ZoomSlowik

Bears

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) Boise State really hasn't been the Boise State that everyone talks about though since 2006. And since that time they've only lost to one team from a bcs conference. And if you're going to bring up Northwestern, the reason they might be able to pull off a big upset every now and than is because they get a ton more opportunities to face that competition so that argument works both ways. And yes, I'd absolutely love to see these guys in the title game, they wouldn't and shouldn't be favored in that game but there's just no way in hell that they get blown out by any team in the country, it's just not happening. That first part is the whole point. They've been doing basically the same thing since way back in 2002 (won 9 games in 2005, 10 in 2007, at least 11 every other year), but have only been getting National Title hype since 2006 when they beat Oklahoma in exciting fashion. They just couldn't get the same kind of hype when they got crushed by Arkansas in 2002, or when they lost to Oregon State in 2003, or when they lost in the Liberty Bowl to Louisville in 2004, or when they lost to Georgia and Oregon State the first two weeks in 2005, or lost to Washington week 2 in 2007. Even in 2008 when they ran the table, the talk stopped after they lost to TCU in the Pointsettia Bowl. Right now, the entire level of success of their season basically depends on the 1 or 2 games against BCS teams and their bowl game. Opportunities to get big wins is definitely a factor. Northwestern gets a few shots a year while Boise gets zero to two if you count bowl games. However, there are also plenty more opportunities for losses. There are a lot more games against teams like Michigan State or Minnesota where they're a tougher test than someone like Idaho or New Mexico State but you don't really gain anything if you win since good teams are supposed to beat those kind of opponents. I would guess they'd be around 8-4 against a schedule like that most years. However, we just don't know how good Boise State is because of their crappy schedule. I wasn't directly comparing them to NU, I was using them as an example to show what a nationally irrelevant BCS conference team can do on a somewhat consistent basis (they've got at least half a dozen wins against BCS bowl contenders this decade). The conference season/conference championships eliminate all but a few teams every year, even solid ones like Florida and OSU last year. That doesn't happen to Boise State. They've NEVER played a legitimate championship caliber squad. There's quite a difference between beating a 2-loss Oklahoma team with a suspect QB or fringe top-10 teams like Oregon and Virginia Tech and beating someone with elite talent all over the field like recent versions of Texas, Alabama, Florida, ect. The non-BCS schools like Boise and TCU typically get matched up with the weakest team possible to try to maximize ratings in the other games. There's a very good chance they wouldn't be close to beating those teams, and most fans would much rather see a matchup with two teams that are more proven against legitimate competition.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 03:52 AM) Get out of here with this. A real conference? What's a real conference? The weak Pac 10 that USC used to blow through? I don't see how you can hate on Boise St. They have consistently beaten teams from so called "real conferences". I'ts not like they are some division 2 school or anything. I'm pretty sure they are playing at the same level as every other team out there. Fans of BCS conference schools have such an elitist attitude sometimes. Boise State has played Washington, Oregon and Oregon State several times since 2002 (as far back as ESPN's schedules go). They're 4-3 against the "mighty" Pac-10 over that stretch, with zero games against usual contenders USC and Cal (though Oregon is legit). If you expand it to all BCS conferences, they're 7-7 over that period. People also seem to forget that they've lost bowl games to East Carolina, BC, Louisville and TCU as well as losses to Fresno State and Hawaii that would be a pretty major black mark against a good major conference team (well, not TCU so much). That's the beauty of their current situation: they play 1-3 games against BCS teams (including Bowls) a year instead of the 8-10 for power conference teams. No one remembers when they lose because it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and when they win they're the mighty underdog that should be playing for a national championship. Sample size against consistently tough competition is pretty key. Someone like Northwestern (a decidedly average major conference team) has some pretty major wins over the same stretch, but no one cares because they also see them lose consistently to teams like Ohio State and Penn State as well as dropping the occasional game to Minnesota, Michigan State, Syracuse, ect. Boise State doesn't get that because they play in a weaker conference and rack up impressive win totals against teams that most BCS teams schedule as their out of conference games to make sure they get enough wins for bowl eligibility.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Sep 5, 2010 -> 05:18 PM) That's a major stretch. NU led the whole game and the calls were bad on personal fouls both ways. As Zoom said, the helmet to helmet one was a no-brainer and before the questionable call NU was a big favorite to end the game on that drive anyway. What was the deal with that f'd up formation when going for the tying 2? Shotgun with 2 RBs to the left of the QB and then a WR going in motion to the right of the center? It's no wonder the center threw it away. Actually, I agree the last one was bulls***. It was clear on the replay that it was shoulder-to-shoulder, though it didn't look like it live. However, as you said, at that point Vanderbilit would have had to gain at least 40 yards after the punt (the ball would have been on the 38, assuming a 30-yard net punt) in under 2 minutes (1:15 or so after the theoretical punt? Not totally sure) with no timeouts. Also, though it's debateable, it looks like based on the spot before and after the penalty was walked off, they gave NU the first down on the spot (ended up on the Vandy 46, exactly 15 yards farther than the marker. Probably would have been reviewed). I thought NU out-played them, but s***, too many negative plays on offense. Someone needs to tell Arby Fields to stop running backwards. Persa held the ball way too long a few times too, though he played a pretty solid game.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Sep 5, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) the officials absolutely gift wrapped the game to Northwestern last night....what bulls***.....two horrendous, horrendous personal foul calls give the cats a first down on their last two drives to seal the game .... The last one definitely sucked, the one before that wasn't that bad. First off, it came on a first down after a 6 yard gain, so it's not like it was the only reason it extended the drive (they would have had a 2nd and 4 at their own 47). Second, the guy clearly hit him helmet-first after he was already wrapped up. They had numerous poor personal foul penalties. Vanderbilt got a HUGE break on one where Quentin Williams barely tapped a receiver out of bounds while tripping over the down marker. Instead of it being a 4th and 2 on the 37, they got a first down at the 22 and it lead directly to the field goal. There were at least two other late hit out of bounds penalties (I think one each way) that were highly questionable.

