Jump to content

Marshmallow

Community Member
  • Posts

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Marshmallow

  1. Yeah, we've done this before on this board I'm sure. Times change, some people are saying LT might be the greatest ever.

     

    I'm sure most of these guys are on your list. Who shouldn't be on this list? Who should? Who's the greatest? In order.

     

    Jim Brown

    Barry Sanders

    LaDainian Tomlinson

    Walter Payton

    Emmitt Smith

    Gale Sayers

    O.J. Simpson

    Eric Dickerson

    Earl Campbell

    Marcus Allen

  2. I've got an buddy who insists that Kevin Curtis is a much better receiver than Lee Evans.......after I stopped laughing and picked myself off the ground....he keeps coming at me.

     

    Does anybody feel like making up some obnixous comebacks to this clown?

     

    Remind him that Curtis is white.

     

    Tell him the fact that Curtis makes more money than Evans only means they overpaid for Curtis.

     

    Tell him you think Hank Baskett is a better receiver than Curtis.

     

    Remind him that their window has closed...and McNabb will never win the big one.

     

    Tell him that they should have let McNabb go and kept Garcia.

     

    Remind him that the only reason he picks on Bills fans is because Philadelphia is the only city (out of 13) with teams from the 4 major sports that haven't won a championship in the last 24 years. 8698 days to be exact.

  3. Precisely......Paul McCartney, Stones... Prince???

     

     

    Seriously, Paul McCartney and the Stones were embarrassing. Completely ruins the memories we have of these guys as kings when you see them as senior citizens trying to be young. They are 40 years past their primes. And despite prince being 20 years past his prime, at least Prince remains culturally relevant.

     

    Personally, I think The Police should have launched their reunion kickoff during the Super Bowl, not the Grammys. Sting is an idiot.

  4. Fantasy Congress

     

    What is Fantasy Congress?

     

    Fantasy Congress™ offers you the power to "play politics." As in other fantasy sports, you - the Citizen - draft a team of real-life legislators from the U.S. Congress and score points for your team's successes. Join a league and compete against other Citizens, or form a league of your own! Play against your friends, family, bloggers, fellow politicos, or even a sitting U.S. Senator (one could be playing incognito, you never know!). On weekends, move Members of Congress into your active line-up or off your team to strategize for the upcoming week of legislation!

     

    Educators, Fantasy Congress is the perfect tool for bringing home the process of legislation and the role of Congress to your students. Our database is the largest and broadest of its kind, and is updated daily. At the intersection of all of this information, students follow legislation precisely, monitor members of Congress of their own choice, and best of all compete with their friends in the game, in a classroom league or in informal leagues of their own design.

     

    Now that you know what it is, make your decision: Watch politics or play politics.

  5. Everyone is talking like the Bears is the best team in the NFL, but what have they accomplished in the last few years??? They haven't even won a playoff game in recent history. Not since '94. That's a longer drought than our Bills. Yeah, they won their division a couple of times since then, but that division isn't too talented if you ask me. The Vikings, Packers and Lions have been a joke lately.

     

    I'm not saying Buffalo will win Sunday, but I don't think that a victory is impossible. I just don't believe the Bears should be placed up on a pedestal just yet.

    796824[/snapback]

     

    They already released The SuperBowl Shuffle 06. Grossman is wearing a white headband.

  6. If advertisers thought they could do that and get away with it, they'd do it.  They're not going to say, "Wow!  I'm perfectly content with the huge sums of money we're making on the TV, so I'm not going to seek new revenue streams elsewhere."  No--they'll take every second of our time we let them have.  There is no limit whatsoever to the amount of advertising you'll be subjected to, except insofar as you set one.

    765879[/snapback]

     

    The technology for this has already been invented, copyrighted and patented.

     

    It's estimated to generate 3-5 billion dollars in the first 5-8 years.

  7. Surely you realize that the financial success of the NFL--or of any professional sports league for that matter--comes at the direct financial expense of its fans?  Suppose you were to reduce the NFL's revenues to 25% of what they are now.  Player salaries would fall in direct proportion to the revenue decrease.  Other expenses could be reduced as well.  You'd have a league that was still profitable, albeit on a smaller scale.  You'd have the same men playing football, but instead of signing $100 million contracts they'd be signing contracts for $25 million.  In other words, there's no benefit to the NFL being well off financially, unless you're a player or an owner or a coach.  But back when salaries were smaller, you had coaches like Vince Lombardi and quarterbacks like Bart Starr.

     

    I think that your argument stems from the fact that a portion of the local revenues teams generate counts towards the salary cap--and therefore drive up expenses for people like Ralph Wilson.  Obviously, that's not good.  But if people follow my advice by reducing their acceptance of advertising, the companies that promote those sponsorships will start getting less value for their money, and will spend elsewhere instead.

    765951[/snapback]

     

     

     

    So the most popular sport in the most capitalist society should voluntarily take less profit? :o;):w00t:

     

    Because there’s no benefit to the NFL being well off financially? :P:(:P

     

    I don’t know where to start so I won’t.

