Cubs to add 70-foot LED board to Wrigley

#Cubs announce they will add 70-foot LED board and patio deck to RF bleachers at Wrigley. — Patrick Mooney

About time the Cubs took advantage of this revenue stream. I’m thinking 4900 square feet when I see that, but who knows what the dimensions are. It could be 70 by 20, but for now I’m hoping for something as large as 70 by 70. Or better yet, 70 by 100. Just make it the largest video board around. It’s nice to see the Cubs entering the 20th century. Just wait until they enter the 21st century.


407 thoughts on “Cubs to add 70-foot LED board to Wrigley”

  3. Definitely closer to 70x 20. Still happy to see them do this. Id guess it adds a large new revenue stream. Wonder what the estimates for rev will be.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  4. Oh, boy this is going to get the luddites screaming.

    Also, that board’s not gonna be very big if that’s where they’re putting it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  7. [quote name=@NotTomRicketts]72 feet is needed to constitute a Jumbotron. This is merely a Regulartron[/quote]
    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  8. [quote name=JMan]Definitely closer to 70x 20. Still happy to see them do this. Id guess it adds a large new revenue stream. Wonder what the estimates for rev will be.[/quote]It creates revenue and it also will enable them to eventually put a much larger one in. Baby steps I guess.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  9. [quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), apparently Alvin is getting booed[/quote]What the fuck for? Weird crowd at that place. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  10. [quote name=mb21]What the fuck for? Weird crowd at that place. (dying laughing)[/quote]
    For praising the Regulartron

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  11. [quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), apparently Alvin is getting booed[/quote]What? (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  12. [quote name=Berselius]For praising the Regulartron[/quote]When Alvin is getting booed for this shit it might be ugly. Wow.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  13. Do they need planning permission to build the bleachers higher like that? Will it block rooftops? Or am I seeing it wrong?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  14. Some people are losing their shit on twitter. I saw one person say a jumbotron is redundant because the Cubs already sell so many tickets (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  16. [quote name=mb21]When Alvin is getting booed for this shit it might be ugly. Wow.[/quote]Yeah, this is not going to go over well.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  17. [quote name=Berselius]Some people are losing their shit on twitter. I saw one person say a jumbotron is redundant because the Cubs already sell so many tickets (dying laughing).[/quote]kinda like all the other teams who have them and sell lots of tickets. All NFL stadiums should get rid of their jumbotrons. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  19. [quote name=Suburban kid]Do they need planning permission to build the bleachers higher like that? Will it block rooftops? Or am I seeing it wrong?[/quote]It looks like it will block rooftops. But those may be the ones that are in foreclosure or maybe it was bankruptcy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  20. [quote name=Berselius]Some people are losing their shit on twitter. I saw one person say a jumbotron is redundant because the Cubs already sell so many tickets (dying laughing).[/quote]If you’re already making money, making more money is redundant. Also stop being cheap and sign Prince Fielder.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  21. [quote name=Suburban kid]Do they need planning permission to build the bleachers higher like that? Will it block rooftops? Or am I seeing it wrong?[/quote]I assume they’re just building the stairway to heaven for when the Denver Broncos come to town.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  25. These people who think Wrigley is some sort of church need to be slapped in the face with a rubber penis.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  27. [quote name=Berselius]Crane Kenney: The Cubs ticket pricing model is “above my head”.

    What the fuck do you do there?[/quote]Some village is missing its idiot.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  29. [quote name=Berselius]I wonder how much rebuilding they’ll do. The batting cages are under the RF bleachers.[/quote]I wonder if this isn’t a way of backdooring a larger remodeling project.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  30. I was in that session. My reaction was “Ooooooh cool” but at least half the room was in WTF mode. I think this is a great idea but will obviously affect homers to that section.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  32. [quote name=Rice Cube]I was in that session. My reaction was “Ooooooh cool” but at least half the room was in WTF mode. I think this is a great idea but will obviously affect homers to that section.[/quote]Freaking cavemen. The sooner this fanbase is purged of that kind of knuckledragging, mouthbreathing meatball, the better.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  33. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Freaking cavemen. The sooner this fanbase is purged of that kind of knuckledragging, mouthbreathing meatball, the better.[/quote]So tell me what you really think of me MO.

    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  34. [quote name=Rice Cube]I was in that session. My reaction was “Ooooooh cool” but at least half the room was in WTF mode. I think this is a great idea but will obviously affect homers to that section.[/quote]
    Supposedly there will be no changes to the wall or basket locations

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  35. [quote name=Berselius]Supposedly there will be no changes to the wall or basket locations[/quote]That sounds like a quite a feat…or it’s a pretty small board

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  36. Board looks about 70×25 based on the image. They said they had to elevate the seats to accommodate the board so if that’s the case and they kept the basket in the same place then it’s right in the middle of the video board.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  37. [quote name=Rice Cube]Board looks about 70×25 based on the image. They said they had to elevate the seats to accommodate the board so if that’s the case and they kept the basket in the same place then it’s right in the middle of the video board.[/quote]So you’re saying a lot of drunks will be falling out of the bleachers as they try to get the ball? I love it. That’s the kind of excitement Wrigley needs.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  38. People boo it now, but when they see it, the complaints won’t last long at all. That’s a great placement, and Alvin has to love it because it doesn’t affect left field.

    The genius thing about that placement is that it’s pretty much right in line with the sign formerly known as Torco. So there’s no way in holy hell anyone can argue the unblemished view has been perverted by corporate greed. That line of sight is known and loved for its dedication to advertising.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  41. [quote name=mb21]So you’re saying a lot of drunks will be falling out of the bleachers as they try to get the ball? I love it. That’s the kind of excitement Wrigley needs.[/quote](dying laughing)

    I’m saying I think the basket and home run boundary has to be moved or else it would look stupid.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  42. [quote name=Rice Cube](dying laughing)

    I’m saying I think the basket and home run boundary has to be moved or else it would look stupid.[/quote]I don’t think the wall itself is really changing at all. The screen will sit on top of where the wall is now, at least according to the drawings.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  45. [quote name=AndCounting]I don’t think the wall itself is really changing at all. The screen will sit on top of where the wall is now, at least according to the drawings.[/quote]Correct. I am blind.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  46. [quote name=Rice Cube]Correct. I am blind.[/quote]Not blind, but maybe too drunk to sit in the front row in right. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  47. [quote name=AndCounting]I don’t think the wall itself is really changing at all. The screen will sit on top of where the wall is now, at least according to the drawings.[/quote]The basket needs to stay in the same place. The Cubs could advertise their baseball and Faces of Death like atmospherics in LF. Win win.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  48. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]I think they should build a hill in CF and put the LED board on that.[/quote]That’s the kind of progressive thinking I’m looking for. It will make Wrigley even more unique than it already is.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  52. Learned from twitter today: a video board is all that is separating Wrigley Field from being Cowboys Stadium (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  53. [quote name=Suburban kid]Just found this on my computer and I have no memory of screencapping it let alone why (dying laughing)

