Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Eli on September 28, 2010, 11:43:00 AM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 28, 2010, 11:39:43 AM
Peppers had a great game last night, but there are 10 other linemen in football who can be that disruptive

Yup. Linemen like Julius Peppers grow on trees.

You guys can (and will) get on me about the Cabrera stuff because this place is nothing if not a Group Think Commune, and it's a handy transitive tool when you don't like whatever it is I might be typing...but the actual quote was something along the lines of "1B with .900 OPS grow on trees"...and at the time, a significant number of those players had such a number.  It was more than 10 if I recall.   

At no point did I say that "Miguel Cabrera grew on trees".   

What I DID say, is that I didn't want to spend $20M on him when he's been known to get fat and stay out until 4AM during the last week of a pennant race.  And I still don't.   The Tigers pay a lot of money for him...he doesn't come cheap.

You'd be better of giving me shit for endorsing Nick Johnson as a better alternative for the price.  In hindsight, that was preposterous.

Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2010, 11:24:39 AM
1. The penalty festival broke out because Green Bay couldn't block Julius Peppers to save their life. Holds are positive plays by the defense. Offensive linemen don't just hold for the fucking hell of it.

2. The Packers didn't take more shots downfield because they weren't there. As much as we rip on the Cover 2 when it doesn't work..last night it did. There were no big plays to be had. The Bears did what they had to do to contain Rodgers and they made plays when it they needed them. That's it. The Bears won the fucking game. They won it. They beat Green Bay. They forced Green Bay's offensive line into holding on for dear life to keep Rodgers from getting killed. The Bears won the point of attack and blocked the field goal. The Bears scored when they had the ball, Green Bay didn't. Time of possession is nice, but it's not always necessary. Green Bay left points on the field, this is true. So did Chicago. Good teams win games like this. Bad teams (or less good teams) don't.

Peppers was a contributing factor and had a great game, but let's not go overboard here.  As someone who likes the Colts, and has watched Freeney and Mathis play for 5 seasons...they generally don't single-handedly compel a team into that many penalties.  In fact, I don't recall it happening once in their entire time in Indy.  I don't know...has Fork ever seen anything quite like that happen with those great Giants d-lines? 

Peppers had a great game last night, but there are 10 other linemen in football who can be that disruptive...and it almost never yields 17 total penalties.  Sometimes linemen hold because they think they can get away with it, it's not ALWAYS out of pure necessity.  Most of the time, they do get away with it. 

I think their short passes were by design as much as the Bears forced them to check down or throw early.  Had they not kept grabbing jerseys and ending up in 3rd and 16, it likely would have worked.  BTW, Rodgers wasn't sacked at all last night...and while I would agree that's not an accurate indicator of the Bears pressure on him...I think zero sacks also forfeits any ability to claim that the pressure caused him to absolutely not go down the field.

I'm not following your last point.  Are you implying that Green Bay isn't a good team?

Quote from: Yeti on September 28, 2010, 11:21:32 AM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 28, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

Not to pick on you per se (since you have got yourself a nice little beating in these parts lately), I think we should put to rest that whole "The _____ would have had at least ___ more points if not _______." thing. It happens in every game. The Bears could have had 3 more points on the board if not for the missed FG by Gould. Or The Bears could have had 7 more points on the board if not for the Cutler INT poor route running of the receivers (I don't remember who that pass was intended for).

My main point is that there are a shit-ton of "ifs" but if those things would have happened then each subsequent event in the game would have changed. The Bears won. They're 3-0, and they are atop the NFC, biatches. Fuck all. Go Cutler. Go Urlacher. /reinserts Urlacher's dong in ass, Cutler's dong in mouth

If you want to live in a world where you grade or evaluate based solely on what happened in one game, and totally disregard "what would normally happen", go for it.   I think it's foolish, but that's just me.

I don't think anyone's implying that the Bears didn't deserve to win last night.  

Quote from: SKO on September 28, 2010, 10:07:09 AM

Quote from: Slaky on September 28, 2010, 10:02:28 AM
So Lovie Smith.

I'm guessing this was the week that Lovie decided to hand out lessons. He benched Harris and Aromashadu (and apparently Harris wants out of Chicago now). He benched Forte for a spell as Chet had a good chunk of playing time in the first half. Then he benched Bowman for what I assume was a missed tackle. He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

I think the thing about Lovie is he still has no clue how to manage timeouts and challenges (he gets too caught up in the moment and doesn't think long term) and he certainly doesn't have that loud, angry style that idiots seem to think better motivates players (it doesn't). But he does hold people accountable and for that I am pleased. I think we all agree that Tommie Harris has had a free pass for a long, long time and Lovie is tired of it. Clearly the Bears didn't miss him much last night. The Packers didn't run the ball for shit and there was certainly a fair amount of pressure on Rodgers, at least not so little that someone like Harris would have made much of a difference.

