92.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
No. The only year where Monk would receive any consideration would be 1984 where he broke the single season reception record. And that was the year of Marino throwing for 5000+ yards, and Dickerson rushing for 2000+.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Doubtful. Monk was the best skill player for them in 1984, and probably 1985. Not enough to be considered one of the all-time best in the franchise.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
No, and no. Even in his huge 1984 season, he was 4th in receiving yardage. Then Jerry Rice came along.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Leaning towards no. For each of the Redskins 3 Super Bowl appearances, Monk did not have a big year. In 1983, Charlie Moore was still WAS's main target. In 1987, Monk was injured. And 1991, Gary Clark had better stats. Monk, however, did have solid playoff performances.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Monk was still a productive player into his upper-30's.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. He's not even the best receiver not in who was eligible last year.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Eh... most. WR is a tough position to rate when guys like Lynn Swann are in. Also, many players around Monk's level have recently qualified for HOF voting, so many of them are not in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Yes. 8th in receptions. 12th in receiving yards. 2 Super Bowl titles. That would be more than enough in most circumstances...
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Monk's vast amount of receptions definitely overrate his value, statistically. The longevity of his career hasn't hurt.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
No.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
A tough argument for 1 in 1984 if there were lesser competition. Other than that, never close.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
2, maybe 3 if you include 1989 which was a stacked year for WR's in the NFC.
3, he probably shouldn't have made the 1986 Pro Bowl.
All have higher or equal amount of Pro Bowl appearances. He's only tied with the highly debatable deserving PIT's receivers, and Charlie Joiner.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their division/conference?
Probably not.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
No.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes. A quiet WR. A rarity these days.
Would he get my vote?
No. I flip-flop on Monk often... but I can't ignore that Monk wasn't even the best WR on his TEAM except for at best, a three year period. Most agree that Gary Clark was the playmaker for the Redskin offense, especially in the Posse days. And the stats agree with that. It's unfortunate that these great Redskin teams get shafted with the amount of HOF's. Monk simply was not a great player for long enough. He was a top tier WR for one, maybe two years at best. Monk was a very good WR for 15 years. But, it's not the Hall of Very Good. No matter how many pretty stats you rack up, and how many championships your team wins, in that amount of time.
46.
No more yammering on the list.
I don't want to hurt anyone else's feelings.
Well, I'm lying, I deeply enjoy doing that. But, I have connections with celebrities, now. I don't have time for you plebeians.
GOOD
1. -MikeSC
2. Slayer
3. Hawk 34
4. Dr. Tom
5. Czech Republic
6. CanadianMuggy
7. Carnival
7. Anglesault
8. Black Lushus
9. Damaramu
10. EricMM
11. Cancer Barney
12. Milky
BAD
1. iggymcfly
2. banky
3. Porter
4. EvanderHolyfieldblahblah
5. kkk
6. Vitamin X
7. Hoof
8. The Thread Killer
9. A smorgasbord of sports posters
10. NYU
If anyone wants further comments on these selections, please ask nicely. Or, if you have any questions or comments feel free to ask. If I like you.
xoxoxo
Alyanna.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
No.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
All-time, no. KC previously had better defensive players. But, Thomas was the face of the Chiefs' franchise during his time there.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
If by position, we mean OLB? Then, no.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Before Thomas went to KC, they were a dismal team. Nearly every season Thomas was in KC, they were a playoff team. But, never a serious contender for a championship. All in all, we'll give a slight lean towards yes.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Thomas was still putting up his usual stats until his death at 33.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Since sacks have only been recorded since 1982, it's difficult to compare. However, I'd go with no. Since Richard Dent has comparable sack stats and is not in.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Not enough of a sample to properly judge.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Lots to suggest Thomas was worse since sacks are a horribly overrated stat. Thomas was a weak run defender with few tackles for his position, and a noted liability in pass coverage. Thomas' position was OLB, so these are significant weaknesses.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Most would say yes.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
None. He was never a defensive MVP.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
9 Pro Bowls. Easily enough for HOF consideration.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?
No, and they didn't.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
It could be argued Thomas revolutionized the purely pass rushing OLB/undersized DE.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yes. He was noted for being a good man in KC. And his untimely death further adds to the positive feelings people have for him.
Would he get my vote?
