Soxbadger

If the Sox cant afford to keep guys like Rios, they might as well not even try to win for the next 3-4 years.

Youd hope that the Hawks get the calls at home and if they have even power play time, I like the Hawks chances. Most of the series the Hawks have had more penalty minutes, even though the Flyers play an equally aggressive style. And its not that Philly is on the attack more, its just the Hawks have a weakness on defense on their first line that other teams have not attacked like Philly. Its the reason why Toews line seems entirely ineffective because id guess they have spent the majority of their time on defense. Kane was a -4 last game. Its not a coincidence. Philly has found something, the Hawks need to adjust. In my opinion they are the better team, but you cant just keep running the same lines out if the other team has something working.

Im not sure how you can say Philly manhandled the Hawks the last 2 games. 1 went to over time, and yesterdays game the Hawks had a few key defensive letdowns that lead to their demise. Philly went 10 minutes between shots at one point in the first, the problem was, both of those shots went into the goal. The Blackhawks out shot them and had less turn overs. The key stat of yesterdays game: Penalty time. Philly had 14 minutes of power play to Hawks 8. Thats almost 3/4 of a period the Flyers were on a power play. As for game 5, who knows. I think the Hawks are a better team, but they need to change somethings up for tomorrows game. They cant let Philly attack them when Kane is on the ice. They need to change that.

Went to this thing called hoptacular today, it was a craft brew tasting for beers in Chicago. Had some pretty interesting beers. This one by left handed brewery called Milk Stout was pretty good.

I hate to say it, but right now Kane is a liability on the first line. It seems that whenever he is on the ice the Philly rush comes. When Kane is on defense he just kind of skates around and hopes that a puck finds him. The 3rd period they switched the lines up and looked much better. I feel that right now you have to take advantage of Hossa, because Philly being physical plays into his strengths (as opposed to Kane). A line of Hossa, Toews, Kopecky, with Kane moving to the 2nd line could do the trick. I swear that Philly is just waiting for Kane to be on the ice and then try and go on the offensive. He just doesnt seem to have any desire to play defense and you cant have that in the Finals.

In my opinion 4 were sunk. (California, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona) They refloated and salvaged 2 of them (California and West Virginia). They were only able to do this due to the shallow water of Pearl Harbor. Had it been in open ocean those boats were gone. I was going with the fact that 4 ships were put on the bottom of the sea (ie not floating anymore), it just happened that the shallow water prevented 2 of the ships from actually going fully underwater. But they were sitting on the bottom, which to me is sunk. It basically is just how you use the terms. As the 2 of them would eventually be repaired and reused. But at the time, they were sunk.

And article 1 of NATO states that you dont do anything that the US doesnt want because well, outside of the US, which army in NATO is really that powerful? (Its some what a joke but there is a very small chance that a NATO member like Turkey would directly defy the US.) At the end of the day, it is what it is. Jews/Israeli's arent right all the time, but in some ways their hand is forced. In the same way Muslims/Palestinians hands are forced. I hope that one day people from both sides will agree that no matter who is right, I doubt that either god would want innocent people to suffer over pretend lines in the sand. I guess the problem is that they believe that their god does care about these lines and therefore their actions are justified. Hope fades, reality sets in, would I even be any different if born into that situation? Id hope that I would, but hatred tempts even the strongest people. Think about the hatred toward illegal immigrants in the US, they just want "our jobs". Imagine if Mexico had attacked us 3 times in the last 50 years, and then out of the kindness of our heart, we gave the land we took back and it still wasnt enough. But at the same time, the way Israel got the land wasnt necessarily fair (although I subscribe to the belief that if you supported the Nazi's you deserve everything you got.) Just not an easy situation.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 1, 2010 -> 05:35 PM) I thought the majority of the big cruisers and aircraft carriers were not stationed at the base the day of the attack? Am I mistaken? No just the aircraft carriers were spared. And at the time aircraft carriers were not considered as important as battleships. The entire Pacific fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbor that day. Japan destroyed 4 of the 8 US battleships, and severely damaged the other 4. The entire fleet absent the carriers were stationed at Pearl Harbor that day. Around 400 airplanes, which half were destroyed and many others damaged. While there were other cruisers, destroyers and transports through out the Pacific, every single US battleship was at Pearl Harbor that day. Including ones that were recalled from the trip to Wake Island. The entire US Pacific fleet was basically at risk, and there is no way that FDR or his advisors would consider it an acceptable risk. If they had known you would have seen a drastic reduction of the force at Pearl Harbor, and had some sort of counter attack plan. All FDR needed was Japan to attack the US and declare war, he didnt need Japan to decimate Pearl Harbor. Even if just a few American's had been killed, the result would have been the same. No American would have accepted Japan attacking the US and not wanting retribution. Therefore if FDR would have known, he would have most likely tried to trick the Japanese into thinking they had caught the US off guard but then trapped them. Germany declares war on the US before the US even needed to declare war on it. FDR was trying to get the US involved in the war, but mainly in Europe. The Pear Harbor attack caught the US completely off guard. The US did not even declare war on Germany or Italy instantly, and its actually hard to say what the US would of done had Hitler and Mussolini not declared. But Hitler wanted to use the US for more propaganda (his speech blames the US for Pearl Harbor and basically calls the US tyrants etc) and at that point was so caught up in his megalomania that he didnt even consider the possibility that he couldnt take down the US. So in the end, I cant possibly believe FDR would risk so much for war with Japan, when his real concern was Europe and had no way of knowing whether Hitler would stay loyal to Japan (he had already turned on Stalin earlier in the year). Most likely if it was up to FDR, the US would have exclusively fought Germany and then dealt with Japan after Hitler was defeated. Here is what FDR's secretary wrote: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl3.htm It wasnt a conspiracy, it wouldnt make sense.

