nl5xsk1

As in the smell, or in the amount of times filled with men's rods? Why you didn't use the blatantly obvious "filled with seamen/semen" joke is beyond me.

It's funny, I actually began to type up a response to the same post that FrigidSoul did, and realized that it wouldn't have been worth the efforts. Good to see that I wasn't the only one that realized how fruitless that pissing match would have become.

Only riots were done by college students after some big wins in the Oakland series. I didn't see a Red Sox hat on any of them or any Red Sox gear for that matter when watching the footage...I think they just used it as an excuse to flip a car and light a bonfire. The college wasn't directly in Boston either. From what I heard, the car that got flipped had New York plates and an anti-Red Sox bumper sticker. Not to justify these drunken idiots having their little riot or anything even close to that, but it's not surprising that something bad happened to this dude's car. And I'm sure that a lot of the original rioters were indeed Sox fans, and the rest were just jumping on the bandwagon.

If by "good old boys" you mean that the Giants tend to hire people that have already worked for the team in the past, then you're exactly right on. Coughlin was an assistant with them in the past, and that probably played more of a role in him getting the job than anything else. Add in the fact that he had success at BC and also with an expansion team, and is a hard-assed coach (which is what they need after the Fassel bullshit) it sounds like a great hire to me.

Girl in the Sweater by the Hardons

I heard of B2K for the first time in this thread, and then saw a blurb about them on MTV yesterday. The one thing I'll give them credit for, is one of them wore a Wayne Gretzky All-Star game sweater in the video clip that they showed. Their music blew but they had good taste in wardrobe.

I heard of B2K for the first time in this thread, and then saw a blurb about them on MTV yesterday. One thing I'll give them credit for, is one of them wore a Gretzky all-star sweater in the video that they showed. Their music blew but they had good taste in wardrobe.

TC, I'll concede the Belfour arguement to you ... his numbers do justify inclusion in the Hall. I still think that he was lucky to play on very good teams for most of his career (TO and Dallas more than Chicago, obviously) and that helped inflate his numbers, especially the years in Dallas - they were a pretty conservative team, and thus he didn't face too many shots. But, all things considered, top 2 or 3 in wins and top 10 in shutouts can't be ignored (plus, he's been on my fantasy team for a few years now, and he always helps them. But I don't think the Hall really cares about The High Life). I can't agree on Forsberg/Neely compared to Sakic/Jagr. Jagr had the advantage of being the wingman with Lemieux. I think the real Jaromir is the one playing now, without Mario on his side, helping him inflate his stats. He's very good (and will most likely make the HHOF regardless of my opinion) but I don't think he's as great as his numbers indicate. Sakic gets some points for his Cup wins, and his leadership, but I really don't consider him one of the greats of today. Both Neely and Forsberg were better players than Sakic, and thus get the edge in my eyes.

I'm going to concentrate on hockey only, b/c that's really the only sport that I actually sit and think about things like future hall of fame potential. In my eyes, the people that get into the HHOF have to be special, be great, not just very good or win a few championships. (Hell, if you go by Cups alone, Claude Lemieux would be a first ballot HOFer, and that'd be a fucking joke) For example, as much as I liked Pat Lafontaine as a player, he really isn't HHOF worthy in my eyes - injuries derailed his career too much. He was good, maybe very good, but not great. So, by that logic, people like Richter, Belfour, Nolan, Selanne, CuJo, Roenick, & Federov wouldn't make it. If I had to pick 10 guys to go to the HHOF, my ten (in no order) would be: - Ray Bourque - Mark Messier - Steve Yzerman - Ron Francis - Brett Hull - Dominic Hasek - Cam Neely (best power forward EVER) - Martin Brodeur - Peter Forsberg - Patrick Roy Toughest omissions: Sakic, Andreychuk, MacInnis, Chelios, Shanahan, Modano, Jagr. There are a lot of potential HOFers playing right now, but they'd need to play at their present level, and even then improve upon it, to have a legitimate chance: Bertuzzi, Kariya, Naslund, Pronger, Thornton, Kovalchuk, to name just a few. The reason that these guys can't be considered now is answered with one question: If they retired right here and now, would they be anywhere near HOF-worthy? And in my eyes, the answer to all of the above is no.

