adambr2

Really tried to backtrack, but there did seem to be some implication. Wasn't thrilled about Yelich's reply, though. Came off as overly defensive and didn't really make much sense. I can understand why he would be frustrated with being called a cheater when his entire life revolves around the game. He’s telling Darvish to be better than how he’s acting by implying Yelich is cheating against him. He continued on in a little bit of a snarky way and said that people don’t need help facing him. That’s a much milder jab than implying an organization is cheating at a whole. Which is something the Brewers are facing for literally no reason other than a St. Louis writer stated so. Also, I think you can look at every professional athlete and they will have a little arrogance to them. I don’t see anything wrong with what Yelich said. It just didn't make a lot of sense because Darvish is a pretty good pitcher and shut down the Brewers in 2019. If he was talking to some scrub pitcher from the Pirates it probably would have come off as pretty funny.

Really tried to backtrack, but there did seem to be some implication. Wasn't thrilled about Yelich's reply, though. Came off as overly defensive and didn't really make much sense.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/11/mlb-reportedly-planning-to-tweak-injured-list-rule-for-pitchers.html

Yeah his 2019 season, even over 130 games, definitely tops his 2018 season and wins it a year ago. By the same token if Bellinger has his 2019 season last year, he beats Yelich handily in 2018. Different years will have a different bar for MVP. Just the way it goes.

You have brought up Bellinger's .919 OPS second half numerous times to claim he shouldn't be MVP worthy and it just doesn't hold any water. It's a season award, not a one half award. Claiming he won MVP on half a season -- you realize Yelich had an .823 OPS in the first half of 2018, right? Was he also not deserving of the MVP award?

I just don't see it, guys. I'd certainly call Yelich's offensive season better, but certainly not a "chasm" worth of difference. They weren't voting for OPOY. Bellinger certainly had the better and more versatile glove, but probably more importantly to voters, like it or not, Bellinger was on a team that won 106 games. I think you could have made a strong case for either guy and I wouldn't have disagreed with either result. But it's not some great travesty that Bellinger won.

There are certain years where one guy is the clear MVP (2018), and years where there are 2 or more top candidates with very little difference between them. When that happens, I think voters basically mentally start applying tiebreakers like best team, versatility, prior MVP awards, and the like. Unfortunately, Bellinger checked basically every tiebreaker box.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28081747/cody-bellinger-1st-dodger-win-nl-mvp-clayton-kershaw I think this was probably the reasonable expectation of most. Bellinger wins comfortably, but certainly not a landslide.

Agreed with everyone on this page. If you could sign a guy to a 4 year/65 year deal with the intention of making it 2/30 and then getting a nice trade return, everyone would do it. It just almost always doesn't work that way. If you pay Grandal 4/65 you better plan on having him for 4/65. Once in awhile circumstances will fall into place where you might end up dealing the player first but you certainly don't plan on it.

The yelling lady/laughing cat meme. Ok, enough already.

Unless you're down to the last week of the season and a tie is all you need to achieve your playoff goals, I think you've got to play for the win there. I think they made the right call in that sense. Settle for the tie and you still lose the tiebreaker if you lose in Seattle, and I don't think they can count on winning there. With that said they still could have run the ball, run a screen or other high percentage pass so at least you had the tie as a fallback if you can't get anything going. I'm surprised they didn't try to play it like that a bit as Seattle couldn't stop the clock.

There's nothing wrong with having a personal opinion of scrapping replay. It's all personal preference, not a matter of right or wrong. But reality is that it almost certainly is never going anywhere. The better the technology gets, the more it will be demanded, they aren't going to go backward. If they were, the time would have been in 2007 when they voted to make it a permanent part of the NFL, after that occurred there is likely no turning back. So with that reality, I'd like them to do everything possible to improve it. I don't know that I agree that it's gotten worse, but it probably hasn't really improved much, and reviewing PI is certainly worse. I think it's a lot more scrutinized than it was in the late 90s and early 2000s when HD television was in it's early days and social media wasn't there to shout out every mistake to the world. I distinctly remember an overturned replay on a TD that was just truly an awful overturn on a TD by I believe it was Terry Glenn, but this was 2002 and nobody made a federal case out of it. Even 10 years ago you did not have the social media element putting almost every replay under the microscope.

