The Gooch

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 02:47 PM) Doesnt matter. No other position comes close to the importance of finding a Quarterback. Look around the league. If you don't have that position settled you aren't a real contender. Even if you have to throw away the next two damn years of football you have to find the quarterback in that process. I can use the Bears to prove this statement wrong. They went to the Super Bowl with Grossman/Orton. While they did lose to a franchise QB, you can't say they weren't contenders. And that was Peyton Manning's only Super Bowl victory, the greatest quarterback of all time from a statistical perspective.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 03:07 PM) It absolutely does matter. Eli Manning has as many rings as Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers combined. I agree, just ask Dan Marino...

Carson on creationism vs evolution: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-...satan-evolution

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 24, 2015 -> 01:37 PM) I would have no problem with the Bears taking two Quarterbacks in next years draft. With their first pick and even within the next few rounds (pick a round). They have to get the QB issue right before anything else even matters and it doesnt involve Jay. The need too much help elsewhere to justify taking two QB's early. Like...almost everywhere.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Sep 14, 2015 -> 09:59 PM) Um, I live in the Twin Cities and have zero idea what you're talking about. I have a hard time believe you don't know what he is talking about. I have been to Minneapolis 5 or 6 times and see a ton of Somalian people there each time and everyone I know that lives there knows about them.

QUOTE (ron883 @ Sep 13, 2015 -> 09:34 PM) He isn't a politician? I beg to differ. Here is why. 1. He is a world renouned brain surgeon. He is a master about everything regarding the brain. If that's the case, why does he hold completely archaic views on marijuana? He thinks marijuana has a detrimental effect on the brain if you use it in your mid 20's or earlier. He thinks it decreases your IQ. Those claims have been proven to be false for a long time now. That is stuff you'd see in 1960's American anti-weed propaganda. Marijuana has been proven to be beneficial to the brain in many situations. Being an expert on the brain, he should know of the numerous benefits marijuana can have on the brain. There is no way he actually believes that. He is lying for the lobbyists and for the votes on that issues. 2. He is a creationist. There is absolutely no excuse for being a creationist if you are as educated as him. Plain and simple. You don't get my vote if you a creationist. Maybe he actually believes this. His history shows he always had this view, so maybe he isn't putting on a facade for the votes. I still struggle to believe that any of these politicians are actually creationists. He is a politician that was also smart enough to be a surgeon. Just because he isn't a "lifetime politician" doesn't mean he isn't going to act like a politician. These points prove that. I do not consider myself Liberal or Conservative, but the Republicans once again fail to provide a candidate I would even consider to vote for. I kind of want Donald to win the nomination, though I fear for us all if actually became President. No matter how unlikely he is to win against Bernie or Hillary, I don't want to take that chance...