The problem is that there are 4 other teams that bring in just as much/more talent (OSU, Michigan, Penn State, and interestingly enough Sparty) and three others that typically get a lot more from the talent they do bring in with Iowa, Wisconsin and NU. I really wouldn't worry about them until they upgrade their coaching situation, and they'll probably have 2 or 3 sub-par classes while they sort that out.

I don't really know how you can say Illinois is the most "dangerous" program in that group when they've only made 4 bowl games since Penn State joined the conference in 1993. That's 3 fewer than Northwestern (who also has two more conference titles) and 5 fewer than Minnesota and Michigan State. Frankly, they've been quite crappy in recent history and they're likely in for a few more rough years after they fire Zook.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) That being said, its more about the top teams in the conference. I dont expect Iowa to lose to Minnesota, NU or MSU on a consistent basis. And Id much rather face those 2 teams than having to face PSU/OSU instead of UM/Nebraska. Maybe you should, Northwestern has won 4 of the last 5 against them.

I definitely sucked this year. My low activity level certainly didn't help, but I did basically the same thing last year (hence my boredom comment).

I went on a rant about this a while ago in the pet peeves thread. I've become extremely indifferent about the NFL thanks to their near year-round coverage. With all of the training camp "news", meaningless and poorly played pre-season games full of scrubs getting the bulk of the playing time and constant analysis even if it's the middle of May, I'm generally sick of the NFL by about week 4. Another problem is that with the TV coverage, I find most NFL games almost unwatchable. I absolutely despise the commercial-kickoff-commercial pattern that is pretty much standard. Between that and often long pauses for replay and injuries they simply have too many long lulls where nothing happens, especially in low scoring games where teams are exchanging punts. We don't need to see 10 replay angles that are completely useless or a guy writhing on the ground for 5 minutes interspaced with 6 replays of the injury happening, just go to commercial and come back with a shot of the best replay angle/guy leaving the field so you don't have to stall the action when things are actually happening. People always gripe about how slow and boring MLB games are, but NFL games are longer on average and have just as much down time.

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Jul 22, 2010 -> 05:28 PM) Regardless who NO gets in a Paul deal, unless they are trading Paul straight up for a guy like Rose, Williams or Wall, they are not gonna get equal value for a stud like Chris Paul. Man, it feels weird to agree with you Gerry. Teams never win when they trade a superstar, the only question is whether they get 40 cents on the dollar or 70. And my guess is Gallinari would be involved if he went to New York. Danilo has some potential as a wing scorer and the Knicks would likely have to cut some salary to have room for Paul/Anthony/Stoudemire anyways (especially with the CBA almost certain to change in favor of the owners).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 20, 2010 -> 11:29 PM) Even if you only get half of a season out of him, you are still getting 25 PPG in those games. No one else is going to bring anything like that. I don't think you've watched McGrady play recently, he hasn't been anything close to an explosive, efficient scorer in at least 3 years, arguably more (he still had an impact but took WAY too many jumpers for most of his Houston tenure).

