ZoomSlowik

I know Duhon was good as a high school player, but very few had him as the number one overall player. Miles was locked into that spot for some time. I don't recall anything having him going in the top 10 after his freshmen year. If that is really the case than he is a moron for not going and that's another story, but I never remember anything saying that. Also, the first article you quote states that he would be a 5-10 pick IF he could run the offense and be a team leader. Also, Katz never said he would go in the top 5, but he said it was in the realm of possibility. Katz isn't an NBA draft guy anyways, I would read more into it if the pro scouts or writers on ESPN had said that. It was also written before the season, speculating that he would have a great year. I never argued that he didn't have that kind of potential, but he never reached it. Both of those quotes are merely speculating on his potential, and aren't draft prep articles that say he would definitely go in the top 10 as you seem to claim that they are. I also don't really see how you can claim that you can see that all of those guys would fail. Bender wasn't really any different than Garnett, he was a big guy with excellent ball handling and shooting skills that dominated the All-star games and was a top 5 pick. Miles was an incredibly athletic player who looked like he could dominate with more experience, much like T-Mac, but it never happened. Stevenson fits in that category too, he wasn't that different than Kobe. Harrington was tough to say that about too, he had a ton of talent coming out. These guys were all extremely talented, but for some reason they never fufilled their potential. It's hard to predict that kind of stuff because most of the high school prospects are extremely raw. You don't know if the ridiculously athletic swingman will ever be able to create his own shot, or if that post guy will develop the moves. Yes, Kobe was an All-star in his second year, although he still wasn't even a starter on his own team. He's one of the handful of guys that produced early in his career, he's basically the only other one besides the one I mentioned that produced in his first two years. You're missing the main point of my argument. The point is that the vast majority of these guys AREN'T more qualified than the veterans that they are taking roster spots from. Teams draft these players based on their potential, not their current ability to contribute to the team. This is why the players' association has been somewhat receptive to the age limit. Most of these guys ride the bench for at least their first two years, making little to no impact on their team. Those spots could be used better on a veteran that is actually ready to compete in the NBA while the guys that still need some time to develop stay in college to do that. Teams are somewhat forced into taking these guys in the current situation. The NBA has stripped the college ranks to the point that when the senior class comes up the top 15 guys are gone, so they have to go deeper into the underclassmen pool to find the future all-stars. GM's wouldn't have to do that with an age limit because the top players will still be there. The players would also be able to develop their skills more against better competition, meaning they'd be less likely to come into the NBA and ride the bench for their first two years. The age limit would improve the quality of play both in college and in the pros, because there would be fewer guys entering the league that aren't ready to play at all like Edi or Darko.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 2, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) And after those 4 years, they don't get that big contract if they suck. No one could possibly prove that going to college gives you a better chance at the NBA. In fact, high school has the better rate. Only busts have been Kwame and Leon Smith. Even at that, Leon Smith was just a headcase from the get go. Perfect example of college working against you. Chris Duhon. #1 rated player in his high school class by many scouts. Went to college. Had a picture perfect jump shot going in, horrible one after his senior year. First two years he was still considered to be a lottery pick, after staying in college, he was a 2nd round pick. Again, the success rate in college can't be proven to be better than the success rate of those who jump straight to the pro's from high school. And just like in college, you have your really good ones who make immediate impacts like KG, Kobe and you have others who take time to develop, Jermaine and McGrady. To say all of them don't contribute right off the bat is wrong. The reason that the success rate is pretty good for high schoolers is that only the top couple of guys from each class have a realistic shot at going pro. If you only took the top couple of college players in the draft every year it'd be the same way. Those youngsters still hurt the NBA product because they take up roster spots that could be filled by able veterans or more developed pro players. The vast majority of the high school prospects don't play a significant role on their team for their first two years. Lebron, Howard, Amare, and KG were the only ones that were major players in their first season, and most of the others have been virtual non-factors until their 3rd year. There are plenty of high schoolers in the league that still haven't done anything like the aforementioned Kwame and Leon Brown, Jonathan Bender, DeSagana Diop, Ndudi Ebi, Kendrick Perkins, Deshawn Stevenson; and plenty of other guys that haven't made the major impact expected like Tyson Chandler, Al Harrington, Darius Miles, or even Curry for that matter; and I don't exactly forsee great things for Robert Swift or Sebastian Telfair. It's a little early to label the last two busts, but the rest of them certainly fit the bill. There are also more guys that never even made an NBA roster like Lenny Cooke or Oasmane Cisse (I have trouble coming up with these former All-Americans that disappeared, however there are 2 or 3 per season). There are going to be a lot fewer busts because there are fewer guys in the draft, but these are still some pretty nasty picks considering where they went, and numerous other players that never even really got a shot. Had these guys had a couple of years to play in college or an improved developmental league, they would have had a better chance of being ready to contribute in the NBA. As for Duhon, there's no way he was the #1 player in that class, even looking back. There were guys like Miles and Stevenson that went pro, and Jared Jeffries and Zach Randolph were both rated in the top 5. I think he was the top PG, but I digress. He might have snuck into the first round after his freshman year, he didn't really start and scouts weren't sure about him and with his talent level he thought he could become a high lottery pick. He just never developed after that. He couldn't really go pro after his sophmore year because he had a poor season. He probably would have done the same thing if he had theoretically gone pro out of high school. He clearly couldn't consistently get a 3 up under pressure and had no mid range game. There are countless guys that got considerably better in college though like Emeka Okafor, Hakeem Warrick, Joey Graham anyways, trying to use Duhon as a point doesn't mean much. Virtually every other player that goes to college improves his draft stock, excluding of course guys like Lebron that went in the top 5. There are only about 3 guys per class that should even consider going pro out of high school, and usually only one or two more that should go after their freshmen year. Putting in a 20 year age limit would give GM's a better idea of who's actually going to make an impact and would give those player a better chance to contribute in their first season. This is especially true now that guard prospects are trying to make the jump. For every Lebron or Amare that would be held back, there'd be another three players like Marcus Taylor or Omar Cooke that would have been forced to stay in school rather than make a terrible decision in trying to go pro too early.

