|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 23:49:38 GMT -5
So, what exactly was it that Sherman said to get a shove in the face from Crabtree?
Yeah...
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 23:08:43 GMT -5
I'm not a huge baseball fan, but after hearing the news about the Yanks latest signing, exactly how much money are the Yankees sitting on? I've never heard of a team throwing around hundreds of millions like it's no big deal. Forbes values the franchise at $2.3 billion as of last year. To give some context, the "average" franchise is worth $744 million. So...a lot. Good God.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 22:32:23 GMT -5
So, a friend of mine told me about this today, and until then I had never heard of any conspiracies involving W.K. For those that might not know, the conspiracy states that there are multiple Andrew W.K.s in the world, and the entire thing is nothing but a character created by a large group of people as a social experiment. Apparently the story dates back to Andrew's first album I Get Wet, the album that launched him into popularity, in which there is an executive producer by the name of Steev Mike. This isn't particularly noteworthy until you fast-forward to 2004, and somebody claiming to be Steev Mike hacks Andrew's website and begins to post cryptic messages, which were later found out to be his displeasure about being left off of WK's second album, and threatens to reveal WK's dark secret. People began to speculate what that secret could be, and among those theories (including WK's father actually being responsible for all of his music under the name "Steev Mike"), came the theory that there were multiple Andrew WK's hired by music executives to front a new product. This theory gained some traction after a concert in December of 2004, in which many concert-goers complained that the guy on stage claiming to be Andrew W.K. was not what he appeared to be, and their feelings were worsened when the on-stage performer cut the concert short. The theory states that this was the second of three men to play the Andrew W.K. character. Whatever animosity that might've been between Andrew and Steev appeared to be set aside, as Steev appeared as a producer on WK's third album; and after releasing this album, WK went on to become a motivational speaker. However, in 2008, Andrew W.K. told an audience in London this, And then in 2010, he told an interviewer this, And then, once more, a friend of Andrew's, Twig Harper, began to claim that he came up with the character of Andrew W.K while doing acid. He states that the idea was to build a "false-christ" figure, that of which would be brought up through corporate media and at the peak of his popularity have his act exposed to "usher in a new damn for humanity". Harper also claims he was unknowingly part of a mind control experiment once and that he invented a time machine. This picture is a focal point of the theory, stating that the differences between the different Andrews can be seen when you compare early 2000s pictures and mid-2000s pictures of Andrew. ![](http://www.metalinsider.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/500x_custom_1262641433257_andrew.jpg) Here are a couple articles about the theory, the latter of which is actually from the promoter of the aformentioned gig. archersguild.blogspot.com/2011/03/andrew-wk-and-steev-mike-conspiracy.htmlwww.metalinsider.net/conspiracies/lets-go-down-the-andrew-w-k-doesnt-exist-rabbit-hole-plus-my-own-part-in-the-storyTL;DR - There are multiple Andrew W.K characters as it's all a corporate media social experiment. So, what do you say, FAN? Personally, I don't buy it for a second. I haven't followed W.K. all that closely, but I like the guy, and knowing everything I know about how weird he is, I have no doubt that all of the Steev Mike stuff was his doing and has nothing to do with multiple characters. He seems to like to screw with people, so putting out contradicting stories sounds like something he might do.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 19:36:45 GMT -5
I... don't think this is a big deal. Is it dishonest? Sure, but there's no real harm being done if a YouTuber lies and hypes up the Xbox One. I think it'd be nice if more YouTubers were like boogie and said up front when a game came in for free, but this isn't that big of a deal if I'm understanding it right. The act of doing it is, in and of itself, not a big deal. The problem is that when you do, you are required by law to disclose that you've done so, which they've instructed them not to do. Payola for saying nice things is just advertising, but you can't present it as anything but that, which is what thye're doing. I agree that them sending youtubers checks shouldn't be a big deal in itself. Yeah, I had missed the part discussing the legalities of it. That's definitely not cool, and I can get why that'd be illegal, but the act itself, so long as it's disclosed, isn't a huge deal to me.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 19:07:32 GMT -5
I'm not a huge baseball fan, but after hearing the news about the Yanks latest signing, exactly how much money are the Yankees sitting on? I've never heard of a team throwing around hundreds of millions like it's no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 18:58:04 GMT -5