I guess what I'm saying is there are some glaring weaknesses in Lovie's coaching abilities but clearly there are some strengths.

I also think we have to give him some begrudging respect. As much as the 700 slants they allow are maddeningly frustrating, the scheme worked and they held when it mattered and forced the Packers to use up a lot of time to get practically nothing on the scoreboard. Against less talented quarterbacks and less jersey-hugging offensive lines that defense is going to be even more effective.

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

I was stunned at how conservative the Packers were in their passing game last night.  They took very few shots down field, and almost never did on first or second down. I thought the Packers playcalling left much to be desired.

Also, if you're going to run these 6-8 yard curls (I'm looking at you Donald Driver...9 catches for 68 yards), you can't continuously lose YAC.

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2010, 10:47:47 AM

Quote from: Yeti on September 28, 2010, 10:38:43 AM
3.36 ERA 10-6

He gets my Cy Young vote.

No doubt.  Have to reward the guy for getting it done at crunch time, with so much at stake.

Quote from: Armchair_QB on September 27, 2010, 04:21:09 PM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 27, 2010, 01:57:18 PM

Quote from: Brownie on September 27, 2010, 01:11:03 PM
Tom Ricketts has great news for you:

- Higher ticket prices!
- A smaller payroll!
- No friggin' idea about the managerial search timeline!

QuoteFor the season, the Cubs drew 3,062,973 fans to Wrigley Field, their smallest total since 2003. But, especially for the last month, there were stretches of empty seats even though the tickets were already counted as being sold. Unlike in past seasons, the bleachers were more empty than full at several night games.

"That's not really true," Ricketts said. "You go back and look at the data. There have been some soft night games in the bleachers in the last few years. The key to filling the park is to put a great product on the field."

Rumors persist the Cubs will raise ticket prices for some dates and categories next year.

"Attendance is down a few percentage points from last year," Ricketts said. "But in terms of ticket pricing for next year, we haven't made any final decisions. What we are doing is a really thorough study of what we're charging for which sections, trying to really understand the value proposition that we're offering people.

"We'll do that study, and we'll come up with a ticket-pricing strategy, keeping in mind that there's a tough economy. And it's ultimately our goal to get more fans in the park."

Among other topics discussed by Ricketts:

On the $145 million payroll: "We haven't made any decisions where payroll goes next year. But I think it will be slightly lower than this year."

On the managerial search ending before the World Series: "We don't really have a time frame on that. It's always good, if you have your decision made, you'd rather do it sooner rather than later so he can start working. But there's no reason to rush it."

On the five-week managing job of Mike Quade: "I don't think there's any doubt that Mike's done a nice job. Obviously, the team has played very well the last few weeks, and that's been encouraging."

They can't talk seriously to Girardi (face-to-face) until after the Yankees are done.  I also think they might want to kick the tires on Joe Maddon, although I have to believe he could be the most expensive guy on the list.  So I can see the rationale in that particular part of his answer.

In a vacuum, the price increase would be ridiculous.  But when you have 9 figures worth of debt service to pay back, and a willing scalpers market...I assume they'll increase ticket prices 3-5%.

These fuckers need to fire the GM already.  That's all I know.

Don't know how willing that scalpers' market is. You could buy $9 tickets on Stubhub for the Cardinals game on Friday.

I'm going to guess you see the Cubs make a strong push for partial season ticket plans and tiering the hell out of the single-game prices based on who the visiting team is.

The reason there were $9 tickets is precisely because the scalpers market this season WAS strong (as far as scalpers buying from the Cubs, which is the matter on the table).  The scalpers get these tickets for weekend games as soon as tickets go on sale, or they buy season ticket packages or large portions from people who don't want 81 games.   The "market" is largely set in March..it's not set in September.  The fact someone could get a $9 ticket last weekend because the scalpers overvalued the tickets in March isn't bothering the Cubs bottom line.  

I am sure this season's result will set demand back somewhat next March.  But we also don't know what the team will look like...who will be managing...and I imagine the Yankees series alone will compel scalpers to mantain their season ticket options.

