dew1679666265

That duo would definitely be a dream duo. Would you be at all worried about the Cards in a rivalry-type series in the playoffs? Any chance they play better against us simply because it's Cubs/Cards? Or do you not buy that stuff in baseball games?

Except that DFA'ing him now would be a complete waste. He's here already so we're paying his salary no matter what. We haven't been able to trade him to this point, but in the winter when there's just one year left on his deal it might be possible. That way we get something for him - or don't have to pay him for that final year. Cutting him now accomplishes nothing.

I never said that Marquis wasn't an average starter. I said that the Cubs have five better pitchers right now on the roster than Jason Marquis, and that is my problem with Jason Marquis. My post wasn't necessarily meant for you in particular (even though I quoted you - it was the easiest thing to do :D ). I've seen it quite often that people think Marquis is a horrible starter who should be immediately DFA'd. That is a very flawed position. It's not one I recall you taking, though. And I do think Marshall would be better, but there's the inherent injury risk with him so I can sort of understand their thinking. Hopefully Marquis will be shipped off in the winter (I expect it to happen) and we can see who takes over that fifth spot.

A lot of it depends on the natural ability of the players. Cutcliffe's focus is to get the ball in the hands of playmakers. The last couple of years, fans here got a little testy when the UT offense threw a bunch of out patterns and curls. The thing is, Cutcliffe was trying to get the ball to guys like Robert Meachem, Lucas Taylor, Gerald Jones, etc. and let them try to make plays - as opposed to Ainge trying to chuck the ball 25 yards downfield and completing a difficult pass. Basically, get the quick completion and let the athlete get downfield. With a bad offensive line and a mobile QB, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cutcliffe move Lewis out of the pocket and throw short, quick routes. He doesn't like the slant pattern (he thinks it's too risky to toss the ball to the middle of the field), but he loves out and in patterns, as well as curls and screens. With a bad O-line, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those types of patterns. If the running game doesn't do well, he will give up on it if the passing game is good enough. By year 2, Cutcliffe had enough faith in Ainge that when the running game didn't work early on, he'd put the game solely in Ainge's hands. Will he do that with Lewis? If he does it means he really likes him. He'll also throw out a variety of formations - ranging from traditional I-form to five wide shotgun. Whatever the team's personnel allows him to do, he'll try. As for his philosophy with QBs, he's a quarterback coach by trade so that's his strength. When Cutcliffe arrived at UT, Ainge's psyche was utterly shot. He had no confidence and was absolutely horrid in 2005. The first thing Cutcliffe did was focus on getting the ball out of Ainge's hands, thus keeping him upright and out of pressure. That allowed Ainge to rebuild his mentality and get some confidence back - leading to him putting up some of the best #s in UT history. From the looks of Lewis' numbers, it appears he's got some natural ability. A comp % of 60 and perhaps a higher TD:INT ratio wouldn't be out of the question. Definitely fewer sacks for Lewis this season. Sorry for the ridiculously long post, hopefully it'll help. :D

I don't like Jason Marquis. I think he should be off the team and, in fact, wish he was never signed in the first place. That said, to say he's a terrible pitcher or awful or anything like that is simply overexaggeration. He's a very average starter, like him or not. He's ok, but he's nothing special. Every game he starts is not an automatic loss. Again, I don't like him and don't mind others saying they don't like him. But it shouldn't be ignored that he's an average pitcher and not as awful as many would make him out to be.

I'm not sure the turnaround will be as dramatic at Duke, but when Cutcliffe returned to Tennessee in 2006, he took over Erik Ainge who, in 2005, put up these numbers: 45.5 completion %, 5.08 yards per attempt, 5:7 TD:INT ratio. After one offseason with Cutcliffe, Ainge turned into this: 67 comp %, 8.59 Y/A, 19:9 TD:INT And his senior year: 62.6%, 6.79 Y/A, 31:10 TD:INT In 2005, the Tennessee offense averaged 18.6 points per game and was downright miserable. When Cutcliffe took over in 2006, the offensive output increased to 27.8 points per game. If you take out the two games where Jonathon Crompton played (due to an injury to Ainge), the number improves to 29.4. If nothing else, Duke's offensive output should go up a decent amount. EDIT: We also improved from a 5-6 record to a 9-4 record - largely because of an improved offense (the defense was one of the best in the NCAA in 05).

