T R U

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 15, 2014 -> 10:41 AM) Coincidentally, all three of those teams are in the AFC. And yet the NFC was only 4 games better against the AFC, being top heavy does not mean being weak.

NFC was 34-30 vs the AFC, and that was with the Texans, Jaguars, Raiders going 0-12 combined against the NFC

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 15, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) If the Bills get good play out of Manuel, they should be 2nd in the East. I just don't think any of those teams outside of the Patriots are playoff teams. The Dolphins and Jets both finished one game out of the final playoff spot, and if it wasn't for a choke job in the final two games Miami would have been in. They are no worse than any of those 8-8, 9-7 teams that were fighting for that last spot.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 14, 2014 -> 04:41 PM) Sounds good to me, parameters to be set later. Also, the above, following this post: is hilarious. They had a fluky year in Sporano's first season where they got literally every break imaginable, and then got trounced in the postseason. They've had 1 other winning season since Dave Wannestedt was the coach (meaning 2 winning seasons). That's pretty much right on par with the Bills. I don't remember claiming they were a great team, but they have certainly been better than the Bills over the same time frame. They were 2 games better than the Bills last season and that was with losing to Thad Lewis and those same Bills twice. Now that they have the offensive line fixed, and Tannehill wont have to worry about getting sacked 58 times, they can improve on what was already a pretty good season last year. You may think its hilarious, but you know damn well you would kill for a Bills "Fluky" season where they win 10+ games and the AFC east

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 14, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) You're not winning more than 7 games next year, so there. Also, if you're interested, I have no problem with a sig bet on the Bills winning 7+ games and/or winning more games than Miami. Well, there's no chance they win more games then Miami so that's not really fair to you. Ill go with 7 or more wins, you win. 6 or less, I win.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 13, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) You are still giving up a 2nd round pick at the very, very, very minimum, and likely the 1st, because you have to move up to #5 or #6 to get Evans. The Bucs weren't moving because Evans was the guy they wanted. Yes it's a high cost, but again, wideout was the absolute biggest need on the team. If everything blows up and a new regime is brought in with the new ownership, they have plenty of talent to recoup the cost of that pick. It's a win now move for a team that has talent to win now. People are just upset with it because the Bills went 6-10 last year instead of 8-8 or 10-6 which, as I pointed out, they could have easily done last year. Theres nothing worse than seeing a fan of a lousy team try and say they "have the talent to win now". Buffalo has averaged 6 wins a season for the last 9 years, that's like me coming in here and saying Miami is on the cusp of being Super Bowl contenders. The Bills gave up what is going to be prolly a top 15 pick next year, and that's if they get 7-8 wins. Could be worse if they, you know, do what they always do and go 5-11 or 6-10. So, not even counting the 6 games they have against their own division who was no worse than 8-8 last year they have to play @ Chicago, @ Houston, @ Detroit, @ Denver while getting KC, Green Bay, and San Diego at home. Bills aren't winning more than 7 games next season

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 8, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) OK, I decided to answer my own question. I used the point chart from NBC Sports. Bears 14th pick = 1100 points Jets 18th pick = 900 points Jets 80th pick (Rd 3) = 190 points Jets 209th pick (Rd 6 compensatory) = 7.8 points, total of 1097.8 points I guess if you go "by the book" that would be the deal. Just FYI, but the pick value chart is pretty dated and I dont think used very much anymore.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 8, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) Nice try, but ratings don't say how boring something is to me. You might be the only person who cares about whats boring to you, clearly, your opinion does not reflect what is reality.

If Jones ever gets an out, that number is gonna go up a bit

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ May 8, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) The NFL draft is pretty boring, I'd much rather watch a baseball game (or any game for that matter). If you follow it at all, you know everything about every guy already. What more is there? All you need to see is which team drafts what player, which can be looked at in 2 minutes instead of watching 4-5 hours worth of "action." /takes cover. Ratings say otherwise

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 6, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) So if I have a perfect PS3, what type of money do i get for it? I would say around $40-50 from Gamestop.. depends what model and HD size it is Looks like they will give $140 for a 500GB new K Model

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 6, 2014 -> 10:39 AM) Abreu's in the PS3 version though right? It's been a whole month, he should have been added a while ago. Same with Tanaka. I don't know, I have PS4. I just watched a video of Sox gameplay on PS4 and there was no Abreu, and what I read said that he wouldn't be added to the roster until the first roster update which should be May 8th. I would assume that PS3 would be different since it has already been out, but PS4 most likely doesn't get the same patches as the PS3 does.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 6, 2014 -> 10:08 AM) OS rosters always come with two things. A generated player face and not a picture. Unrealistic player faces. Does Jose Abreu have a picture in the game? Does he look like Jose Abreu? My interest in the game this year entirely revolves around him. Jose Abreu isn't even in the game straight from retail. He wont be added until an official roster update, which I believe is happening on the 8th. So again, no Jose Abreu right out of the box. Konerko is the Sox 1B for the time being.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) This is the part when Steve comes in and cries about me ruining the Purple Wedding on facebook. This is great, unless you were unfriended here too

its not my fault Comcast cant get their s*** together. Ill call them tonight and try and get an ETA