No. Being one of the best at 1/3 of the responsibilities of your position is not enough. Inducting Derrick Thomas all comes down to your believe of what a Hall of Famer should be. The glamor of bringing down the QB, or choosing players who were the best at their position. If Richard Dent is struggling to get in, I don't see how Thomas has any shot unless he gets the sympathy vote.
40.
I'll stop with the lame fantasy booking for a while.
Soon, I will be creating my Top 10 favorite poster list. Discuss amongst yourselves.
I might do a Worst 10 list before that... but, there wouldn't be many surprises in that.
Anyway, I look forward to spreading joy.
Thanks.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
Doubtful. Irvin was amongst the elite WR's in the early 90s, but it's difficult for any WR's to receive such honors.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Doubtful. Emmitt Smith is regarded as the best skill position for that Cowboy dynasty. Larry Allen was also probably their most dominating player.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
Doubtful. Jerry Rice was still playing from 1990-1995. And very well.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Yes. Irvin was one of the best receivers in the league for a team that won 3 Super Bowls.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes. Irvin remained a solid top receiver until his career ending injury in 1999.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Mostly. Longevity is a weakness for Irvin, who started out slow in his first 3 years, and then had to retire at 32. So, he only had about 7 years of pure starting WR duty. But, in those 7 years, he was top 10 in receiving for six of those years. Top 5, four times.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Yes. 3 Super Bowl rings. A big part in all of those teams. His previously mentioned statistics. He's easily in.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
No. If anything, his stats could have been better without Emmitt Smith who had a heavy workload during the Cowboys' dynasty run, and vultured many TD's away.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Many would say yes. But, I don't believe Irvin is.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
None. Although, he did lead the league in receiving in 1993, and had a huge 1995 (The year Rice had a ridiculous season, unfortunately). But, not enough for serious consideration.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
5 Pro Bowls for Irvin. He deserved that many. There's some players with less than 5 who are in, so it's enough.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their conference?
I think so.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
None.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Lolz. Here would be Irvin's achilles' heel. Irvin has been arrested at least 3 times for drug possession. He's been noted as a sexual abuser, but not proven. He's made racist statements. He's a stupid loudmouth clown on ESPN every week.
Would he get my vote?
No. Because I hate Michael Irvin. If voters can not vote for certain for silly reasons, then I can too. And I can use the lack of character as a reason. I don't want to picture his induction ceremony. As for just basing it on Irvin's playing career, he's easily in. 3 Super Bowls, an elite receiver for most of the 90s, his talent and accomplishments cannot be denied. The only thing Irvin lacks is the longevity and the gaudy stats that types like Art Monk and Andre Reed have, and I don't put much weight into that.
58.
I have a 5-day weekend, which rocks. Our place is having some security something, so we're off Tuesday. I don't know if that's a good thing. But, with my scheduled Wednesday off, I have 5 days to do nothing.
I recently put in for another part-time job, but that already went by the wayside as their hours couldn't work with my current full-time job. Oh well.
There will be no more avatars of myself here, because of all the whiny bitches. Therefore, only porn stars now. Mostly of my look-alike porn star, the lovely Teagan Presley. Pre-boob job, of course.
Myspace has been boring lately. Alex Shelley deleted me after I told him I hope his leg breaks, and it ends up looking like Kevin Nash's chicken legs. What an asshole he is. I can't wait until he's fired. How hard is it to be nice to your fans that took the time to stalk you cuz you're cute.
That's all.
K. Bye.
76.
So, I want to change my name here. Princess Leena sounds so heelish. I need to show what a face I've become.
All suggestions are appreciated. Except Princess Cunt. You'll be banned for that.
Oh, and my Negatives about TSM thing is done. Sorry.
xoxo.
80.
So, I don't really like it here at forums.thesmartmarks.com. I guess I just come here out of habit, and the usually good sports forum. I've always found most of the "established" posters here to be very annoying and put them on ignore... but, it's gotten even worse in the past couple months here with the stupidity, especially in the modding ranks, and the "let's side with the biggest loser to make us feel good about ourselves" garbage in HD has gone into overdrive. I'm also not a wrestling fan, whatsoever, any longer.
I need to leave here. And the only way that will happen is if I can find another board. Because my internet addiction will never die. I've tried finding board with my interests with not great results...
1) Sports boards. I've tried many, and these are always a no-go. They're either: 1) Dominated by homers (ala Damaramu) who are stubborn and impossible to have any discussions with. Or 2) Dominated by gambling types (ala iggymcfly, but MUCH worse). As for tennis boards, where there's few hardcore fans, I already post at a couple smaller ones. But, the issue with tennis fans is that most are gay. And when there's a large group of gay people, mixed with gay extremists, bad things happen. If someone could direct me to a quality sports message board, it would be very appreciated.
