- 06:57 AM
- 11/23/24
If the women in the shower looked like these women, are you telling me you couldn't help but get an erection? Oh yeah baby, that does it right there! You know, I don't like showering with a bunch of people, period. As for having an erection in a locker room full of naked showering women, I don't think so! Whether they look like fatma's pair of lookers or are of the Jenny McCarthy/Angelina Jolie mold, Im thinking you're not getting one. Remember, this is a room full of people you are talking about. I don't know about you, but seeing as how there are generally attractive/unattractive people in every locker room, I don't want fatma's pair thinking that my appreciation is of them. ;)
posted by hellamarine at 06:51 PM on February 15, 2007
Okay, while I don't agree with Hardaway and think his opinion is just that, an opinion. It is an ignorant one for sure, but again it's his opinion. It's unfortunate that in today's world there is still this kind of backward thinking, but how many people here have listened to Rush Limbaugh say vurtually the same thing and not get offended? To say that Hardaway has committed sexual harassment is ludicrous, though. What he has committed is SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. As a black man, I would think he understood what discrimination felt like, and would be among those less willing to commit it. It just goes to show that discrimination runs rampant throught our society. Oh, and I know this is old news, but did it bother anyone else the Michael Richards (Kramer) was villified for racial slurs when he was responding to hecklers shouting racial slurs at him. Um, I do not use those words myself, but I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I'm trying to do my job, some idiots keep yelling racially motivated slurs at me, I finally blow up and then I yell racial things back at them. Childish yes, but I don't feel that constitutes racism. What it constituted was someone losing their cool and sinking to the level of those idiots. I know this was off the subject of Hardaway, but I'm curious how many other people felt like this. Anyway, I think that Hardaway is expressing how he feels, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Would you rather know that his opinion is of such or not? Myself, I like to know what subjets to avoid when speaking to prejudiced individuals so we don't end up causing a scene whe I feel the urge to bitch-slap them over their stupidity. Of course knowing they were like this would prevent me from having to long a cht with them. However, I'm sick of people not being able to voice their opinions in this country anymore. I've hung out and went to places with many homosexuals. Does that make me gay? No, but I still wouldn't shower with them. :) Oh, and one last thought, Do you think the fact that Hardaway apologized means he has changed his whole outlook on homosexuals?
posted by hellamarine at 01:08 PM on February 15, 2007
but did anyone see the first fumble that occured between peyton and the running back on the hand off. Can anyone tell me who Manning's backup is? Yes, I know it's Sorgi, but who is he? They don't even have a third string, so if I'm Dungy, I'm telling Peyton to stay the hell away from those too. Tell me this mflinn, do you think the Colts had a shot in hell of winning if Peyton went down? As far as Benson getting hurt, I'm not sure that it would've made any difference. I guess it could've, but I don't think it would've really changed the game.
posted by hellamarine at 09:17 PM on February 07, 2007
Well said, BornIcon, I wish I could've have written that eloquently.
posted by hellamarine at 11:28 AM on February 07, 2007
Carson Palmer was amazing after sitting out for a single season. Rivers was in the same situation, and he is headed to the Pro Bowl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Palmer have Pete Carroll as a coach in college? Pretty much an NFL style offense, wasn't it? And the last time I checked, Rivers had Drew Brees to learn from for 2 years. Do you realize that the Bears had a different QB ahead of Grossman for every one of his previous seasons? He didn't even have the same head coach at Florida for his whole career there. I think Chicago needs to get a better QB coach, and/or bring in a decent past-his-prime veteran to back him up, then see if he can grow under some decent tutelage. Before you question bringing in a different QB coach, let me reiterate that, including Grossman, the Bears have had a new starter at QB for at least four years in-a-row. Maybe a QB coaching change would be appropriate, ya think?