So since there is going to be quite a few of us with Playstation 4's and MLB The Show, how about we get a Soxtalk online franchise set up?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) Took less time than that for some people to declare that Paulino and Johnson were complete lost-causes. Paulino is absolutely a lost cause. Hes never been good, one outlier year that he ended up with a mid 4 era, everything else is putrid and having any faith that he was going to come in here with a year layoff and be useful was foolish thinking. No one should be jumping the gun on Johnson, but he was awful up here to start the year. No reason to think he cant get it together. Paulino on the other hand, he has no business seeing the active roster again.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 04:50 PM) It also would not be shocking at all if this rotation (and bullpen) managed to improve during the season. In fact, with 2 guys coming off injury and a couple rookies as well just in the starters, that's kind of exactly what we should have hoped for. Of course it wouldn't, were 27 games into the season.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) Danks has been solid and should have rightly been expected to preform at this level. No one had reason to suspect Johnson to be this horrid. Paulino and the pen where always major points of contention and rightfully so. Some of the issues should have been foreseen but no one could have speculated it to be this horrific. Danks has not been solid, hes not striking people out and hes walking too many. Its going to catch up to him eventually. All we had was a small sample of Johnson at the major league level. I didn't think he would be outright terrible but I also didn't think he was a lock to be a good starter either. Paulino was a huge question mark, there was no reason what so ever to think a guy who hadn't pitched in the majors since 2012 was going to come in and be a solid contributor to the rotation. I agree that thinking it was going to be horrific wasn't on anyone's mind, but its not shocking that the pitching has been struggling thus far. We had a patch work bullpen and only two starting pitchers who you would say are rock solid reliable.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 29, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Did anyone really foresee such a bad start for team pitching? I know some were concerned about the bullpen Everyone should have foreseen this unless they just assumed Paulino, Johnson, and Danks were going to be solid options.. We all knew the bullpen was a concern.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 10, 2014 -> 05:38 PM) It is said that there were several people who were displeased backstage about the decision to have Undertaker lose to Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania 30, but were not able (and won't) say anything publicly about it. - The decision to end the streak was reportedly made by Vince McMahon, not Undertaker. - Regarding who knew ahead of time that the Streak was ending, it is certain that Vince McMahon, Brock Lesnar, Undertaker and Paul Heyman knew, and possibly Triple H and Stephanie McMahon. Beyond that, it is difficult to say. No finish was listed on the script but that isn't unusual and it wasn't the only one for the PPV. None of the agents reportedly knew. - Those who saw Undertaker backstage at Raw said that he had a heavy limp and looked to be "in rough shape." The referee in the Brock Lesnar vs. Undertaker match didn't know the end result. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports that Chad Patton was actually informed ahead of the match that Undertaker would win, but complied with the rule given to all WWE referees. That rules is that if a wrestler does not kick out, you go ahead and finish with the three count as if it were exactly what was planned. Credit: Wrestling Observer Newsletter According to this Undertaker did NOT make the call. I don't see any way that Undertaker was not involved in the decision to end the streak. Further more, I don't believe that the official didn't know the finish. You're telling me that when his arm got to two and a half he was like "I guess this guy isn't going to kick out" and in that split second ended the match even though going into it he was told Undertaker was to win the match?

Katy would sell that out easy

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) My PS3 is backwards compatible and can play all of my PS, PS2 games. So I wont be trading it in. Why the f*** would anyone still want to play a playstation game?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:39 AM) I doubt I'll make it that long. Dear family, Best Buy gift cards please. K thnx. I'm definitely keeping the ps3, though. It's still a top-of-the-line bluray player and media hub. I'm not trading in that beast for like $70. Ok, this is all full of wrong.. First, if you get a PS4 there is no reason what so ever to keep the PS3. Its still a bluray player and media hub. Secondly, I traded in my XBOX360 and just Black Ops 2 and got $150 store credit. If you have more than 1 game and trade it in when they are running promos youll get way more than $70

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:36 PM) Not really impressed with my ps4 so far. Killzone graphics are nice but still nothing too great. PSN is a disaster so far. The graphics are great, I am not sure how anyone could be unimpressed with it so far. This is so early in the next gen too, wait till they start making games strictly for next gen. There was a problem with PSN for about 20 minutes on console launch day, havent had even the slightest issue with it since.