You suck aboz! You stole my wallpaper to use as your avatar! Oh well, at least you have good taste.

I posted this one before but it is so bad it deserves to be posted again. Orlando Hernandez Esteban Loaiza Scott Kazmir for Scott Podsednik Carlos Delgado Albert Pujols What's worse is it was accepted!! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 01:06 AM) Zoom, I guess we will just have to see about who is right or wrong about this while they are playing on the field. I recall last year when we were arguing about how you should draft in fantasy football because you thought I drafted silly or foolishly since I did not draft a RB with my first two picks. You were wrong about that, and I ended up looking very smart and won both my leagues last year. Only the play on the field will tell which one of us will be right or wrong again this time. The fantasy thing is another story. Culpepper did do slightly better than I expected and Walker well outperformed my expectations, although I didn't have a major problem with the Culpepper pick as much as your strategy and you following statements. You claimed that Culpepper would grossly outscore every other QB and that Moss would grossly outscore every other WR. Oops. You could blame it on the 5 games he missed, although his YPG was still quite a bit lower than the other top guys, so even if he got a TD a game he wouldn't have smoked someone like Muhammad or Owens if he'd played the last two games. You also claimed that Brown, Suggs, and Jones would not have any injury problems because of their size while Westbrook would. Oops again. I said that your RB's were not top tier guys and probably wouldn't get by the whole year, but you managed to get by because their hot streaks lined up well. McAllister still outperformed any of your backs, the only reason it wasn't a massive difference was those 3 games he missed early in the year. Whatever, water under the bridge. I did just fine taking Brady in the 7th with McAllister, D. Davis, and Westbrook as my RB's, with TO as my #1 and Reggie Wayne doing just fine as my #3 drafted WR, who if I recall correctly you said wouldn't be worth a damn. Personally I'd call that argument a push, with both of us getting a few of our points right. By the way, you still sent me a reminder during the season, around week 5 I believe. That was kind of dumb since there was so much football left, especially since Moss and Jones got hurt shortly after that and Brown slowed his pace considerably.

93-94 team, no contest. Excellent staff and a lot of guys I liked in the lineup. Frank was the man back then. God I miss those days. If I were alive back then it'd probably be the 1917-1919 crew though. They were loaded, some called them the best team they'd ever seen. They had 3 hall of famers from that team (Collins, Shalk, and Faber) even though most of their stars were banned for life. Happy Felsch was pretty good, and Cicotte and Jackson were two of the best in the league. Weaver and Williams were pretty solid too.