2) Games boards. See the ""let's side with the biggest loser to make us feel good about ourselves" garbage" line.
3) Fashion boards. There's one I post at sparingly, but the problem are teenage girls. Most of which who purposely type like fools.
So, suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
57.
He begs me to reply to him forever...
Then, I post in his blog, and nothing.
Oy.
And, yes, I'm fully aware that my recent entries really suck here. I've stopped trying. Sorry.
62.
Someone gave me the idea to stupidly rate wrestlers with my little wrestling knowledge, and so I shall.
Here is my criteria:
Match Quality: 25%
Sexxiness: 35%
Charisma/Interviews/Intangibles: 40%
And we shall start with John Cena. Just because everyone here hates him.
Match Quality:
Even though I'm a silly mark, I know Cena is a god-awful wrestler. The majority of his matches are him getting his ass kicked, with poor selling. Comes back with his shitty set of moves... five whatever punch, FU, STFU and stuff. It's lame, and everyone knows it. The only positive I have with Cena is he has been in some decent brawls... Judgment Day '05 with JBL is generally regarded as a fine brawl, and one of his PPV's with Taker, the one with the steel chain a few years ago, a pretty good match. But, Cena generally blows now... so, he gets 6/25
Sexxiness:
Cena is a pretty boy, no doubt. And he has just about the perfect body for a wrestler. Muscular, but not too big. Only negatives would be that he's got a naturally goofy face. And usually looking wiggerish is always a deterrent. Therefore, 28/35
Charisma/Stuff:
This section includes the main reason I watch wrestling... to see crappy actors try to put on entertaining segments. And obviously, this is where Cena shines. He's the most fluent speaker in WWE since Rocky. He never sounds like he's spouting lines, and there's usually emotion in his speech. Although, that's changed in the past year or so, with his neutered, lame character. He's ok with his facial reactions, but he overdoes them at times.
And as far as his segments being entertaining... that's dropped a ton recently. Not his fault... but, seeing him basically admit that he's an inferior wrestler to HHH a few times. Bad, bad, bad. He was OK back in the heel rapper days... but, Cena needs major transformation to be a decent face. So, overall in this section, I give John: 25/40
John Cena
Overall: 59%
He fails. Go away.
I don't know who to do next.
91.
We take a break from stuff that PISSES ME OFF, to another HOF list. Except these are for football... not baseball ones like alkeiper and other inferior posters do.
For each player, I'll be using the Keltner list. Because I've always wanted to.
We'll start with Thurman Thomas.
I should note beforehand that I'm a huge fangirl for him and thus biased.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in football? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in football?
Not by many. Although, I feel he was in consideration for this in 1991 and 1992.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Yes. He was the best player on the best offense in the league for multiple years. If we include defensive players, Bruce Smith had occasional injury problems and was arguably slowing down after his huge year in 1990. Cornelius Bennett was Defensive MVP in 1991, so he's in consideration, also.
3. Was he the best player in football at his position? Was he the best player in the conference at his position?
Arguably, and definitely yes. It's very difficult to beat out a Barry Sanders in his prime, though.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of great seasons?
Yes. He was the starting HB of every game but 1 in the Bills' four Super Bowl runs.
5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Yes, up to the point where injuries curtailed his career. Although, his quality of play did drop significantly after the Bills' Super Bowl runs.
6. Is he the very best football player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Yes. Every comparable skilled possession player got in 1st ballot. If it wasn't for a stacked class last year, he would have been in. And should have been in, regardless.
7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Yes.
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Absolutely.
Led the NFL in yards from scrimmage from 1989-1992. Enough said.
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Arguably. His stats are boosted because he played on one of the best offenses in the league. And he got many looks as a receiving threat, much more than his equal counterparts Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders. And he was on a quick-paced, often no-huddle team that gave more chances. But, I don't put much credence into this for football.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Yes.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
I'd say 5, from 1989-1993. He was the majority MVP once in 1991. I'd guess he was in the top 5 the other 4 years.
12. How many Pro Bowl-type seasons did he have? How many Pro-Bowl games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many Pro-Bowl games go into the Hall of Fame?