    [/quote]Was it in the porn folder?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  54. [quote name=Berselius]Learned from twitter today: a video board is all that is separating Wrigley Field from being Cowboys Stadium (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)[/quote]This is why I don’t follow many Cubs fans. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  57. [quote name=AndCounting]Not blind, but maybe too drunk to sit in the front row in right. (dying laughing)[/quote]Not drunk, but really tired. Never waking up that early for autographs again.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  59. [quote name=Berselius]Learned from twitter today: a video board is all that is separating Wrigley Field from being Cowboys Stadium (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)[/quote]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  61. [quote name=mb21]That must have been in MO’s Nazi MILF folder.[/quote]Pizza Hut MILF, thank you very much.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  62. It’s nice of FOX to repeatedly ignore that the helmet-to-helmet contact on the Whitner hit that caused the fumble.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  64. I hate the fucking Broncos so fucking much. This Tebow shit has only magnified my hatred.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  65. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]It’s nice of FOX to repeatedly ignore that the helmet-to-helmet contact on the Whitner hit that caused the fumble.[/quote]
    Apparently it doesn’t apply to runners, just QBs and WRs making catches and James Harrison.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  68. [quote name=dylanj]RB’s aren’t defenseless so its not helmet to helmet.[/quote]It’s an illegal hit. Defenseless has nothing to do with it. I’m not a fan fo the rule, but by the rule, it’s an illegal hit. Here’s the rule:

    using any part of a players helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protect those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.

    Add that to the fact that Thomas was acting as a receiver on the play and it’s clearly an illegal hit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  70. [quote name=dylanj]sigh. its hard to to feel like that half went as great as you could hope and we still aren’t out of the woods.[/quote]Teams with a +3 turnover differential are 141-9. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  71. [quote name=dylanj]That Mike Periera guy said no foul. So there.[/quote]He’s wrong. The rule says it’s illegal to use the helmet against any opponent. He’s wrong, and the hit is illegal, by the letter of the law.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  76. The Saints can’t hold onto the ball, at all. (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  79. Looked like one of the Saints was stomping on people in that pile, bet that’s what Harbaugh is pissed about. This FOX crew is fucking clueless.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  81. [quote name=dylanj]Mo and I need to head to a private chat

    a/s/l?[/quote]
    your conversational partner has disconnected

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  86. despite what people say about A Smith his biggest problem is getting rid of the ball. Which the Saints have exploited.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  88. [quote name=dylanj]despite what people say about A Smith his biggest problem is getting rid of the ball. Which the Saints have exploited.[/quote]Yeah, he has not been smart about that today. It’s okay, though, because we get observe divinely directed QB play in the next game.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  99. Rodgers made a big move from going to a cover guy who had stone hands to a cover guy who can get the pick. He is going to get PAID this off season by somebody,

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  100. (dying laughing) at the Niners getting flagged for an illegal pick play and then running the same play again. Fucking brilliant.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  101. [quote name=dylanj]Rodgers made a big move from going to a cover guy who had stone hands to a cover guy who can get the pick. He is going to get PAID this off season by somebody,[/quote]He, Grimes and Finnegan are all on the market. Good year for FA CB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  105. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]This is an odd game. Neither team is really playing well.[/quote]Yeah, they both look like shit, but it’s what I’ve come to expect of the NFL. PARITY!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  114. Re regulartron: I’m a luddite on this one. Wrigley had been one of the few places remaining on earth where I could enjoy several hours without staring at a screen.

    But hey, these days I have to watch all the games on a screen anyway so what do I care I guess.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  116. I don’t think the way you have to watch the game changes one bit at Wrigley or any place with a jumbotron. If they put the jumbotron in front of the pitcher’s mound I’d be pissed off, but as long as it’s not in the field of play I don’t care. If the team can generate some revenue that purchases players down the road then I’m all for it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  118. [quote name=mb21]I don’t think the way you have to watch the game changes one bit at Wrigley or any place with a jumbotron. If they put the jumbotron in front of the pitcher’s mound I’d be pissed off, but as long as it’s not in the field of play I don’t care. If the team can generate some revenue that purchases players down the road then I’m all for it.[/quote]This x infinity

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  121. [quote name=fang2415]Re regulartron: I’m a luddite on this one. Wrigley had been one of the few places remaining on earth where I could enjoy several hours without staring at a screen.

    But hey, these days I have to watch all the games on a screen anyway so what do I care I guess.[/quote]
    I don’t like most of the filler crap that goes on the Jumbotron (not the ads so much as the too-forced Fun), but it’s not going to keep me from the park. If I want the best possible of a game for good value I’ll watch on my couch anyway.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  124. [quote name=mb21]I don’t think the way you have to watch the game changes one bit at Wrigley or any place with a jumbotron. If they put the jumbotron in front of the pitcher’s mound I’d be pissed off, but as long as it’s not in the field of play I don’t care. If the team can generate some revenue that purchases players down the road then I’m all for it.[/quote]If there’s a screen with interesting content on it, I’ll look at it. I don’t like it but I’m human and my eyes naturally move to the happy fun time pitchers on that thar screen. It’s the same reason I hate having a TV on in a room where I want to do something other than TV. I spend most of my life in front of screens as it is, and live baseball is an unusual opportunity to be more entertained by real objects than by something on a screen.

    I guess I could buy some horse blinders and wear them to any games I go to though. That might solve the problem. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  125. [quote name=dylanj]please dont ruin my erection god[/quote]God is in Foxboro right now, DJ.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  126. [quote name=Berselius]I don’t like most of the filler crap that goes on the Jumbotron (not the ads so much as the too-forced Fun), but it’s not going to keep me from the park. If I want the best possible of a game for good value I’ll watch on my couch anyway.[/quote]Yep, same here. Almost every time I go to a game I wish I had watched it on television.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  128. [quote name=fang2415]If there’s a screen with interesting content on it, I’ll look at it. I don’t like it but I’m human and my eyes naturally move to the happy fun time pitchers on that thar screen. It’s the same reason I hate having a TV on in a room where I want to do something other than TV. I spend most of my life in front of screens as it is, and live baseball is an unusual opportunity to be more entertained by real objects than by something on a screen.

    I guess I could buy some horse blinders and wear them to any games I go to though. That might solve the problem. (dying laughing)[/quote]
    So why woud this board be more distracting than the TVs they currently have plastered all over the stands? Or a thousand other things going on in the park?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  129. [quote name=fang2415]If there’s a screen with interesting content on it, I’ll look at it. I don’t like it but I’m human and my eyes naturally move to the happy fun time pitchers on that thar screen. It’s the same reason I hate having a TV on in a room where I want to do something other than TV. I spend most of my life in front of screens as it is, and live baseball is an unusual opportunity to be more entertained by real objects than by something on a screen.