When asked whether he expects Bills DC Mike Pettine to be named the Browns head coach, ESPN's Adam Schefter said he views Pettine as Cleveland's "fall back option." The Browns have no business labeling anyone as a "fall back option" at this point. I can't wait until the Seattle DC tells them to f*** off and then Pettine withdraws from consideration. No shit. The Browns don't get to have a "fall back option" without even so much as an option in place first. I said it earlier and I'll say it again, just give Chomps the job. ![](http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/assets/images/fans-and-kids/2010/chomps/chomps-arms-crossed.jpg) At least the mascots have to be passionate about the team. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 18:12:15 GMT -5
Love that dude. Absolutely love the guy. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 10:45:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 10:28:13 GMT -5
Defensiveness isn't my intention, but if I don't agree with someone I don't agree with them. To pretend I do stifles conversation and makes the thread boring. If the viewpoint is that the Run D isn't very good and I disagree, I'll state that just to continue discussion. It's no fun when everybody agrees with each other. Do you get what I mean? This will be the last I have response on this particular vein of discussion, but if you want to respond, be my guest. You didn't just say "I disagree" and list why you thought the defense deserved the credit. That wouldn't have warranted the response I had. You said "There doesn't always have to be a "yeah, but..." when it comes to this team." It's not just disagreeing to act like no one thought your team would beat the Chargers when 14 out of 15 picked the Broncos to win and then get defensive when people point that out, it's not contributing to the conversation to go onto sites dedicated to fans of the opposing team so you could come here to complain about them being confident, it's not contributing to the discussion to say that I shouldn't be able to talk about how strong one particular part of their game really is. You may not think it comes off as such, but to me, it does come off as overly defensive, a desire for validation that your team is good when clearly the record indicates that they are and have more than a fair shot to beat the Seahawks. There's no problem being a passionate fan, everyone gets caught up in the moment when their team is playing. But even if you don't intend it to be, it just sounds like you're just trying to make all discussion on how great and awesome the Broncos are. You do realize that I never told anybody they weren't allowed to criticize the Broncos, right? That's ridiculous, dude. I myself criticized their Pass D in my initial response to you. If you think I'm overly defensive that's fine, but I never told anybody my team was off limits. As for the rest, like posting my thoughts about Seahawks fans, I really don't know what to tell you; I'm just posting about stuff that piques my interest at any given time, and I thought their cockiness was worth discussing. If posting thoughts about the opposing fanbase, while also knocking my own fan base from last year, is overly defensive, I think your definition of defensive is way off. I don't get how it can be seen as overly defensive to talk about the other team and to talk up my team, but if that's how you take it then that's how you take it.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 1:00:39 GMT -5
Not being overly defensive, it's not as if I'm saying they're perfect or immune to criticism something, but I'm going to voice my opinion on my team, as well. Me disagreeing with negative sentiments and giving reasons why I believe they're a good team shouldn't be taken as overly defensive, that's me taking another stance to further the discussion. Unless I'm starting my posts with "f*** you, guys, you f***ers are so wrong and don't f***ing criticize my goddamn team" or something, I'm not being defensive. You've been cordial, sure, but being rude isn't a prerequisite to being overly defensive. It's been happening throughout the playoffs anytime someone even talks about the strengths of a team they're playing or a weakness of them, trying to paint it like people have it out for the team or are overlooking them (re. the Chargers). Saying it's not fair to talk about why that great run D may not be as great as everyone has been saying is just another example. Defensiveness isn't my intention, but if I don't agree with someone I don't agree with them. To pretend I do stifles conversation and makes the thread boring. If the viewpoint is that the Run D isn't very good and I disagree, I'll state that just to continue discussion. It's no fun when everybody agrees with each other. Do you get what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 22, 2014 0:36:44 GMT -5