I think you'll be pleased with David Cutcliffe. He's a very underrated coach and from the sound of it, he's done a decent job recruiting at Duke. If nothing else, his track record in the SEC should help pull in some good players at Duke.

For those interested: Kentucky dismissed QB Curtis Pulley for "violating team rules." This isn't a terrible surprise to me, but I think it fairly severely hurts Kentucky this season - I like Pulley and think he would have been a solid SEC quarterback. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3520053

If you're talking first round only, we can't play the wild card if it comes from the Central - thus nixing the Brewers and Cardinals. I think I'm right on that, maybe I'm crazy. As for who I'd like to face in the first round, oddly enough the Mets. Outside of Santana, I think we have a very big starting pitching advantage over them. Z/Santana: push Harden/Oliver Perez: Harden Demp/John Maine: Demp Lilly/Pelfrey (or Pedro): Lilly Their offense is tough, but I don't think it's that much tougher than the Cubs. The Marlins always scare me and the Phillies have a slightly better rotation (and better offense) than the Mets. And I'd prefer the Dodgers to win the West.

I'm not a big fan of DFA'ing Eyre myself, but DFA'ing Marquis isn't the best of ideas at this point either. Marquis has been very average for us this season (fine for a 5th starter) and Marshall will take a few starts to get stretched out anyway. Not worth it to lose an average starter.

A couple of years too long? He was signed to a three year deal, he posted a 119 and 128 ERA+ in the first two years. He posted a 4.91 ERA in 35 games for the Cubs in 2005 and was cut. Would you have preferred he be cut in 2004 when he posted a 3.44 ERA? Agreed on JoBo, though I don't feel Eyre was a mistake. A 137 and 113 ERA+ in his first two years are pretty solid. This year was pretty terrible, but like others have said it was severely marred by injuries. So you'll give Hendry credit for cutting a player and getting nothing, but won't give him credit for trading an unproductive player and getting something for him? I fail to see the solid logic in that. Perhaps I misunderstand.

Jets would definitely be a sleeper. And there's next to no chance they'll actually be good either.

I'm feeling moderately confident in the Titans this year. It'll be a relief to be rid of Pacman this year and not have to hear whether he's going to play or get in trouble, etc. Though his on-field talents will be missed. Defense should be stout again - probably one of the top in the league - and the offense should be marginally better. As much as I hated the Chris Johnson pick, he'll be an asset to the offense and Alge Crumpler will hopefully help quite a bit as, if nothing else, a dump off option for Vince. I'm looking for another good season out of Justin Gage and LenDale White as well. Mike Heimerdinger returning as offensive coordinator should help Vince and the entire offense. I'm calling for 9-10 wins with the ability to possibly reach 11.

Same way with me. I became a Brave fan and a Cub fan largely from listening to Harry and Skip almost daily. Sad to see him go.

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible. Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse. Not all Bama fans think Bama is "God's gift to college football." That's why I said "Many of them." :wink: Seriously, though, I've known sensible Bama fans and wouldn't lump all of them together. But, there are a whole lot of Tide fans who think exactly as I said. And you're right, Bama is one of the most storied college football institutions. Like I said, I have a huge amount of respect for Bear Bryant and Bama's history - I just don't like the team. :D I wouldn't call Fulmer a rat fink. It was, after all, Alabama that was cheating in the first place for him to be able to turn them in. Should he have followed some unwritten rule that coaches aren't supposed to turn each other in? Maybe, but he's not a "rat fink" for doing it. And a national title in 2 years is, perhaps, a bit optimistic. SEC title game appearance in that time is very realistic, but will Saban last much longer than that? If he gets bored with this job, he'll leave at any time.

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so. I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems. They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else. They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise. They've got talent on D... it's hard for me to think that a Texas team in the big 12 — even one in craphole Lubbock — won't have athletes on defense. And while their offense is a gimmick, it can be an unstoppable gimmick and this is going to be as good an O as Leach has had there. I don't think a top 15 ranking is too crazy, especially since a lot of it has to be based on Harrell-Crabtree hype. I didn't mean to imply they don't have athletes on defense, but they clearly don't have enough talent to win consistently in the Big 12. If they're a top 15 team, they should be expected to be one of the top teams in the conference - they've never shown they can be over an entire season.