Just the opposite, the HHOF limits the number of former players that can be inducted in a given year to 4 and a lot of the time, less than the maximum gets inducted. They do allow refs/linesmen and builders get inducted as well, but I don't think any of us are going to list refs worthy of being inducted into the HHOF. With the number of great players are only a year or two from retirement (Moose, Stevie Y, Ronnie Franchise, Chelios, etc.) and those that most likely will only last a year or two more (Hasek, Hull, Forsberg, etc.) it'll be awfully tough for some of the borderline players to make it in the next half a decade. Hell, even some of TC's locks are a longshot in my eyes (well, only Belfour and Richter, I guess). I'll have to go through the lists when I'm not at work, and give my $.02 (USD) about who's a lock, who's a no-way, and who's borderline.

I'm pretty sure that Romeo did get an interview ... and I'd have chosen Coughlin over him anyways. Coughlin was a great college coach, and a very good pro coach. He'll restore some order back to the Giants (who are the NFC East team that I root for by default, so I'm stoked about that). Plus, I think that it'd unfair to have a guys first head coaching job be in NYC. Let Crennel get a gig like the Atlanta job (or wait a year until Seattle fires Holmgren) and then he can go to a less pressure-filled place. Plus, being purely selfish, I'd like to see Romeo spend another year leading the Pats D.

Operation Ivy bit the Clash's act. So what does that mean? I think it means your equation is wrong. I think Rancid after their third album bit the Clash much more than anything OpIvy every did. Besides, the Clash aren't ska-punk in the sense of bands like Less Than Jake, the Bosstones and Reel Big Fish. Yes, the Clash were a punk band who had lots of ska influences in some of their songs, but I wouldn't consider their sound ska-punk. I mean, is "Should I Stay or Should I Go" ska-punk? Or "Train in Vain"? What about "Rock the Casbah"? I think not. The Clash weren't ska-punk band, they wera a punk band who played some ska. I agree ... they were a punk band more than a ska-punk band - they just happened to have some dub-influences. If we're going to consider the Clash as ska-punk, then we'd have to throw in the latter day bands like Murphy's Law into that genre, too, and that's just way too much of a stretch. And count me as one of the ones that considers Rancid to be more of a Clash-clone than OpIvy. (not that being a Clash-clone is a bad thing per-se)

If we're talking about getting rid of 4 teams, I'd contract Pittsburgh and Phoenix. Pittsburgh has been so "unhealthy" for so long, I feel like they've lost their fanbase. It'll take more than a nice shiny new arena (and one good player, Fleury) to win back an entire fanbase. Phoenix is just a bad place for a hockey team - at least Florida gets retirees from places that like hockey (e.g. New York, New England). I don't think that Arizona has that same luxury. I'd also combine some teams. Have the Panthers fold, send their players to a contraction draft, and then have the Lightning play half their games in Tampa and half in Sunrise. If/when it's obvious that one market is more supportive, have that market get more games. Same in California, fold the Ducks but have the Kings play some games in the Pond. Of course, there are many other changes that would help hockey more than contraction: 1) Go back to the oldschool OT-points rules. None of this "1 point for tying at the end of regulation" crap. Too many teams stop going for the win with 5 minutes left just to ensure the one point for a regulation tie. I would make one overtime change, though, and that's extending the OT to 10 minutes. (4-on-4 hockey isn't bad, I'd keep that for the OT as well) 2) Start calling the hooking and grabbing that have been ruining the game for the last 10 years. I don't care if it means 40 minutes of power play each game for the first month or so, once players realize that it'll be called, they'll stop doing it. 3) Make the necessary rules changes that will make the trap obsolete. (remove the redline, change the 2 line pass rule, whatever). I love hockey but find myself getting bored watching a game when one of the teams is a trap team. 4) Let the players police themselves. There were so much less carelessness with sticks back when players had to worry about a Probert, or a Baumgartner, or a Grimson getting retribution. Fighting isn't bad for the game. 5) Salary cap - both maximum amount allowed to spend, and a minimum amount that team has to spend. 6) Fire Bettman, and replace him with someone that loves hockey. I'd rather see someone in the office that's making moves for the good of the game, rather than just for TV, etc.

Smartest. Post. Ever. And I think that most of the 2-Tone things shouldn't be considered ska-punk. They really weren't all that punk - they're just straight up ska.