5. 5. It's on the lower end of HOF RB's, with only Dorsett (4) and Riggins (1) from post-merger being lower. But, it's enough.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win their division/conference?
Yes, and he did.
14. What impact did the player have on football history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he change the game in any way?
None. Although, he should make future Super Bowl players remember where their helmet is before the game.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
He was arrested for marijuana possession after his career, and confessed to being an alcoholic before that. There's been other rumors, but Thurman is not noted for being a bad guy.
Would he get my vote?
Yes. He should have been in last year on his first try. He was statistically the best player at his position for FOUR straight years. And reached the Championship Game FOUR straight years. No other player can boast that, and it's unlikely that it will ever be equaled. 8th in career total yards. 12th in rushing. And that's with a relatively short career. A no-brainer for this overlooked player whose prime was shared with 2 other all-time greats.
9.
Then, this happens:
http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=78468
Oh, Lordy.
THIS is the shit I LIVE for on message boards.
Since I've (somewhat) matured, and most of the Internet has matured as well... it's been a long time since I got one of these. One of those posts that I can look back on every day for months, and just laugh.
Thank you, Damian. I knew you were capable of spreading such joy.
That's all for this entry... I better copy Damians' joy for safe keeping.
"The Gloves are off, motherfucker.
I've gone out of my way to pretty much cut you out of my existence for the last 2 or 3 years or so and your ass continues to come back, so fuck it. This will be theraputic.
I'm gone from pure anger towards you, to indifference, to just being goddamned annoyed by you lately.
What the fuck makes you so special?
Out of about 500+ guys that post on the board, you seem to attract the most attention simply because of the fact that you have a vagina and this is probably the closest that a lot of guys would get to associating themselves with a psycho bitch like yourself.
Guys, there's tons hotter, most of whom aren't racist pieces of shit who are actually a lot hotter and dont have their heads all gassed up, like this crazy attention whore.
Anyway,
I hope your doctors have gotten the most they can out of the research money theyve been able to come up with to deal with your bipolar, mental disorders and if not...then hopefully one day, the medical industry will do us all a favor and make sure you don't reproduce.
Goodbye, Bitch.
Dames"
I might have another entry tonight.
Luvz u, blog.
Leelee.
42.
Not much response for the last one. Lame. I wanted fights in here. Oh well. #9.
And my good list is fucked up, because I totally forgot someone. So, I'll make up for it now with #10 and #9 on that side.
GOOD
#10: Damaramu.
I'm sure to draw some jeers for this one.
Positives: Genuinely good guy. Draws the ire of the assholes in the sports forum. Posts high quality comedy, although not always intentional. Certainly makes the board more fun to read. HOSS.
Negatives: Can be a really big, dumb lummox. Stubborn as anything, and beats hits points until the dead horse is buried in the ground.
#9: Black Lushus
Positives: Has a fun attitude. Just a great guy to chill with. Brings the comedic value with many of his stories, especially being enormously pussy-whipped by his Wifey. Brings a perspective in the wrestling forums that I agree with, and many others should be more open to. Huge nerd. Probably looks like a buff Urkel.
Negatives: Fucks Carnival. Gets a bit too defensive at times. annoying...typing style. Says he wants to talk to me, but never does. (I DO RESPOND TO YOUR OFFLINE MESSAGES.)
BAD
#9: CanadianGuitarist (and generally, your average poster in the sports forum).
The sports forum here sucks balls.
Granted, many sports fans are rude assholes. That comes with liking competition. But, here, it's even worse.
CanadianGuitarist, the max, CanadianChris, Kingof609 or whatever, etc... you can go on and on with many posters in the sports folder. Besides the especially bad ones I'll mention later...
A bunch of rude, curt jerks who insult people, think they know everything there is about sports, and horrible people to talk with on any basis. And you can't even have sports conversations with these types. They post everything as "facts", and tear you down by disagreeing with them.
#8's soon.
xoxoxo
Alyanna.
73.
Last week was still a success, but a disappointment after my perfect 9/22-23 week. Ohio St. and Navy won 2 of my big 3 bets, so I still came out in the positive.
Bets this week so far (I'll probably have some O/U by the weekend):
Hawaii (-9) vs. Nevada - 1 unit.
Historically, the home team dominates this series. I don't see anything different here. And I think Nevada is overrated by many because of the NW and UNLV blowout win. And Hawaii is underrated, since they lost two tough road contests. Nevada's defense still has many holes, especially in the running game. I'd be shocked if Hawaii doesn't at least put up 42 here with their high-powered offense. I'm pretty strong on this one, and the line is just to keep going up throughout the week, I could even see this hitting -14.