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so. I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems. They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else. They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise. Last years game against OU made me believe more than I had before. I agree they can put it together for a game or two - I just have yet to see a Mike Leach-coached Texas Tech team play up to that level over the course of a season. They can be a dangerous team in a specific game, but I haven't seen much from them to prove they can do it over the course of an entire season - and that's what a top 15 team should be able to do.

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so. I think they are a dark horse in the big 12 south. Probably one of the most difficult teams to read. If their defense steps up they will cause a lot of problems. They're especially hard to read because they don't play anybody out of conference - moreso than almost anybody else. They've got enough offense to pull off a big upset or two, but not enough defensive talent to win anything consistently. I'll doubt them until they prove me otherwise.

He probably didn't vote for them because they hired from the Tennessee coaching staff to fill their head coaching job. It's probably against his religion to vote for anything Tennessee. :D

I probably exaggerated a bit saying they shouldn't be top 20. Certainly not top 15, but teams drop off quite a bit after 15 or so. I'd probably put them around 18 or so.

Michigan shouldn't be ranked but I have no problem with them receiving votes. ND received one fewer vote than Mississippi State and four less than UConn, so I hardly think that's a big deal. If the rankings are supposed to be based on how good a team is, Michigan should not be in it. They lost an incredible amount of talent last season, haven't reloaded all that well and will run a system that they are woefully ill-prepared to run. They're likely to be middle of the pack Big 10. Notre Dame isn't really that big a deal. I questioned whether I should even mention them, but after having so little success last year, to say they're one of the best 25 teams in the nation today is more than a little silly. That's what three (or however many) coaches said. There are, though, nearly as egregious inclusions on the list. I don't know much about the SEC, but I don't think there's any way that would make sense. The SEC East is ridiculously strong this season. Florida, Tennessee and Georgia all have extremely talented teams that should be hitting their peak this season and next. All three have very few question marks and could feasibly all be Top 10 teams if they weren't all in the same division. Tennessee is probably the weakest of the three (primarily because we're breaking in a new QB and offensive coordinator), but wouldn't be greatly overrated if they were in the low top 10 (they'd be overrated, but honestly not that much). Agreed that they deserve it, disagree that it'll be ridiculed. Everyone around the country slurps the SEC at this point and Georgia not staying atop the poll would be viewed as the conference's strength and not Georgia's weakness - which with the Dawgs' schedule, it should be. Media types are definitely slurping on the SEC (and for good reason), but I think most fans of other conferences are sick and tired of hearing about the SEC. Thus, they'll be more than happy to ridicule Georgia should it, for instance, lose to Tennessee and Florida and finish the year with 2-3 losses. In the SEC East this year, though, a 2-3 loss season is very solid. I don't think Georgia will lose 2-3 games this year (likely just 2), but it certainly wouldn't mirror they're talent level if they did.

Here are my thoughts on the poll: Michigan and Notre Dame have no business receiving votes Perhaps it's my bias, but Tennessee should be higher. 12-14 would be about right, I think. BYU, Texas Tech and Va Tech shouldn't be in the top 20. Auburn shouldn't be ahead of Tennessee. Similar talent levels, Auburn has a new QB, new offensive coordinator, new defensive coordinator and a new offensive scheme. Tennessee has a new QB and offensive coordinator. Georgia deserves its preseason number one, but will be ridiculed when it drops. I'm afraid most people won't realize how tough the Bulldogs' schedule is and how, potentially, three of the best teams in the nation are in the SEC East. I think that's enough complaints. :D EDIT: One last thought, and this is for Cuse. South Florida is a good team and likely should be a bit higher. Perhaps top 20, but not top 15. And I'll give them credit, outside of a patsy first game (UT-Martin) USF is playing some good to decent teams non-con (Kansas, NC State, UCF).

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible. Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse. Sounds a lot like A&M fans. So I guess you understand why I want them higher on the list. :D

You may be right nationally (which I guess is all that matters), but I've really been more annoyed by Bama fans since they've been terrible. Many of them still think they're God's gift to college football (and, perhaps, humanity) and talk that way. Saban coming to Bama has only made things exponentially worse.

Same here. I bet the role we see Edmonds as the rest of the season is as a pinch hitter, he doesn't look to moving too well. HR for Edmonds, I think he's alright. I'd still be concerned...he's played twice in a week. When he's playing, he's playing well. Which is likely why he needs to play less - maximize whatever he has left and minimize the risk of losing him to injury.