Lt. Dan's Revenge

Yeah, 5 sounds about right. Not sure if they'll even need it. You do the same, I'm always looking for some good analysis/advice this time of year.

Erroneous! Erroneous on all accounts!

Yeah, I think even if I don't pick them to win in my bracket I'm going to take Portland State with the points because I think even if Xavier wins, it won't be by much and will be competitive throughout. They have won at Gonzaga this year by 7, lost to Washington by only 1 point on the road, and are winners of their last 6 including their conference championship. Xavier hasn't really impressed me at all on the offensive end this year. As far as VCU goes, we all know how good Eric Maynor is - in fact I believe he is the best point guard playing in that game, not Darren Collison. The guy everyone seems to be talking about is Larry Sanders, and for good reason because the guy has incredible length and has been playing his best ball recently. However, don't discount Alfred Aboya's impact on Sanders and this game in general. He is just as tall as Sanders, and is a more physical player at 25 pounds heavier than Sanders. That might neutralize him and put a ton of pressure on Maynor. If that line does end up dropping to 4 or 5, seems like a good value to me. I haven't taken a look at many other lines as of yet, plan on doing it tonight though and I'll let you know what is jumping out. Without even looking, I like the money line on Utah St. over Marquette, think they are going to win outright. Game is in Boise, which is huge.

Why would I try to shadow a bracket from a guy who still tries to hook up with high school freshman who are 6 years younger than him? Either way, not real high on Wake, too inconsistent for my liking. Then again, maybe I'm just a bit bias at this point since they covered about 1/7 spreads for me throughout this year.

I do remember the Oklahoma pick, and with those odds I would be rooting for the same thing! Clemson is going to be a really, really tough matchup for them, with their length and the press that they play. OU has struggled against that type of team this year a bit. Missouri is a good example of that. I was tempted to pick Clemson to upset, but I think that Griffin will be too much inside and will also handle Booker well, which is a big part of the Tigers offense. Warren will be the key to that game. I'm not too sure how sold I am on Memphis being in my final four, and I think Missouri is going to give them a real run in the Sweet 16. As crazy as it sounds, I actually like the way Memphis matches up with UConn if they meet in the Elite 8 better than they match up with Mizzou. A couple major first round upsets I am leaning towards are Cleveland St. to beat Wake and Portland St. over Xavier. Pulling the trigger on Cleveland St. for sure, and am still kicking around the Portland St. game. The problem is that I see Florida St. beating either Xavier or Portland St., so I may want to just pick Xavier to win and get the upset points in the second round game when they play the Noles.

Anyone do their first draft of their bracket yet? My first inclination at my final four picks are Louisville, Memphis, North Carolina, and Villanova. Any thoughts on those teams going to Detroit?

I noticed that too. I thought they were a lock for at least a 4 seed. At least they play Wisconsin, though. They are a pretty weak team this year IMO. Oh and just because we were all talking about East Tennessee State - pretty tough draw for them getting a 16 seed and playing Pitt. Thought they would get a 14 or 15. Although I suppose a #1 seed has to fall to a #16 at some point, right...?

Assuming we don't get an OLB before then, although I think we just might, I would concur with that.

Okay, I understand where you were coming from now. And I get your point, that probably wasn't the best way to make my own in support of legalizing it. Although, I don't know how often dads around the nation go "double or nothing on the mortgage", but of course there are some cases out there like that. STL Bills made a good point about that notion I thought - there are addicts associated with a countless amount of things in society, and I suppose an addiction to anything that has the potential to be negative can be dangerous. Don't let the addicts ruin the fun for everyone else though!

A family can be affected by overspending on EVERYTHING. Not just gambling. By that logic, why not make credit cards illegal then? I can guarantee there are more families out there that have been hurt by one of the members of the marriage racking up insane amounts of debt rather than gambling. Ultimately people are going to do what they want with their money, so why should that stop at the blackjack table or a sports game?

If that is the assumption, I'm thinking it may be a foolish one at that.

I never thought about the prostitution issue, although I'm certainly open to the idea , but gambling NEEDS to be legalized. Its incredible that you can be put in cuffs for spending your own money the way you deem fit on something that has absolutely no negative physical or mental effect on any other living person.

I never thought I'd utter a sentence even similar to this, but I'm pretty excited about what Michael friggen Irvin had to say in that article.

They didn't mean it! Please hit the undo button or something...I have to get through the rest of the work day

All I can think about when Melrose comes up is "Pucks on net".

Pretty much. Think Exit to Eden meets My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

For some reason I have warmed up to the idea of taking Pettigrew a whole hell of a lot more since last Saturday afternoon...

I always imagined Rosie O'Donnell in a two-piece serving draft O'Doul's at the only bar in hell. So maybe that isn't such a bad thing that you can't find it...

Good post. I am really starting to lean toward the idea of trading down IF AT ALL POSSIBLE if Raji doesn't slide to #11, and taking Pettigrew with that first pick. Then worrying about the DE situation with our next pick, which is hopefully a better slot with the aforementioned trade. Obviously that is a scenario based purely on speculation though. I have very little against Mack, but my target at center is Max Unger from Oregon. Love the emotion he plays with. He is both more athletic and versatile than Mack, and I think we have a shot at him in the 2nd round. That being said, I have little doubt that Mack is gonna be a good one in this league as well.

Threshold of hell. And I think I like it.

We should make the call. The Browns would probably love the idea of trading their franchise, former #3 pick overall tackle, whose made the Pro-Bowl his first two seasons in the NFL, and still has 4 years left on his contract. Especially for a guy who many around the league feel played well below his potential last year, has already held out once, and is looking for a long-term deal that will pay him $11 mill plus a year. With POSSIBLE questions arising more and more about his worth ethic. Makes perfect sense for Cleveland.

Bertrand Berries.

Ditto. Johnson is too much of a risk to be anything higher than a late 1st/early 2nd round pick in my eyes. I'm very high on Cushing, and wouldn't mind that at all if we don't end up picking an OLB (Keiaho, June, etc) up in FA before draft time. Aside from Curry, I think Cushing has the best career of any linebacker (Outside or Middle) in this years draft.

No, he wasn't referring to this year's draft. Those five guys are all from '07.

The only thing amusing about this thing continuing to come up is the quirky little thread titles people try to use for it.