QUOTE (J.Reedfan8 @ Jul 20, 2010 -> 11:26 PM) Reed is GOD. yes you can add me to the list. I'm sure if someone with way too much time on their hands really tried, they could find some gems from anyone that regularly posts on Soxtalk.

I remember this one guy that said there was NO f***ING WAY Lebron was going to Miami.

I'm not knocking the Beasley deal, that's great value talent-wise. However, Beasley doesn't really fit the roster. Both he and Love are the best fit at PF, he's not really quick enough or a good enough ball-handler to regularly play SF. I look at it a lot like the Jefferson/Love situation: neither can defend a position besides PF (though admittedly Beasley can play away from the basket on offense a lot better than Al). Keeping Love on the bench would be epically dumb, he can easily get them 16-11. He absolutely has to be getting 35 MPG. I don't really see how you can say a lineup of Flynn/Brewer/Webster or Johnson/Love/Milicic is better than pretty much any NBA lineup. There's one above average NBA player in that mix, I guess two if you count Beasley (though his lack of D largely negates his offensive ability). At least last year they had Jefferson to get them some buckets in the post.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 03:22 PM) I'd rather have a crappy team of young players than a crappy team of old players (though I agree he's made that team better, despite the Rubio situation) You missed part of my point. ANYONE can make a team younger, that's not particularly difficult. All you have to do is trade your starters/let them walk and replace them with younger, crappier players. The important part is adding players that might make a difference down the road. So far he's not doing that. In fact, you can argue he's gone backwards since he gave up Al Jefferson, his best player who is only 25, for a trade exception and picks (that's not the move I'm worried about since it had to be done, just adds to my point). He could have added Stephen Curry and DeMarcus Cousins, but he didn't. Those are two players that can have a drastic impact on the team's future. Instead he has Johnny Flynn and a likely solid but not great wing player in Wes Johnson while he keeps hoping that Rubio will join the team at some point. That's not good management. He inherited a team with two solid post players under 25 and not much else. Now he has a team with one solid post player under 25, a talented but problematic forward with no position, and a lot of other mediocre assets. The only real hope on that team is if someone like Flynn or Johnson is a lot better than people think or Rubio finally comes over and wows everyone. That's not really a good sign.

QUOTE (Felix @ Jul 16, 2010 -> 02:48 PM) Have you seen what the team was before he was here? Old and had no hope for the future. Now we actually have young players that are pretty solid, as well as a number of future draft picks and a ton of financial room. No one could have expected anyone to come into Minnesota and suddenly turn them into a perennial playoff team within two years. As is, we're in much better shape than we were with McHale, and the vast majority of Kahn's non-draft moves have been pretty solid. You can question his decisions in the draft all you want, but no matter who he took in the draft, we'd be in a pretty similar position as we are today. And yeah, I have seen the "team" that he's put together. Considering we won 15 games last year, I think we're drastically improved and should win anywhere from 20-25 games. You can hate on that all you want, but this is an organization that's rebuilding and stocking assets for the future, which is exactly what he's done. If you disagree with any of this, please feel free to let me know exactly what Kahn has done so terribly that you could have done better. Signed Darko to an average deal? Signed Pekovic for chump change? Traded just about nothing for Michael Beasley? Seriously, what has he done to put our organization in a worse position than it was under McHale? When you have three first round picks in consecutive years, three of which came in the top-6, you're supposed to wind up with more than Johnny Flynn, Wes Johnson, Lazar Heyward and Martell Webster. With that many picks they were going to add young assets regardless, but he could have managed them far better. He took three point guards in 2009 and so far all he has to show for it is Johnny Flynn. Their best or second best asset right now is still playing in Barcelona because he wasn't happy with playing in Minnesota and/or splitting time with Flynn. Curry, Lawson and Jennings all had far better rookie seasons than Flynn, who many seem to think is destined to be a backup PG. Their best player by a wide margin is still Kevin Love, who was already on the roster. Picking up Michael Beasley was a nice move, but he's largely blocked by Love and the SF trio of Brewer/Webster/Johnson. They still don't have a legitimate starting center, an above average point guard, or a solid shooting guard (Brewer looks like a far better fit at SF). The only position they're DEFINITELY set at is PF, where he inherited two solid options already. Really, I don't see how you can say he's made any progress. They're younger, but anyone can get younger. The problem is they still stink.