    I guess I could buy some horse blinders and wear them to any games I go to though. That might solve the problem. (dying laughing)[/quote]I’m someone who barely even notices the existence of those things. Can they be loud? Yeah, but so can 40,000 screaming fans. It’s like commercials for me. I don’t even know what the fuck they are when they’re going on. I somehow block them out and don’t even know what just happened. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  130. I’d love my couch more if I could afford to upgrade my TV (dying laughing)

    As it is I prefer to see my games live and have the option of watching replays of sweet plays.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  131. [quote name=dylanj]my Tebow almighty you cant ask for a greater redemption for A Smith than that. Please hold on[/quote]
    .

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  141. Incidentally there are plenty of other ways to generate revenue that I think would be bad ideas too. Practically all professional sports teams outside the US have ads covering most of their jerseys. It sucks as a casual fan because when I see a team play in a pub or a pic in the newspaper I have no idea who’s who since their colors change all the time and the jersey just says “T Mobile” on it or something. I’m sure the advertisers pay a mint for it, but I’m glad that the US sports haven’t gone this route (yet).

    But I think that kind of stuff bugs me a lot more than it bugs, say, MB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  144. [quote name=fang2415]Incidentally there are plenty of other ways to generate revenue that I think would be bad ideas too. Practically all professional sports teams outside the US have ads covering most of their jerseys. It sucks as a casual fan because when I see a team play in a pub or a pic in the newspaper I have no idea who’s who since their colors change all the time and the jersey just says “T Mobile” on it or something. I’m sure the advertisers pay a mint for it, but I’m glad that the US sports haven’t gone this route (yet).

    But I think that kind of stuff bugs me a lot more than it bugs, say, MB.[/quote]But that’s huge business for the team. Not only do they get the fee from the advertiser on the shirt, but it also gives the team an excuse to constantly make new shirts for fans to buy. I am all for this model.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  148. [quote name=mb21]Yep, same here. Almost every time I go to a game I wish I had watched it on television.[/quote]If I felt that way then I would certainly want the video board. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  155. [quote name=fang2415]Incidentally there are plenty of other ways to generate revenue that I think would be bad ideas too. Practically all professional sports teams outside the US have ads covering most of their jerseys. It sucks as a casual fan because when I see a team play in a pub or a pic in the newspaper I have no idea who’s who since their colors change all the time and the jersey just says “T Mobile” on it or something. I’m sure the advertisers pay a mint for it, but I’m glad that the US sports haven’t gone this route (yet).

    But I think that kind of stuff bugs me a lot more than it bugs, say, MB.[/quote](dying laughing) I hope the Cubs are the first team to take advantage of ads on their uniforms. If it buys players, it buys championships. The Cubs could use one.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  157. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]But that’s huge business for the team. Not only do they get the fee from the advertiser on the shirt, but it also gives the team an excuse to constantly make new shirts for fans to buy. I am all for this model.[/quote]Me too. I couldn’t care less about all the shit unrelated to baseball other than I want the Cubs to generate as much revenue as possible. As long as it doesn’t affect the play on the field I don’t care.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  162. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]But that’s huge business for the team. Not only do they get the fee from the advertiser on the shirt, but it also gives the team an excuse to constantly make new shirts for fans to buy. I am all for this model.[/quote]I’m sure that’s why they do it. But not only does it suck for fans like me who don’t want to follow what the fuck the team is wearing this week, it also does risk devaluing the team’s own brand, and the sport’s. Let’s face it, a lot of baseball’s financial success comes not from the excitement of the sport but from the historical resonance of the brand; that’s especially true of teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. People like to feel like they’re in the same place watching the same team wearing the same uniform as when their grandpa was a kid watching DiMaggio back in 1941 or whatever. It may be bullshit but people love to feel that way and MLB and the teams earn a shitload off the back of that.

    Videotastic stadiums and ads on jerseys may not kill that historical resonance completely, but the short-term value they add can come at the long-term expense of the brand. I like the historical shit as long as it doesn’t interfere with the game, so I hope that both MLB and the Cubs keep favoring the long-term side of that calculation.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  163. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]So why woud this board be more distracting than the TVs they currently have plastered all over the stands?[/quote]I hate those too btw. I think they only have those under the upper deck though? Anyway every time I go to the park I’m glad I’m not sat near one. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  164. That DEN OL is allowed to hold at will. The NFL should be embarrassed at the wanton incompetence of their officials.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  165. [quote name=fang2415]I’m sure that’s why they do it. But not only does it suck for fans like me who don’t want to follow what the fuck the team is wearing this week, it also does risk devaluing the team’s own brand, and the sport’s. Let’s face it, a lot of baseball’s financial success comes not from the excitement of the sport but from the historical resonance of the brand; that’s especially true of teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, etc. People like to feel like they’re in the same place watching the same team wearing the same uniform as when their grandpa was a kid watching DiMaggio back in 1941 or whatever. It may be bullshit but people love to feel that way and MLB and the teams earn a shitload off the back of that.

    Videotastic stadiums and ads on jerseys may not kill that historical resonance completely, but the short-term value they add can come at the long-term expense of the brand. I like the historical shit as long as it doesn’t interfere with the game, so I hope that both MLB and the Cubs keep favoring the long-term side of that calculation.[/quote]Also, INB4 this should have been a fanpost

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  166. [quote name=mb21]I don’t even care if the Cubs change their uniform to this:

    [/quote](dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  169. [quote name=fang2415](dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)[/quote]I would approve of that uniform but only with those shoes

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  174. [quote name=dylanj]ERECTION[/quote]
    If your post 49er win erection lasts more than 4 hours you should call your doctor. Vernon Davis is the Cialis of receivers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  175. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Tom Brady is the best QB I have ever seen play.[/quote]I can never stop (dying laughing) at this. We used to boo him at Michigan whenever they pulled Drew Henson in favor of Brady. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  178. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Wow. That is a really awful call. But hey, fuck the Broncos. (dying laughing)[/quote]Yeah fuck them in the ear.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  181. I can’t tell by looking at the mock-up but I certainly hope they’ve included misting stations. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  182. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Tom Brady is the best QB I have ever seen play.[/quote]
    He’s just a system QB, MO (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  183. [quote name=melissa]I can’t tell by looking at the mock-up but I certainly hope they’ve included misting stations. (dying laughing)[/quote]
    Is that like something that sprays water?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  184. [quote name=Berselius]Is that like something that sprays water?[/quote]
    I’m not sure, maybe Aisley could interview Crane Kenney about it at Cubs Con.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  185. [quote name=melissa]I’m not sure, maybe Aisley could interview Crane Kenney about it at Cubs Con.[/quote]It might be over his head.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  190. Let’s face it, a lot of baseball’s financial success comes not from the excitement of the sport but from the historical resonance of the brand

    I’m not sure I believe that. The Mets have been one of the more profitable teams in baseball until recent years and they weren’t an organization until the 60s. The M’s have made a ton of money. The Dbacks and Rockies have made a lot of money. The Dodgers and Giants moved across the country and are as popular as ever. There’s no greater change to a team’s history than that. I think the historic value is mostly just a figment of people’s imagination.

    In an era with expanded revenue streams, jumbotrons, and all kinds of things in ballparks that didn’t before baseball has become a global sport.