How do you figure that Williams is a project? The guy was flat out one of the most productive WR's in college football the two years he played. Did you not watch him play? Your whole "seperation" argument is total crap, I'm sick of hearing it. You're not backing it up with any kind of support other than your opinion. He had plenty of plays where he was wide open on a post or double move or slant with no one near him. More importantly, he still managed to make the catch regardless of pressure on fade routes or jump balls down field, something a lot of guys struggle with. The guy has excellent hands and leaping ability, he just can't be stopped in a jump ball situation. Apparently you have problems with him that no one else does. Kiper knows more about the draft than pretty much anyone, and he had him listed as the top prospect in the draft. Scouts Inc had him firmly listed has the #2 WR with a 97 rating, between Edward's 99 and Williamson's 94. The weakness that they listed had nothing to do with poor route running or a lack of seperation or a lack of agility. The first concern they list is his potential to gain weight, and his lack of top end speed, and he's not ultra elusive in the open field. Most guys his size dont fit the last two, and that's not his playing style anyways. That's two of the better scouts when it comes to the NFL draft that both like him quite a bit, compared to you being the only person I've seen having him listed as a "project" receiver that can't get seperation. I'd much rather have him than the guy that Scouts inc had ranked 3rd of the 3 big RB's, and stated "there are lingering concerns about his character, attitude and speed that make him a potential disappointment at the next level," especially if we take him #4 overall at a position that I don't see as a serious need. I'd rather go with the "physical phenom and a dynamic WR prospect with the potential to develop into an impact #1 target in the NFL," which is something the Bears could really use. I'm done with this.

My parents have bought most of our DVD's, but I've laid claim to some of them (I did buy some of them, I'm not a total bum). I listed them roughly in decreasing frequency of use. The Hustler Major League Rounders South Park (I have all the seasons that have been released and the movie) The Matrix Gladiator Training Day The Simpsons (all DVD's that are available) Grumpier Old Men Grumpy Old Men Snatch The Color of Money Major League 2 Pool Hall Junkies The next two on my purchase list are Maverick and The Count of Monte Cristo.

I'm not sure why they would have him be the primary kick and punt returner. Azumah is one of the best kickoff returners in the league, and R.W. has been pretty effective on punt returns. More likely he'll be a gunner on the punt team and maybe the other kickoff returner. Not exactly the same thing.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 10:05 PM) Ok, so most of the players in rounds 1-3 are not projects? They are for sure NFL starters? Nothing to work on? No busts? They are ready to step into the NFL right now and start? What the hell are you smoking? There's a big difference between being an instant starter and being a basically special teams only player your first year. Only a handful of first rounders are going to start right away, but there are an awful lot of rookies that are going to end up playing fairly big roles by the end of the year. It sounds like the Bears have no intention of making Bradley a starter, or even making him the 3rd WR based on what they have said. A lot of the guys taken on the first day will at least have a chance to start, even some second day guys might squeek into significant playing time.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 09:15 PM) I dunno man, Boldin looked outstanding in his rookie PRO BOWL season... Ide give them another year, both healthy, before passing judgement on them being a failing combo.. I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. At least that was how I read it.

Yeah, I did forget about Fitzgerald, my bad. Those other guys probably wouldn't have shot up the draft board anywhere near as much had Williams been there. Many of the later drafts didn't even have Williams in them because of his uncertain situation, the ones that did had him at #3 at the position and going at least 5 picks ahead of the other two. The latest I saw Mike going was somewhere in the 14-17, and a lot of that was because of rumors that he was even slower than he ran and that he had a questionable work ethic. Neither of those were issues this year. I guess we just have to disagree. I'd much rather have a Jones/Peterson/Barber combo at RB with Muhammad/Williams/Berrian as our top 3 WR's than Jones/Benson/Peterson with Muhammad/Bradley/Berrian or Gage combo (actually we could have still taken Bradley too, Barber went in the 4th). Bradley wasn't even an impact player on his college team, so I'd be surprised if he made an impact on the Bears right away. I'd have really liked to see more at that position. I also think I have more confidence in Thomas Jones and our running game in general than you and others have. The guy isn't even a our starter right now, that seems like an iffy number 4 to me, which is why I didn't like their draft as much as others (for the record, I think Williams was a bad pick for Detroit as well for the same reason).

My personal favorite by far is "The Shot Heard Round the World." That gives me goosebumps whenever I hear it. "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!"