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Sep 10, 2015 -> 12:33 PM) Except for the last two seasons where he has played in all 16 games. Hahahahaha Interesting story here too. I'm over Deflategate as I am sure you all are, but how dumb does Goodell look? He just keeps shooting himself in the foot and lying about everything. http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/10/adam-sche...ki-jim-mcnally/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 8, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) Next time I hear someone use the phrase "political correctness" that isn't coming from a white person complaining about how they're not allowed to say something negative about a particular group will be the first. That's because white people are basically the only people that have to worry about being politically correct. A minority saying something negative about another minority isn't big news. A white person saying something negative about a non white person is racism and a front page story. I want to be clear that I am not making an opinion on whether the above is right or wrong, it is just my opinion that the above is true.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 01:44 PM) I think you can disregard the language that he was using because i'm sure to some extent he wanted to be as soft on Brady as possible while still concluding he violated the rule. You want to punish the face of the league, not call him a big, lying cheater at the same time. I don't see a jury looking at the evidence - the text messages we do have, the names they gave Brady and themselves, testimony from just about every QB and kicker out there that QB's and ballboys are tight and talk about how they like the balls prepared (Jay Feely the other day said it's common you tip the crap out of ballboys to keep the balls how you like them), the incredibly shady move of getting rid of the phone, etc. - and finding any doubt there. That language was used by the "independent investigator" however and not Roger Goodell. Was there enough evidence there to get Brady and the Patriots punished? Yes. The NFL just handled everything so terribly, that it has to be overturned. The suspension was unprecedented, the report was biased, and the proceedings were unfair. If Goodell was more focused on the interests of the league and due process then this probably would have all been settled with 1 game suspension or a large fine on top of the draft picks and fine the Patriots were already punished with. Unfortunately, he was more obsessed with confirming his power over the league and his personal pride.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) In a normal court with a jury, Brady is guilty beyond doubt. That's why this decision is dumb. He's getting off on minor technicalities. Some cop f***ed up paperwork and the criminal gets off free despite convincing circumstantial evidence that he committed the crime. Going off of what StrangeSox just said. You are saying in a normal court Brady would without a doubt be proven guilty of "probably being generally aware of using deflated footballs?" If it was that cut and dry, I don't think that would have been the language used.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:56 AM) The NFL told his lawyers they could redact all personal messages from the phone. That was never an issue. How did those other text messages get released to the public? With the way things get out about celebrities' personal lives, I would be very hesitant to give out something as personal as my phone to anyone. Especially an organization that looks to have released false information to the media about the deflated balls and at very least did not publicly refute that information when they knew it was wrong.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 12:46 PM) Isnt this his NFL issued phone, though? If your company gives you a phone, I think you would have to give it to your boss if he said to give it to him I had never heard that, if it was then that might change my opinion, but as far as I know, it was his personal phone...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) If it was just about deflating footballs I would totally agree with you. The extra step of destroying the phone warrants a suspension IMO. They shouldn't have the right to look at his phone. Look at what happened when he gave up his other phone, texts leaked about his pool and some stuff he said about Peyton Manning. Maybe he was trying to hide something on the phone and it wasn't even related to deflated footballs. He shouldn't be suspended for not giving up his phone. I wouldn't give my phone to my boss.

Finally watched Ballers finale last night. I think I'm done with the show. Just a s***ty sports version of Entourage. And the acting by some is so bad.

QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 09:53 AM) Both Awful Announcing and Fangraphs have done surveys over the last few years. They're obviously biased in that most of the people rating them are probably fans of the team, but there are plenty of diehards with Extra Innings or mlb.tv who are familiar with a ton of broadcast booths. Aside from Vin Scully, I personally enjoy the Astros and Mets. Cubs are fine, too. I always wondered who was doing those ratings. I can see why outsider would hate Hawk, I just don't get it from a hometown fan perspective (at least 10 years ago)

QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ Aug 28, 2015 -> 09:38 AM) Giants are considered one of the best broadcasting teams. Cubs too. I think the Giants' are a bit overrated; I prefer Kasper. Solid broadcast. Considered by who? Like who listens to all the broadcast teams and decides who the best is? As much as I prefer the Hawk from 10 and 20 years ago, and I can see why he is hated by many "critics" who aren't fans (and even by a lot of fans now), I still prefer him over the dry impartial broadcasting of other teams. We are watching hometown broadcasts, not national, I don't see what the big deal is about being a homer. I know a lot of what Hawk says it outlandish now and I can understand how he gets ripped for that, but I never understood the big deal with him being a homer.

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but just watched Bloodline on Netflix. Phenomenal show I thought. I binge watched the last 4 episodes last night, couldn't stop watching...

