EastCoastNiner

Which of these two regular seasons was more impressive taking everything into consideration? I think it's an interesting question, and when taking into consideration the arrival of Moss and Welker one season, and the departure of Moss in the other, I think it's close. 2007-2008: 2010-2011 http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2330/tom-brady

I'm not looking for him to argue about it. He was surprising not too argumentative about the thread about best line-ups earlier this season. I'm saying Jeter sucked last year too.

As well as last year.*

And, of course Jeter is being a little bitch. It's no surprise.

Honestly though, what was so great about it? I'm being serious. I don't watch wrestling much, but that seemed extremely lameeeeeee.

Please, tell me what was so great about that. The script was shitty and the acting was poor. Again, at least Cena is cool.

That's 14:11 I'll never get back. That was legitimately the dumbest thing I've ever seen. The only cool part about that video is Cena, and that's because he's a Boston man.

That brings back some memories. I was a Sophomore in high school that year, and I'd make some bets with kids at school. However, the games were on late, and I didn't have a television in my room, so I'd be watching the game on ESPN gamecast, and I remember being so damn happy when it said "Tim Thomas, 3-PT". That moment made my week. .

I don't think Horton and Savard derailed your chance...... :glasses: .

What are the most painful losses you have suffered as a fan of the teams you root for? There are four that really stand out for me. 1. Bruins losing to the Hurricanes in game 7 three years ago. 2. Patriots losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl. This hurt a lot, but I can't say I was "shocked" that it happened, especially based on the way the Giants played them at the end of the regular season. 3. The Patriots losing to the [expletive]ing Colts in the AFC Championship game after having a 21-0 lead. This one stings as much to me as the loss to the Giants. The Patriots would have wiped the Bears off the field and had their 4th ring, but no, they had to [expletive]ing blow it! 4. The Jets loss this year hurts as well, considering how much shit the Jets talked, and how the Patriots were the best team in the regular season.

This is the most boring Home Run Derby in a long time. The event in general is pretty boring for the most part.

Obviously, she is just doing an impression, but she has some golden quotes in this video, and some great moments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCD56mv2WI

No, you never answered the question. As usual, I cornered you, and you don't have a legitimate response. Again, how do you know it sucks, and if you are watching it and it sucks, why are you still watching it? It's a pretty simple question that you can't seem to answer, and try and compare it to something very irrelevant.

Soccer is a shady sport. Their heiarchy never lets the referees speak. It was a great game, but it's still a travesty that soccer allows major games to be decided by penalty kicks.

I'm watching the game on DVR right now since I was at work, but I just have to laugh at the people that are saying the U.S. weren't getting any calls. I'm at about the 52 minute mark, and the U.S. has gotten a lot of beneficial calls, such as no yellow card on the handball.

They ride the successful teams, like they should. At the end of the day, it is a business. They do ride Boston a lot, but they rode Brett Farve for years, which was the most annoying thing ever.

I love how in recent years, it's become "cool" to say SportsCenter sucks. . There's absolutely nothing wrong with SportsCenter, and if it's a joke, why are you watching it? And, if you're not watching it, how do you know it's a joke?

Women's soccer is actually much more fun to watch then the men. I've pretty much watched every televised game so far, and I've enjoyed them all. No diving or anything that disgraces the sport. Penalty kick shootouts are still ridiculous though. No important game should be decided that way.

Well, Rivers should have won the MVP last time Manning won it, and I love his skill-set. I would probably take Rodgers over him, but I left him off to spite you. Having Rodgers out of my top 5 is along the same lines as not having Brady #1. It's debatable, but not asinine. Big Ben has two Super Bowl rings, and is the hardest SOB to take down that I've ever seen. He was minutes away from having his third ring and shattering the Packers dream.

I don't want to argue about what QB's are #1, #2, and #3, but I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind having Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers ahead of Tom Brady on some of these lists. I understand the argument for Manning, but I really don't see the argument for Brees or Rodgers being ahead of Brady, or ahead of Manning for that matter.

Please refer to post #10.

He should not be inducted to the HOF as a player. It should be like the NHL, where they have a "builders" section, where you can make an argument that he expanded the game in Asia. I'm sorry, but he has NO "major" hardware. He doesn't have one First-Team NBA selection, no MVPs', and nothing else of note for hardware. He should not get on based upon his performance, nor should he get in as a player just because he's from China. If he gets in because he just happens to be from China, so he has a lot of "influence", that's just dumb. Player to player comparison, Dwight Howard has much more hardware (I think Yao was the better player), and he wouldn't get in if he retired today. Basically your case is all about his influence, and that alone should not get you in the HOF.

One of the few Yankees I like, but he's become more unlikable the past few seasons. However, that's a great moment for him.

Which part do you love? The part where Marcia Clark is probably still pissed she couldn't convict O.J., or the part where she doesn't understand the point of having a sequestered jury? If there is no sequestered jury, they have a great chance of getting sucked into the media being the 13th juror, just like Nancy Grace was trying to be. Good thing she's apologized to the Duke Lacrosse players.....oh, wait.....she never did! HOWEVER, I do agree a lot of what she said about juror #3. I don't get why juror #3 said they aren't supposed to connect the dots. That's exactly what you are supposed to do........ I've never once altered my stance on my belief that Casey did something to Caylee because I 100% think (know) she did, however, I'm starting to move over to the prosecutions side of the case in terms of if the juror's could have convicted her based upon the evidence. I need to read more into what the jurors are actually instructed to do, but I'm starting to change my stance on the jury's decision, largely based on juror #3's answers. Honestly, I think I've just been playing Devil's advocate a little bit, but I really am starting to move to the prosecutions side. My whole stance about the jury's decision is based upon what they are supposed to actually do with the evidence, and whether or not they COULD convict Casey with the evidence they had.

This isn't the case about the child being tied to the bed is it? http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/23/springer-parents-to-spend-years-in-prison/ If it isn't, I would like to read about the story because I'm guessing there is more to it than you are leading me to believe.