I really think they need to switch it to a 4 game playoff. You could use the same system, or use a committee to select the teams. I've thought about this for the last few years and it always seem to turn out that there are 4 teams that stand out above the rest of the teams. If you do 4 teams, you're going to have the absolute best teams going head to head in a playoff. There'd be no cinderellas, and a lot less controversy at the end of the year. It'd be like having the Final Four with the regular season serving as the previous 5 rounds of the tournament. Then you could still have your other bowls to appease the rest of the teams. I really think that could work out. The only minor problem I see is if there is one team that finishes the season undefeated and gets upset by a 1 or 2 loss team putting up a stink, but at least they'd be solving it on the field.

Much as I hate to say it, nice post concerning the math of the new system. I think in reality the BCS is slowly trying to force ND into the Big East to give that conference more credibility, especially if they are going to keep their autobid. I'm not so sure that they'll make the BCS once every 5 years if they keep playing the kind of schedule they've had the last few years. Michigan and USC are locks on their schedule, and they've played Tennessee and FSU for the last few years now. Not only do they have to get a split at worst against those teams, but it makes it a little tougher to win those games sandwiched in between those games. Oh well, works for me. With apologies to the previous poster, :finger ND.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 12:29 PM) I stopped by the MLB board today -- something I probably haven't done in 6 months or better -- This was the first topic. I LOLed Yeah, I'm sure Seattle is looking to drag themselves out from under that painful Ichiro! contract. Damn him and his useless production. QUOTE(knightni @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 12:31 PM) Interesting that Scotty Pods is doing so well in your sig. On both!

Johnny's Beef definitely has a cult following. There is usually a line out the door. It's really close to home, but I don't get there often because the rest of my family doesn't really like the place, especially since there isn't anywhere to sit inside. I think it's pretty good, but I'm not wild about it. I've actually made something similar to the recipe that Kid Gleason posted. We use a 4-6 pound pork shoulder and threw in two bottles of giardinera (the standard size, not sure exactly how big because I don't have a bottle in front of me). We just threw it in a crock pot and cooked it until it was nice and tender and then just pulled apart the bigger chunks with forks. This took several hours. We made a couple of times, once with a 4 pound roast that took about 4-6 hours, and one with a 6-8 pound (can't remember exact weight) for a party that we started the night before. It was awesome, definitely some of the best stuff I've had. Some important things though, we had to drain the giardinera, otherwise the meat was incredibly greasy (still was anyways, but not disgustingly so). Also, this stuff was pretty spicy and not for the feint of heart. We love spicy stuff anyways, but I'm sure you can fine tune it to your own taste by varying the type of giardinera (ie switch to a tame brand or use sweet peppers).

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 04:32 PM) Just a question Zoom, but why do you like Mike Williams so much? He is big and tall, but he never gets seperation and that was in college. NFL DBs are much better than college DBs, so if he got no seperation in college how is he going to get it in the NFL? Also, how does he fit with the Bears? Why would you want identical receivers on either side? You need a speed guy opposite Mushin Muhammed, you don't need someone that is going to get you 5 or 6 yards when you need it. I am much happier taking Cedrick Benson and Mark Bradley than taking Mike Williams and JJ Arrington. I think Arrington will be good, but he also is not a fit for the Bears. He doesn't fit in with what they want to do. I really don't understand everyone's fascination with Mike Williams. He wasn't even going to be drafted in the top 10 last year if he came out. Most had Reggie Williams and Lee Evans ranked ahead of him. Why is he so great this year? Is he as good as Michael Clayton? He was drafted at 15! I just don't see it and I am glad we didn't pick him. Where did this idea that we absolutely need a speed guy on the other side come from? If Muhammad is so damn good, why wouldn't we want the same receiver on the other side? Who really cares how fast a guy runs if he is productive? There have been plenty of spectacular WR's that do not have top speed. It's very rare that you are going to actually hit a 40 yard plus streak play in the NFL, especially since our QB play leaves something to be desired. Williams can still stretch the field without running a 4.3. If you have to cover him downfield on a 30 or 40 yard jump ball, that's some major pressure, especially when you get near the red zone. He's still considerably bigger than every DB in the pros, and he has fantastic hands. I've seen him make numerous catches worthy of guys like Moss and Carter, the later being a guy I can see him being very similar too. I think your memory is a little hazy concerning last year's rankings. I read an awful lot of material before the draft, and he was far and away the #2 WR on pretty much everyone's board behind Roy Williams. Reggie Williams was picked to go somewhere around #20, Lee Evans in the latter 3rd of the first round. He was picked to go anywhere between about #6 and #15. The only reason the other two moved up was that Mike wasn't there. Had he played at USC this year, Williams would have been one of the top 3, ranked ahead of Edwards. In fact, Kiper said many times during the draft that he would have been the #1 pick if that had happened. Also, I never said anything about taking Arrington, I wanted us to wait a while to take a power back to complement Jones. Obviously Benson is better than the guys you'd find in the 3rd or 4th, but Williams is better than those guys too, and I'd rather have the significant upgrade at WR than RB given our current personel. I think Jones will be solid if he and the bulk of the line stay healthy. On the other hand, I think our receivers needed another significant threat desperately.

