soccer10k

The Lakers are the only winless team left this year.

Because Spurs suck and couldn’t beat Sporting at home, their UCL group is completely up in the air. Nobody has advanced to the knockout stage and nobody has been eliminated. Additionally, each team could still win the group.

[tweet] [/tweet]

The entire QB class sucks outside of maybe Lawrence, and he isn't exactly Manning 2.0. I always love how when multiple QBs are picked high, the consensus (not necessarily here but in general) trends towards “I don’t see how any of these guys bust” when it’s very likely half of them turn out to be bad.

He’s the second highest paid player in the league, ~$47 mil this year, which good for him. He’s not tanking to be traded (he just sucks/is delusional of his talent). It’s hard (if not impossible) to move him for anything meaningful for the Lakers or any team thinking they can win with him with the salary cap trade match stuff at his number. He’s simply not a winning player, but yet he plays like and thinks he’s a top player in the league. He’s both stupid and delusional, imo, but also very rich because of it. So who’s to say. Yeah, he's just not good at this point. He was a good player through the year after KD left, when he first averaged a triple double. The year after that he was still good too, but it's been a steady decline since. His already not great 3-point shooting has gotten worse and his FT shooting has gone from the low 80's to the mid 60's. He's also not good defensively and loses his mind at the end of games on both ends of the floor.

I only sort of do. It’s not his fault he doesn’t fit in with the Lakers or that they traded for him. But at the same time he’s probably the only person who doesn’t realize he can’t shoot, especially from 3.

It really is a hilariously bad trade. I can’t remember if it was a one or the other situation or if they could have had both but they nearly traded for Buddy Hield that year too in addition to the DeRozan deal. Also I love how they fired Vogel for what happened last year but gave Rob Pelinka, who put together this shit sandwich of a team, an extension earlier this month. Spoiler alert: the coach wasn’t the issue, Rob. You are. GM Lebron is the problem, no way Pelinka did any of these moves without Lebron approving/wanting/pushing for them. I don't think LeBron has quite as much power/say as he did in the past. His first deal with the Lakers was guaranteed for 3 years I think with no opt outs. His recent extension is the same. When he was in Cleveland the second time he kept signing 2 year deals with an opt out after the first year. Plus his family is settled there. His oldest two kids are in HS and I'm sure he loves going to as many of their games as possible.That's not to say he's got very little to no say. Obviously he's got significant involvement. So we're probably both right to some extent. Pelinka just hasn't done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt either so I can't just give him a pass.

The Lakers chose him over keeping Caruso & signing DeRozan. It really is a hilariously bad trade. I can’t remember if it was a one or the other situation or if they could have had both but they nearly traded for Buddy Hield that year too in addition to the DeRozan deal. Also I love how they fired Vogel for what happened last year but gave Rob Pelinka, who put together this shit sandwich of a team, an extension earlier this month. Spoiler alert: the coach wasn’t the issue, Rob. You are.

Westbrook was 0-11 from the field yesterday including 0-6 from 3.

Last full season. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal to ignore a weird pandemic shortened 60 game season especially when it was an outlier compared to the rest of his career.

Would have to be undefeated from all other Power 5 conferences. Still have Clemson and Syracuse from the ACC, TCU in the Big 12, Michigan and Ohio State in the Big 10 and UCLA in the Pac 12. I would think all of those would be ranked in front of Bama if undefeated unless it was a scenario when FSU went undefeated but was ranked behind 1-loss Bama and Oregon because they kept squeaking out wins and people knew they weren’t that good.

Alternatively, 20 of the 32 teams are .500 or better. Three of the eight divisions potentially being won with a 9-8 or 8-9 record is horrible It’s also only been 6 games. Of course they’re all bunched up right now.

Alternatively, 20 of the 32 teams are .500 or better.

I am not convinced either Georgia or OSU are on a much higher level. But Tennessee did give up 49 points. Personally I am not sold on them being the 3rd best team. To be honest, they only beat Alabama at home because of a missed FG Are we going to play that game now? Georgia barely beat Missouri and struggled against Kent State. Alabama is a damn good football team and Tennessee beat them. Period. Sure they gave up a lot of points but they also scored a [expletive] against the Tide. The good news is on Nov 5 we’re going to get to find out if Tennessee can hang with Georgia!

