EastCoastNiner

None of those are poor picks by any means, but I disagree with a few of them. I don't like your Norris, Verzina, and Stanley Cup winners. I think Shea Weber would get it based on his reputation if he wins, but most Nashville fans and others seem to think that Suter is the better defenseman, but Weber has a big shot and is more "flashy". I don't like Henrik as your #1 Vezina candidate either. If you were making a list based upon who you thought was the #1 goalie in the NHL, I don't think it would be a terrible choice, but you have to have a very good team to usually win the Vezina, and I don't think he'll have the numbers. I'll make my predictions later.

There have been more reports that he's probably out for the entire season. He needs to think of his health first and foremost. He may need to seriously think about retirement, and maybe move into coaching.

An honest answer....who would have thought? :glasses: . Anyways, I don't know the entire situation, and I would want my kid to be well off, but I think it's dumb that they had an agreement then, and just because he's making more money now, the gold digging bitch wants more money. It's the principle of it that pisses me off.

Putting Bedard being a Red Sox player aside for a minute, so you think this is right? "According to multiple media reports, the legal papers were requesting an increase in child support for Bedard's 5-year-old daughter. His one-time partner, Courtney Roberts, filed a complaint in Suffolk Probate and Family Court on Tuesday asking for an adjustment to the original paternity agreement from 2006 because Bedard's salary has increased. ".

That's right, I mixed them up. I don't know why I was thinking Lackey. In regards to Bedard, that's a stupid case. The bitch wants more money because he's making more money now. Child support laws in this country are completely messed up, and it has nothing to do with him being on the Red Sox. Scum would be a stupid bitch trying to gold dig, and I was obviously being sarcastic with that comment.

I have no clue how I'm in first. . I'm going to continues picking against the Saints, Jets, and Packers, and keep picking the Patriots and 49er's this season, but that may come back to bite me, as it hurt me this week.

I am interested in the following players if the price is right: Ochocinco Branch Chris Johnson ( :glasses: ) Roy Williams I really want an upgrade at WR/HB, so if you have one of those players, or another player you think I may have interest in, let me know!

I had the link of the New York douche-bag from a few days ago that served Lackey with the divorce papers before the game intentionally, and was bragging about it on his Twitter, but I can't find the link right now. Typical New York scum. . Also, where are you reading that Lackey is the one divorcing his wife, and not her divorcing him? Everything I've seen says that his wife is the one serving him with the papers, like I said in the first paragraph.

I can read what he wrote. He said Johnson was better then, and Peterson is now as his final answers. Those "opinions" on who who thought was better with everything factored in was in the last line of both of those posts. It's cute that you like to try and find me on AIM though. .

Stop being a moron. It's not worth arguing with you. You avoided my questions because you would be proven wrong as usual. It's pretty simple. He said C.J. was better then, and now Peterson is better now. His opinion on who the better HB is, like this thread is supposed to be about, has changed. Not, who the better HB is factoring in fumbles, which is already part of an HB's skillset or lack thereof.

On which HB is better? It certainly did. I love how you always try and twist words for your benefit.

I'm arguing about who he said the better HB is, not who he said the better HB is minus this and minus that. Dolt.

Thanks for IM'ing me a minute ago.

1. Yes 2. Yes I haven't denied his stance on that at all. However, you keep using the "if he doesn't fumble" line (that Fish did say). However, those weren't his FINAL answers to each question. You know it, I know it.

That's good. Why can't you answer the question? 1. I have never denied his stance that Johnson was/is the better HB as long as Peterson has fumbling problems. 2. His final answer changed from the beginning of the thread until now on which back is better. You keep throwing "ifs" in there. I know what he stated. I honestly feel bad for Phightins that he has to go to a game with you........I think I would go absolutely crazy, but if you're going to the Giants game in Foxboro this year, let me know, so I can teach you something about football. :glasses: .

There you go again. I stated towards the beginning of this argument that WITHOUT qualifiers, such as fumbled, his opinion has changed. You're arguing something I'm not even arguing about. I never denied his stance. I'm going to make this very simple for you. Use just yes and no for these questions, like I asked earlier. His opinion on who the better HB did change because it's written out for you. 1. Was his final opinion/answer early in the thread that Johnson was the better HB? 2. Did he say in his post the other day that Peterson is now better? 3. Are Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson the same person?

Good thing I that's not what I'm arguing. I never denied his stance on that. As I stated multiple time (Do I need to quote shit again for you?) that he said C.J. was the better back then, and now Peterson is. His opinion on who the better player is has changed. Elementary 101.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

DID HE SAY JOHNSON WAS BETTER THAN? YES DID HE JUST SAY PETERSON WAS BETTER NOW? YES HAS HIS OPINION CHANGED? YES, OBVIOUSLY. Does he still believe that if Peterson had fumbling problems that Johnson would be better? Yes, most likely from what he's written. You're trying to argue over the semantics of the word "opinion", yet you're [expletive]ing wrong as usual. You are seriously [expletive]ing retarded. His opinion obviously [expletive]ing changed. He can say it didn't, but last time I checked, Johnson plays for the Titans and Peterson plays for the Vikings. They're not the same person.

There you go. Now move along. I've never denied he would take Johnson with Peterson's fumbling problems. All I have maintained is that he did in fact say Chris Johnson was the better HB at the time, the player he picked. NOW, he has chosen Peterson. Two different players, two different answers. This is a dumb argument to have anyways, yet you always want to stir up the pot. This was a simple thread about a comparison of the two players, the only thread with both of their names in the title on this site. It's not that complicated.

No, I'm pretty sure it was a two part bet. I'll find the thread in a minute.

His opinion on who the better HB is has certainly changed .You can fight tooth and nail about opinion/answer, but it's pretty black and white.

There we go. I said WITHOUT qualifiers, such as fumbles. I said that multiple times. Your opinion was Chris Johnson is better because Peterson had fumbling problems at the time. And, as you stated, at that time, you believed he was better. Now, that Peterson has fixed those problems, you believe he is better than Johnson. It's pretty black and white. At the time, you believed Chris Johnson was better (which is fine), and now you believe Peterson is better. Your opinion/answer changed. It's pretty simple.

No shit? I'm saying these were the critical mistakes that game.

Yes, I know that is what you're saying. All I'm saying is it's pretty simple what you said. I'm not calling you out, but trying to have iwill stop being an idiot.. Back then: You picked Chris Johnson Now: You pick Adrian Peterson I don't even care who you think is better, but I'm just saying that is what your opinion/answer was, which he doesn't seem to understand. I'm very aware the knock on Peterson for you was fumbling, and that you actually liked (don't know if you still do) MJD as your #1 HB. I just don't like how he's trying to twist words and stuff.