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) Benson ran in the low 4.5's like 4.52 Cadillac Williams only ran like a 4.49 There is basically no difference between that right there.. I have seen almost every Texas game Benson has played in living down here, he has dominated at every level he has played in (His junior year in High School he rushed for 3256 yards and 51 TD's) not to mention he was a 4 year starter at one of the more prestigious programs in the Nation.. He did nothing but put up the numbers everywhere he has been.. He will be a solid back in the NFL, youll see.. It's not the top speed that is the difference (Scouts inc had 4.55 for Benson, 4.51 for Williams by the way). I'm not that one that buys into 40 times that much because you don't play football in shorts in a T-shirt on a track, you almost never run for 40 yards in a straight line, and no one is trying to rip your head off when you're running the 40. Physically they're pretty much the same, but their running styles are very different. Benson runs over and through guys a lot more, Williams is a lot more elusive. I'm not a fan of getting a 220 pound power back in the high first, that's my main problem with the pick. Most of the really good backs his size like Green and Tomlinson have very good speed to supplement their power. I wouldn't have had a problem if he were our 2nd or 3rd round pick, but when we take him #4 over someone like Williams, I'm not happy. Obviously I could be wrong, but my prediction is that we are going to wish we took Mike Williams. I think if things go well he's going to be somewhat like Eddie George- 2 or 3 good seasons followed by a drop off in production and some nagging injuries.

Nice, I spent about half an hour spelling out "Cubs Suck" in the bubbles. Kind of sloppy, but it's legible!

I know he's nowhere near as bad as Enis was in terms of elusiveness (I still can't believe how horrible that pick was), but he isn't exactly Barry Sanders either. I think he will be an okay but not stellar runner. Normally you want more than that out of the #4 overall pick. I could obviously be proven wrong, but I think we would have been much better off with Williams. I know he doesn't have elite speed, but he has great size and hands to compensate. He would have been an immediate threat in our offense and a force to be reckoned with inside the opponent's 40.

I can definitely see the Enis comparison, especially since I said it about 7 pages ago. I don't think he's going to holdout, tear his ACL, and gain 70 pounds, but he's a big back that isn't that big and without stellar speed. He's going to have a much tougher time running through guys in the NFL, and he isn't exactly elusive. It's possible that he turns into a 1000 yard back, but I don't see him becoming a star. I'd actually rather have seen Williams if we absolutely had to take a RB, which I didn't think we needed that bad. Williams has similar size and better speed and moves. I really would have rather seen us get Williams and then take a big back later in the draft like Shelton or Barber.

Much as it sounds wierd, I like the Cardinals' picks a lot. Rolle is a stud, Arrington is a pretty good RB, and Brown and Blackstock were great picks for where they went in the draft.

Quick question that's fantasy related: who closes now? Is it Hawkins again? I'm desperate for saves in one of my leagues. It'd be nice for me if someone else got a shot.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 03:36 PM) Probably the best draft by a team in history was by a Steelers team in the 70s - can't remember which one specifically, though I do recall it was the draft that Bradshaw was drafted in - where they ended up with like 7 future HoFers. When you can draft 7 HoFers in the same draft, that is a perfect draft, regardless of whether you addressed all of your needs. Their draft wasn't QUITE that good. You're probably thinking of the 1974 draft when they selected 4 HOF: John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, Mike Webster, and Jack Lambert. They selected Terry Bradshaw and Mel Blount in 1970. They also took Joe Greene in 1969, Jack Ham in 1971, and Franco Harris in 1972. Now THAT is some drafting.