Hell always be in MJ's shadow no matter where he plays. He was billed as the NEXT Michael Jordan. The only way he can ever eclipse MJ would be to do it as a Bull in the house built by Jordan. He wins 7 championships as a Bull, wed be talking about the next Lebron James. If he wins 6 championships for any other team, people would still think MJ was better. I dont think any of that stuff matters though.

From everything ive read about WWII, there is no reason to believe that there was a govt conspiracy to allow Pearl Harbor to happen. In fact the US specifically moved its fleet to Pearl Harbor in case of a Japanese attack. It may have made sense for the US to try and antagonize the Japanese into open conflict to end isolationism, but it would not have been in their best interest to have basically the entire fleet destroyed (but for the carriers who happened to be doing practice maneuvers. ) Furthermore, individual people overlooked radar, which should have tipped the US off to the Japanese attack. Just no way FDR would have put his entire pacific fleet at risk. Had the US known, you would have seen most of the battleships, etc not in the harbor that day. People still would have gone for war, you just wouldnt have had to rebuild the Pacific Fleet. FDR's actions for the most part were to force GERMANY to attack the US. Its very likely that absent a direct attack by Japan that the US would have gotten very involved in the Pacific. The Pacific was colonies of Europe, and you dont really care about the colony when the mother country is under occupation. Some people believe the US painted Japan into a corner, but at the end of the day Japan misjudged the United States. Japan believed war with the US was inevitable, when the reality was that FDR/US didnt really want to fight Japan, they just wanted to make sure that the Pacific resources of the allies were safe. Most likely the US and Japan could have cut a deal where Japan kept most of the land it took in China, etc. But once they attacked Pearl Harbor, it was over for them. No conspiracy in my opinion. FDR believed that Germany would eventually attack US ships, or just openly declare war if he kept helping the allies.

Yeah the Eager goal had to be stopped by the Philly goaltender. You just cant give up 2 goals that quickly, he had to get a piece of it.

Ive never been but things id want to see would be Red Square (Kremlin), Lenin's Toomb (not even sure if they allow visitors) and if you go to St. Petersburg, the Hermitage.

Lets GO HAWKS

Well 5-7 miles would be what 40-45 blocks? If you started at Washington/State (0,0) you could basically walk North to Belmont and back, or all the way to Wrigley. Lake Shore Drive has a nice scenic walking path, but you could go up a street like Clark, Lincoln, etc. I dont know much about walking south.

Its your opinion the game wouldnt be as popular in bad weather. In my opinion those are some of the most legendary games. Ice bowl, fog bowl, the game where the snow was cleared for NE to kick the field goal, the tuck game, etc. Who remembers the "It was great weather game!' The reason why Super Bowls were played in warm weather was because they wanted to make sure fans would come. It had nothing to do with the playing conditions (imo) Also there really is no proof that its more likely to "snow"in NY than "rain" in Florida. And cold shouldnt be the reason to not have a super bowl.

Chisoxfn, You seriously need to stop bringing logic to this argument. Dont you understand that bad weather isnt part of football???

No your proving my point. Baseball is never played in mud etc, the game can be called for that. If it is raining to hard in the middle of a game, they will stop play. Football is played in all weather for every game, except for 1. That does not make any sense. You dont change the rules for 1 game.

