WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
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 WrigleyField 22
-
Beyond the easy start for the team as a whole, it's a pretty easy slate for Mitch if he wins the QB job out of camp. He could bum slay for a couple weeks and have good topline stats, which would be bad if you're not convinced on him. That said, I tend to think Foles will beat him if it's a truely open competition.
-
I think gooney will be fairly pleased with the schedule.
-
For all intents the cap is basically play money. If things really are that bad they'll likely just reduce every players pay to get the players revenue share in line and treat the cap as if it hadn't changed. Or actually lower the cap number but come up with some big amnesty thing where you can waive portions of dead cap without cutting players. Only thing us it will likely require players approval, but a cap cut that drastic will affect most players. So guys will probably get in line after the initial shock that their pay is getting slashed. Maybe they smooth it out against projected cap increases with the new TV deals which will kick in over the next few years.
-
I wondered if this is part of the strategy at RB, not that I really want it to be. Its an interesting dilemma. I'm not sure Nall and Pierce are so noteworthy that you couldn't try and just hide them on the PS. Nall did play special teams last year, but if that spot, whether it's a RB or S or TE, is mainly a ST contributor only, would it really matter if CPatt was your 3rd active RB on game days, and if an injury occurs you're in basically the same spot you'd be. That said, I'm also basing that around Nall and Pierce really being nothing special. There's still some semi interesting vet options they could look to add that would have a real chance to be part of a regular 3 man RB platoon.
-
I wondered if this is part of the strategy at RB, not that I really want it to be. Here's a question: Having declined the 5th year option for Mitch, if he signs a backup QB contract somewhere next year does he bring back a compensatory pick? Floyd didn't but that is because the Bears cut him after previously picking up the option year. I'm just not sure if declining the option eliminates the comp pick. I wouldn't think it does but the rules are not always intuitive Yes by not exercising the option the comp pick is in play. He'd have to get a decent deal though. He could sit out there like Winston did and ultimately sign after the comp pick period or for a low dollar amount.
-
Jordan/Bulls Doc Release Pushed Up To April 19th
WrigleyField 22 replied to Cubswin11's topic in Other Sports
So apparently this guy passed away Sunday? RIP I thought I read he died in January. -
Jordan/Bulls Doc Release Pushed Up To April 19th
WrigleyField 22 replied to Cubswin11's topic in Other Sports
Wow, never know that background on Hodges. Thanks for posting. -
Jordan/Bulls Doc Release Pushed Up To April 19th
WrigleyField 22 replied to Cubswin11's topic in Other Sports
I'd presume we'll get something of a summer 98/final fall out as well. 4 episodes left. Best guess at layout. 7- James Jordan / 1st and 2nd round playoffs 8 - Baseball and return / Pacers series 9 - 96 title / Jazz series 10 - 97 title (flu game!) / Jazz series wrap up and final breakup -
I'm actually pretty pleased with this offseason. I'm surprised that they accomplished as much as they did without extending Robinson. Although I would like to see that get done soon. The offense looks a lot more dynamic than what they had last year. I'm fairly pleased. OL still has me worried, so hopefully they get out to a better start than last year. And RB depth is still weak IMO. I think there's still some vet RBs out there and we have tons of junky TE and DB we could still free up a spot with. And I'd love a young PS QB as a lotto ticket instead of or in addition to Bray, but not holding my breath.
-
I'm surprised you haven't heard of him if you follow the Bulls closely. Much has been written and debated over the years once the Bulls drafting seemed to drop off post-Lloyd on places like RealGM. And he ended up being one of the 4-5 GM candidates that just went to Eversley. That said the Magic haven't been great drafters in his time there. Also in regards to analytics and scouting I don't think is purely a crunch the numbers game. Half of it is just how to properly catalogue the more subjective scouting inputs, which sounds like it may have more what he was up to than pure numbers crunching. Anyways the Bulls also have supposedly had an analytics guy who they hired out of the league office a couple years ago. I'm not sure if he's very in depth with scouting, but apparently aided in finally pushing for the Bulls to alter their shot selection this year. He was also pulling double duty in the old FO as the cap expert and that is the new AGM Polks speciality. KC did indicate he was safe though. Write up on him https://theathletic.com/1531282/2020/01/13/mondays-with-mayberry-bulls-assistant-gm-steve-weinman-and-bulls-players-talk-about-how-they-use-analytics?source=user-shared-article
-
I remember rumor the Bears were interested, but Cincy was holding out for a higher pick. I want to say it was like 4th v 5rh rounder, but that could have been future/conditional. With the teams like Car that signed guys and NE apparently happy to just go with their guys, I guess there wasn't much of a market.
-
Matt Lloyd who was credited a lot with their good drafts was apparently an early analytics adapter, whatever that meant 8 years ago or whenever he left. I'm not familiar with Matt Lloyd and any draft picks associated with him? What draft picks have we taken where analytics came into play or were part of the evaluation? Doug McDermott was a good outside shooter, but analytics said not to take him so high because his steal and block rate was so low in college. Like I really don't think the Bulls ever used advanced analytics when it came to drafting players... Well no one knows exactly how influential he was, but his last draft with the Bulls was 2011, which was immediately followed with Teague, Snell, McDermott. Good summary, and mentions vaguely use of analytics. https://www.blogabull.com/2015/5/18/8610703/why-the-bulls-no-longer-draft-successfully-the-loss-of-matt-lloyd-and
-
Cool
-
I definitely think the process is going to be different now with Karnisovas and Eversley in charge. I don't think the Bulls really used analytics when it came to scouting draft prospects. I honestly wouldn't mind them trading down if Karnisovas doesn't see a player he really likes at the top of the draft. Matt Lloyd who was credited a lot with their good drafts was apparently an early analytics adapter, whatever that meant 8 years ago or whenever he left.