Buffalo at New England Seattle at San Francisco Philadelphia at Washington Chicago at Kansas City Cleveland at Cincinnati Dallas at New Orleans Indianapolis at Houston Jacksonville at Atlanta N.Y. Jets at Miami St. Louis at Detroit Tampa Bay at Tennessee Carolina at N.Y. Giants Minnesota at Arizona Denver at Green Bay Oakland at San Diego Pittsburgh at Baltimore

New England Patriots, 24 points Atlanta at Tampa Bay Kansas City at Minnesota New England at N.Y. Jets Baltimore at Cleveland Cincinnati at St. Louis Detroit at Carolina Miami at Buffalo New Orleans at Jacksonville N.Y. Giants at Dallas Tennessee at Houston Washington at Chicago - neither team deserves to win, but I have to pick one. San Diego at Pittsburgh Arizona at Seattle San Francisco at Philadelphia Denver at Indianapolis Green Bay at Oakland

Buffybeast, sorry for butchering your email to quote it. I only wanted to comment on 2 of the pieces, and didn't want to take up extra room on the thread. Stacy is skinny, but she does NOT look like a 12yo boy. (not that I've seen her nekkid, and haven't seen a 12yo boy nude since I was that age) but just because she's thin doesn't mean that she looks like a kid. That's the kind of thinking that makes girls get fake boobies - and I'd take someone that looks like Stacy over an augmented, peroxided barbie doll any day of the week. And evidently I have an equine fetish, because I was kind of fired up by both Sara-Taker and Lita. I'd prefer Victoria or Stacy over either, but I don't share the "Lita is a fugly horseface" mentality that is so prevalent on this board.

I say go with the Edmonton sweater, but my roommate says go for the Philly one. She's a girl, so her vote might outweigh mine. Still, Gretzky > the Bullies.

NHL - Boston Bruins - 31 years and counting, plus one of the worst owners in sports. NFL - New England Patriots - up until 2 years ago they had never won a damn thing ... but then there was that little upset in the Super Bowl. So, they're a positive. college football - Colorado State Rams - little fish in a big pond, will never even get a sniff at a BCS game. I don't really care about the other sports that much, but living in Boston means that I have to root for the Sox and Celts by default - one team hasn't won in decades, the other hasn't looked good in 15 years.

It's a dual edged sword, though ... if two teams win their conference, the one that won a title game would most likely get extra accolades for doing so, and would thus get the nod over a team that didn't have to win a title game. Plus, OU got absolutely shelled in that game - if they'd lost by a lesser margin, it'd be easier to stomach them being in the title game. In my eyes, the best two teams in college football are USC and LSU, so those two teams should be playing for it all.

Question for you all ... when it finally comes time for you to stop posting here, will you sign off at all and say anything to anyone, or will you just not show up anymore? I figure that it's inevitable that we'll all eventually go our own ways, and was wondering if people would bother saying anything or not. Thoughts?

They've been doing that for years ... this shows how old I am, but I remember when the Rockers first came to the WWF, and the announcer kept saying that he knew nothing about them, even though he was one of the announcers for the AWA when the Midnight Rockers were there. I want to say his name was Rod Tronguard or something like that. If you're going to read a page like wwe.com you kind of have to leave your smartness at the door, and pretend that you're clueless.

Patriots - 27 points Atlanta at Indianapolis Buffalo at Tennessee Detroit at Kansas City Houston at Tampa Bay Jacksonville at New England Minnesota at Chicago Pittsburgh at N.Y. Jets Seattle at St. Louis San Francisco at Cincinnati Baltimore at Oakland Cleveland at Denver Carolina at Arizona Dallas at Washington Green Bay at San Diego N.Y. Giants at New Orleans Philadelphia at Miami Random thoughts: Me and APO in a battle of the 5-8 teams. This would be one of the games that isn't even broadcast in our local areas. Question for those that are 11-2 or 10-3: Are you guys pillaging your bookies for all they have? How the hell can you be that far ahead?!? I'd be in AC or Vegas living the high life if I could pick winners that often.

Has anyone checked out the All-Star voting? Why the hell are people like Mogilny or Langenbrunner so high up? They have 12 points each, yet are in the top 5 or 6. Mogilny I can understand, I guess, as it makes sense that TO fans would vote for their own, but who's voting for a Devil? Both of the fans that go to their games?!? Hell, Dany Heatly is towards the top of the list, and he's out for the year, but Glen Murray, who's got 89 goals in the last 2 years, only has 12k votes. Come on, Bruins fans, the guy is one of the most consistent players on our team, yet he's getting no votes.

A fan poured beer on him and he's a recovering alcoholic. He had every right to whip that ass. Don't start that debate again ... that was among the more pointless arguements that I can remember in recent TSM history. And am I the only one who gets the impression that a lot of the Chavo hatred is stemming from the fact that his return coincided with the end of the Eddie push? Don't hate Chavo because the higher ups didn't pull the trigger on the Eddie push - hate the higher ups.