Steve, Show me one shred of evidence to support your position. Its a sign of weakness to attack the poster and not the post. I dont believe that I have ever belittled you in any post, in any forum. But if you seriously cant hang with me, I understand. I just expected a lot more from you. Brian

I believe the statics would show that more players get injured on turf than on snow. Your not increasing the chances of random luck, because field conditions/weather arent luck. They are the conditions. If its windy and you dont have as strong of an arm as another qb, thats not luck. If you are faster and have more stamina and therefore can run into the wind better, thats not luck. If you have more balance and agility and therefore dont slip, thats not luck. Thats skill, and playing in bad weather is part of the skill of football. If they want to make football an indoor sport like basketball, Id agree that it shouldnt be outside for the most important game. Id be against playing a NBA final outdoors. But itd be like arguing that the World Series shouldnt be played in Chicago because it might be cold, so they should play all the games indoors in pristine conditions. (Edit) Bear weather? Not sure what you mean by that. What I meant was that I grew up in Chicago, watching the Bears and playing football in the snow/ bad conditions. That is what I associate football with. Players having smoke come off their heads, etc. To me that is football. Summer weather reminds me of football practice. There were a few games in September were we may have had some good weather, but even High School playoffs are played in November etc, where there was snow and all sorts of bad weather.

Yep, cold weather teams generally try and build towards more defense and running because they are better in all elements and you dont have to change your game plan if its brutal weather. Which is why it only makes sense to have a neutral site be truly neutral in that it can be in any weather condition.

Well hes from Jamaica so i guess he might get hypothermia. But Id say my chances are equal. That being the only chance I have is if he dies or get hurt running. Im not beating him in either condition. Ive got just as good of a chance of slipping in the snow as he does. {Edit} And track meets are always in pristine conditions. No rain, snow etc. That is the sport. If they want to make football that way, then I would agree 100% that the Super Bowl should not be played in bad weather. But football is played in all weather, Im not sure why the SUper Bowl should be any different.

Because the "worse' team couldnt have a fluke turnover or missed field goal that would lead them to be beat? Show me a single correlation that bad weather leads to upsets. Or why bad weather impacts the better team more than the worse team. A fluke can happen in any weather, thats why its called a "fluke". For example, lets say that the sun gets the in punt returners eyes and they muff the punt which leads to a touchdown for the other team. Its a fluke play, impacted by weather. Should games not be played in sunlight? And the bolded part was to show my bias. Unlike some, I atleast know that my position is based on bias, and not supported by any actual facts. {edit} If you have better athletes who make better plays, they aren't able to make those plays due to crazy snow/wind/etc. The field/conditions don't allow them to show their true skill. True skill is showing that you are the best in all conditions. If you are only great on turf or in a dome, then you arent the better player. Youre a limited player. Its not that I dont understand, its that when I played sports, I never for a second have I thought that bad weather would make it so a weaker player would be better than me. I never worried about a fluke play, or if it was muddy, or snowing, or to cold, or whatever excuse you want to make. I went out and I played the damn game. What Im hearing is that you prefer an "offensive" game, and "offense" is more likely to be displayed in pristine conditions. I guess Im just not sure why the best players cant make plays in bad weather. Would Jerry Rice not be the best WR on the field because its snowing? No hed still be better. Maybe not as good as in pristine conditions, but neither would the other players. Same for QB, RB or any other positions. The weather is equal for everyone, what does it matter?

I couldnt agree less. If youre the best team, youre the best in all field conditions. Furthermore, all the Super Bowl ever proves is who was the "best team" that day, with those conditions. I dont see how playing in 4 inches of snow or ice decreases the chance that the better team wins. There should be absolutely no correlation to bad weather and upsets. Both teams have to play in the bad conditions, it impacts them both equally. Just the same as if the weather is 100 degrees and humid, 60 and sunny, or -100 and windy. If the Colts are playing the Lions in a snow storm, Id still take the Colts every single day of the week. They are the superior team, why would I think that the Lions would do better? Both teams play in the same conditions, why would it give the underdog an advantage? If anything I would believe that the superior team would more likely win in bad conditions, because they are more talented and therefore should be able to deal with adverse weather better. I guess I just remember football being an outdoor sport. I dont remember not playing games because it was raining, or to cold, or any other excuse. You played with the conditions that you were given, and quite frankly I never remember thinking "Damn were the better team but its bad weather so we just arent going to win." I do remember thinking "Man that other team is going to suffer because its going to be hell getting beat down in bad conditions." /shrugs If you like indoor football, maybe the arena league is for you. I personally like outdoor games and believe that football is at its best in all conditions. It just seems that if the Championship game can be played in abysmal conditions, that the Super Bowl should be as well. But Im a Bears fan and have always loved the winter. Cold weather is when football is to be played. I always hated 2 a days and summer training because it was just to damn hot. Of all the conditions, heat was the one I didnt like to play in. Pads, helmets etc, your just burning up in the summer.

Wisconsin has field turf, I just like natural grass better. Field conditions are part of the game, most games are played in pristine conditions, but I like to see that a team can play in all conditions. Football is an outdoor sport, being able to play in the wind, rain, snow, mud, matters. They have arena league football, its just not the same as being outdoors. And Ive been to 2 of the coldest games in Soldier Field history, stayed for every minute. It was great.

I like snow, Im not 10. I also like soldier fields grass and think it wouldnt be the same with field turf. /shrug