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 01:35 PM) Hawk is presumably great at getting children interested in the White Sox and we desperately need that. I hope he stays on forever. As someone that grew up listening to Hawk, you can learn a lot about the game by listening to him as a kid. That is worth his occasional ridiculous nonsense comments. In my personal opinion as an adult (kind of), the entertainment value he provides is worth his ridiculous comments and his depressing tone of voice when things aren't going well. Sure he roots for the Sox, but he is a home broadcaster, I don't understand why people are so against that. He isn't on ESPN or Fox, he is on the CSN, being watched by Sox fans. Stone is there for the great baseball insight. I will miss Hawk when he is gone. For all his flaws, he is just fun to listen to as a Sox fan.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 11:16 AM) However, Robertson needs to focus on getting outs and less on what the opposing manager is doing. I think he was trying to do that and make some warm-up throws to prepare, but Scioscia was standing over the plate.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 05:45 PM) I hope that it doesn't sound like I am placing my opinion above others because what I do in school and for a living outside the forum, if it comes of that way it's certainly not my intention. And yet, I completely disagree with everything you said. If TDS2 were the show's first seasn it would've guaranteed a second season just based on the ratings alone. Recently the President of HBO said that they're waiting to open up negotiations with Nic Pizzolatto for a third season and more depending on him (he said during the first season that he is hoping for at least 5), Pizzolatto also has another show in development at the network and he has some high profile screenwriting gigs coming up. Nic Pizzolatto isn't going anywhere for a while, the same goes for True Detective. (I don't follow the points and ratings but S2 has been one of the network's highest rated programs, and is one of theit popular brands) Now, I've said this before and after seeing the whole season I feel vavalidated when I say TDS2> TDS1. I liked the plot and storyline better, the psychosphere was much improved this time in my opinion and the characters were amazing. I could go on but in short I think S2 is way better than 1. I would compare True Detective to what happens when a band puts a phenomenonal debut album (both critically and commercially) and in its aftermath the hype starts to build up amongst fans and the media and in the building of the hype, both parties either start to write the music in their heads or/want (demand) a rehash of the debut. And when the band puts out their (just as good if not better) sophomore album, people are judge it for what it's not instead by what it is. While I understand people may like or dislike certain things, some of the reviews for this season come off like the person who wrote the review either isn't paying attention to the storyline, has some kind of preconceived agenda (some of articles written by critics/bloggers who are affiliated with the alphabet groups are very infuriating, they (GLAAD) sound like they have old fashioned views on gay characters (I can rant about GLADD and some members of the MAC all day)), or they bash the show for not being the second season and while I disagree with that school of criticism, that would make more sense when you're critiquing a traditional serialized television show, that has no place when judging a self contained anthology series. When people asked me what I wanted from the second season of the show after the first season finale, I said that all I want for it is to be good. I think that's the only thing that you/we (the audience) can ask for when it comes to art, anything other than that and you're bound to be disappointed. As I said on reddit and at the viewing party, I wish more people would've watched this without preconceived notions and ideas, because they're missing out. For those that prematurely dropped the show, get away from it for a bit and start the season again (this time watch it in its entirety) and come to your own opinions and conclusions. I'll bet you'll be signing a different tune, if not you can say that I was wrong. I feel like you are the Skip Bayless of t.v. watching. I feel like I am watching one of those afternoon ESPN shows where one of the hosts has to argue a ridiculous point for entertainment value.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 07:21 AM) Let me know if you need recommendations for Louisville. I'm 8 miles away from downtown. I missed this before I left, but was only there for a couple of days. I did the whiskey distillery tours which were fun. Also got some ice cream from Comfy Cow, had a delicious burger at Bluegrass, and also an Old Time donut shop I can't remember the name of.

Oh yeah and also going to hit up the Evan Williams and Bulleit distilleries...

Heading to Louisville and Nashville this week. Thanks for all the recommendations, will definitely be checking out City House and Edley's, and probably Loveless Cafe as well.

I found McAdams and Farrells' characters fascinating. The Motorcycle guy is alright, and Vince Vaughn is just not believable to me. Maybe it is bias because he has played so many comedy roles. I loved him acting in Swingers and thought he could pull this off (I know they are nothing alike and Swingers is still mostly a comedy). I was bored after the first episode (Colin Farrell beating that Dad up was badass), but the shootout brought me back. Dialogue was extremely slow for awhile. I thought the shootout was brilliantly shot and had me on the edge of my seat. It brought my interest level back up and I thought the last episode was really good as well. I am actually interested to see where it goes now, as opposed to not caring before.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 04:31 PM) I assume you mean a righty? Let's just put Danks out of his misery, move him to long relief, bring back Mark and put a righty in the rotation from somewhere else.