-
So Ginn, Wims, and Ridley likely competing for 2 spots, though you could keep 7 WR if the young guys force the issue, or if they're just fully treating Patterson as RB/returner.
-
I'd go back in time, keep that 4th and sign Dalton now. Kind of would like to bring in a UDFA QB as an alternative to a PS QB to Bray, but don't see the use in Dalton at this point, unless you're trying to just dump Mitch. Dalton will get more than the Bears can offer anyway. I think Mitch is already done with this team, barring an injury or a complete meltdown worse than Trubisky's 2019. Sure, there's a competition going into camp. But it's a competition in the sense that Trubisky will need to beat out Foles to win the job. Maybe he does, but I doubt it. Motivation hasn't been Trubisky's problem. Inability to read defenses, be in tune with his receivers, make accurate throws and not panic under pressure, among other things. Yea I'm counting on Foles to win the starting job, but then Mitch is the backup, which is a role his skill level is actually fine for, but theres no use then wasting additional cap on Dalton as well, unless you could Unload Mitch for like a conditional 5th rounder or something. They'll keep 2 QBs active with Bray on the PS.
-
I'd prefer Dalton and Foles competing in training camp over Trubisky, but I doubt that happens. I am interested in Kenny Stills for that burner WR. I'd go back in time, keep that 4th and sign Dalton now. Kind of would like to bring in a UDFA QB as an alternative to a PS QB to Bray, but don't see the use in Dalton at this point, unless you're trying to just dump Mitch.
-
Agreed on Pierce. Seems most likely to make the roster (him and Nall were teammates coincidentally)
-
https://theathletic.com/1781323/2020/04/28/what-im-hearing-about-the-blackhawks-as-a-team-president-search-begins?source=user-shared-article Good recap article.
-
You're not totally wrong. Obviously the skills at S gave greatly shifted already with offenses. You're still looking at differences in how the position is played, that you aren't gonna literally just drop in a CB without prior development at S (and this year will likely suck to try and do a crash course since team activities will be restricted). You still want a good run support player who can also cover a bigger receiver in 12 personnel, probably at least 50% of the time. And most importantly make sure Jackson is that single high role again unlike with Clinton-Dix, where he was forced into that box S position a lot instead. the shear number of CB's on this roster should facilitate one taking on the S position, quantity is a quality. But I get what you are saying about forcing Jackson to play up as opposed to the single high pos he excels at. I'm just not convinced a traditional SS is the answer Clowney: the news out here is saying that the Seahawks are aggressively trying to sign him, hence the Fluker and Britt cuts Certainly not a traditional 1990s SS, but theres enough intriguing S out there that I'd rather try to get one of them for the vet min that to go to Kevin Tolliver or someone and saying, "how do you feel about S"? Denmark is the one guy who I'm guessing they may move over, but I bet he's another year on the PS and not a starter for 2020.
-
You're not totally wrong. Obviously the skills at S gave greatly shifted already with offenses. You're still looking at differences in how the position is played, that you aren't gonna literally just drop in a CB without prior development at S (and this year will likely suck to try and do a crash course since team activities will be restricted). You still want a good run support player who can also cover a bigger receiver in 12 personnel, probably at least 50% of the time. And most importantly make sure Jackson is that single high role again unlike with Clinton-Dix, where he was forced into that box S position a lot instead.
-
Why is Clowney still available? Are you under the impression that anyone that isn't currently signed is no good? I wouldn't take that stance. Sometimes a player is not as good as he thinks he is for the money he is asking for. There are plenty of reasons someone might not be signed right now. Clowney is still available? Damn, what's he asking for to still be unsigned?
-
I think you could probably get at least bring in better competition for Bush. There's a couple still sitting out there with starting experience. Minimum salary + small signing bonus. Everyone behind Bush is basically pure special teamers and a guy who spent 2019 out of the NFL and apparently was cut by the Seattle Dragons of the XFL in mini camp?! Vets still available with recent starting experience Tony Jefferson Tashaun Gipson (just released) Reshad Jones Eric Reid Tavon Wilson Clayton Geathers
-
That would at least seemingly make sense why a move was made, otherwise I'd think he would have enough goodwill built up to hire the next head of hockey ops.
-
Well, I guess that's a little bit what I don't get. Unless hockey is just unique from other sports, it's not like it's odd to have a "non-sport" person in that CEO/President role. Was McDonough too powerful that they couldn't just "Cane Kenney" him? He had his chance to hire out a hockey head with Bowman and they don't want to let him again? Under different circumstances they would have let him hire a new head of hockey ops, but there was a conflict in that vision (i.e. One side wanted to move on from Bowman and the other side didn't?) Or they just didn't think he was the right person to lead the business side for some reason, so the hockey stuff was irrelevant?
