WrigleyField 22

You said there's nothing baseball can do to make it appealing to people who don't like it. I think there are things baseball can do to win over some of these people. Eh, I agree with him on this. Think about how lame hockey is and how much of an uphill battle it would be to give a horsefeathers about it. I mean, the opportunity is definitely marginal, and not about bringing in a whole new fan, but bringing back disinterested fans. So, like finding ways to boost overall offense... introducing competetive balance measures... things like that. I dont think some gimicky thing like extra innings rule would do that.

what the what? why is there any interest in completely overhauling the game in extras? Extra innings are not an issue. I'm amazed anyone has actually ever taken the time to think through these "solutions"

tie should be ranked somewhere in the 50-75 range on that list, 1 spot ahead of wherever the NFL ends Nah.

Pretty sure there's a few dozen of these guys every offseason. It's just that nobody really notices it unless they make a stop or 2 with their team. Its the two stops/DFAs with two different teams thats pretty funny.

This is dumb http://deadspin.com/sports-overtime-rules-ranked-1750359651 All the truths up in this link.

Man I kind of feel bad for David Rollins. I bet you he's also always the Bridesmaid, and never the Bride. Or something

not Denver, but if he goes to Houston, I'm a Texan fan for lyfe. Yea, he aint going to Denver, but I'd love it because all the Broncos fans I know hate him and are generally kinda smug dicks about it.

I completely agree. I was going to suggest extra period/quarter a couple pages back. The college guaranteed possession is too wimpy, the sudden death format combined with ever more offensive-biased rules are too arbitrary. An entire 15minute quarter gives everyone ample opportunity and keeps the clock component, which adds excitement. The time component is a whole hell of a lot less exciting in a sport with 40 seconds between action and frequent 2 minute commercial breaks. Then the possibility of additional overtimes as teams match eachother? Nah

Missing Goldman and McPhee, with Freeman being gone for 4 games, Floyd, Kwiatkowski, and Bullard being rookies. Basically, looking at it, Hicks and Freeman are elite players. Goldman and Floyd are potential elite. McPhee and Young are solid. The front seven is fine. If they suffer a rash of injuries, it won't look great. Injuries are gonna happen, and they arent that deep. Also not sure Id call Hicks elite. At times he plays at an elite level, but he hasnt been consistent throughout his career. And then Freeman, who is elite, is over 30. So is our front seven the biggest need? No, but they should look to add some pieces.

Not a bad solution, but I would think it would involve the players playing more than they do now on average. Also- not likely a popular opinion, but why have any overtime in the regular season. Just have ties.

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock. why in the world would you do that? Its adds to the liklihood that each team has at least one chance to posses the ball, while adding the excitement/intrigue of two point conversions. I don't care of they keep it as is really, though. ETA, I also personally like the sinplicity of something like "First to 8" instead of the complex, "if/unless" series of qualifiers that exists. So actually I kind of would prefer plain old sudden death to the current rules.

I can definitely understand the appeal of not playing the full period in the regular season. As far as the playoffs, seems you have a really good chance of just continually adding periods on top of eachother as teams match the other and the clock expires. I think you can kind of even keep it simpler than UMFans proposal. "First to 8". No clock, just the play clock.

Interesting suggestions. I like the first better.

Yea I would think #36 and a 2nd or 3rd 2018 would be our base offer.

Meh.

What are the details on the bonus pool swap.

Wouldn't think twice about saying yes. I would, but i'd try to get 6 and 39 from the jets for 3. If the Bears could get a QB, Lattimore and King without any FA signings, it gives them flexibility to spend big on a S. 3 top 40 picks would be huge, but the Bears really dont need additional flexibility to go spend big on a S. And that trade would probably be a draft day trade, so you really can't use such a scenario to dictate FA decisions anyways. Sign a S and a CB in FA.

But its way less of crapshoot high. Even with the second list, the best of the bunch is still at the top of round 2.

I dont know how you could research that whole list and come to the conclusion that the strategy is "pick a day 3 pick every year"

I think I get your point, but SF could pick a QB and the Bears still get their #1 target.

Yeah, the projections you're going off of are random internet sites that have no bearing on NFL teams' draft boards. I'm not claiming I'm worthy of being a super scout or an NFL GM, but I have 2 QBs in my personal top 15 prospects (Watson 4-5, IIRC and Trubisky at like 13-14). Either of them would be worthy of the #3 pick over a 3rd DL (for a 3-4 team that runs 60% nickel) who has a bum shoulder, or a safety, or a 4th pass rusher. And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel. They've been better since Manuel (granted not with him playing). Same goes for the Skins w/ RG3 and Dolphins w/ Tannehill, Jets w/ Smith. Those QBs have mostly failed (not quite Tannehill yet), but their teams have competed for or been in playoff spots with them not being very good. Plus, there's the whole fact of what are the Bears being set back from? Cant' get any worse than 3-13. [expletive] around with the QB position for another year also means it probably won't get much better, or at least not good enough for it to matter. Tyrod Taylor or Tony Romo probably makes this a 9-win 1st round elimination team at best for 2 years at most. Then you go into 2019 still with no QB and nothing worthwhile to show for it anyway. Might as well throw away 2 years on the #3 overall pick and at least have a chance of a long-term solution. If Watson is that high for you, I can obviously appreciate the desire for that to be the pick. But youve in many ways talked yourself into logic that QB is the only acceptable pick. Right now, I would be pumped with Watson as the pick, but my opinion is pretty casually formed. At the end of the day, as much as whiffing on the 3rd is not going to set them back totally as you suggest, neither would delaying it if the value proposition doesn't make sense at #3 (or even 36). Yea, at some point, soon hopefully, they need to dedicate a high pick to a QB (and I'd really like to see one by pick 106 this draft if not in rounds 1 or 2). But there should be several options in play for the short term answer.

Mike Glennon also sucks. Oh as does Jay Cutler, who you need to seriously get over trying to keep as a thing. He's not a "thing". He is our only QB under contract though.

I still want him, but certainly like some of the other options. So I guess I dont like him enough to come say I told you so if he is the next great QB and we pass.

Interesting... I'd be more concerned about his one year experience, but all those little knocks add up. Saw some quotes from Pace yesterday that game experience and raising the level of his team around him are two traits important in a QB. Both those things could be knocks on Trubisky and Kizer. Both bode well for Watson. All his other picks indicates he values measurables...

Man that just seems like way to high of a bar to set for "not building around", especially in an era where team building is usually measured in the number of stars you assemble. "Geeze can you imagine how pointless it would be to watch Jimmy play with a bunch of other All Stars" basically