EastCoastNiner

I've had him on ignore for a long time, but when he is quoted his insane posts still show up......

I don't think he'll put up great statistics this season based upon where he is in the line-up, but I like what I've seen from him. I'm going overboard saying "all aboard", but I do like what I've seen. He's been more physical than Lucic, Horton, and every other Bruins player. Speaking of Lucic, he's becoming frustrating to watch. I don't want to knock him too much because I don't fee like eating crow if he turns it around, but he looks like absolute shit. He looked like shit after he scored his 30th goal last season as well. He is a little overhyped by many people, even though I do think he has a good skillset. He's just incredibly inconsistent which is frustrating. The Bruins first line can be dominant, or just completely invisible which is frustrating. The Bergeron, Marchand, and Perverley (new contract today) line has been very good though.

You're right. I thought I said 7-9 then, but whatever. It doesn't change the point.

No shit they didn't finish 12-4? It was obviously wrong, BUT when you keep bringing it up, I'm going to point to the 7-9 like I had said as well. Again, you'd have a better point talking about me predicting the Patriots going 19-0 than the 49er's and "12-4", which is pretty much the only prediction any of you ever bring up, but that wasn't the worst prediction in that thread. That award would go to many people here that thought they Bengals would definitely win more than eight games, and were so confident about it. Obviously I was wrong about the 12-4, but when it's brought up in pretty much every thread, I'm going to defend it. But, just so you can stop crying about it, I was wrong about it. So, I hyped and talked about the Red Sox more than the Patriots? That's just a flat out lie. Besides the one post that I know you will refer to, I talked much more about the Patriots and hyped them more (19-0...doesn't get more hyped than that) than the Red Sox. So, I didn't talk about the Red Sox nearly as much? It most certainly is relevant, but, I know it's not a completely fair argument because there are a lot more games in an MLB season than the NFL, so it would be hard to talk about the Red Sox more in regards to a post/game ratio. However, my point is that even when they were in first place, I barely talked about them because I barely had the opportunity to watch them this season. You like to pull the "12-4" card extremely often (most often ore one of the most often users), yet I could pull ten more cards than that about your predictions/comments, and other member's comments. The Giants/Packers game last season wasn't going to determine which team made the playoffs, right? I can play that game as well. If you brought up something different than 12-4 every day, while taking the thread off-topic (you didn't start it this time), then I'd give more credence to your comments, but until them, it's kind of dumb to refer to one post. I've been looking through the NFL section from the past year with predictions, and I could post a lot more incorrect predictions from pretty much every member here than myself. So, I was wrong about them going 12-4, but it's stupid to bring it up in every thread.

1. That's perfectly fine. That's a much more reasonable and accurate answer than you have given before. 2. Yes, I thought there were 11 post total, and not 11 just on the Red Sox, so you're right. Only nine of them were from during the season. Two of them were from December. 3. Yes, it is wrong, but I don't get why you're so hung up on that point? So, are you pretty much wrong about 99% of everything then? Let me check the record predictions you have made over the past few years. They'll probably be just as wrong as mine if we're going for 100% accurate records. If you're point is that my "bold" predictions are wrong, then I guess I understand your point, but it's still a stupid point. 4. No, I did not hype the Red Sox as much as the Patriots. Again, I barely talked about them. 5. No, it's not entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You want it to be irrelevant because you know the exact reason I am asking you the question.

Well, firstly, I said they could go 7-9 or 12-4, but keep quoting the same post! Secondly, two of your posts were after the season ended, so I didn't include those, but did in the next post. Thirdly, where in this thread did I mention anything about the Red Sox going to the playoffs? That was never a question. I said they would make the playoffs. Fourthly, if you're going to say 14-2 is "wrong" (which it is), then no one here is pretty much ever right in their predictions, so I fail to see your point. Again, my predictions were not that far off. If you're going to try and give me shit about predictions, you might as well stick with the Patriots and 49er's, and not the Red Sox. I've talked much, much more about the Patriots and 49er's in the past week than the Red Sox the entire season. I don't mind if you mock me about the Patriots because I was hyping them up, and did say they would go 19-0, but trying to make it sound like I talked about the Red Sox a lot this season is far fetched. Finally, why didn't you answer my math problem? Oh, and once again, it wasn't me taking the thread off-topic as usual.

Also, since you actually answered the math question correctly, let's see if you can do this one. 162/ 11 = ?

I was waiting for this to be bumped.