Quote from: flannj on September 27, 2010, 02:29:28 PM
When you say willing scalpers market do you mean active buyers and sellers?
I'm pretty sure the scalpers ate a lot of tickets this year. At least the ones that I have spoken to considered it the worst year in a long time and unless the team improves they don't see that market improving.
It was pretty apparent to me even before the All Star break when I couldn't even give several games away. And those were games that in the past people would have paid up for.

Although the Cubs have used the excuse of a strong secondary market to justify price increases in the past, any statement they make along those lines in the current market is a bold faced lie.

Yes, scalpers (while perhaps less than this season) will be a big part of those buyers.  Instead of the scalpers market being "insane", next season it might be only "very strong" instead.  There will still be a large number of tickets being purchased speculatively because preseason demand will justify it.

As long as this team keeps drawing 3M fans and staying north of 90% capacity, they can keep increasing the prices assuming the overall demand is there.

Quote from: Brownie on September 27, 2010, 01:11:03 PM
Tom Ricketts has great news for you:

- Higher ticket prices!
- A smaller payroll!
- No friggin' idea about the managerial search timeline!

QuoteFor the season, the Cubs drew 3,062,973 fans to Wrigley Field, their smallest total since 2003. But, especially for the last month, there were stretches of empty seats even though the tickets were already counted as being sold. Unlike in past seasons, the bleachers were more empty than full at several night games.

"That's not really true," Ricketts said. "You go back and look at the data. There have been some soft night games in the bleachers in the last few years. The key to filling the park is to put a great product on the field."

Rumors persist the Cubs will raise ticket prices for some dates and categories next year.

"Attendance is down a few percentage points from last year," Ricketts said. "But in terms of ticket pricing for next year, we haven't made any final decisions. What we are doing is a really thorough study of what we're charging for which sections, trying to really understand the value proposition that we're offering people.

"We'll do that study, and we'll come up with a ticket-pricing strategy, keeping in mind that there's a tough economy. And it's ultimately our goal to get more fans in the park."

Among other topics discussed by Ricketts:

On the $145 million payroll: "We haven't made any decisions where payroll goes next year. But I think it will be slightly lower than this year."

On the managerial search ending before the World Series: "We don't really have a time frame on that. It's always good, if you have your decision made, you'd rather do it sooner rather than later so he can start working. But there's no reason to rush it."

On the five-week managing job of Mike Quade: "I don't think there's any doubt that Mike's done a nice job. Obviously, the team has played very well the last few weeks, and that's been encouraging."

They can't talk seriously to Girardi (face-to-face) until after the Yankees are done.  I also think they might want to kick the tires on Joe Maddon, although I have to believe he could be the most expensive guy on the list.  So I can see the rationale in that particular part of his answer.

In a vacuum, the price increase would be ridiculous.  But when you have 9 figures worth of debt service to pay back, and a willing scalpers market...I assume they'll increase ticket prices 3-5%.

These fuckers need to fire the GM already.  That's all I know.

But wait, there's more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsSyjwP7AdI

Quote from: Oleg on September 22, 2010, 01:48:14 PM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 22, 2010, 01:28:47 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 07:53:59 PM
I mostly just enjoy dredging up old bullshit that new bullshit reminds me of (and was additionally curious about whether you're some sort of teetotaler or something).

Nah, quite far from it.  A few of the natives can attest to me drinking a significant amount of overpriced pilsner at a Hawks game a couple of years back.

Oh yeah!  Man, I was wasted.  If I recall, that was the Friday game after which a couple of us went of to Shitty's for the Annual JO-fest.  I believe we started of the evening drinking at TDubbs's.  Was that the game?

I believe that is correct...I didn't get the memo about going to TDubbs and I met you guys at United Center.  And yes, you were definitely wasted...but Mike D and I were mildly aroused amused by it.

Quote from: SKO on September 21, 2010, 07:54:17 PM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 21, 2010, 07:36:31 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 20, 2010, 12:35:57 PM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 20, 2010, 11:58:24 AM
Mallett just reminds me a bit too much of Ryan Leaf to have any confidence about what he will turn out to be.  Besides the public intoxication thing, there's some other stuff out there that would trouble me if I were a GM.

I suppose 6' 7"/238 lb. QBs with trobbing armcocks basically grow on trees.

Armcock trees aside, though, is he at least good enough to be on your list of players you would get near with Joe Francis' cock? Or does this whole 'drinking alcohol' thing entail an automatic demotion?

Holy shit, no horse is ever dead enough for you, is it?

As far as my remark about Mallett...not much secret that he was a complete screw-off when he was at Michigan.  If I were a GM right now (2 games into his Junior season), I'd have some reservations about him if this were a conversation about my franchise QB.  It's the same type of thing that was being said about not just Leaf, but well published about JaMarcus Russell during their time in college. 

