EastCoastNiner

Tortorella complaining? Color me surprised. . That guy does more whining than pretty much every coach in the NHL.

It was worse than I thought it was going to be. Some of it I didn't mind, but when you say that you want to keep hitting his head after the play and trying to take out someones ACL, that's overboard. I don't think he'll coach for a LONG time, if ever again. I think their punishment was WAY too light now.

http://markmalazarte.com/dwight-stan.gif Grow up Dwight. You're just a little friggin baby.

So, then according to you, there must be about 30 franchise players in the NBA? There's not 30 franchise players in the NBA, nor are there 15 players. He's similar to Amare and Bosh where both are very talented players, but they aren't cornerstone, franchise players. If they are the main piece of a team, you're not winning a title. I have a very strict definition of a franchise player. I think the only franchise players in the NBA are LeBron, Wade, Kobe (still), Rose, and POSSIBLY Howard.

What an overrated bum. He should be happy that SVG is his coach because he actually has the balls to challenge Howard. Dwight is a shot prima donna. Get lost you bum.

No, he is not a franchise player. No PG (if you want to call him one) is a franchise player. Not CP3, not D-Will, and not any other PG. The only one I'd consider is Rose.

Totally a part of football........... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhnn9kbqQUA&feature=player_embedded Let me tell my players to directly target the head, take out the outside of the ACL, hurt players ankles, commit late hits, etc...... Enjoy your suspension you piece of shit.

I'll make this my last post about the Rangers and Capitals in this thread, as this is meant for the Flyers. The Capitals have had the Rangers number over the years. Yes, this season is different, but they have had their number in recent years, and in the playoffs. No team since the lock-out has won the Stanley Cup without being top 10 in scoring. There's a first time for everything, but I just don't trust the Rangers offense to be consistent enough. Maybe you believe they will be, but I just don't see it when I watch them play. The Rangers are currently 11th in goals (close enough to top 10), but I really don't see the offense there. I don't think it's an outrageous prediction to think their offense will let them down, even against Washington. On that note, Ovechkin has been heating up, and is the all-time leader in gpg in playoff history. I just like this match-up IF the Rangers play the Capitals. If the Rangers draw the Sabres, my opinion will change. However, I just like the Capitals in this particular match-up. If the Rangers were to play the Bruins, I would be pretty nervous as the Rangers seem to play them ever well. However, I just think the Capitals would take out the Rangers.

I've said it for a while now, especially on the "misc", that the Rangers are not good enough to win the Stanley Cup, and will lose to the Capitals if they play them. Laugh all you want now, but you won't be laughing much in a few weeks if the Rangers have to play the Capitals . A team with a "meh" offense such as the Rangers will struggle in the playoffs. Personally, if there's one team I don't want to play, it's actually the Rangers because they just have the Bruins number, but I don't think they will be able to beat Washington. Call it whatever you want, but I call it the truth.

Knock them out while Boston hopefully takes out Ottawa. Then the Bruins will most likely either play Washington or New Jersey...... Then if the Flyers are in the finals, Bryzgolov can have a meltdown.

Not to the same extent as baseball. Football has all except one or two of their games on a Sunday to start the year. There's no real hockey tradition for opening day, yet they pretty much start around the same time. It's practically a weeks difference between opening days in the MLB this year.......... By the way, are you scurred about the Nationals taking the NL East? :glasses: .

http://i52.tinypic.com/anomu.gif

How a sport can pretty much have three "Opening Day's" is beyond me.

I just love the vagueness of the bill. Anything that "annoys" or is "offensive". .

If he remained on the Celtics, he would have been a 30ppg and 15rpg player.

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/arizona-bill-could-criminalize-internet-trolling-184547052.html Goodnight sweet prince.