You still have plenty of those suspenseful moments. The Richard Rodgers Hail Mary, Crosby beating the Cowboys in the divisional round. Or the playoff against the Cowboys prior when Cobb caught that 3rd and 10 to seal it against the Cowboys. How about John Kuhn throwing the block against Julius Peppers to save Rodgers who finds Cobb to win the North? Or Shields picking off Cutler to send us to the Super Bowl? There are many, many suspenseful plays that don't have a reviewable element so I'm not sure how you can say replay has taken a hatchet to the suspense of the game. If they're reviewing it, it's likely a controversial play which they want to ensure is called correctly which is exactly the original intent. You don't need to look past yesterday's game when a dumb replay sucked the joy out of one of those exact moments and I got up to pee and refill a water while waiting for them to say we won. But this is going nowhere. Most of you want replay and I don't, and nobody is going to convince me it's been good for sports. The McCaffrey play was really, really close. Probably a matter of an inch or two. I can understand why they would want to take 2 minutes to look at a play like that and make sure they got it correct. They looked, quickly determined thay they couldn't conclusively change the call on the field, and it was over. It was reviewed because it was really close. Had we stonewalled McCaffrey like the Williams play at the end of the first half, there would have been no review and you would have had your joyous moment. To me personally, the fact that they had to look at it did not remove the joy from the win one iota. I did not feel shortchanged even a little. But everyone is different and as you say no one is going to convince you otherwise.

You still have plenty of those suspenseful moments. The Richard Rodgers Hail Mary, Crosby beating the Cowboys in the divisional round. Or the playoff against the Cowboys prior when Cobb caught that 3rd and 10 to seal it against the Cowboys. How about John Kuhn throwing the block against Julius Peppers to save Rodgers who finds Cobb to win the North? Or Shields picking off Cutler to send us to the Super Bowl? There are many, many suspenseful plays that don't have a reviewable element so I'm not sure how you can say replay has taken a hatchet to the suspense of the game. If they're reviewing it, it's likely a controversial play which they want to ensure is called correctly which is exactly the original intent.

The part of replay I would like to see go away is reviewable pass interference. It's become a joke and I hope they can't get rid of it quickly enough. Things that are subjective, you're going to just have to define as well as possible and learn to live with. Things that are black and white are what replay should be used for and the answer to me should be not eliminating replay but making it faster and more efficient. For example, is it really necessary to have the lead official go review the play when we can simply have a replay official who is already in the process of reviewing any reviewable elements of a play as soon as it is over and can relay a decision down within 60 seconds or so to keep the game moving? Even better, do we have the technology yet to be able to conclusively indicate when the ball breaks the plane of a goal line, rendering replays like yesterday unnecessary?

Either you have to live with that reality or live with the reality that somewhere along the line, an egregiously bad fumble call (Jerry Rice, 1998) or other egregiously bad reviewable play is going to decide an important game.

Yes, and I saw a team in Carolina that scored 16 points. And shot themselves in the foot on offense multiple times. They weren't the offensive juggernaut you seem to be implying here. And no, McCaffrey didn't get in, and that was not disputable. Yeah, they looked because it was the right thing to do, but the video only confirmed that the call was right. That was nowhere close to a 50-50 call. The call on the field stood, it wasn't confirmed. I'm quite confident that would have been the case regardless of what the call on the field was. It was definitely very close. Reminded me a lot of the 4th down Kerryon Johnson TD against the Lions. The replay confirmed nothing either way, but neither call would have surprised me. It was just impossible to tell on replay because Samuel was directly in the view of McCaffrey.

If there's anyone who should feel uneasy despite an 8-2 record, it's ST coordinator Shawn Mennenga. This unit is historically bad. They actually have NEGATIVE total punt returns yards this year, that's right, negative. Coverage units are not any better. It's difficult to see him being invited back for 2020.

The Giants' game scares me for some reason. I can easily see Daniel Jones having a career day and Saquon could easily go for 150. I don't know how they're 2-9 but I'm certainly more wary of them than the Redskins.

But it wasn’t a shove. While it wasn’t as blatant as the one against Denver, it should have been a penalty based on the rules. I wouldn’t have been happy if he had scored there and it was overturned. Also, where is the national outrage about the non calls on the last drive for intentional grounding? First one wasn’t within 10 yards of a WR and second one hit the down marker out of bounds so it wasn’t close to making it past the line of scrimmage. We won so no one really cares. Also Booger McFarland thankfully wasn't present to stir the pot. Most commentators are professional enough to review a play, simply point out that they agree/disagree with a call and why they agree or disagree with it, and move on. Booger McFarland is not.

Cowboys have one single win outside of the terrible NFC East this season.

A Viking loss would have been nice but they really shouldn't have even lost to the Chiefs. Glad they dropped that one.

Vikings needed that win to keep pace with the Packers. Lose this one, and the Packers road to the North crown is MUCH easier. Packers still hold the upper hand, but have to keep the foot on the gas. It's tough to see the division not coming down to December 23rd. Although we are still in a good tiebreaker position and can clinch the tiebreaker by beating the Bears and Lions regardless of the Minnesota result.

Seems pretty silly then to follow it with two 5 yard sideline routes.

Womp womp.