    At the end of the day all fans care about is success. The fans who don’t like the video boards are still going to buy tickets to see them play. The fans who didn’t like the ad behind home plate continued to buy tickets. I don’t believe baseball has come close to the point at which fans would stop buying tickets and I don’t know that there is one with regards to advertising. As long as it doesn’t affect the quality of play I don’t believe any sport would see a drop in popularity. And I don’t know how we could think that’s true considering all the other sports in the world that have much more advertising than baseball does.

    It’s like AC said earlier in the thread. The people booing this at the convention will be oohing and awing when it’s actually there. It will become an additional feature at Wrigley Field that makes it the most awesomest ballpark in the world. The placement, video and audio quality, type of ads and everything else associated with it at that point will be superior to what exists elsewhere according to them.

    Sure, there will be some who don’t like it. There are at least a couple here. I suspect there’s little a modern team could do to please these types of fans aside from eliminating all streams of revenue so they completely ignore these fans. But the majority of fans now who oppose this will love it after it’s built.

    In my opinion the questions the Cubs should be asking themselves is this: what would we have to do as far as advertising to lose a couple hundred fans? Answer that question and go that far. That’s the question I’m asking if I own the Cubs. I’m going to milk that place for every damn penny I possibly can.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  191. what would we have to do as far as advertising to lose a couple hundred fans?

    Jerry Sandusky, new strength and conditioning coach.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  192. My biggest complaint about the Regulartron is that it’s not going to show video replays. It sounds as if it’s just an overgrown ad banner.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  193. [quote name=melissa]My biggest complaint about the Regulartron is that it’s not going to show video replays. It sounds as if it’s just an overgrown ad banner.[/quote]
    For some reason I thought it would. That sucks.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  194. [quote name=Berselius]For some reason I thought it would. That sucks.[/quote]
    I assumed the same until I read Muskat’s article. Apparently it won’t be big enough. I just wonder if they could have mounted it above the bleachers and made it bigger with video playback capabilities. It seems like turning the section into a Budweiser suite area was as important as the Regulartron itself.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  197. [quote name=melissa]What Carrie Muskrat has up makes it looks like a mash-up of green monster seating and a rooftop. I’m assuming this seating is going to be much more expensive since it’s going to be more like a suite experience for groups.

    http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120114&content_id=26352900&vkey=news_chc&c_id=chc&tcid=tw_article_26352900#comment_container[/quote]I didn’t realize it was going to be ready for the coming season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  198. [quote name=mb21]It’s too bad it won’t show replays, but I’m still assuming the ad revenue will be worth it.[/quote]
    I agree, I’m sure they are looking at the overall revenue generated by the entire patio. It will be more ad revenue and an expanded luxury suite area. It will be more money but not necessarily a better fan experience for those elsewhere in the park.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  206. Updated with the last of my Cubs Con experiences. I did have fun at times but for the most part I wouldn’t pay for this if I didn’t have to, and I would likely not go more times than not if I did have to pay. Unless someone like Greg Maddux or Ernie Banks promised to sign for every fan for free no matter how long we waited, then I might think about it (dying laughing)

    http://obstructedview.net/unobstructed-views/cubs/cubs-con-2012.html

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  207. [quote name=Mish]Yesterday was a pretty awesome sports day. I hope today can be half as fun.[/quote]I’m hoping for no more than 44% as much fun as yesterday.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  208. [quote name=mb21]I’m hoping for no more than 44% as much fun as yesterday.[/quote]Wow, you really are a funsucker (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  213. [quote name=shawndgoldman]How much would it cost to put a rainbow-metabolizing unicorn on said screen?[/quote]Depends on if eye-of-newt is an acceptable currency.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  214. [quote name=Rice Cube]Depends on if eye-of-newt is an acceptable currency.[/quote]The political talk will stop NOW.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  215. [quote name=shawndgoldman]How much would it cost to put a rainbow-metabolizing unicorn on said screen?[/quote]
    You can’t buy miracles.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  218. [quote name=Rice Cube].[/quote]If Gingrich rallies to win the presidency, changes the country forever, and eventually gets put on a dollar bill, then eye-of-newt actually could become an acceptable currency.

    /unlikely’d

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  219. Were you guys serious about Campana’s defense yesterday? Every metric in existence says he was incredible. At least the ones I can find. To name a couple:
    B-Ref: +9
    UZR: +10.6
    UZR/150:
    CF: 32.5
    LF: 45.2
    RF: 128.8
    rPM: +8
    DRS: +9

    The guy is, by any metric you want, an absolute stud of a fielder. (DRS and rPM are connected.)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  220. The guy is, by any metric you want, an absolute stud of a fielder. (DRS and rPM are connected.)

    Much more the eyeball metric, range is harder to see by eye. His pathetic arm stands out. Small sample size obviously applies but I’ll believe the scouts that he’s a plus defender.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  221. UZR/150:

    This is as useless as looking at something like HR/150 after a dozen games. Say someone hits 7 home runs in those two weeks. Their HR/150 would be 87.5. Does anybody really think he’s going to hit 88 home runs?

    BTW, the numbers were already posted here that he’s a good fielder based on the very small sample of 300 innings. We’d need about 4200 of them to be as reliable as one season of batting stats though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  222. Also, not every metric says he’s incredible. Total Zone says he’s average. FRAA says he is too. UZR and DRS think he is outstanding. Those are the 4 defensive metrics in existence today.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  223. how the fuck was that not overturned? Did Goodell use the super secret phone to remind the refs that GB is the anointed team?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  225. OK, so he’s between average and outstanding by metrics. And he’s outstanding according to pretty much every scout.

    Wouldn’t that put him in the “pretty likely a good defender” category?

    Like, between 5-10 runs?

    And I know the UZR/150 is useless. I only put it out there to point out he was measured well by UZR at all three spots, so that nobody thought it was brought up simply because he was good when he was in LF/RF.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  226. i think we are making it too complicated with Campana. MD said it best- speed is speed we can expect that Campana is a range + guy. We also know he has the arm of a small child.

    In short, fuck your ZORP 2.0 you fuckin statfags

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  227. Well I agree with that mostly. I’m just saying. It’s insane to say he was a “terrible” defender. I felt like he needed to be defended. A cheap ass Juan Pierre does have some value. He’d basically be that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  228. [quote name=Doogolas]Well I agree with that mostly. I’m just saying. It’s insane to say he was a “terrible” defender. I felt like he needed to be defended. A cheap ass Juan (dying laughing) does have some value. He’d basically be that.[/quote]If his value is comparable to that of Juan Pierre he must be flipped for Nolasco.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  229. [quote name=Bottleasmoke]If his value is comparable to that of Juan (dying laughing) he must be flipped for Nolasco.[/quote]Nolasco’s first six seasons (years of team control) < Pierre's six seasons of team control.

    So I’d take Campana’s value, if he managed to pull of Pierre-esque numbers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  230. [quote name=Doogolas]OK, so he’s between average and outstanding by metrics. And he’s outstanding according to pretty much every scout.

