Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Magnetic Curses

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    29,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Magnetic Curses

  1. why before 2012? his record is 9-4 in the playoffs right now. i'm not saying he can "turn it up", but he's a quarterback that has had postseason success, a lot of it.
  2. what is untrue about my statement? forget about winning with any consistency. lol
  3. because you're the highest paid doesn't mean you're the best, that's just silly. you're framing the argument as if situations remain static and quarterbacks are slotted based on statistical performance. flacco is a good quarterback, which is a rare bird. maybe the ravens should have taken the plunge and gone out into that wilderness the titans are in? while i'm sure you'd appreciate that, it shouldn't happen. letting good quarterbacks get away without a good replacement is the worst thing anyone can do to a team.
  4. They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him. they are a prerequisite, and the only prerequisite for winning super bowls, if you don't have one, you have no chance. now, the level of talent you are able to fill in around them will decide in any given year if you can make a run at the championship, but the talent around them means nothing if they don't exist. what keeps a team competitive year-in-year-out, is the quarterback. if you have a good one, you pay what it takes to keep them and then trust your GM to do his job and the coach to do his. I agree with basically all of this. I just don't agree that Flacco is the type of QB you do anything you do anything you have to do to keep. The only real argument you can make is that he has a ring, but he was actually worse this season than he was the past two. again, flacco is a quarterback worth keeping in the absence of a better option, and he's good enough to provide the ravens with some consistency. why on earth would they let him walk? he just proved that he can win a super bowl and play at a very high level when it matters most.
  5. that was a generation ago. now, unless you are incredibly lucky, you won't come close without a quarterback that can carry you. you want proof, the last quarterback to play in the super bowl who wouldn't be considered elite or near-elite or an absolutely dynamic talent, is rex grossman. You really think Flacco is? I sure as hell don't. Played his very best at the right time, but that doesn't make him elite. he's a good quarterback that played at an elite level in the playoffs. without him, the ravens wouldn't have been in the playoffs, and without him playing at an elite level in the playoffs, the ravens wouldn't have won the super bowl. very rarely are average quarterbacks going to do what he did in the playoffs, and again, it can be agreed upon that he's the reason the ravens won the sb. it would be tough for the ravens to replace flacco without making themselves very very bad for a long time. they've decided to sign him long term and simply fill in players around him through the draft, which is a smart strategy. they don't want to go into the wasteland of the titans, jaguars, or browns, teams without quarterbacks and without relief in sight.
  6. They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him. they are a prerequisite, and the only prerequisite for winning super bowls, if you don't have one, you have no chance. now, the level of talent you are able to fill in around them will decide in any given year if you can make a run at the championship, but the talent around them means nothing if they don't exist. what keeps a team competitive year-in-year-out, is the quarterback. if you have a good one, you pay what it takes to keep them and then trust your GM to do his job and the coach to do his.
  7. that was a generation ago. now, unless you are incredibly lucky, you won't come close without a quarterback that can carry you. you want proof, the last quarterback to play in the super bowl who wouldn't be considered elite or near-elite or an absolutely dynamic talent, is rex grossman.
  8. "That little sheep back home probably misses you, huh, Rube?"
  9. True, but that reinforces my point that QBs don't win or lose Super Bowls. Teams do and by paying average to below average QBs top dollar, you're making your team worse. this is way off base, of course QBs win super bowls. if you don't have a good quarterback, like a flacco or better, there's no way you can win with any kind of consistency. it's an absolute minimum to be a contender.
  10. What does everyone see in Valbuena? an acceptable baseball player. You won't find much of that here. It's admirable that he seems to be able to work a count, but it doesn't usually amount to much. he shows flashes of stuff but he usually is just terrible at hitting.
  11. What does everyone see in Valbuena? an acceptable baseball player.
  12. i do not see what everyone else sees in valbuena.
  13. not to bring women's basketball into this, just watched the baylor-louisville highlights, and this applies to men's basketball too. but why on earth do teams continue to throw it short on an inbounds pass with less than 4 seconds to play and down by 3 or less? you have to throw it long to have any realistic shot of tying or winning.
  14. and had the wonderful opportunity to score 40 points against syracuse and couldn't do it.
  15. Kind of? He's a huge d. That said, he's a solid coach. If he can figure out his tournament bugaboos (which may be fluke-ish anyway) he could do quite well there. While obviously no home run, it's better than Mark Gottfried. i disagree, Gottfried would have been better. Gottfried is an ace recruiter.
  16. Alford? bwahahahahahaha
  17. we have our quarterback, we'll have his receivers, and we'll have his line. that's all i care about at this point. i understand cutler is a FA, but he's also franchiseable.
  18. shaw and langford i understand, ibby has only been wearing pants for a few years now, though.
  19. Groce didn't recruit any of these guys, but you know that. Ah I see. That explains it. =D> we call it "Groce'd out"
  20. tate isn't good, at all, i doubt he sees the floor. nunn is going to get the backup PG minutes.
  21. ibby was a scholarship filler, wouldn't have been part of the rotation in a million years. Right, so now that he's transferring, maybe they can go more than 7 deep next year, unlike this year. ah, i misunderstood.
  22. ibby was a scholarship filler, wouldn't have been part of the rotation in a million years.
  23. word is that UCLA is putting the full court press on Stevens here. they must have realized if they don't make a big name hire their fans and alumni will plotz.
  24. or the xavier mcdaniels knicks. that guy didn't wash his hands or cut his fingernails.
  25. Not disagreeing but how is Collins different than all the other Duke assistants that have bottomed out? because this is northwestern. Can't fault NW for the hire. But if somehow he succeeds and does great for NW, then he's gone for Duke in a few years when Coach K retires, right? Isn't this like a no-win situation for NW? tell NW fans that they didn't win when collins leaves after leading them to a few tourneys and getting the program off the ground.
×
×
  • Create New...