Sosa21MVP

lol where is this productivity stat kept i looked all over Ah, I see what might have tripped you up. What you do is you take runs scored and runs driven in and you add them together, see? It's a little something people like to call simple arithmetic. Wow. This account cannot be real, who is pulling our leg here? Seriously.

Illinois has 2 final fours since 1952. 0 National titles (unless you count the mythical one earned in 1915). They have a couple more tournament appearances. Illinois is slightly better than Iowa historically. If Iowa is irrelevant than Illinois is slightly relelvant. Congratulations your fanbases supperiority complex is warranted. Iowa hasnt been relevant in Big 10 basketball since 1979, come on thats ridiculous. How can a "relevant" team go 20 years without a Big Ten Championship, and still have arrogant ass fans who think their team is anything more than a joke. 1979? I'd say 1987 at least.

65-60 Iowa beats Indiana. Too bad the Hoosiers couldn't finish off that comeback but a great try nonetheless.

I find it hard to believe that the Cubs are moving Jason Marquis and Mark DeRosa for the sole purpose of clearing cap space for Milton Bradley. I know Meph has both an Excel spreadsheet and Access database prepared to make me feel silly but.........this is how I feel. If the Cubs were in pure budget cut mode then I think they would just keep Marquis & DeRosa and not even bother with Bradley and Aaron Miles.

Nice job Boilers. :clapping:

Whoops, no. TUCK RULE!!!!! :ninja:

This reminds me of Bryant Gumbel calling the play clock the shot clock during Thursday night football games on NFL Network last year. :stickman:

That was a turnover and it is 4th down. lol whut?

*cough* Scott Norwood *cough*

Bad knee injury there. Stupid turf.

And I still have no clue how Indiana beat Northwestern. :scratch:

And if they get swept out again, it'll still be rather anticlimactic and ultimately, meaningless. I'd still take that over 5-10 year droughts between playoff appearances. If they can keep getting to the playoffs with a high level of frequency, sooner or later they are bound to get hot at the right time. At least that is how I look at it.

By Cubs standards, 2 years in a row is a long run. :-)) If the Cubs can make the playoffs again in 2009, it would be the first 3 year run of playoff appearances since 1906, 1907 & 1908.

You can't count the "almost" misses without counting the "almost" catches though. You can't say he nearly threw picks without counting all the drops by the receivers, or blown routes. The raw numbers are the only facts on the table here. And they show a difference in performance from before the injury, to after. And that's fine about Tommie, I'm not debating that he's got injury issues...that's a no-brainer. All I was pointing out is that you didn't want to be quick on the trigger giving Orton a break due to injury...and then mentioned Tommie's injury issues later. Maybe it was a false comparison on my part, but I was simply pointing out that injuries do affect performance, as Tommie has shown...and that while you're concerned about a quick trigger...it's also not to be dismissed. That is fine but my comments on Tommie's injury issues was a tangent unrelated to any point I was making about Orton. I don't think we can expect a 100% Tommie for anywhere near a full season and even when he was "healthy" he was a non factor at times. Also I don't think Orton should have came back for the first Packers game. He should have gotten at least two if not three full weeks of rest to try and get that ankle healed up a little better. My main point I was attempting to make (perhaps poorly) about Orton was I saw some things in him that made me nervous before the injury. I wasn't trying to pin the Carolina loss on him, I understand Olsen fumbled the ball and other things happened but that game just stood out for me because of some of his bad throws and at that point in the season, I worried about how consistent Kyle would be. Now he did have some really solid games after that. After the Atlanta game I felt better about him overall. But I never reached a point of feeling completely sold on Kyle as The Guy. Then he got hurt. Kyle says the ankle bothered him, I'm not going to argue with Kyle. I'm not really trying to be hard headed about the whole thing, I just don't believe EVERY bad throw or bad game he had post-injury was directly a result of the ankle because some of the bad throws were just poor reads and I recalled him making similar throws before the injury. That is all. I really do hope the guy has a solid 2009 season. I have nothing against him.

He also dealt with some horrible drops by Booker and Davis, and in that Caroline game, Olsen more or less lost the game on his own. As you said, he is servicable. He's not a franchise QB. But he's going to be as reliable as most veterans out there. He's about 30 games into his pro career, and has done about as well as Drew Brees did in his first couple years worth of games. I don't see him ever doing as well as Brees, but if he played in a dome or southern california, who knows? I'd stick with Orton for now, draft a QB in the top 4 rounds, and look for young waiver wire types. It would be nice if these QBs had a better coach to develop them, somebody who has actually developed an NFL QB at one point in his career. That would a fine plan by me.

Your first paragraph says we can't let Orton have the injury excuse, but your last paragraph builds Tommie Harris's injury case for him. Why is injury a valid excuse for one and not the other? Averaging game ratings, I've got his ratings for the 7 games before the injury at 91.1 (I threw out the game he got injured since he only played about a half a game of football.) For the 7 games after the injury...66.95 The back half included 3 games under 50, and one that was 65.1....he didn't have anything below 71 in the first half. What are you talking about? All I was saying about Tommie is that he is probably injury prone because his body wasn't in great shape before he even played in a NFL game. I saw somebody comment that a 100% Tommie makes the defense so much better.......more or less I'm saying, don't count on a 100% Tommie anytime soon. Those QB rating numbers are fine and nice but it doesn't change the fact Orton was making some poor reads and poor deep throws before he got injured. Like I said, if the Panthers defenders could have caught a cold that day then your numbers wouldn't look so hot. But I should overlook that based on the raw stats and not what I see in the games? Okay then.

I think people are too quick to blame Orton's late season struggles on the injured ankle. Sure, that does not help but he was making some questionable throws and missing on some deep balls before he got hurt. The Carolina game in particular stands out in my mind.....he could have easily thrown at least 4 picks in that game including a couple pick 6's but the Panthers defenders had brick hands. He also missed a wide open Booker deep on a play that could have won the game for the Bears. Having said all that, yes Kyle is "serviceable" until something better comes along. Also regarding Tommie Harris, I'll dig for a link later on but there was a medical report from when he was drafted that stated he had the body of a 35 year old man at the time. Which is to say, his body wasn't in the greatest shape even as a rookie and it makes sense when you look at how much he has been injured in his career already.

Indiana loses to Lipscomb after leading 35-14 at one point. :stickman: 5-7 Need 2 Big Ten wins to hit that magic 7 win mark.

Manning has $$$ on the Texans.

Oh I know good hockey when I see it and tonight was impressive. But........I've been out of the loop for a while so while I enjoyed the game tonight, I'm not sure how long it will take me to really get emotionally invested in a hockey team again.

Ahhhhhhhh yes there is the part of hockey I love. FIGHT FIGHT. lol

They are putting a lot of pressure on Biron's net, yes.

When I see #10 I think of Tony Amonte. :-))

Nice rush by Havlat. Dang.