    Wouldn’t that put him in the “pretty likely a good defender” category?

    Like, between 5-10 runs?

    And I know the UZR/150 is useless. I only put it out there to point out he was measured well by UZR at all three spots, so that nobody thought it was brought up simply because he was good when he was in LF/RF.[/quote]I agree. If you read earlier in this thread I was saying I think he’s probably a legitimate +10 fielder. The question is whether or not he can even hit enough to make that defensive addition matter.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  231. [quote name=dylanj]i think we are making it too complicated with Campana. MD said it best- speed is speed we can expect that Campana is a range + guy. We also know he has the arm of a small child. [/quote]
    Yeah, I have no doubt whatsoever that Campana covers a shitload of ground and makes plays that other outfielders would not. I’m as sure of that as I am that Barry Bonds was a power hitter. He has a horrible arm, but that’s less useful for outfielders than range and just making the plays. Campana is also very good on the bases.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  233. [quote name=mb21]Yeah, I have no doubt whatsoever that Campana covers a shitload of ground and makes plays that other outfielders would not. I’m as sure of that as I am that Barry Bonds was a power hitter. He has a horrible arm, but that’s less useful for outfielders than range and just making the plays. Campana is also very good on the bases.[/quote]Cool then. I didn’t skim through this entire thread. I just CTRL+F’d his name. The one yesterday I just felt like commenting on. And to that end, that is why I’d like to see him start. I think he can put up 2.5WAR between his baserunning and fielding. He definitely needs to hit 8th though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  238. [quote name=Rice Cube]If MO is awake I would love to see him tear this article apart:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AmAvdcXEQxOiOqgCK0UzG7lDubYF?slug=lc-carpenter_tim_tebow_broncos_brady_patriots_011412%5B/quote%5DThe only real problem I have with this is the perpetuation of the groin-grabbingly stupid mantra that all Tebow need is “coaching” and “preparation.” He’s now a third-year pro, after being a 3-year starter in NCAAFB. Tim Tebow is what he is. Improvements, if any, that come from coaching (and seriously, you listen to this fucking numbskull talk and you get the impression that he’s not really the sharpest tool in the shed so I’m not he can be effectively coached anyway) will be marginal. He’s just a terrible QB. As a TE, though, he’d be better than either of those two TE in NE. He could be an incredibly valuable player for DEN, but not as a QB. If he refuses to move positions, his NFL career will be over before his rookie deal runs out. The problem is one of talent, not of coaching.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  245. [quote name=Doogolas]Cool then. I didn’t skim through this entire thread. I just CTRL+F’d his name. The one yesterday I just felt like commenting on. And to that end, that is why I’d like to see him start. I think he can put up 2.5WAR between his baserunning and fielding. He definitely needs to hit 8th though.[/quote]I’d say 2.5 WAR for him is about his 90th percentile. I think if he played a full season he’d be closer to .5 WAR, which is about where Soriano will end up so sure, play him every day until Brett Jackson comes up. Campana is pretty bad at the plate.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  246. [quote name=mb21]I’d say 2.5 WAR for him is about his 90th percentile. I think if he played a full season he’d be closer to .5 WAR, which is about where Soriano will end up so sure, play him every day until Brett Jackson comes up. Campana is pretty bad at the plate.[/quote]
    He did bulk up this offseason so his bunts should be about a foot farther.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  248. [quote name=Doogolas]OK, so he’s between average and outstanding by metrics. And he’s outstanding according to pretty much every scout.

    Wouldn’t that put him in the “pretty likely a good defender” category?

    Like, between 5-10 runs?

    And I know the UZR/150 is useless. I only put it out there to point out he was measured well by UZR at all three spots, so that nobody thought it was brought up simply because he was good when he was in LF/RF.[/quote]I think he’s probably a very good defender. But most of that is range, IMO. His arm would be bad for a high-schooler. So once the speed goes, it’s gonna get ugly (which, oddly is the case for Juan PIerre, who Ozzie Guillen was forced to put in LF). But Campana’s problem at the MLB level isn’t his defense (even though to my lying eyes he looked pretty fucking ordinary out there last season), it’s his bat. He’s carrying a 2:1 K:BB at the MiLB level, and has no power whatsoever. I don’t think he’ll ever be able to contribute at the plate the way Pierre did, because he lacks the on-base skills PIerre had. So Pierre is his ceiling and he’d have to become a completely different hitter to reach it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  250. For what it’s worth, FRAA (which doesn’t use batted-ball location data) doesn’t rate Campana’s defense highly at either the major or minor league levels.I haven’t been able to find much in the way of scouting reports on his defense. He obviously runs fast, which is a major asset, I’m just not sure how well that translates to saving runs on the field.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  251. [quote name=Rice Cube]He did bulk up this offseason so his bunts should be about a foot farther.[/quote]I can’t decide if it’s going to be he or LaHair that the writers will make a big deal about their having bulked up in ST

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  254. I don’t even think Pierre is Campana’s ceiling. I just don’t think there’s any way he’s ever going to be as good as Pierre was. Pierre was very good defensively, on the bases and above average at the plate. That’s not Campana and it never will be. I’d say his ceiling is more like Tony Womack. From 97-99 Womack basically had a .325 wOBA, but was poor defensively. I think we can say at best Campana will have a .310 wOBA and be really good defensively. The end result is still about 1 WAR per full season and that’s best case scenario in my opinion.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  256. [quote name=mb21]I don’t even think (dying laughing) is Campana’s ceiling. I just don’t think there’s any way he’s ever going to be as good as (dying laughing) was. (dying laughing) was very good defensively, on the bases and above average at the plate. That’s not Campana and it never will be. I’d say his ceiling is more like Tony Womack. From 97-99 Womack basically had a .325 wOBA, but was poor defensively. I think we can say at best Campana will have a .310 wOBA and be really good defensively. The end result is still about 1 WAR per full season and that’s best case scenario in my opinion.[/quote]
    I don’t disagree. Just saying that as good as you could hope for from a guy with his skill set is Juan PIerre. And that’s not much. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  257. [quote name=dylanj]1. Campana
    2. DeJesus
    3. Castro
    4. LaHair
    5. Soto
    6. Byrd
    7. Stewart
    8. Barney[/quote]I could deal with Campana leading off if the infield defense sucks, but that’s about it. Corey Patterson was fast and had no business leading off. Same with Felix Pie. How much did we complain about that? Why would we now suggest Campana lead off when he has a tenth of the skills that the other two had? The best option for leadoff for this team is a platoon of Dejesus and Johnson. That will maximize production and that’s the only thing that should be considered. But if the cubs want to put Campana there for 750 PA I won’t complain. I’ll want Sveum fired by the end of the season, but the nicer draft pick will be a bonus.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  258. [quote name=dylanj]1. Campana
    2. DeJesus
    3. Castro
    4. LaHair
    5. Soto
    6. Byrd
    7. Stewart
    8. Barney[/quote]I would expect:

    DeJesus
    Castro
    Byrd
    LaHair
    Soto
    Soriano
    Stewart
    Barney