Feminism used to be about "equality", but now it's just about hating men and wanting them to suffer. Honestly, I have no clue how you get alimony (which is already ridiculous because it means the one receiving money is already re-married) that is more than ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT of what the guy makes as income. How the [expletive] is he supposed to pay that. Look, I don't know the entire story, but from that show, it seems like he did very little wrong, and is being screwed big time. The part that pisses me off the most is that his ex-wife asked for his release, didn't get more money because she's a greedy bitch, and asked for him to be thrown back in jail, and he was. The guy is completely right about the bull-shit catch 22. He loses his license because he's in jail, and can't get out until he pays the amount he wrongly "owes", yet he can't pay it if he doesn't have his license to practice law. I did a paper about alimony last year, and it's just [expletive]ing absurd. If you re-marry, why the hell should you be entitled to more money from another marriage, especially at 100%+ of the income the guy makes. How can a judge force him to pay that much money? This just really pisses me off even though I'm not involved.

-Guy is (was) a lawyer -Wife wanted to divorce him, so she did. -During the time divorced, he could see his kids nine hours every two weeks, and never had them overnight for two years. -Wife was allowed alimony. -Judge ordered alimony amount which was more than 100% than HE MAKES!!!!! -Since he was placed in jail for failure to pay the absurd amount, he lost his license to practice law. -Since he lost his license, he has no way to pay the absurd amount. -Was in jail for 7 days out of a 180 day sentence ([expletive]ing absurd) -Wife asks for his release after 7 days. -She tries to get more money in a settlement from him when he gets out, but it doesn't work out. -She asks for him to be placed back in jail, and he is. BULL-SHIT!

Are you kidding me with this shit?!?!?!?! Feminists are the biggest pieces of shit in this world. This guy is totally [expletive]ed unless he can get some real help. What a bitch his ex-wife is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYb5xSd4PRs&feature=player_embedded

That's why I said we should keep it out of here, but if he wants to keep being a hypocrite and ignoring questions because he's being exposed.........

Ok, so you're just going to completely ignore the question because you'd either be backtracking, or changing your stance.

Keep ignoring the question that you're being asked. I'm not asking about the comparison between the two cases. Once again, YOU are saying that there is an outcry in the Zimmerman case because there has been no arrest made. So, once again, do you think there would still be an outcry if he is charged and found not guilty? Seriously, how many more times can you dance around a question that is clear as can be? Stop trying to divert the question to the other case that has been mentioned. I'm not talking directly about that. So, once again, you, in your own words have said that the reason the Zimmerman case has such attention is because of the lack of arrest and charges. So, once again, do you think that there would still be an outcry if he is arrested, charged, and found not-guilty?

You're saying the cases aren't comparable because the reason there is an outcry in the Zimmerman and Tayrvon Martin case is because there's been no arrest made, or charges filed. So, I'm asking, if there is an arrest made, and/or charges are filed, and Zimmerman is found not guilty, do yo think there will no longer be an outcry? The lack of arrest is what you're reasoning for an outcry is hinging on, so this is just addressing that point. I'd say, the answer is no, and that there still would be an outcry because people want to play the race card.

I'm not claiming you wouldn't usually calla a foul a foul, but I do think you're being slightly biased right now. I don't think it;s just the fact that you don't think it was a foul (I think it was), but that you are pointing to other plays that occurred after it that somehow "even it out". Are you telling me incidental contact is never called as a foul? That's pretty much what you're saying, but you also throw in the "even then" part. At the end of the day, I think it was a missed call. I think it could have certainly changed the game around. If Ohio State hits both FT's, then Kansas isn't getting an easy basket, and Ohio State is up one at that point. Are you really trying to say that referees don't call fouls when players are getting in position, even when the balls on the other side of the rim? You're not serious with this are you? I'll leave it here: Do you think it was a foul? Do you think it would have been a foul if not for the time left in the game? Do you think the outcome would have been different, had the call been made?

So, you'd be willing to say that if Zimmerman is arrested, goes to trial, and is found not-guilty, that there will no longer be media outrage? Your whole argument is hinging on him not being arrested. So, if he is arrested and not charged or found not guilty, then you'd be willing to bet that the media outrage would dwindle?