     

    But I respect your position and I think you should follow your own advice. Cancel your cable. Your Internet. Stop reading magazines and newspapers. Get rid of your cell phone. Don’t play videogames. I think then you’ll understand that everything you buy is both at your benefit as well as your expense and that entertainment isn’t free.

  8. Are you honestly implying that cable companies are only charging what they need to to cover their costs?  Or that there's only enough advertising to give the NFL what it needs?  Please.

     

    Cable companies used to provide advertising-free channels.  That was what your cable bill paid for.  Then gradually, advertising began creeping into most of those channels.  Meanwhile, cable bills went up.  It was an imbalance of power between customers and cable companies, and customers got raped.

     

    The NFL is another example.  The salary cap goes up every year--which means the league's revenues go up each year.  That, in turn, means the league is getting progressively better at extracting money from its fans each year.  Most of that money gets pocketed by millionaire players, while the rest goes to the likes of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.  Should I feel encouraged that this category of people has gotten better at absorbing everyone else's money?  Or that the way they're getting the extra money is by reducing the quality of the game?

     

    Forget that.  I see absolutely no reason why NFL players, football owners, cable companies, or television networks should be getting any more money than they are right now.  I see absolutely no reason why I should waste my time sitting through yet another Budweiser ad.  TiVo all the way!

    765713[/snapback]

     

    Dude, wake up. It's a business. Networks pay 3x what the NFL contract is worth because sports are less DVR'd and advertisers can hit their male 18-45 target audience. They have to make their money somewhere.

     

    I'm agree with you that it sucks...no doubt. But I'm telling you, the advertisers backlash to Tivo's technology is about to unleash marketing holy hell on us consumers. Within the next five years, when you call someone, instead of hearing ....

     

    Riiinnnggg......Rinnnnngg....Rinnngggg (hello?)

     

    you're going to hear....

     

    Drink Diet Pepsi.....Volvos are safe....Watch Lost on ABC (hello?)

  9. Its a thought that i have been debating with since i attended night practice on August 8th.

     

    It is quite valuable in this league to have a sufficient back up quarterback as we all know from the Bledsoe/Brady fiasco. But is Holcumb the kind of back up that we want on the team this year.

     

    Bottom line is that you want a back-up who can comprehend your offense and run it if necessary. This is usually thought to be for a game or two at the most. If your team loses its qb for the whole season they are likely not going to make the playoffs. There have been a few cases but likely not.

     

    The Bills may want to think about eliminating the possibility of a mutiny on the team that would ultimatly kill the teams season, and ultimately ruin Losman's confidence.

     

    His arm is not strong enough to lead a team in my opinion and with this it is almost impossible to stretch the field or diversify your offense in anyway. Thus offensive production will go down and players like Willis will cease to produce and many will lose their jobs.

     

    Just want to know what you think.

    743539[/snapback]

     

     

    It was the first preseason game...in a new system...with a horrible oline and no Moulds....against a very good D. Sure he didn't look good, but cut him? Shouldn't we wait to see how JP does against STARTERS first?

     

    Personally, I think that was Juron's plan all along. He wants JP to be the guy. So he lets Holcomb get killed against the Panthers starters. (JP would have been killed too) JP gets to play against the scrubs to build confidence, then gets to start the following week. It makes perfect sense.

  10. let me be the first to say"Tivo" my brother

    738634[/snapback]

     

     

    Tivo/DVR may be reducing the amount of tv commercials people watch, but it's increasing the determination of advertisers to hit you with more non-traditional and alternative ads. Some of which are a lot more annoying and invasive than any tv commercial.

  11. What makes housing affordable for tenants in NYC is rent control & rent stabilization.  There are many people paying well under market rents because of these 2 forms of "afordable housing"  measures.  There are actual death watch people who are out there hunting down apartments of the recently departed because the rents on some of these units are low & can't be raised too much.  Housing in NYC is much more affordable for some people than it is in the suburbs.  As long as one is a renter instead of an owner, housing in Manhattan can in fact be very affordable.

    718333[/snapback]

     

    Getting one of those apartments is almost impossible. I've been here almost 7 years and I have yet to meet someone who lives in a rent-stabilized apartment. You're comparing a very, very small minority in the city to all of the suburbs.

     

    The rest of us pay in the range of $3000 a month for a decent 1 bedroom, $4000 a month for a 2 bedroom (which is probably just a 1 bedroom converted into a two bedroom. Who's paying rent like that in the suburbs?

  12. I knew he was a health nut and ran, like, 5 miles a day. But I didn't know he was a veggie.

     

    He's listed on just about every vegetarian website as a "famous vegetarian." Sometimes they spell his name wrong. And usually still refer to him as Buffalo Bills head coach.

     

    Here's his vegetarian quote...

     

    "When I was 12, I went hunting with my father and we shot a bird. He was laying there and something struck me. Why do we call this fun to kill this creature [who] was as happy as I was when I woke up this morning. "

     

    --Marv Levy

     

     

    Sorry if this has been discussed before.

×
×
  • Create New...