Last year with a ton of talent around him Stafford still led the league in picks thrown with 17. Aaron Rodgers played 64 games the last four seasons and threw 15 interceptions total. Stafford is a fine QB but to mention him in the same breath as Rodgers is laughable. Is Drew Brees basically the same as Matt Stafford too? His teams flopped in the playoffs in all but one season. With the caveat that I cannot be unbiased on this, Drew joined a broken franchise that was a historical laughing stock and immediately took them within one game of the SB. It’s pretty much him or Brady for leader in every statistical passing category in NFL history. Not even the same conversation. I was just going by the criteria you put forward in your initial post. And yes, I specifically picked Brees because I know you're a Saints fan. As for the stats, while Rodgers probably won't get that close to Brees in anything but passing TDs unless he plays until he's 45, Stafford could get close to what Brees did if he plays long enough and stays healthy (with the exception of TDs). But we can admit that statistics aren't the be all end all because in 2010, how many people who weren't Packers fans thought that Brett Favre was the best QB ever? He had the most completions, attempts, passing yards and passing TDs before Brees and Brady passed him in all 4 and Manning in yards and TDs. That's great that Brees did what he did that first year. Still doesn't change the fact that he only made one Super Bowl because if we're going to discount Rodgers for that, it's only fair to discount Brees as well. But we can both admit that playoff success while important, isn't some be all end all either. Because nobody besides some uber homers in New York would even begin to consider arguing that Eli Manning is a better QB than Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, among many others with 0 or 1 Super Bowl titles. Of course it's ridiculous to put Brees and Stafford in the same breath. But it's also ridiculous to put Rodgers and Stafford in the same breath. Stafford is a very good QB. But he's not an all timer. Brees and Rodgers are.

i mean he's still one of the greatest qbs of all time and that'll never be taken away from him but its about time he goes away forever its only fair that green bay now suffers 30 years of pain and irrelevance, like we have (will that happen? of course not, even if they have a tough season this year they'll magically acquire and develop the next greatest QB of all time) Seriously, why is Rodgers considered one of the goats? He’s been really, really good but his teams have flopped in the playoffs all but one season. How is he better than say, Stafford, who’s never been in the same conversation? Last year with a ton of talent around him Stafford still led the league in picks thrown with 17. Aaron Rodgers played 64 games the last four seasons and threw 15 interceptions total. Stafford is a fine QB but to mention him in the same breath as Rodgers is laughable. Is Drew Brees basically the same as Matt Stafford too? His teams flopped in the playoffs in all but one season.

5 teams have won 111+ games in a season. Only the 1998 Yankees won the WS. I know this is just a small sample fluke because 9 of the 13 teams that won between 107 and 110 games won the WS but it's still kind of crazy.

A 5 seeded Wild Card team is going to have home field advantage in the NLCS And the 3 100+ win NL teams won a combined 3 games in the playoffs.

Padres-Phillies NLCS. Just like we all thought.

Will be interesting to see how they rank everyone tomorrow. Georgia and Ohio State will definitely be some combo of 1-2. Do you bring Tennessee ahead of Michigan and Clemson after beating Bama? Do you flip UM back to 4 after beating Penn State by 24, combined with a 6 point Clemson win? Of course because it’s SEC/Bama there’s always a chance they don’t drop all the way to 6 due to a 3 point road loss to a top 5 team. None of it ultimately matters but fun to speculate. Still another 2 weeks until the first CFP rankings come out Alabama will be 6th. If they win out they will still make the playoffs. I think what may be interesting is the Georgia/Tennessee loser v the Michigan/OSU loser as the 4th team in the CFB rankings Realistic-ish scenario: Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama all win out with Georgia beating Tennessee and Alabama beating Georgia in the SEC title game. I'd think Alabama would get in since they'd be the SEC champs and then the committee probably goes Georgia over Tennessee due to H2H if they take two SEC teams but boy that seems harsh on Tennessee. I suppose it would depend on how the games play out. Like if Georgia beats Tennessee convincingly than you take Georgia for sure. But if Georgia beats Tennessee like Tennessee beat Alabama today, then it's tougher.

Was fully prepared to say "I know they scored 3 but it seems like they missed their chance" before that 2 out single.

Double and a singe and we're tied! Still no outs and it's 1st and 3rd. Come on Pads!

Pads trying to come back. Down 3-0 in the 7th and they go walk, single, single with their 7-8-9 to start the inning. So they've now got 1st and 2nd, no out with top of the order up.

Will be interesting to see how they rank everyone tomorrow. Georgia and Ohio State will definitely be some combo of 1-2. Do you bring Tennessee ahead of Michigan and Clemson after beating Bama? Do you flip UM back to 4 after beating Penn State by 24, combined with a 6 point Clemson win? Of course because it’s SEC/Bama there’s always a chance they don’t drop all the way to 6 due to a 3 point road loss to a top 5 team. None of it ultimately matters but fun to speculate. Still another 2 weeks until the first CFP rankings come out Georgia-OSU will be some combo of 1-2 and Michigan-Tennessee will be some combo of 3-4. Clemson probably 5 I think followed by Ole Miss and Bama 6-7 in some order.

Down goes USC. So 3, 7, 8 and 10 all lose today.