I love how that's the post you quote, yet you never seem to quote the one where I said they could very well go 7-9....weird. Also, they were the only team that I didn't give just one prediction for, but whatever makes you sleep at night? Also, nine whole posts since the season started?!?!?!? WOWWWWW!!!!!!!! That is so many posts!! That's like talking about them every day! 14-2 last season is ten times closer than you would have predicted, and they have one loss this season....again, a lot closer than you would have predicted.

Never said that they would definitely finish 12-4, but keep using something you're wrong about The Patriots have one loss. I'm a hell of a lot closer than your prediction would be. I didn't talk about the Red Sox much at all this season, whether they were in 1st place or not, so you fail again.

Did I think Chris Johnson was a top five HB at the beginning of the season? No. Did I think he would have a very good season? No. Did I think he would be playing THIS poorly? No. I just don't think he's that special of an HB. He has speed, and that's great, but he can't do much else, and that's been the case this season.

Wait, what? http://i54.tinypic.com/25z2zyb.png

I never claimed he wasn't good enough to reach 1,000 yards, or be a top 15 HB, but he's not the best HB or even a top five HB.

This wasn't a trick question. It's a basic math problem, that many people seem to get get wrong.

No, you're still wrong. . It's called the order of operations. Let's go through them, shall we? Parentheses: None Exponents: None Multiplication: 2x0 Division: None Addition: You add up all of the remaining "2's" that were not used in the multiplication, which are 14 of them, equaling 28. Subtraction: None Answer: 28

It's not 0.................

Too bad it made complete sense, and you haven't tried to refute anything. You might as well post a legitimate response and explain your thoughts. Also, Prodigy, you have no room to talk about pretty much anything.

And, why would I take his absolutely retarded bet? Do I think Chris Johnson is an elite HB? No, but I do think he can reach 1,000 yards. Going strictly on rushing ypg last season, 19 HB's would have averaged 1,000 yards over the entire season if they all played 16 games, and 17 HB's reached 1,000 yards. If he really thinks Chris Johnson is as good as he says, my offer is much more fair, than trying to make a bet where it's pretty damn easy to reach 1,000 yards rushing.

This is a terrible troll attempt. With that said, Brady is infinitely better than Cutler. Brady has three rings, and Cutler has none. The only way Cutler gets more than three rings during his career is if he keeps getting engagement rings and getting his ass dumped, so he's probably on pace for about seven of those, so maybe he can tie Brady in the ring department one day.

1,000 yards? . You can't be serious. That's a pedestrian number for HB's in today's NFL. An HB doesn't have to average over 70ypg over an entire season to break the 1,000 yard mark. I bet you $20 he doesn't finish with 1,600 yards. But, I know you won't take it since you're all talk unlike me who has already made multiple bets with members here.

Are there really six people that think the answer is actually 0? .

I'm taking Randy Moss for now, but Calvin Johnson has plenty of time to make a case for himself. Yes, Calvin Johnson has had some very nice catches this year, but I feel like when I watched Moss play, the catches he would made were absolutely insane, and his hands were unbelievable. I think Moss is noticeably faster as well.

ALL ABOARDD!!! The Benoit Pouliot bandwagon is starting to leave the station. Get on while you can!

That's what I figured, but they're completely different situations. 1. I have said multiple times that Rodgers is a great QB. 2. I don't think I said Gronkowski was THE best TE in the NFL in this thread. I'm pretty sure I ranked five TE's in no particular order. I'm not saying you have claimed I said either of those, but I'm just addressing the point. Now, for the point he is supposedly trying to make, the situations are not comparable. Aaron Rodgers being crowned as the #1 QB in the NFL (I see the argument) who is coming off a great season is much different than comparing a TE coming off a great rookie season and continuing his success in his second season. Crowning Rodgers the #1 QB in the NFL after having a great season last year and having a great one this year is different because his top competition for that crown is a player that just won the NFL MVP last season, is leading the league in yards this season, and is tied for passing TD's this season. For a TE, or many other positional players, I think it's much easier to rank them, and say they are for "real" after such a short period of time. With him addressing Gronkowski (I didn't really bring him up first besides the list), there aren't many TE's that were the clear class of the league last year, or are clearly at the top of the NFL this year. Not many had dominant seasons like him last year, and are continuing them this year. The situations between where Rodgers is being ranked after a short period of time (albeit longer than Gronkowski) is not the same as Gronkowski as Rodgers has supposedly dethroned the reigning NFL MVP, who is one of the all-time great QB's, who is having just as good of a season as Rodgers, and leading him in multiple important categories, and is close in others.

Every quote you have responded to, you've barely made any sense. So, again, what is your point, or what are you asking?