BuffaloBillsForever

The writing got sloppy in the end as well. I still couldn't believe they had Silvio reach for his gun in the backseat of his car when he got shot. In a full out war with New York and he isn't even armed. Doesn't even have a gun within arms distance (say glovebox). I still think The Wire's ending was more dissapointing than The Sopranos.

I agree with you for the most part except for the fact that Ralphies demise was one of the best episodes of the series and wrapped up his storyline quite nicely. However, I agree there was a lot of plot holes in the series. There was some foreshadowing in season 6 part 1 about when you die "seeing black" or something to that nature. Forget who said it but that's how I know he got killed in the restaurant.

This was a common theme and the hostility between them was throughout the series and was well established before Pine Barrens.

I always think how much better of a show Sopranos could have turned out if they scraped Tony getting shot and the whole Vito story lines in favour of the Pine Barrens episode actually meaning something to this series That's what gets me about the Sopranos is that some of its better episodes weren't explored enough to mean anything to the overall plot. There was a lot of filler in the Sopranos...good show though.

Show tailspined for one season too long or atleast Season 6 part 1 should banished from the Sopranos history file.

You just didn't quote Coburns analogy did you? Worst analogy ever... Baseball experts were claiming the triple crown was impossible leading up to 2012. Those type of arguments are silly.

Bravo, Bravo! You are not a know-it-all. You just know your stuff. I also thought coburns comments came across as a sense of entitlement as well. Just because the Triple Crown hasn't been achieved in a while doesn't mean we are entitled to one.

This is nothing new. The last horse that won the triple crown had two horses that sat out the Preakness. The previous winner of the crown had 3 horses in the field that ran all 3 legs out of the total field of 8. They finished 1st and 3rd. Look at the other triple crown, the one in baseball. There was a span from 1967-2012 where it was not accomplished.

I look forward to the World Cup as much as the superbowl. Will be cheering for Germany and the Netherlands as always. Will also be rooting for Mesut Ozil to win the golden boot. Players that struggle on the German squad prior always seem to break out at the World Cup stage.

This topic has been beaten to death. Here is an in-depth thread already created with arguments from both his detractors and apologists. http://forums.twobil...ossmanst-units/ http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/165042-crossman-retained/

Disagree with the premise that we will never see it again. In 1977 it was an 8 horse field compared to 11 yesterday. 3 horses out of the 8 ran in all 3 legs. They finished 1st and 3rd. Colburns logic is irresponsible and harmful to the horses and the Jockey's that ride them. If there is any change that makes sense is leave everything as is and just extend the time period between the Derby, Preakness and Belmont.

Good post. Coburn is spewing off at the mouth again about this a day later...I'm sure we wouldn't have heard a peep from him if Chrome won. He would be proclaiming how historic this moment is because of the larger field of 10. The bottom line is Chrome got eaten up by the field and the length at Belmont. The difficulty of the Triple Crown signifies greatness and Chrome is simply not that...bottom line. This guy needs to shut up.

Medal Count sat out Pimlico. The only horses that ran all 3 legs of the triple crown besides Cali Chrome where Ride On Curlin and General A Rod. The comments from the co-owner sound like sour grapes to me.

History, and the numbers stack against him. Keep in mind the field is also larger than you would want. If Chrome wins it would be the largest Belmont Stakes field beaten by a Triple Crown winner. The previous 11 winners never faced more than 7 other horses. Chrome will face 10 tomorrow. The handicapper in me doesn't want him to win but as a fan of horse racing I'd love to see it. It would be a great boost for the industry.

Yeah. I learned a long time ago to go with my own research and gut. The worst days at the track have been off the advice of others. I listen to all the background noise but I don't put much stock into any one thing until I get a racing program in front of me

I hit my boxed trifectas at Churchill Downs and Pimlico. There was really good value at Churchill but Pimlico didn't pay much at all. California Chrome is going to cripple any payouts at Belmont if he wins. I think this will be a good race to try some underdogs in my exacta and tri when I go to the OTB tomorrow.

IMO Schwartz tenure with the Lions they VASTLY underperformed to their talent level.

Swchartz, the scheme and the secondary is really the biggest question mark I have going into the season regarding the defense.

Elite? No. Above Average? Perhaps. Underrated? Lawson is for sure.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

Yes. It eliminates bad players and their small catch samples from skewing YPC an YAC. The minimum set should be between 35-40 catches to qualify for YPC and YAC. I agree that YPC and YAC should be a distinct category.

There should be a set minimum catches requirement to "qualify" for YPC.

Yes it is a flawed statistic. One example is it overvalues innefective one dimensional QB's that attempt/complete high percentage throws < 5 yards. Like all stats you need to have context as well (watch the games) to truly evaluate a player. In combination stats are powerful.

Elite CB's maybe have 1 or two bad games in a year. Actually guys like Revis have gone an entire year shutting down every single receiver he lined up against. To make any comparisons of him to guys like Revis and Sherman is absurd.

LOL @ Bandit. This is taken from your links trying to prove your point. You proved my point. Gilmore struggled in his debut as a professional. He gave up some easy receptions to Stephen Hill early on, one in off coverage and one when Hill bounced off of his aggressive coverage. On every snap across from each other, Gilmore and Hill were enjoying an all-or-nothing matchup. When Hill was free, he was free, when Gilmore won the battle, he wasn’t an option for his quarterback. The biggest play between the two came at the start of the second quarter, when Hill beat him for a touchdown. He was beaten three times, once when he turned the wrong way on a short slant, the other when Greg Little’s hesitation caused him to bite on a fake outside when Little was going inside and another when Mohamed Massaquoi’s quick feet allowed him to win on a slant at the line of scrimmage. Gilmore primarily stayed on the right side of the secondary, moving inside to the slot twice when the 49ers brought two receivers to one side. He gave up a curl route to Randy Moss early, as he looked to run down the sideline too soon, before Michael Crabtree took advantage of the defensive backs swapping assignments in man coverage to get free down the sideline. Crabtree showed off excellent feet on a slant route to lose Gilmore again, before a blown assignment from the young cornerback afforded Crabtree an easy touchdown reception down the sideline. Colts Game 8 Failed coverages. Little-known Jordan White gave Gilmore the most problems in this game. White ran some very crisp routes to create space underneath on two occasions, but only Jeremy Kerley could get anything off him on other occasions. Kerley ran a double move underneath to create space outside when Gilmore pulled him back for the defensive pass-interference penalty. He also caught a deep-ball against him, but Gilmore’s coverage forced a perfect throw from Mark Sanchez. In the Miami Game that link shows that 6 out of 15 were failed coverages. Your link has given me pretty good perspective to what I watched on tv.