Tennessee (-2) @ Georgia - .5 units
Georgia is desperate and starting that Polish QB who sucked ass last year, and their depleted offensive line. UGA will struggle to score anything. But, this is the SEC, and Tennessee probably fucks up just as well, and someone wins 13-10 in a hideous contest. I'm more on the under here, but I'll wait to see possible weather conditions, and such.
Oklahoma (+7) vs. Texas - .5 units.
Wish I could have nabbed this at +8 when it first came up. I'm not very confident on this game... 50/50 on who will win. Texas obviously has more talent, especially on the defensive side. But, Texas has Mack Brown, and he always loses these games, until VY could run around the field and nullify Brown's ineptitude. The line sucked me in, and I couldn't pass it up.
NC State (+11) vs. Florida State - .5 units.
With Weatherford starting, I just don't see FSU putting up many points. 20's, at most. Not that I have any confidence in NC State, but their defense is holding teams to respectable point totals. 11 just seems like too much to give here.
Buffalo (+5.5) vs. Ball State - .5 units.
Alumni bet. No other reasoning here. MAC games are probably the toughest to pick in the nation.
Air Force (-3) vs. Navy - Undecided
If this stays at -3, I might put a .5 unit on this. Improves any, I'm all over this. These teams are very similar except for one big difference. AF's run defense has been stellar against good competition. Navy's has been weaker against worse competition. Like AF here, but points will be at a premium.
78.
So, it's time for my ignore list again. It's great filler for my blog.
It may seem like I have fun doing this. And, I do. But, the reason my list is so huge is because I really REALLY hate reading stupid things. And when I read stupidity, we know how I respond. Therefore, ignoring them is optimal for all parties.
surreaList: Constantly rude to people. Rather dumb as proved by most of his decisions. Plays the whole "I'm too cool to care about boards" bullshit.
The Thread Killer: Just a horrible poster... tries to be funny, and always fails. Easily the most pathetic person on these boards.
bob_barron: Nothing really against him, he's just kind of a pompous jerk. Only posts crap in sports. Only stuff worth reading from him is SNL reviews or stalking celebrities, and I don't care about any of that.
Marvinisalunatic: Decent guy... but, he's on ignore until he stops the WP v2.0 gimmick. Although, it seems he's adopted the Comic Book Guy-like pissed off nerd gimmick lately, which may keep him here longer.
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye: "Established" poster who only posts lame garbage like so many of them do.
tominator89: Unnecessary dickish comments towards me.
Kinetic: "Established" poster. Or one the lame "clique gimmicks". Either way, whatever.
kkktookmybabyaway: We've already mentioned him.
netslob: Useless, sad person.
Invader3k: Stupidity.
godthedog: Jerk. Maybe gimmick.
Mole: Stupidity. Stalks me.
RavishingRickRudo: "WWE suckz" troll.
Lord of the Curry: "WWE suckz" troll, and constant annoyance in other forums.
Blue Bacchus: Stupidity. Troll.
CheesalaIsGood: Stupidity.
alfdogg: Immature. Obvious gimmick account user.
snuffbox: Stupidity. Possible gimmick as a purely awful poster.
Sandman9000: Troll. Absolute joke he's not banned.
Sex Machine Gun: Ok, sometimes... but, has too many issues. Nice one day, then rude as possible the next for no reason.
Part II, later.
75.
This will be more of a sad entry. And although it doesn't entirely have to do with TSM, it's a fine example of the mentality we have here.
I'm saddened I had to end a friendship with the poster Ortonsault today. A victim of the high school mentality that many grown-ups have... which also happens here. The high school mentality of going with whatever your friends say. And since this mentality is so childish, usually the dumbest people get the ball rolling within it.
It's sad to think that I'd probably have more good acquaintances on this board if it wasn't for this mentality. Which is truly a shame.
And does it make me better than most of you because I don't think this way? Yes. It does.
59.
I need filler, so here we go!
My strategy this week was to take a ton of risks, since I'm still bitter about my awful performance last week.
Beth Phoenix (Her "diva" debut this week. Good chance she gets a win. Or, at least some tag match filler).
Bobby Lashley (He's the US Champ... so, he has to be on SD. Odds are he'll have a match since he'll never have an interview segment, and has nobody he hates enough to just interfere against yet).