posted by hellamarine at 11:27 AM on February 07, 2007
How do you spell Colts? C.O.W.A.R.D.S! For not kicking to Hester after the run back. Can't really say anything about this that hasn't already been said, but, seeing as how your username is chisox29, maybe you oughta stick to baseball. Rex is a hex, and they aren't going anywhere till they get rid of him! It was like the Bears were playing with 10 on offense, and the Colts 12 on D. Good year, but '07 will be better for Chicago! Um, bet you were singing his praises earlier in the year though, huh? I realize Grossman was not good at times this season, but there were times when he was. Keep in mind that this was his first season as the starter. I say let's see what happens next season; if he still has the same troubles, as often as now, then cut the strings. I don't know what you do for a living, but it usually takes a little time to get proficient at one's chosen profession, so please afford Rex a little time. That said, he was obviously having trouble with throwing a wet ball, so maybe, sometime in the 3rd, Lovie shoulda went with Griese. However, I can't say I can really question Lovie on anything, because, the last time I checked, he coached the Bears to the Super Bowl. When was the last time they were there? The 1985 season? Considering that most people consider Lovie to be an excellent coach, and excellent coaches know their players, then what does that say about the backups?
posted by hellamarine at 10:23 AM on February 07, 2007
Finally, That horse got better medical attention than most people do. Hmm, I guess if it can be afforded...
posted by hellamarine at 06:04 PM on January 29, 2007
Okay JJ, that's what I was trying to get out of you. I figured you were either a pro, good enough to be a pro, or talking out of your arse. I really was hoping you weren't talking out of your arse, btw. Okay, I'll give in to you on the JJ vs. Tiger - best vs. worst arguement, then. I myself used to be an above average tennis player, and I know on my best day and his worst, Federer would pound me. I wouldn't stand a chance against Tiger whether he was playing his best or not. I think you're right, guys making around 3/4 a milllion dollars have to be a little worried about losing their card, I would think. I can't remember exactly where the line is, but it's somewhere right around there. I also agree with you on your opinion of the Europen wins Ryder Cup. Sorry I pressed you so much. I was just trying to figure you out. ;)
posted by hellamarine at 09:52 AM on January 29, 2007
Of course I'd beat him on my best day compared to his worst. He's shot over 80 (twice in his professional life I think) and I've shot less than that. Okay, so you are a decent golfer, but have you ever played a course set up like the pros have to play? Those greens are unbelievably fast and the pin placements are a little difficult to say the least. I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure that Tiger's worst day would probably get your best. Of course this debate is moot because we'll never really know, will we? As far as rivalries go, look at this: http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/109.html I mean you have to get all the way down to number 94 before you find some making less than a million. Maybe some of these guys would play a little harder if they actually had to win to make a paycheck. I realize that Tiger doesn't have this problem, but the difference is that he's not just playing against himself and the field, he's playing against Jack. He wants those records so bad that he keeps his drive to win, while, it seems to me anyway, the rest of the tour is happy getting a fat payday even if you're ranked as low as 93. Of course that's my opinion, and I'm not wrong. :) p.s. sorry about the link, couldn't get it to work.
posted by hellamarine at 09:04 AM on January 29, 2007
It's not like Tiger is just out there hitting the ball further than anybody else. (He's not.) True, Tiger's not outdriving everybody on the tour, but, when he needs to, he can knock the ball well over 300 yds. I've watched him hit in the 340-350 range and not even sweat it. What percentage of the tour has that in their bag? The other thing that bothers me is this: why, when Tiger can pound the ball so far, do you "Tiger-proof" (not my word) a course by lengthening it? Wouldn't it make more sense to put more trouble out there and make it about shot-making? To me, "Tiger-proofing" is ridiculous if not impossible, but, if you didn't lengthen the course and did make it about shot-making, you wouldn't be making guys like Justin Leonard obsolete.
posted by hellamarine at 11:56 PM on January 28, 2007
Think you meant to say, "...and then you win the tie breaks by a point," since you would have fewer points than your opponent but would still have won the match. Um, you're both wrong, tie breaks have to be won by 2 points. If I went out and played my best golf against Woods on a day when he was playing his worst golf, I'd stuff him. As far as you being able to beat Tiger on his worst day, I don't believe it. Are you a tour player? Unless you are, it doesn't matter if your playing your best and Tiger his worst, you are not beating him. The sad thing is, even if you were a tour player (a lower ranking one, anyway), you still might not be able to beat Tiger on his worst day. He's that good. As far as comparing Federer to Woods, true, they play different sports and it's hard to compare the two accordingly, but I feel that Federer is the more dominant of the two. Both are favored to win every tourney they enter. However, it's a shock when Federer loses (which isn't very often}, and, to me, that's the difference. At his worst, Federer can still compete with everyone in his sport (except for Nadal on clay), and if Tiger is playing his worst, he can't. One last thing, you have three days to overcome a bad golf day, but you don't have that luxury in tennis. A bad day in tennis sends packing your bags. This alone makes what Federer has done all the more unbelievable.
posted by hellamarine at 11:34 PM on January 28, 2007
I think the amazing thing about Federer is this: even when he's not playing his best tennis, barring Nadal on clay, he still can't be beat. I'm still watching the finals, but he definitely didn't play his best tennis today. I mean, Gonzales made no mistakes in the first set really, and Federer won in the tie-break. Who has ever been able to do that? How do you beat this guy on any surface other than clay. "I was missing too many forehands, I didn't know what to do exactly with his slice," Federer said. "Maybe the wind, maybe his court coverage and everything put me under pressure, and I wasn't feeling that great right from the start." If he can't be beat on a bad day, maybe he just can't be beat. I've watched him start like crap so many time but never so bad he's out of the match, then he raises his game to another level and wipes his open off of the court.
posted by hellamarine at 01:11 PM on January 28, 2007
2006: Joey Harrington - 57.5% completions = 22th in the league and a QB rating of 68.2. Joey Harrington? He has a career QB rating of 68.1. Not much to work with here, I think. As for as Frerotte, he has played for 13 seasons with a rating of 75.3. Granted, 71.9 is lower, but if Frerotte were Mr. Consistency, he wouldn't have played for 7 different teams in this time. Don't you think blaming Garret for these two is a little unreasonable? Give him some talent to work with and I think he'll be fine. That said, will he be a good head? A bad one? No-one knows. Myself, I think he'll be fine, but there is still the TO factor to think about. I mean look how well that went with both Reed and Parcells, and there's no debating whether or not they're good coaches.
posted by hellamarine at 09:26 AM on January 25, 2007
That said, I don't ever remember seeing a team as dominant as the 85 bears. You know, that's what I was thinking. The only team even close to them was the '86 Giants. Very similar teams, bland offense, stellar defense.
posted by hellamarine at 12:03 AM on January 25, 2007
Why couldn't he be head coach? If it started as a meeting for a coordinator position and turned into this possibility, then it really must have been one helluva an interview.
posted by hellamarine at 11:39 PM on January 24, 2007
He had a talented Bills team to work with, Which talented team was that, the one that was 6-10 the year before he took over, or the one that was 3-13 the year after he left? Sorry for biting your thoughts HM! No problem. I'm just glad you and I finally agree on something, VM.
posted by hellamarine at 06:38 PM on January 24, 2007
I like it, yay-yo! Let's call their coaches. I guess we'll have to wait on that for TO, but let's give Kiffin a ring.
posted by hellamarine at 01:01 PM on January 24, 2007
thought I was disagreeing with you! You were until you said, "No one would have even noticed if he walked off the field 2 seconds early." How can Porter be a bigger distraction if no-one notices him? :)
posted by hellamarine at 11:49 AM on January 24, 2007
No one would have even noticed if he walked off the field 2 seconds early. Thanks for making my case for me, bperk.
posted by hellamarine at 11:14 AM on January 24, 2007
For what it's worth, I think TO loves to play. If he didn't, he wouldn't play hurt like he does, but he's still more effort than he's worth.
posted by hellamarine at 11:13 AM on January 24, 2007
Well yerfatma, players used to actually have to hold a second job in the off-season, so back then, they played more for the love of the game than for the money. However, just because players make more money these days, doesn't mean they're all in it for the that. In fact, I would venture to guess that most still play because they love it. Do they get paid well? Hell yeah, very well! Are some players there strictly to be shown the money? I'm sure some are, but I think they are in the minority.
posted by hellamarine at 11:08 AM on January 24, 2007
Yes, that was Jack Youngblood (no to be confused Jim Youngblood). However, considering TO's playoffs with the Eagles a couple of years ago (torn ankle ligaments), and his broken finger this season, this is not a viable comparison. TO will play hurt, he'll just bitch and moan about how mistreated he is afterwards. This guy is all about me, me, me. Last I checked, football is a team sport. That TO wants to win, I don't doubt, but winning will always require help from his team. Moss isn't even the biggest malcontent receiver or distraction on his own team. Right, 'cause Porter has made so many headlines over his career before this season. Nope, Moss is still worse, he has the longer record of stupidity. So, I guess then, if TO goes to Oakland, the the three biggest malcontent receivers would be on the same team. Wow, THAT would be awesome!
posted by hellamarine at 10:45 AM on January 24, 2007
I think TO is in a class by himself that Randy Moss on his worst day could never hope to achieve. Um, no, Moss isn't as bad as TO, but if you think he's not a distraction, you're wrong. So, it only makes sense to put the two biggest malcontent recievers on the same team, doesn't it?
posted by hellamarine at 10:10 AM on January 24, 2007
I really wish TO could get his head on straight. Do you realize how good this guy could be if he did?
posted by hellamarine at 09:16 AM on January 24, 2007
Hey lindo, this has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with the shelfish and moronic behavior of TO. He has had the same problems everywhere he has played. It seems to me that the common factor between all the different teams is TO. So, if the commonality between all places equals TO, perhaps therein lies your problem?
posted by hellamarine at 09:12 AM on January 24, 2007
And in a startlingly related moment "Charley from The Island Of Misfit Toys" lamented once again that no one wants to play with a Charley In The Box. I think you just said it all, mjkredliner.
posted by hellamarine at 08:46 AM on January 24, 2007
I'm saying Wade Phillips has the same chance to get the Cowboys to the playoffs as Wilson Phillips. So, Are you saying Wade Phillips suck or the Cowboys? He took Denver to the playoffs 1 out of 2 seasons there, and Buffalo 2 out 3 seasons. Seeing as you can discount his time at the helm of the Falcons (3 games in '03 as interim coach when Reeves was fired), this means out of five full seasons as head coach of two separate franchises, Phillips was in the postseason for three. You know, and maybe I'm wrong, I'd take that as success.
posted by hellamarine at 08:19 AM on January 24, 2007
Hey, how about Owens in NY? Not unless it's the J E T S, Jets! Jets! Jets! Keep him away from my Giants. Make the move "KING"Carl. Hmmm, TO in KC. Nope, we've got enough trouble here. Let him stay in Dallas, I don't like them anyway. Hey, wait a minute, I think I just came up with a solution. How 'bout moving him to Oakland? TO and Randy Moss on the same team would work, wouldn't it. I'm thinking their negatives cancel each other out.
posted by hellamarine at 11:50 PM on January 23, 2007
Haha, they're speculating Wade Phillips as his replacement. Um, what's wrong with Phillips? Personally, I hope they don't hire him. I think he'll be a great coach for them and I don't want my Giants to have to face them with Wade at the helm. Last I checked, Wade has a winning record as a head coach (45-35). Not stellar numbers, but a winning record, nonetheless. In fact, the last really good season the Bills had (11-5) was with Phillips running the team. So what is so funny?
posted by hellamarine at 09:08 PM on January 23, 2007
I agree to a point, grum, but you are talking about a something a little different. Canada is celebrating a Canadian doing well in another country. If they had been black, would that have been part of the headline? Not being Canadian, I am just wondering. It's not quite the same thing, but I understand what you are saying. I also understand why the celebration is happening, I just don't like "the one of their own" statement as it as it insinuates that Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are not one of my own. Am I not an American? Did I not root for both of them too? After much thought, I am still leaning toward my previous stance: As long as we keep setting people apart by their color, achievement or not, we it never see past it (color). I do understand the celebration of these men being the "first", but when will we have moved forward enough that it is no longer an issue? Will we ever? That I even ask such a thing saddens me beyond belief.
posted by hellamarine at 08:33 AM on January 23, 2007
lmao, Black_Hand
posted by hellamarine at 08:09 AM on January 23, 2007
I'm glad Parcell's left Dallas. Now maybe I can get passed what a traitorous bastard he was. I mean, how could he coach the Cowboys after taking my beloved Giants to the SB twice? Seriously though, I wish the Giants could've brought him back. Maybe if he was coaching in NY, Tiki wouldn't retire.
posted by hellamarine at 11:25 PM on January 22, 2007
I was not at all surprised that Grimm wasn't hired. This is the Steelers and they are all about defense. I didn't believe it when they said Grimm was in the running when the other two were defensive coordinators. Wasn't sure which one of the two they were going to choose, but I still would've been surprised if the call went to Grimm. It's too bad for him, maybe he'll get a chance somewhere else. I know it won't be this year, but maybe in the next couple.
posted by hellamarine at 11:11 PM on January 22, 2007
Yeah, maybe he could do fine there. And pigs can fly! There's a little thing in the world called talent, and it ain't in Oakland. Oh sure, there are a couple of talented players (mostly on defense), but Al Davis will still be the team owner. I still don't understand how this man went from being possibly the best owner in the NFL, to being possibly the worst. As long as Big Al is around, though, I think this team will be in shambles. Oh, how I long for the days when the silver and black was a force and not a farce. I'm not even a fan, but the AFC West was a lot more entertaining back then.
posted by hellamarine at 11:02 PM on January 22, 2007
Well, I have to say that after reading through all of the opinions here, I think there are valid points on both sides of this issue. I guess it's not as clear cut as I had previously thought. I think I may have to meditate on this a little to decide where I stand on it. I really do hope, however, that some day the color of someone's skin becomes a moot point. Oh, for that day!
posted by hellamarine at 06:41 PM on January 22, 2007
Hey tieguy, go look at Marino's TD to INT ratio from his 6th and 7th seasons. Not great, but you would never catch anyone saying he was a bad QB. I mean there's no debating whether or not Marino was great. He was. I'm just using that to point out that even great QBs have not so great years. Is Grossman great? Not right now. Can he be? Who really knows? My point is this, even though Grossman is in his 4th year, he's only in his first as a starter. Hell, I guess Lovie Smith must be a crappy coach. Doesn't he realize that his starting QB is so bad? He's stuck with Grossman all year, despite the cry for Griese. Wow, if Grossman is that bad, what's that say about his backup?
posted by hellamarine at 02:03 PM on January 22, 2007
Watching Grossman is pretty nerve-wracking. I could see where Grossman's play could get a little aggravating for Bears fans, but remember, this was Grossman's first full year as a starter. Why is everyone ragging him so hard? I realize he had some really bad games, but who hasn't? Maybe he had more than his fair share this year, but he also had some really good games as well. Maybe this is due to his lack of playing time more than his talent. Give him 'til next season, and if he's still making those kind of plays after about a 1/2 season, then maybe you should be concerned. However, he apparently didn't play so bad that he kept the Bears out of the Super Bowl. As long as some ignorant ass is willing to say a black man can't do this or a black man can't do that, then it's going to be a headline. Good point, SummersEve. I wish it wasn't true, but it is. I still feel, however, that the more we point out differences, the harder it is to get past them. I hate that we can't all just be considered human beings and leave it at that. A cynic would say it's almost "unnatural". Oh boy, here we go again! Thank you MLB. Congratulations to the Saints and their fans for a helluva season. I hope you have more just like it or better.
posted by hellamarine at 12:32 PM on January 22, 2007
Bishop, It's an awesome achievement for sure, but is it less of an achievement for a non-minority coach? As for the NHL vs. NBA, would you agree that the NHL is is a little more obscure than the NBA? I mean you didn't even name the NHL player (Scott Nichol) in your post. Did you know his name, or for whom he played (Predators)? Now let's look at the Carmelo incident, if that had been say, Steve Nash, do you really think the press would've just let it go by the wayside? Nay, say I! The reason Carmelo was in the news more than the NHLer, is because Carmelo is a huge star. Are you saying you believe the press are sitting around going, "OK, which black athlete can we crucify today?" C'mon, man. Next, if you want to celebrate Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy for being the first black coaches to make the Super Bowl, more power to you. Myself, I'll just celebrate the fact that they are both great coaches and deserving of where they'll be come 2/4. I will not argue over whether or not racism still exists, because unfortunately, it does. I'm glad that Dungy and Smith both made the big game. That said, are they better coaches today than yesterday just because they made it? I don't buy that. Are they any less of a coach because of the color of their skin? I don't buy that, either, and I can't say that I've ever listened to or read a statement to that effect. So then, please answer me this, why does it have to be about them being black? Why can't it just be about them being great coaches?
posted by hellamarine at 01:35 AM on January 22, 2007
So essentially you're saying we should all be color blind and not recognize and respect people of different cultures and nationalities? First, I have no problem with all the different cultures of our country. It's part of what makes living in the U. S. so interesting and great. Second, if you are born in the U. S. or have obtained U. S. citizenship, then you are an American, not a -American. Why, oh why, does everyone always have to point out the color of someone's skin. That this is news further demonstrates how little our country has advanced. It sickens me that in today's world people are still obsessed with this. It's too bad that we have to make a big deal out of things such as: "Doug Williams is the first black QB to win the Super Bowl," so other QBs of color a shot at playing. It's sad to think that the only way black coaches can get some R E S P E C T, is to get to a Championship game. Btw, "Black" or "African-American" are the same thing to me. One distinguishes by color and one distinguishes by ancestry. The key word here being "distinguishes." You know this word, right? Distinguishes - sets apart as being different. How do we move forward if we are always trying to point out that we are different?
posted by hellamarine at 11:26 PM on January 21, 2007
Hmmm, guess you must be a Grossman fan who believes all he needs is more time behind center. Good luck with that, my man. Nope, not a Grossman fan, just a football fan who thinks that a 3 season span, with an average of less than 3 starts per, is not a lot of experience. With this season, he now has about 1 1/2 seasons of playing time. I ask you this, do most QBs have it all after 1 1/2 seasons of playing? Those who do are in the minority. Besides, Grossman had flashes of brilliance this year. Does that mean anything? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell. Hey, wait a minute, what am I doing? Grossman's going to be playing on Feb. 4, and that's all that matters, huh? Guess he was good enough after all.
posted by hellamarine at 10:15 PM on January 21, 2007
Grossman is a more experienced version of Andrew Walter. How do you figure that!? The last I looked, this was Grossman's first season as the Bears full-time starter. Wow, that's a ton of experience, isn't it? In the 3 previous seasons, he had played in 8 games and started 7. That breaks down to less than 1/2 of a season of starts over a 3 year period. That's not experienced, my man, that's basically a step above rookie. Walter got 8 starts this year and played in 12 games. I don't think Grossman's 3 GS and played in '03 and '04 plus 1 GS and 2 played in '05 amount too much.
posted by hellamarine at 11:52 AM on January 21, 2007
hey dyams, I live in the midwest, and from what I've seen and heard here, it's about 50/50 on the Colts vs. Pats. This is one hard game to pick. Judging from the past, I think it's going to be very close, which (dangit) favors the Pats, but knowing how these two teams are, there's also a chance for a blowout. I hate (and love)games like this because they are so unpredictable. I think if the Colts don't go up by at least 2 td's early, though, they're in trouble. You know what, I can't remember the last time I was this juiced for both championship games. I can't wait, but I'm sure to be bitchin' tomorrow!
posted by hellamarine at 11:26 AM on January 21, 2007
As for Da Bears vs. the Saints, everyone I ask thinks the Saints are going to win this one. In fact, almost all of the so-called pros I've listened to have been picking the Saints by 7 to 14 points. How many Saints had post-season experience before last week? Correct me if my memory fails me, but weren't the Bears in the playoffs last year? I realize the Saints have a great offense and a propensity for the big play, but the Bears have more playoff experience. It amazes me that suddenly, that doesn't matter. Also, I guarantee that the Bears have been listening as everyone picks against them, even though the game is in their house. Yes everyone, this game is in Chicago, and I think that counts heavily in the Bears favor. I'm not counting the Saints out, in fact, it would be kinda cool to see them make the big one; I just don't think they're going to be dancing this time around. I realize that having never been, combined with all things Katrina, the Saints are everone's favorite pick. But you know what, the Bears have only been once, and that was what, a hundred years ago?
posted by hellamarine at 11:04 AM on January 21, 2007
Thanks fatma, I guess I was just hoping there was some logic to it. If Marty had tossed the flag just on his QB's say so, then he should've been canned. But if the guys upstairs told him to do it also, then they should be ones handing out resumes. Hell, Rivers was on the sidelines and not even involved in the play, so why is he telling Marty to challenge the fumble? Rivers' opinion shouldn't even have been a consideration, he's young and obviously thinking with his heart and not his head. Besides, deciding when and where to challenge plays isn't part of his job description. The guys upstairs, however, are there because Marty trusts them with exactly this kind of decision. The fumble by McCree wasn't even in the vicinity of being ruled down. Considering that this braintrust still told him (Marty) to red flag it, they, in my opinion, should be gone. Part of their job is analyzing this kind of thing, and they either don't know what constitutes being down, or they too went with their hearts (instead of their heads) as well. Either way, assistant coaches should know better. I can't say how it is for everyone else, but in my particular line of work, if you f*** something up that bad, you get to go looking for other employment opportunities. That said, I guess I'll hop down from my soapbox now.
posted by hellamarine at 10:00 AM on January 21, 2007
I've tried to find Schottenheimer's post game press conference and can't. Any suggestions? I just want to find out what he was thinking when he threw the red flag on the McCree fumble. Personally, I thought he did it to give his defense more time to settle down after the play, because challenges take longer than timeouts. I can't find any statements by him to either prove or disprove my theory. In retrospect, I think the extra time gave Brady a chance to setltle down and go on his late game roll.
posted by hellamarine at 02:39 AM on January 21, 2007
You know what reaaly drives me crazy, missed free-throws. I've watched too many games where making them could of turned the game the other way. Hell, I'm old and fat, but even I can make a free-throw.
posted by hellamarine at 11:29 PM on January 19, 2007
Very well said, grum. I couldn't agree with you more, and if I didn't work graveyard, I might have been awake enough to put it as eloquently as you just did. That said, even though Brady was below average for the better part of the game, he did elevate his play when it mattered most. The point I guess I was trying to make was this: If either Brady or Rivers had played well from the opening whistle, it would never have come down to the end. I know I'm repeating myself, but this New England win goes to the defense. They kept it close so Brady could pull some of his last minute heroics.
posted by hellamarine at 02:48 PM on January 19, 2007
dyams, I agree that wins count more than stats. However, stats are still a measure of how someone performed. I realize Brady won. I'm merely trying to use the stats to point out that his performance was really subpar overall. fatma, I agree with you some, but I wouldn't take Brady's entire second half, just the last 6:16 (time remaining when he got the ball back after the int).
posted by hellamarine at 01:25 PM on January 19, 2007
Give it a rest. You're not harping a little, you're harping a lot. And what are you doing then?
posted by hellamarine at 09:12 AM on January 19, 2007
Because it was a joke. Hmmm, didn't I say that? I know you guys all seem to love him, but do you realize Brady's QB rating was 57.6? Hell, even Grossman's was higher. Of course River's, McNair, and Manning were lower, but a 57.6 isn't exactly blazing trails either. Rivers had a 55.5, so for the game, according to rating anyway, they were pretty equal. Nope, QB didn't win this game. Before you start on me again, I would like to point out that Rivers at least got his Pro Bowl kicker in position to attempt a game tying field goal. Considering this was his first ever playoff start, I'd say that's not so shabby. Of course Brady's kicker made his 31 yarder, so Brady is the second-coming. If you're going to sing Brady's praises, then you need to sing for Rivers also. The Chargers last drive started on the 25 with 1:05 on the clock, and no timeouts left. All Rivers did was to get them down the field and in position to tie. That said, both QBs really stunk until the final few minutes, and I think that the McRee interception woke Brady up as he played better after it. Still, as bad as he was the rest of the game, he didn't have to go far to improve.
posted by hellamarine at 09:10 AM on January 19, 2007
Sorry fatma, but the "yeah," made it look to me like you were agreeing with grum, and that I was a "pussy". Of course no matter who you meant it for, "pussy" is still name calling and a personal. So jersey, why is it okay for fatma to do it, but not the new guy? I know I'm harping a little, but jeez, I did get vilified earlier. Oh, I know, he was joking, right? I guess that's more okay when you've been here a while too. Maybe I should change my name to hellamartyr. :)
posted by hellamarine at 08:29 PM on January 18, 2007
Oh right, so when you do it it's okay 'cause it's a joke, but when I do it, it's time to kick me off the site. How many times did I actually call someone a name, grum? Go check how many names I got called. Besides, thee isn't anything you can call me that I haven't alreadt been called. In fact, no-one has ever called me anything that compared to what my D.I. called me. I also think it's funny that fatma comes in again with his useful little comments. Hmmm, I'm a pussy, "OH THE HUMANITY!" So how come no-one is screaming to have fatma removed. OMG, he called me a name, whatever will I do? Thanks fatma. ;)
posted by hellamarine at 02:07 PM on January 18, 2007
Sorry, I don't know what happened. I went off to do some gaming, and when I came back it was on the post screen. Didn't realize that it had actually posted already until it was too late to change it.
posted by hellamarine at 11:18 PM on January 17, 2007
Danjel, Tiger's name is NOT Jack Nicklaus, and considering how his relationship was with his father (who passed away less than a year ago), I was merely pointing out this could (not would) effect his game. Do you have any children of your own? I do, and my life certainly changed after they were born. A child tends to change one's perspective on what is important is all I'm saying.
posted by hellamarine at 11:15 PM on January 17, 2007
See grum, I try to change the way things are going and here you are dissin' me. What's really funny to me is that I don't see the riot act being read to you. Also, anyone who has ever played defense, if they had a coach worth his salt, were taught to knock the ball down on 4th. You see the logic was that you not only got the ball back where the offense was, but you also eliminated the possibility of turning the ball over and giving said offense a 1st down. Have you ever played on defense in any kind of organized football, grum? Not trying to be a smart-ass, but I'd really like to know. And before you people start jumping down my throat again, how many of you ever played D?I realize that Pop Warner and High School ball isn't on the level of the pro game, hell it isn't even near college ball, but it is still organized, to say the least. As for the sandlot ball, the point I was trying to make was, that even in a game that was meaningless to everyone but those of us playing, I still played it the right way and I didn't even have to think about it. It was ingrained into everyone of us back then.
posted by hellamarine at 03:39 PM on January 17, 2007
Does anyone else think that Lefty is happy that Elin Nordegren (Tiger's wife) is pregnant? I mean, is there anything in the world that could possibly make Tiger's game drop a notch or two than his first child? It's going to be a whole new experience for him. Honestly, I hope he stays focused, but a child can make a lot of things seem less important.
posted by hellamarine at 12:17 PM on January 17, 2007
As for naming Everson Walls... just reflexes I guess. Newbie, you were right to name Walls, the man should be in the Hall. For one thing, he's the only guy ever to lead the league in interceptions 3 times. For another, he was a great CB and one of the best to ever play the position as far a I'm concerned. Don't forget, all this is coming from a professed Cowboy-hater.
posted by hellamarine at 11:57 AM on January 17, 2007
See grum, I try to change the way things are going and here you are dissin' me. What's really funny to me is that I don't see the riot act being read to you. Also, anyone who has ever played defense, if they had a coach worth his salt, were taught to knock the ball down on 4th. You see the logic was that you not only got the ball back where the offense was, but you also eliminated the possibility of turning the ball over and giving said offense a 1st down. Have you ever played on defense in any kind of organized football, grum? Not trying to be a smart-ass, but I'd really like to know. And before you people start jumping down my throat again, how many of you ever played on defense? I realize that Pop Warner and High School ball isn't on the level of the pro game, hell it isn't even near college ball, but it is still organized, to say the least. As for sandlot ball, the point I was trying to make was, that even in a game that was meaningless to all but those there, I still played it the right way and I didn't even have to think about it because it was drilled into us to the point of being instinctive.
posted by hellamarine at 11:49 AM on January 17, 2007
Yes, I know Wehrli is a finalist this year, but if my memory serves me correct, he's been a finalist before. Just being a finalist doesn't guarantee enshrinement. Oh, and one more question, why didn't Derrick Thomas make it in on the first go around. If you compare his numbers to LT, they are so close it's unreal, and he played what basically equates to one less season. If you look, Taylor played 13 yrs. and Thomas played 11 yrs., but with injuries and strikes, Thomas only played 15 fewer games. I realize that LT has been deemed the guy who changed the position, and he was a great LB, but how is a guy who was just as prolific at the position as LT not in the Hall? I would just like to say that, as a fan of the Chiefs and the Giants, weird combo I know, watching both of them as much as I could, there was not a lot of difference. I hope they finally put him in this year, and Wehrli as well. They both deserve it.
posted by hellamarine at 11:21 AM on January 17, 2007
Who's the Daddy?
Amen, dusted.