    But you can expect Reed to get a healthy number of AB in CF and LF as well, prob as the leadoff guy against most LHP, and day games after night games.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  260. [quote name=mb21]I could deal with Campana leading off if the infield defense sucks, but that’s about it. Corey Patterson was fast and had no business leading off. Same with Felix Pie. How much did we complain about that? Why would we now suggest Campana lead off when he has a tenth of the skills that the other two had? The best option for leadoff for this team is a platoon of Dejesus and Johnson. That will maximize production and that’s the only thing that should be considered. But if the cubs want to put Campana there for 750 PA I won’t complain. I’ll want Sveum fired by the end of the season, but the nicer draft pick will be a bonus.[/quote]
    I postulated that Sveum said this to appease the fan base but that they’ll realize at the end of Spring Training that their best option is what you suggested. I also thought I read somewhere that Theo would send Terry Francona a few suggested lineups before each game. Or maybe that was Billy Beane. But I feel like this new front office/staff is too smart to do something like lead-off with an almost automatic out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  262. Vs righties

    DeJesus
    Stewart
    Castro
    LaHair
    Soto
    Byrd
    DeWitt
    Sappelt

    Vs Lefties

    Johnson
    Castro
    Soto
    LaHair (or Baker at 1st base)
    Soriano
    Byrd
    Stewart
    DeJesus

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  263. [quote name=mb21]
    DeJesus
    Castro
    Byrd
    LaHair
    Soto
    Soriano
    Stewart
    Barney[/quote]I expect this lineup to score more than the Yankees and Red Sox. Combined.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  265. [quote name=mb21]But if the cubs want to put Campana there for 750 PA I won’t complain. I’ll want Sveum fired by the end of the season, but the nicer draft pick will be a bonus.[/quote](dying laughing)

    Even when you don’t complain you don’t like anything. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  266. [quote name=dylanj]i still think the Cubs ditch Soriano. He simply can’t play OF at all anymore[/quote]Based on what Theo has said that sounds doubtful.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  268. [quote name=dylanj]i still think the Cubs ditch Soriano. He simply can’t play OF at all anymore[/quote]I think if Theo could, he would, but I doubt Tommy Boy wants to eat that deal.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  269. [quote name=fang2415](dying laughing)

    Even when you don’t complain you don’t like anything. (dying laughing)[/quote](dying laughing) Seriously though, what’s the point about complaining if the Cubs put a shitty hitter in the leadoff spot? They’re playing for a better draft pick next year so that’s awesome. But a manager should never be thinking about that. His job is to put the best lineup on the field so in that sense if he does that he deserves to go.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  270. although i think its not going to happen there is a risk that DeJesus has simply started a fast fade. He isnt young by any means and unless that BA rises back to career norms his OBP is going to be awful as well

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  272. [quote name=mb21]Based on what Theo has said that sounds doubtful.[/quote]I agree. If they want to try to trade Soriano he absolutely has to play every day to boost whatever value he might have left. That’s why I thought platooning Soriano at 1B with LaHair was a fun idea.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  273. [quote name=ACT]I expect this lineup to score more than the Yankees and Red Sox. Combined.[/quote]So you’re saying the Cubs will win 180 games next year?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  274. [quote name=dylanj]although i think its not going to happen there is a risk that DeJesus has simply started a fast fade. He isnt young by any means and unless that BA rises back to career norms his OBP is going to be awful as well[/quote]Yeah. Imagine if his new true talent level is last year and that Stewart’s is as well. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  275. [quote name=mb21](dying laughing) Seriously though, what’s the point about complaining if the Cubs put a shitty hitter in the leadoff spot? They’re playing for a better draft pick next year so that’s awesome. But a manager should never be thinking about that. His job is to put the best lineup on the field so in that sense if he does that he deserves to go.[/quote]
    Unless, of course, it’s his job to tank…

    /conspiracy

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  276. Joe Buck’s call: “Rodgers scrambles to his right, floats it over the middle.”

    What actually happened: Rodgers slid to his left, and zipped a ball to the sidelines.

    Why does this proudly ignorant fuckspittle have a job?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  277. I would assume Baker would take over for Stewart which wouldnt be much of a drop or improvement. DeJesus will get a full year though since he signed the 2 yr deal

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  278. [quote name=Suburban kid]False.[/quote]
    Sorry, I didn’t read further to see that dj already picked that scab.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  281. [quote name=dylanj]whats the over/under on Baker getting 400 AB’s this year?[/quote]Pasta

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  282. Fuck Hail Mary passes. I’ve had enough of that shit already with UW football.

    And yes, GB’s pass defense is this bad. Credit to Eli and the Giants quality WR corps for expoliting it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  283. [quote name=dylanj]whats the over/under on Baker getting 400 AB’s this year?[/quote]same as it was the last two years. The opposing team could sign me before game time to pitch to Jeff Baker because I’m a righty. I don’t even know why opposing teams call in a right handed reliever to pitch to him. Just have one of the middle infielders pitch to him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  284. [quote name=mb21]same as it was the last two years. The opposing team could sign me before game time to pitch to Jeff Baker because I’m a righty. I don’t even know why opposing teams call in a right handed reliever to pitch to him. Just have one of the middle infielders pitch to him.[/quote]Just keep the southpaw in and have him throw righty for a few pitches.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  286. You know Ian Stewart is a great example of how prospects fail. Look at what he did in his age 19 season. In this day of value placed on young guys he could centerpiece a trade for just about anyone if he did that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  287. [quote name=ACT]Just keep the southpaw in and have him throw righty for a few pitches.[/quote]That would be a better use of personnel than bringing in a right-handed reliever.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  289. [quote name=dylanj]You know Ian Stewart is a great example of how prospects fail. Look at what he did in his age 19 season. In this day of value placed on young guys he could centerpiece a trade for just about anyone if he did that.[/quote]He was ranked 4th by BA after that season.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  291. (dying laughing) I think Kuhn might be faster than Starks. Any other NFL RB puts that in the end zone.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  292. well a 19 yr old hitting 30 bombs in A ball will do that. And then he just got worse year after year. and thats what sucks so bad about the new CBA imo. You can scout all you want but there just isnt a way to consistently guess how teenagers will develop year to year. Thats why stockpiling picks made sense. I dont see any advantage outside of luck anymore