Brian Kendrick
Paul London
Kid Kash
Jamie Noble
(Tag champs, and soon-to-be #1 contenders. I assume at least one of these teams is winning on SD. So, I played safe and took both teams.)
Chloe (Had $500,000 left. Plus, Torrie might get an appearance since they're near Boise.)
Gregory Helms (Velocity fodder last week... I'm taking a risk and guessing that won't happen again. The CW division can't be totally ignored.)
Kenny (11 points guaranteed. At least 4 points+ per million already. Easy pick.)
Mark Henry (Supposedly getting title shot soon vs. Rey. I'm hoping for a squash win here over someone, and not just a random interference killing.)
Triple H (I hate taking $5 million guys... but, Trips already gets 11, and probably will have a few appearances before that. I didn't know who else to take besides him, either).
Umaga (Please get an official match this week.)
77.
So, the general opinion is that we're glad Florida is in the title game. Unless you truly believe Florida is the 2nd best team in the nation, or that Florida's overall resume is stronger than Michigan's, then you are wrong. And by judging by the voters' history in the past weeks, they believed Michigan was the best team. That opinion can not change when Michigan didn't play for 2 weeks.
So, if the voting was decided on who the best team was... it was Michigan.
If the voting is decided on who deserves the chance, what would be fair... then, it's Boise State. They did not lose a game.
The argument that Michigan already lost to Ohio State, so they don't deserve another chance... but, Florida is more deserving because they lost to a 2-loss team, is ludicrous.
Florida got their spot because less people would bitch about it. See, kids, no matter how far you go in life, you all end up being mindless followers. "The Computers" are more knowledgeable than human voting.
As for the solution, it's obviously a playoff. More money would be made. It would be very easy to keep the "integrity" of the bowls. There'd be a point to watching more than 1 bowl game other than gambling, or being linked with one of the schools. Plus, it would make the regular season much more fun to watch.
Leelee.
70.
Obligatory story about where I was on 9/11. I had my wisdom teeth pulled on 9/10 and out like a light most of 9/11. Except to wake up at night for my Aunt's birthday get together, and have no idea why it was the quietest, strangest birthday celebration ever. With people putting American flags everywhere.
I don't mean to mock 9/11. Thousands of people needlessly died. That's sad. And it included a porn star I loved. Damn towelheads. But, the way people reacted, and still do, is disgusting.
"GOD BLESS AMERICA! I LOVE NEW YORK!"
Fuck you. Most of you weren't putting American flags on your windows and cars before that. So, you're suddenly patriotic because a group of crazy fucks needlessly killed a bunch of people. Whatever makes you feel good, I guess. Weird how I didn't hear GOD BLESS ESPANA and I LOVE UGLY BRITS for the Madrid and London killings. But, dey ain' wit'us, deyr agin'us. Or something.
I feel sad for the many people affected by the killings. Their lives will never be the same. But, everyone else can fuck off. The end.
So, the US Open sucked. Federer won easily. The women's event shall be ignored. That is all.
Another NFL season starts, and I have no excitement. Meh. And college football has been mostly boring thus far. Oh well.
As you can see, nothing interests me these days. So, I'll stop.
xoxoxo
Leelee.
44.
#7's.
GOOD
#7: Carnival. REMOVED!
BAD
#7: Hoff
Positives: He's usually an intellligent poster. He plays the jerk role pretty well.
Negatives: He goes through spurts of being a very whiny bitch. He should never try being funny. He relies on being established too much. He hates me.
#6 coming eventually.
89.
Things that PISS ME OFF: Part IX.
NFL Popularity.
We already know my feelings on the current mediocre NFL product.
Currently, the top 4, and basically only active threads on TSM, are about the NFL. Grar. Give other sports a chance.
87.
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
Why must types of storage constantly change? It's a ripoff.
So, in 5 years, DVD players will be dead. And we'll have to spend hundreds on whatever stupid new thing is the "winner" of the media wars.
Fuck that. Technology is a bad thing when it rapes my wallet. Put everything on DVD. Sell a 100 pack of DVD's for fifty cents. I'm content with that.
"OH, BUT HDTV!!! IT'S SO NEATO!!"
Fuck you. I just want to watch shit. If I want to see pretty, realistic stuff, I'll go outside. Which I can do, unlike hermits like Marvin. And those hermits can go commit suicide and not drag worthwhile people like me down.
