Mark80

Definitely walked off the field after my tear during some college intramural football. In fact, it didn't even hurt really...until the next day when it killed. Actually, I remember even jogging on the sideline a little bit trying to get back in...then it gave it out again and I knew I was done.

Never understood this mentality. Unless it is spinal or brain related, I could not care less if an opponent gets injured, in fact, I root for it. I'm supposed to feel sorry for a multi-millionaire who will continue to get paid and receive the best treatment in the world for an injury they will, in most cases, fully recover from in less than a year. Nah, I don't think so. Get them off the field, make the W's easier for us.

A former NFL player coaching in some capacity and wearing the shirt of the team the player is on at their camp? I'm shocked.

Yeah, sorry, I'm sure you did. Most people just think of them with George though, and they are pretty awesome without him too.

Love when people try to call out others (especially in the Liberals vs Conservative world) and they can't even choose the proper word.

That, and they are also re-usable. They are the Parliament Funkadelic, their own band really and quite good with or without George.

You are "s" out of luck there if you live in this area. Indians, Pirates, Blue Jays, Mets and Yankees are all considered local markets here and are blacked out. It's a bit ridiculous if you ask me.

Uh, you realize the Yankess have a baseball in their logo too, right? As well as the Giants, Mariners, Rangers, Blue Jays, Twins, Brewers, Rockies, and Dodgers. And that doesn't even count secondary logos. What a bizarre and completely untrue statement in that post.

I don't know. Maybe, just maybe, we don't make crazy assumptions based on 4 days worth of practice. My gosh. 2nd year player, 2nd round pick, played very well last camp, recovering from significant injury, and no MLB depth. He will be given a fair shot eventually, no doubt in my mind, and he will be better than Preston and take over sooner rather than later.

When you enter the stadium, the actual seating portion. Going down the hallway from the concourse into the stadium. Love that feeling.

I remember some proclaiming him to be a future #1 overall pick based on 3 games played. So funny. I said it then, and I've said it numerous times since then. Watching those games you could clearly see he had a ton of accuracy issues, and that has certainly panned out. Having a rocket arm is just not enough. I'll be shocked if he is still in the league in 2 or 3 years unless he has drastic improvements out of nowhere.

What are you talking about? The NBA does a lottery system, not even close to what I am suggesting. And the Sixers have been in tank mode for over 5 years. How is that good for competitive spirit? How is that good for their sponsers and tv deals? Most importantly, how is that possibly good for their fan base....because maybe, MAYBE after 8 years they can have a playoff team (and I'll believe that when I see it)? Yeah. To me, this another way to do it as well. Sports should always be about trying to win, every game, every time IMO. Encouraging losing by rewarding tanking, is just wrong IMO.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. In MLB in the last 10 years only one team has won the Championship more than once. This year looks to continue that trend as the Dodgers and Astros seem poised to win. Dodgers haven't won since Kirk Gibson and the Astros have never won. Teams like the Twins, Brewers, Rockies, are all making playoff pushes for the first time in years and seemingly out of nowhere. In the last 10 years the Phillies, Royals, and Cubs have all won their first championships in over 30 years. However, the NFL has the same teams winning over and over and over again. Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Ravens, Giants, Broncos. I would argue that after baseketball, the NFL is the worst at having different teams win. I do love the soccer system. Obviously not possible here though. Please tell me though, how would my proposal not combat tanking? It may not be the most fair system, having better teams draft ahead of worse ones, but it would prevent tanking.

Man do I hate Steely Dan. I mean HATE.

I just don't think a lottery system does anything, really, to curtail the tanking problem. Teams would still tank in order to realize the best odds at winning the lottery, no? Especially if only the first 2 or 3 picks are the ones up for lottery (like the NBA and NHL currently). The lottery system, with all slots available in the lottery is better than the current system though, no doubt about it.

I thought of this aspect as well and agree it could make things more fair / interesting too. I agree. I think there would definitely be an increase in trading in this scenario.

In my opinion, there is something fundamentally wrong with tanking in sports. The whole purpose of sports is to win games and, in turn, championships. However, this worst teams gets best pick (or best chance for best pick in some sports) system fosters teams trying to lose to potentially get better players to be better down the road. This is no fun for anyone. What fans want to watch their team intentionally being terrible? What networks want to show these teams getting blown out game after game? To me, it's a simple solution. Just do the draft slotting this way (NFL as an example) Pick 1: Team 13 (best team not making playoffs) Pick 2: Team 14 Pick 3: Team 15 ... Pick 20: Team 32 (worst team in league) Picks 21-32 same playoff team breakdown we have today. This would foster competition throughout the league for the entire season. Now WINNING as many games as possible is always the goal (save for the savy GM who realizes it may be better to just miss the playoffs in a year than to make it and lose round 1. I would think that case would be the exception more than the rule). No longer will teams strive to win 1 or 2 games a year for the top pick, they would be picking 20th instead. Just my thoughts on it in light of the Jets, 49ers, Browns obviously striving to lose...again. Interested on thoughts, have at it.

This is clearly the only ironic thing in either of our posts. When someone says "a step lower" it infers that we were at some point on a higher level. I was simply pointing out that I believe we are at our highest level we have ever been at this time, even though a lot of messed up stuff still happens and there is a long way to go. I was in no way shape or form saying those things do not still exist in society, I was saying that you don't have to go too far in the past to see each of them at a much worse off position than they are today. However, if you can teach me about a time in civilized history when things were not more messed up than they are now, please do. I enjoy learning new things.

This is a terrible action by these kids, or rather inaction I guess. But I find it funny when people say things like a "step lower in our society and species." You do not have to look far into the past to see really lower steps in our society and our species. From homophobia, to sexism, to racism, to genocides, to absolutely brutal trench warfare, to brutal working conditions, to slavery, etc, etc, etc. Many things still exist, yes, but to a much smaller degree than they did in the past. Pretty much every generation is more civilized than the last in one shape or another if you really think about it.

I get enough of people's recipes on FB, I certainly do not need it here too.

Funny.

Jeez, cut the OP a break. Tells a nice story and people are jumping all over him.

The "analytics" say that coaches should be going for 4th down in way more situations than they actually do. This is based on percentages of getting the 4th down and eventually getting points versus not getting the 4th down and not allowing points on the subsequent drive and the impacts of punting / kicking a FG vs going for a TD, field position, etc. I know you were not saying you would be using analytics, I just thought it was funny that the example you cite is a precise area where analytics says they can improve over a coach's "gut feeling" and an area where the there is enough data to support the percentages not really lying in this use case.

Bashes analytics and then points to the exact type of thing that typical coaches do not do, but analytics supports. Funny.

I don't think he is underrated. I think its more that he had such a short career that you really can't be considered an all-timer. Most people know how amazing he was for that short time, especially if you were old enough to witness it. He would be successful today, no doubt. Also, OJ and Barry for sure. Not sure on Jim Brown though, run through you every time type guys don't really exist anymore. I think Dickerson would be successful too.