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  293. The reality with the Cubs prospects at this point is that they’re hoping that one of Jackson, Rizzo or McNutt stick. Obviously the highest odds are for Jackson and then Rizzo, but McNutt could bounce back this season. If you get one of them to reach their potential you’ve done quite well. I’d love to see a Cubs lineup in 5 years that had Jackson in CF, Rizzo at 1st and McNutt in the rotation, but the odds of that are pretty slim. That’s just not how prospects work. Maybe you get really lucky and get two of them to hit or Tebow blesses the Cubs and all 3 do.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  294. [quote name=Suburban kid]If Garza isn’t traded, does that mean Travis Wood is in the bullpen?[/quote]I assume he hasn’t passed his bullpen test yet.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  296. [quote name=Suburban kid]If Garza isn’t traded, does that mean Travis Wood is in the bullpen?[/quote]I would assume Volstad would be, but that’s because I think Volstad really really sucks. There’s not much difference between Volstad, Samardzija and Coleman, but there’s a big difference between those 3 and the other starters.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  297. [quote name=Berselius]Surely Wood has options, they could just stash him in AAA[/quote]He does have an option and so does Volstad, but I don’t see them paying Volstad $2.6 million to play ball in the minor leagues. They’d probably release him before that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  298. I’m calling it now: 20 points won’t win this game, and the Giants could very well end up wishing they had done a better job of turning GB mistakes into points.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  299. [quote name=dylanj]well a 19 yr old hitting 30 bombs in A ball will do that. And then he just got worse year after year. and thats what sucks so bad about the new CBA imo. You can scout all you want but there just isnt a way to consistently guess how teenagers will develop year to year. Thats why stockpiling picks made sense. I dont see any advantage outside of luck anymore[/quote]Some scouts are better than others so there’s an advantage in having superior scouts or having an organization that focuses on the right data, but for the most part you’re right. The Cubs advantage now is more related to how they can outspend any team in the division on their MLB roster.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  300. i would also bet there is going to be alot more money spent on scouting HS kids. Much more analytics devoted to HS stats

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  301. [quote name=mb21]Some scouts are better than others so there’s an advantage in having superior scouts or having an organization that focuses on the right data, but for the most part you’re right. The Cubs advantage now is more related to how they can outspend any team in the division on their MLB roster.[/quote]McLeod and Bohringer actually talked a lot about this in their session. I was going to ask them about the CBA and how it’d affect them but I really had to pee (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  303. How do you show historic 49’er catches and not show John Taylor’s catch in the SB? Way to go FOX, you analbabies.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  305. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]How do you show historic 49’er catches and not show John Taylor’s catch in the SB? Way to go FOX, you analbabies.[/quote]
    Don’t you like anything? (other than Salma Hayek)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  306. [quote name=Berselius]Don’t you like anything? (other than Salma Hayek)[/quote]
    compared with Salma’s legendary rack nothing else is worth liking

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  307. [quote name=dylanj]compared with Salma’s legendary rack nothing else is worth liking[/quote][quote name=dylanj]compared with Salma’s legendary rack nothing else is worth liking[/quote] true

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  309. [quote name=Berselius]Don’t you like anything? (other than Salma Hayek)[/quote]Would ask Tom Petty that question?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  312. [quote name=dylanj]i would also bet there is going to be alot more money spent on scouting HS kids. Much more analytics devoted to HS stats[/quote]
    gigo as far as hs stats are concerned. i imagine more effort will be placed into the scouting itself, with pitchf/x and the like.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  313. [quote name=Berselius]Not a great night for Rogers or his receivers[/quote]Lots of drops. 7-8 by my count.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  315. [quote name=GW]gigo as far as hs stats are concerned. i imagine more effort will be placed into the scouting itself, with pitchf/x and the like.[/quote]Yeah, so much about high school aged players is projectability. A greater understanding of stats is always a good thing, but it’s only worth so much. I’m betting a more detailed analysis of scouting would be more beneficial for 16, 17 year olds than spending time analyzing stats.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  316. [quote name=mb21]Yeah, so much about high school aged players is projectability. A greater understanding of stats is always a good thing, but it’s only worth so much. I’m betting a more detailed analysis of scouting would be more beneficial for 16, 17 year olds than spending time analyzing stats.[/quote]
    agreed. Because even if you get the report dead on, all you have captured is what kind of player a guy is at 18. In 4 years his game will be different and he will be different. Scouting is a crapshoot.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  320. Anyone who watches ND football knows at least one thing: Ryan Grant will put the ball on the ground. A lot.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  321. I don’t understand how people can watch an NFL QB make a throw like that and then watch the dying quails that flutter out of Tebow’s hand, and somehow still think that Tim Tebow will ever, ever, ever be able to be a NFL QB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  329. Wow. What a throw. the last two TD throws have both been superb. I hope people in Denver are watching so they know what competent QBing looks like.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  339. All credit to the Giants. They executed, the Packers did not. Too many dropped passes and shitty ball security. The defense performed as expected (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  341. Some shitty officiating, but (dying laughing) to all of those who are alleging ref conspiracy on the tweeters. As if the NFL wouldn’t want the NY market to stay in the playoffs.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  343. [quote name=Berselius]Some shitty officiating, but (dying laughing) to all of those who are alleging ref conspiracy on the tweeters. As if the NFL wouldn’t want the NY market to stay in the playoffs.[/quote]Yep, as well as the possible ratings bonanza of a NYG-NE rematch.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  346. [quote name=Berselius]Rooting for the Niners and/or whoever is playing the Pats from here on out[/quote]Well, rooting for the Niners, but I just want a giant fucking meteor to destroy both the AFC teams.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  348. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Well, rooting for the Niners, but I just want a giant fucking meteor to destroy both the AFC teams.[/quote]Goood…gooooooood…

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  352. [quote name=Berselius]Also, Party Down is fucking awesome.[/quote]
    It’s going to be made into a movie next year. Which is fantastic. Loved that show.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  356. [quote name=dylanj]agreed. Because even if you get the report dead on, all you have captured is what kind of player a guy is at 18. In 4 years his game will be different and he will be different. Scouting is a crapshoot.[/quote]It’s not a crapshoot. Look at the draft round by round. 1st round picks have a much higher success rate than 2nd round picks who have a much higher success rate than 3rd round picks and so on. It’s an inexact science. If the draft was a crapshoot talent in the 1st round would equal talent in the 50th. Also, part of the miss rate is that pitching prospects get injured. Pitching is naturally bad for the arm so some great pitchers could have ended up being great, but ended up injured instead.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  357. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Wow. What a throw. the last two TD throws have both been superb. I hope people in Denver are watching so they know what competent QBing looks like.[/quote]
    You are not enjoyable to watch a football game with. I wish you would just be quiet.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  358. Here’s first round information from 1992-1999:

    Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
    1-10– 1.417 WAR/year
    11-20– 1.115 WAR/year
    21-30– .353 WAR/year

    Not only are 1st rounders more productive than 2nd rounders, but 1st picks (over a large enough sample) are more productive than 2nd picks and so on. A high miss rate doesn’t mean it’s a crapshoot.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  359. [quote name=Everyone]You are not enjoyable to watch a football game with. I wish you would just be quiet.[/quote]Don’t get lost playing hide and go fuck yourself, fanboy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  363. [quote name=Everyone]You are not enjoyable to watch a football game with. I wish you would just be quiet.[/quote]It is a little frustrating that OV membership requires you to monitor MO’s comment activity while watching football.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  366. [quote name=GBTS]It is a little frightening that OV membership results in the FBI monitoring MO’s comment activity while polishing their sunglasses.[/quote].