I'll sacrifice a little arm to have a more certainty upstairs.  You can choose to do otherwise in your interwebz NFL GM role.  If he has a Miguel Cabrera type season in the NFL at some point, I'll eat more crow.

I'm going to need some kind of link or something about this alleged screw-off and his screw off behavior at Michigan. Because I'll certainly base my imaginary #1 overall pick on what he did as an 18 year old back up. Or maybe I'll base it on the fact that his completion percentage has skyrocketed with his experience, his arm is ungodly, and unlike the wildly emotional and easily flapped Ryan Leaf, Mallett is praised over and over for his composure and cool in the pocket. He's nothing like Leaf. Leaf's completion percentage in college was 53%. He was never, ever, no matter how god damn immature or mature he was, going to be accurate enough to survive in the NFL. Mallett has raised his completion % from 43.3% in very limited time as a freshman to 55.8% last year to 70.0% this year. Luck is arguably worthy of the #1 spot because he's played in a pro system, is accurate, and has a great edge when it comes to mobility, but the team that passes on Mallett for maturity reasons deserves a special place in NFL purgatory.

DPD bulletin.

You take Mallett, I'll take Ponder...let's catch up in three or four seasons and see where we're at.   In some form, this will be decided.

You're tossing stats at me, when that's not what concerns me about Mallett.  I also know that college stats don't really translate all that well to the NFL, which is a point that's made every single year at draft time by just about any scout or "expert" who opines on how they try to separate QB1 from QB2. 

And my goal isn't, and hasn't been to change your mind.  You like Ryan Mallett and that's OK.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 07:53:59 PM
I mostly just enjoy dredging up old bullshit that new bullshit reminds me of (and was additionally curious about whether you're some sort of teetotaler or something).

Nah, quite far from it.  A few of the natives can attest to me drinking a significant amount of overpriced pilsner at a Hawks game a couple of years back.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 20, 2010, 12:35:57 PM

Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on September 20, 2010, 11:58:24 AM
Mallett just reminds me a bit too much of Ryan Leaf to have any confidence about what he will turn out to be.  Besides the public intoxication thing, there's some other stuff out there that would trouble me if I were a GM.

I suppose 6' 7"/238 lb. QBs with trobbing armcocks basically grow on trees.

Armcock trees aside, though, is he at least good enough to be on your list of players you would get near with Joe Francis' cock? Or does this whole 'drinking alcohol' thing entail an automatic demotion?

Holy shit, no horse is ever dead enough for you, is it?

As far as my remark about Mallett...not much secret that he was a complete screw-off when he was at Michigan.  If I were a GM right now (2 games into his Junior season), I'd have some reservations about him if this were a conversation about my franchise QB.  It's the same type of thing that was being said about not just Leaf, but well published about JaMarcus Russell during their time in college. 

I'll sacrifice a little arm to have a more certainty upstairs.  You can choose to do otherwise in your interwebz NFL GM role.  If he has a Miguel Cabrera type season in the NFL at some point, I'll eat more crow.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2010, 12:35:00 PM
I am very impressed by the Illini thus far, especially against as decent of a team as Northern Illinois is.

More Mikel Leshoure please.

Leshoure runs damn hard, I will say that for him.

I'm going to buy futures in Christian Ponder as the best NFL QB in this bunch...with Luck being right behind him.  Locker's mechanics bother me...and Mallett just reminds me a bit too much of Ryan Leaf to have any confidence about what he will turn out to be.  Besides the public intoxication thing, there's some other stuff out there that would trouble me if I were a GM.

The other guy I remain intrigued by is Colin Kaepernick.   The cat is listed at 6'6"...and so while he throws from a low slot, I don't know if he has to be quite as mechanically perfect as a 6'3" or 6'4" guy who would just sit back in the pocket.   His arm and sick speed would be damn intriguing to me as a GM if I thought I could improve his mechanics and maybe speed up his release a little.   I'm not saying he's a first rounder...but he might be worth a fourth-round flier.  He can probably keep himself busy returning kicks or playing slot in the interim.

As far as pure skill, this should be a very good QB class.

Quote from: JakeD on September 08, 2010, 11:17:11 AM

Quote from: PANK! on September 08, 2010, 08:45:55 AM
Would anyone else besides me like to see Paul Vallas return to Chicago to make a run?

I would be for Vallas or anyone not named Rahm Emanuel or Jesse Jackson Jr or Luis Gutierrez.

This.