 years ago is flawed. Over the past three seasons - which is a decent sample size - Rowand has posted an .889, .749 and .744 OPS. Bradley, in the same time frame, has posted a .947, .999 and .775 OPS. EqA also has Bradley as a better player in most seasons.

Monsters of the Midway (NCCubFan, I think) is in the process of demolishing me.

I just question whether he's a significant upgrade over Jackson. he is And it isn't very close. In a game or two, probably. Over the course of 16 games plus potential playoffs? Maybe. Favre is 40 years old and has had injury issues recently. His performance has also taken a dive (for whatever reason) over the course of a 16-game season. Assuming no improvement whatsoever from Jackson (which he did improved from one year to the next) and no injury/fatigue from Favre, yes he is significantly better. But Jackson is 25 and likely to improve, Favre is 40 and likely to regress.

wow, i didnt hear that. that sucks for them, they were looking at a bowl game. Yeah, that's really tough for him and them. Griffin's a nice player.