I'm generally fairly pro-Bosh, but #4 in the league is ridiculous. PER isn't exactly a convincing argument in this case because the difference between Wade at #2 and Bosh at #4 is basically the same as Bosh at #4 and Kobe at #15. There's a very large cluster of relatively comparable players after Lebron and Wade. It was also the best PER Bosh has posted in his career, his average over the last five seasons is 23 as opposed to the 25 he posted this year. It also doesn't really factor in defense (outside of steals/blocks/rebounding), which would easily make up the 1-pointish advantage he had over Duncan and Howard. I'd go as far to say it puts him on an even level with Gasol a little over 2 points down (they were similar players before Pau went to the Lakers, though his teams actually made the playoffs out west with Mike Miller and James Posey as the next best players). If you go on ESPN and switch it to VORP or WA, he drops to 8th even in his best season. He probably belongs somewhere in the 10-20 range.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 01:22 PM) He has to prove he is completely healthy then. He did have a torn Achilles tendon last season in the playoffs (which really sucks for basketball players) and I'm not sure if he'll be ready for the Jazz opening game hence the Jefferson move at the moment. This. I'm just guessing, but I would assume the eventual plan is to start Okur/Jefferson with Millsap remaining a stellar bench player, much like they had last year with Boozer. However, with Okur's health a major issue, you'll probably see a Jefferson/Millsap duo starting until Okur gets close to his old form.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 04:35 PM) Wouldn't surprise me with the Magic owner. He might be a billionaire, but he's handed out alot of terrible contracts in his tenure (and made alot of dumb decisions). I think he would be an idiot to match Redick who would be a bench player on his team. (I thought 14 million, but now I'm hearing it will be more around 17 million) But then again, I thought Gortat was gone and he had me left scratching my head there too. You've got a point there, that one still baffles me.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 04:17 PM) It's 20/3 IIRC. Some of that is front-loaded I think (something similar to what Portland offered Paul Millsap before he re-signed with Utah). I think you're missing the point a bit. It's not just the salary, they're so far over the luxury tax threshold that they'd be paying the league another $7 mil to the league. It'd essentially cost them $14 mil to keep Redick, which is pretty nuts if you ask me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 04:16 PM) so you can list one person on other teams as the sole reason that team was good on defense, but then you list one person on the bulls team (who is a great defender) and qualify it saying that's not enough. Maybe in Thibs years working with great defenders, he learned how to get the most of that talent. Because frankly, there is more to the celts great d than garnett. I listed like 4 other plus defenders for the Celtics in a previous post and four different elite interior defensive big men during his 7 years with the Knicks. Neither of those teams were starting three average or worse defenders like the Bulls will.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 04:04 PM) Thibs gets Boozer and Noah, both were leaders in defensive rating last year. Noah 9th, Boozer 16th. I assume that number for Boozer is heavily influenced by his rebounding. The Jazz defense was almost 6 points WORSE per 100 possessions with him on the floor. That's not a new phenomena either as it was +5 the year before and +6 again the year before that (+ meaning they allowed more points per 100).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) I just went through the defensive metric stats at basketball-reference.com. Out of the Knicks, the Rockets, and the Celtics, the worst a team with Thibodeau as its defensive coach has ever finished in "Defensive rating" is 6th. Every year he was coaching for a team, that team has been top 6 in defense or better. I vividly remember people talking about Van Gundy and his staff being defensive wizards with the Rockets. Just didn't know Tom's name at the time. And look at the guys that were on those teams. The Celtics had Garnett, one of the best defensive players of the last 15 years, the Knicks had guys like Ewing, Oakley, Camby and Kurt Thomas, all of whom were damn good interior defenders (not to mention the Knicks led the league in defensive efficiency the 3 years before he got there), and the Rockets had Yao, who is in the top-10 in active career defensive rating and around the top-30 in defensive win shares even with all of the injuries (admittedly the Rockets work is a bit more impressive). There's no question he'll help, but you need more than just Noah to be an elite defensive team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Like it or not, that's what happened to teh Celtics. The Celtics got Garnett that year too. I don't remember anyone talking about him being a defensive genius when he was with the Knicks and Rockets. The Celtics had a lot of legitimately good defenders on the roster. KG is a known monster when healthy, Rondo is extremely quick and a good pick-pocket, Perkins is a very strong player inside that can match up against guys like Dwight, and Pierce has great size and length and has always been at least decent there when he tries. Not to mention guys like Posey and Brown are pretty solid defensive role players. The Bulls on the other hand have a PF that lacks length and agility, a PG that is lost a lot of the time on defense, a slow white guy that can't guard 2's, and an undersized shooting guard that's never started before. There are a lot more questionable defensive pieces on that roster.