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  370. [quote name=GBTS]I ended up losing money, but I still spluged on that Alex Smith TD run. That was beautiful.[/quote]
    It’s nice having a coach that wasn’t content to kick a FG. Twice.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  371. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]It’s nice having a coach that wasn’t content to kick a FG. Twice.[/quote]We’ll blame the Monday morning euphoria for that, I suppose.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  373. I admit that I’m a little more nervous about playing NYG at home than I was about playing GB at Lambau.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  376. Eli has graduated into QB Tier 1 as far as I’m concerned. Dude has been incredible this season.

    Brady
    Rodgers
    Brees
    Mannings

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  377. [quote name=dylanj]Its going to be a muddy rainy field on Sunday. Should play into our strength[/quote]
    How is that?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  380. [quote name=dylanj]harder to throw. Favors ground game. Nobody can run vs us[/quote]
    NYG’s passing game isn’t really based on timing routes or anything. Relatively, anyway. I don’t think it’s as much of a disadvantage as it’ll be made out to be.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  381. [quote name=GBTS]It is a little frustrating that OV membership requires you to monitor MO’s comment activity while watching football.[/quote]I spoke out against the Holy One and must therefore be appropriately reprimanded.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  382. [quote name=GBTS]Eli has graduated into QB Tier 1 as far as I’m concerned. Dude has been incredible this season.

    Brady
    Rodgers
    Brees
    Mannings[/quote]I agree.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  383. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]NYG’s passing game isn’t really based on timing routes or anything. Relatively, anyway. I don’t think it’s as much of a disadvantage as it’ll be made out to be.[/quote]Yep. The biggest concern for SF should be how to get a pass rush going on a sloppy field. The speed of their front 7 will be neutralized and if Eli gets time, he’ll pick them apart.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  384. Plus, NYG will have Bradshaw for this game. He was out when we played before.

    And that front 4 is clicking right now.

    I thought NYG would be the most dangerous team in the NFC after they played GB a few weeks ago.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  385. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Yep. The biggest concern for SF should be how to get a pass rush going on a sloppy field. The speed of their front 7 will be neutralized and if Eli gets time, he’ll pick them apart.[/quote]
    Yeah, I think SF will have to get creative with their pressure. I’m hoping for some stunts, maybe some corner blitzes, anything to get as much free pressure as possible.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  386. the niner defense will turn NYG into a one dimensional team just like everyone they have played this year (including nyg).

    The Giants are hot but so are the 49ers and they are at home.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  387. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Yeah, I think SF will have to get creative with their pressure. I’m hoping for some stunts, maybe some corner blitzes, anything to get as much free pressure as possible.[/quote]
    Fangio used the CB blitz a few times vs NO. First time I had seen much of that

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  388. the big news for SF is that Delanie Walker said last night he will be back in action. Thats a huge part of our offense

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  389. [quote name=dylanj]Fangio used the CB blitz a few times vs NO. First time I had seen much of that[/quote]
    That’s what gives me hope that he’s got other tricks up his sleeve. GB gave Eli WAY too much time back there.

    [quote name=dylanj]the big news for SF is that Delanie Walker said last night he will be back in action. Thats a huge part of our offense[/quote]
    That is good news.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  392. [quote name=Rice Cube]Based on my observations, this choke is more on the receivers (holy crap drops) and defense (terrible tackling and positioning) than Rodgers.

    Also, the Giants were better.[/quote]
    There were drops, but Rodgers missed a few open throws.

    I don’t think NYG is better than GB, but they were better yesterday. Mostly because GB looked like they hadn’t played in nearly a month.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  394. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]There were drops, but Rodgers missed a few open throws.

    I don’t think NYG is better than GB, but they were better yesterday. Mostly because GB looked like they hadn’t played in nearly a month.[/quote]I think the whole “lack of defense” thing really hurt them too.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  395. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]The first sip of coffee in the morning is like a small orgasm.[/quote]I must be brewing it wrong.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  397. [quote name=Rice Cube]I think the whole “lack of defense” thing really hurt them too.[/quote]
    Yeah, that was unreal. I know their defense isn’t great or anything, but I think I could choose any three human beings at the local walmart and defend that halftime hail mary better.

    I think GB beats NYG by at least 10 if the game was played two weeks ago.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  398. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Yeah, that was unreal. I know their defense isn’t great or anything, but I think I could choose any three human beings at the local walmart and defend that halftime hail mary better.

    I think GB beats NYG by at least 10 if the game was played two weeks ago.[/quote]GBs offense has been covering for that defense all year long. They were getting absolutely shredded by nearly every decent-good passing attack they faced. The pass rush dropped off significantly from last year with the loss of Cullen Jenkins, and losing Collins put a huge hole in the secondary. They were always going to be in trouble in the playoffs with that defense. Only a matter of time. The only surprise to me yesterday was Rodgers’ inaccuracy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  399. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]GBs offense has been covering for that defense all year long. They were getting absolutely shredded by nearly every decent-good passing attack they faced. The pass rush dropped off significantly from last year with the loss of Cullen Jenkins, and losing Collins put a huge hole in the secondary. They were always going to be in trouble in the playoffs with that defense. Only a matter of time. The only surprise to me yesterday was Rodgers’ inaccuracy.[/quote]
    Poor throws by Rodgers cost them at least 10 points that I can remember. That game could very easily have been 20-13 GB going in at the half.

    Neither team played their best game yesterday, but I still think NYG was a bit lucky to get the GB team they got.

    That said, I’m VERY nervous about Sunday.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  400. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]Poor throws by Rodgers cost them at least 10 points that I can remember. That game could very easily have been 20-13 GB going in at the half.

    Neither team played their best game yesterday, but I still think NYG was a bit lucky to get the GB team they got.

    That said, I’m VERY nervous about Sunday.[/quote]If not for two horrid calls by Bill Leavy, GB prob doesn’t get the two TDs they did get. NYG were lucky to catch the GB offense on a bad day, but the GB defense didn’t play any differently than they have all year long.

    The NYG-SF game should be a lot of fun. The two hottest teams in the conference in a championship game? Yes, please.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  401. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]The NYG-SF game should be a lot of fun. The two hottest teams in the conference in a championship game? Yes, please.[/quote]
    It’ll be fun iff SF wins.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  402. [quote name=Dr. Aneus Taint]It’ll be fun iff SF wins.[/quote]Fun for me either way, but I’m pulling for SF because when something good happens to Tom Coughlin, a kitten dies.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  403. [quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Fun for me either way, but I’m pulling for SF because when something good happens to Tom Coughlin, a kitten dies.[/quote]
    I’ll have sex with the bag of dead kittens if it means SF goes to the Super Bowl.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

  405. MO, I think you’re underselling how great the GB offense has been this year. I thought this game would be a repeat of the last meeting, where the Giants put up 450 yards on the GB defense (even more than last night) but still lost. I picked the Giants to win earlier this week before learning that the GB o-line was much healthier than I remembered.

    I think Ryno is wrong about GB winning if the game was played 2 weeks ago. The WRs/Rodgers would have been clicking better but the oline was down 3 starters.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *