MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
Skimming down without reading comments so excuse me if this is repetitive, but the problems with this question are both:
a) Assuming that Sherman is anything but a smart guy in the first place. All that you have to do is listen to an interview.
b) Assuming that Luck is a "super genius" in the first place. I somehow doubt that fans of other teams are as exuberant in their praise.
c) Assuming that a higher GPA correlates to more intelligence.
I'm prepared to respect anyone who is even admitted to Stanford as likely being smarter than the average bear, and graduating from same certainly amplifies the point - but they are still jocks. We don't know enough about either to differentiate the two, and I'm doubtful that "super genius" is really on the table for either.
-
I wasn't sure if they were serious or not. The way the news has been,it's difficult to tell. Makes more sense that this a parody.
www.profootballmock.com
Another lead story for perspective:
"Marshawn Lynch Surprise Winner in Belmont Stakes" :
: -
No, someone is going to start. Fitzpatrick, Savage etc. are all smart guys and they have been getting drilled ever since joining the team. Our offense isn't going to be nearly as bad as you wish, and the defense will be something to watch.
They might catch lightning in a bottle with Fitzpatrick - he's had his moments in the past - but long-term I don't see what the point is.
So in contrast to the thread title, I'd actually say "Texans should just name Fitzgerald backup QB".
Give a kid a chance. Worst case scenario you get a better draft slot while sorting through the young guys faster.
Aside: As a Rutgers fan I'd love to see Savage make it - although not necessarily in the Colts division. ;) At least he didn't get drafted by the Pats as was rumored. The 47 Rutgers players they have already is more than enough to give me agita.
-
Knew it was bull (no pun intended) when I saw the thread title.
Yup. Clearly pure bred bull-pit.
Of course it could have just as easily been referring to him being attacked by the remains of a peach, a large hole in the ground, or the entire city of Pittsburgh - each far more believable and likely. I simply had to pop in to find out which one it was.
-
Perfect, thanks for the clarification.
In addition to what others have replied to you, I will add that development in baseball is VASTLY more important than in ANY other sport. Sure hockey has minor leagues, but just like in football, the odds are that the stars are coming from near the top. "You can't teach speed" as I often find myself saying.
In baseball, the guys at the top routinely fail to get anywhere, and stars can come from out of the blue. Hitting and pitching in particular are as much art form as athletic endeavor, and it's expected that kids when drafted will be significantly lacking. Projecting who will become what is virtually impossible, and it takes YEARS of training and practice to make it to the big leagues. Competing against competition that is too advanced is destructive to skills - the large number of minor leagues reflects the large number of steps in a players development. That volume combined with the "crapshoot" nature demands a large draft. Plus the minor leagues are popular in their own right and have a longtime and comfortable place in American culture.
Well not just in American culture. ;) I saw the Trois-Rivieres Aigles play two games while on a family vacation in the early 70s.
-
frankly, it's a very boring sport.
Frankly, no it's not. ;)
Now BASKETBALL is a very boring sport.
-
I'll help you out. ESPN (American) owns TSN (Canadian) and SportsCenter (American) and SportsCentre (Canadian) are essentially the same show on those networks. So yes, Americans know what SportsCenter is. Hope that helped!
I've been aware of TSN for decades (it's almost as old as ESPN), but had no idea that it was related to ESPN. I just looked it up, and your statement isn't exactly correct. ESPN bought a tiny piece of TSN a few years back. Yes, they managed to exert enough influence to get TSN to make their news show more closely resemble the US SportsCenter, but I imagine that the content is significantly different.
In other words, some people here are getting a kick out of the OPs implication that American's are ignorant of "sportscenter". Lets hope that they aren't missing the actual point - that he was referring to a Canadian show that few of us have ever seen. Unless the "top 50" clip that he talked about is identical to the US clip - just with different titles - than he is 100% correct about us all being ignorant of it.
On the other hand, I get very tired of the persecution complex that so many people have about the Colts. It has no basis in reality.
-
A portion of a contract "automatically" voiding makes little sense (there has to be some criteria that in theory MIGHT be met that could activate the extra year, otherwise it would be inane) but it doesn't really matter. What you are describing sounds like pretty much every contract in the sport. Any year at the end of a contract that doesn't contain guaranteed money might well exist purely for the purposes of salary cap manipulation. Perhaps some contracts just pretend a little less. Nothing to get exited about.
Any contract can get terminated, upon which the prorated bonus's get accelerated.
-
It's justin bieber...I lost a bet about where Weston Richburg would be drafted.
You have my sympathies. -
Was supposed to read "he got a shot because the starter got injured and he played well"
I keep meaning to ask you - who is that in your new avatar photo?
-
But if they go into coaching or management then people remember that. So their legacy could be hurt by coaching or managing failures.
From what I have read Matt Millen was a pretty good player in his day. But now the only thing people remember about him is that he was a total failure as a GM.
No, people remember him as a pretty good player who was a lousy GM. And I don't think that incredibly competitive people suddenly avoid challenges because they are worried about their reputation. They assume that if they work hard enough they can enhance their reputation.
My guess is the reason is that broadcasting is a lot less work then coaching or being a part of the front office.
Does that sound like Peyton to you?
-
Hey, I've been called worse!
In fact, I was given more grief right here on this website this week!!
So, stand in line and take a number!!!
Oh.
I hope you're right.
I know Mac. I really, really like Mac. I think he's one of the more thoughtful posters here....
But I thought he was giving me the business calling me a troll.... (in a good natured way!) don't know if I'm right, maybe you're right. Hope so......
NFL fan is correct - what I did is a common way of using that emoticon. If you had a problem with something you said (which I largely never do my friend) I would engage you in conversation. The point was that the post you were responding to wasn't worth the thought and effort of a reply.
-
I'm not sure why there's a need to rip the Broncos. They weren't calling themselves classy.
This is the kind of thing that could happen to any team at any time.....
When you live in a glass house, I'm not sure why anyone would want to throw stones.....
Just sayin.........
-
Whoah, now...i agree with you on everything. Im merely stating ESPN didnt create this monster. They are just feediing it. He probably practices that scowl in the mirror. As far as Rome, i still hold out hope that Jim Everett is merely waiting for the right time to finish what he started.
:
: Here here.Sorry, it sounded like you supported Rome, but regardless I wasn't attacking you - it's just the mood I slip into at the thought of him.
And there is an old Perry Mason episode on in the background, and seconds after I posted this a trial started regarding the death of a character named Rome.
-
Jim Rhome used to have Skip on his show before Skip was known and he said Skip was like this back then. He wants to be famous
Like what? Rome doesn't want to be famous? He'd film his mother mud wrestling a goat if he thought it would help his ratings.
I can't stand Bayless, but just the sight of Rome (or sound of his voice) has made me feel ill for more than 20 years now. He is just a repugnant
, so his "tsk tsk" comments about anyone are confusing. Frankly I'd rather listen to Bayless - even when I disagree with him. And in this case, his fundamental point is correct. It's a bit premature for Luck's coronation. You just hope that he feels it's similarly early for most every other young QB in the league as well.
-
I didn't read Kiper's comments, but any draft in which you don't have a first and a fourth is doing to be deficient compared to other teams right off the bat. It's going to whack your "grade". Thus my anger at the Richardson trade in the first place - any problems with this draft are directly related to an evident "sell the future to win now" philosophy that occasional creeps in (I'd say from Irsay) and creeps me out.
That being said, a second round quality O-lineman (assuming that's what he is - who am I to judge) and a bargain WR in a deep WR draft seem about perfect to me. The primary reason that I was angry at the Richardson trade in the first place was being it seemed obvious to me that the first rounder was going to be used to draft Reggie's replacement. If they managed to accomplish that with a third rounder, more power to them. We shall see. The point is that in contrast to a common theme on here, I think that WR is an enormous position of (long-term) need, and it's very hard to fill well outside the top of the draft.
-
Sanders is Welkers eventual replacement (not to mention Holidays likely current replacement). This is Deckers eventual replacement - and insurance in case they can't afford to resign Thomas - not to mention insurance against Welker showing his age (or getting more concussions). Something tells me that as the season wore on they weren't looking to Welker to be a "star" or "the go to guy" anymore. There well may be a problem there.
With that in mind, I'm not surprised that they took a WR in the slightest, but I was surprised that they traded up to take a guy who didn't seem to be worthy of the spot. Then I read some more and realized that he was considered a first round talent by many. He sounds fantastic actually. Great size, hands, speed, toughness, attitude. One year of Peyton teaching him how to run routes, and he could be a star.
They have other position needs, but I haven't heard anything to indicate that the guards or mlbs available are worthy of a second round pick. You can't find measurables like that in a WR if you wait too long. Why reach for positions that could be filled with lower picks or cheap vets when you can take a guy who will vastly increase the probability that the offensive will continue to fly high for the duration of Peyton's career.
-
:
: I love your numbering convention. -
What can I say?
My children grew up at a time when the Smurfs were very popular which meant I watched a lot of Smurfs.
My daughter even wanted a Smurf-themed birthday party.
Now, I'm learning a lot about Peppa Pig and the Bubble Guppies as they are my grandson's favorite shows.
My wife spent many years as a pre-school teacher, and thus became disturbingly familiar with all manner of things - with some lost or forgotten toys occasionally following her home (the garbage being an undeserved fate). I think there is a small smurf figurine somewhere.
There are some theme songs that drove her to distraction to the point that they drive me to distraction, and she developed an aversion to "Barney" that borders on the pathological.
I pity the kid who ever dresses up like that for Halloween in her presence.Somehow we ended up naming our Beagle Barney. He gets a bit confused when my wife stumbles across a Barney episode on tv - cursing like a sailor while desperately trying to change the channel.
-
I agree with you that others trying to find some hidden meaning is annoying although I have often wondered about the meaning behind Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater.
:
: Particularly considering the fact that he had a wife and couldn't keep her. That boy's priorities were seriously questionable. -
I think I can help you here. SN12 was posting under the assumption that you know your Smurfs and therefore choose Vanity Smurf over say Papa Smurf or Brainy Smurf.
There has been some controversy as to Vanity Smurf's sexuality because he is a beautician who has an effeminate voice and his closest friend is Smurfette . . . although he never showed any interest in her romantically.
Personally, I never saw Vanity Smurf as anything other than what his name indicates which is that he is a very vain little Smurf who talks about himself all the time and whose favorite pastime is looking at himself in the mirror which is why he always carries one.
Although I find you highly intelligent, I rather doubt that you are up on the Smurfs enough to have chosen that pic for any other reason than you thought the image was fitting.
Now, why do I feel the need to change my font to Smurf Blue?
Thanks for the edgamacation.
I had no idea that I was missing so much. Smurfs are cute, but other than that I can't say that I know anything that one wouldn't pick up by accident.Gramz is right - I haven't posted this much in some time and the conversations are tending to the comically surreal.
I picked that picture because the "do" looked similar and the evident self-absorption seemed appropriate. Intended no more and no less.
By the way, you are touching on a pet peeve here. I have fond recollections of a lot of kid oriented movies, books etc from my youth, and some things my wife and I take pleasure in watching even now. My default assumption is that they are utterly devoid of sexual implications in every way shape or form. I find it seriously disturbing when people start claiming otherwise - be it analyzing the authors intent or the characters nature. It just ta-ints and complicates something whose pleasure is very much tied to it's innocence and simplicity. (Not sure why the spell checker keeps changing that word to "Saints". Not sure I want to know.)
-
My sentiments exactly MAC. Referring to you as "homophobic" simply because you displayed a smurf image looking at themselves in the mirror is ridiculous Sports Nation12.
Since when do cartoon characters define a person's sexual orientation, especially when you have never even met the person [MAC in this case] face to face? That's a totally unfounded leap with no basis in fact.
Que? I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but taking a guess here...............he's not trying to define my sexual orientation, he's accusing me of being intolerant of someone else's (Brady?, Smurf? His?) sexual orientation. Doesn't make sense actually, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Actually what he's doing is
in one of the more bizarre manners I've seen on here in awhile. -
Are the mods going to monitor this thread for homophobic posts? Because we know if Brady was a member of the Colts many of his critics would have been banned from this forum long ago for homophobic posts.
If Brady was black than many members here would be walking on egg shells like cowards censoring themselves.
What I see with Tom Brady is a guy so comfortable with his own sexuality he doesn't care what anyone thinks. It's not like Tom thinks he looks good in some of these outfits, he's just mocking his critics and he just doesn't care: "Yeah I'm good looking and I'm married to a super model and I'm filthy rich. What about it?"
Brady pretty much is more like a lot of the European and Latin American athletes who dress a little more flashy. It tends to be a lot of the ignorant American "blue collared" types that doesn't understand how to dress. If Brady did the typical "American trend" today and dressed like a slob wearing shorts and flip flops with a hat into restaurants with a bit of a beer belly he'd be considered just one of the regular good guys. The problem isn't how Brady dresses, the problem is the horrible lack of fashion sense of Americans and the sloppy American casual look.
This is homophobic.
What in God's name are you talking about?
Oh no, this is now a religious post - lets hope the moderators are monitoring for that as well!
It appears that you observe and contemplate pictures of Tom Brady MUCH more closely and frequently than I do. What that says - I don't know, and I don't care. I was just making fun of a silly haircut that couldn't have been more of a cry for attention if Lady Gaga had worn it. I'm not entirely sure what you are doing - other than looking for a little attention of your own.
I couldn't care less if Brady wandered around in an over-sized pillow case highlighted by neon advertising. Actually I'd prefer not to look at him at all.
-
Every QB must honestly assess their performance especially in the one of the biggest games in his career as far as his football legacy was concerned. Every QB knows they play a role in the final outcome. I know Manning is a great QB, but I wanted him to critique that performance alone on February 2nd in isolation not as an entire body of work with MVP Awards & playoff runs. Put a number 1-10. 10 being great & 1 being not my finest hour. I don't wanna see a QB sitting on the sidelines not rallying his offense, pumping them up, & saying this isn't over we are not going out like this. If that Seattle defense overwhelmed you & the Broncos had no answer for it that night, just say that. I respect that because then you own it & I respect that. When someone dominates you in every phase own it don't run from it. That I respect.
All Letterman proved to me is that he was too preoccupied with that 1st safety & that play had no bearing on the game overall. Remember the Devin Hester TD in 2006? That was a horrific 1st play for INDY that did not define the game for Peyton when he led the Colts to victory that year.
Yes, 18 is getting a pardon because he never addressed the "disappointing" loss question after the SB & he never talked about his role in the SB outcome last night. "Seattle played better than we did" does nothing to account for his part in the loss. Again JMO.
We are talking Late night with David Letterman correct??? Not a 30 for 30.
30 for 30? Sounds more like you were expecting 60 minutes SW. You are taking this WAY too seriously.
You know Dave and what those shows are about. Do you imagine that Johnny Carson would have been sitting there with coaches video trying to make Peyton hide under the seat while admitting every mistake from the game? The goal is to nonsense with celebrities and entertain the audience - PERIOD.
More to the point, if Letterman was known to do what you are criticizing him for not doing, why would Peyton (or anyone for that matter) ever go on the show in the first place? And why should he? What are you waiting for exactly? Do you imagine that he somehow owes the general public an apology, or a public spanking, for daring to come up short after one of the greatest seasons in the history of the league? If Letterman had tried I might have complained to the network.
Peyton owes us nothing other than to keep on doing his best as long as he chooses to play.
:
, so his "tsk tsk" comments about anyone are confusing. Frankly I'd rather listen to Bayless - even when I disagree with him. 
I pity the kid who ever dresses up like that for Halloween in her presence.
in one of the more bizarre manners I've seen on here in awhile.
All-time TD pass king: Peyton or Brees?
in NFL General
Posted
This thread has gotten predictably ridiculous in ways that I'd rather not address.
To the actual OP:
Bree's has certainly been putting up great numbers in recent years, but the bottom line is that he's still 128 TDs behind Peyton (a number far greater than the vast majority of QBs could hope to reach for their entire careers), he's reaching an age where QB's typically start to decline physically, he's far more reliant on his athleticism for his success than Peyton is, and he's physically far less imposing than Peyton.
In other words, while it's certainly possible for Brees to catch the record, it would likely involve Peyton retiring tomorrow and Bree's having three more great years. If Peyton has three more good years, is Bree's going to have six more great years? Assuming that he will average 40 QBs per year for the next six years (into his 40s) when he's only reached 40 twice through his prime is a bit much.
The fact is that if there is a QB who seems more likely to be a candidate to continue to be successful until age 45, it's Peyton, not Brees.