That's not entirely fair, is it? This run D didn't have Miller for the first 6 games, and then lost him later in the season and has still been pretty damn stout. Blount coming into Sunday's game had 4 touchdowns, but the Broncos Run D held him to 5 carries for 6 yards. And they were trying to run early, too. Ryan Matthews ran all over the D in the regular season, but he was held to a handful of yards, as well. Knighton has really stepped up as a defensive leader and this rushing D has been damn good for a while now. The Pass D? Well, that's another story. There doesn't always have to be a "yeah, but..." when it comes to this team. I didn't say there was always a "yeah, but," but when talking about their 'great Run D' it's deserved and most certainly a fair point. The offense was so efficient at scoring that teams really didn't have the option to run as often as they might. Their run defenses stats are padded pretty heavily by that, Belichick deciding he didn't need a run game for some reason doesn't negate the fact. Every discussion of the Broncos doesn't need an overly defensive response Fair point, but the Run D has been better throughout the playoffs then they probably should've been, especially what with losing Miller. Not being overly defensive, it's not as if I'm saying they're perfect or immune to criticism something, but I'm going to voice my opinion on my team, as well. Me disagreeing with negative sentiments and giving reasons why I believe they're a good team shouldn't be taken as overly defensive, that's me taking another stance to further the discussion. Unless I'm starting my posts with "f*** you, guys, you f***ers are so wrong and don't f***ing criticize my goddamn team" or something, I'm not being defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 23:52:09 GMT -5
Denver's great Run D needs to be tempered by the fact that they jumped to early leads so often that opposing offenses pretty much had to abandon the run to try to stay in it. That's not entirely fair, is it? This run D didn't have Miller for the first 6 games, and then lost him later in the season and has still been pretty damn stout. Blount coming into Sunday's game had 4 touchdowns, but the Broncos Run D held him to 5 carries for 6 yards. And they were trying to run early, too. Ryan Matthews ran all over the D in the regular season, but he was held to a handful of yards, as well. Knighton has really stepped up as a defensive leader and this rushing D has been damn good for a while now. The Pass D? Well, that's another story. There doesn't always have to be a "yeah, but..." when it comes to this team.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 22:40:11 GMT -5
Reading through some Seahawks forums and, my God, are their fans cocky as all hell. I've seen cocky fans before, and EVERY fanbase holds a bias, but holy shit. I mean, the way they're talking you wouldn't know they're going up against the #1 Offense in the league; as a matter of fact, it reminds me a lot of how Bronco fans talked, myself included, going into the playoff game last year against Baltimore. "Oh, man, we got this! It's going to be a piece of cake! They're not that good!" Peyton's a man on a mission, and if Hawks fans think this game is going to be a walk in the park for them they've got another thing coming. And I guarantee I could find the same going on in a Denver message board. I think you take the Broncos way too personally. Oh, you absolutely can; it's why I made the mention to Broncos fans from last playoff season. I was just stating my opinion was all.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 20:57:52 GMT -5
See, I think Kaepernick can hurt people with his legs, but his throwing ability is pretty good at best. He won't shred defenses the way Peyton does. And the Broncos run game is more than capable of making up the difference. But I think you're in the ballpark. I think the key to this game is Denver's O-Line, they need to give Manning time. Seattle isn't blitz happy, they have a fairly normal pass rush. If that can be blocked, it's just a matter of guys beating their corners. Someone will get open given enough time, and when that happens, Manning can hit them. Seattle either has to break that line, or Manning has to get it out in the inches that Seattle corners tend to give their receivers. I keep convincing myself that the other team is going to win. The Broncs run game isn't very good. It succeeds because teams don't really play the run against Denver. Of course, dropping back into coverage doesn't stop Denver's offense either, but the point remains. No, our run game is very good. When you have a guy in Moreno that can run for 224 yards in one game, and consistently help keep the offense on field, your run game is good.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 19:06:58 GMT -5
San Francisco's offense, led by a much younger and less experienced quarterback, was able to move the ball on Seattle's D and came very close to winning. I'm not saying they would have because I had Seattle before the game, but even with multiple turnovers from Kaepernick the game was close.
If Kaepernick could figure out their defense, I have no reason to believe that Peyton's not going to know what to do. With the way Peyton lines up and meticulously picks apart a defense before the ball is even snapped, I'm sure he'll be fine.
Seattle's got fire coming into this game because they're a bunch of young, hungry very good dudes, but I think experience is what'll bring the Lombardi back to Denver.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 18:41:59 GMT -5
Reading through some Seahawks forums and, my God, are their fans cocky as all hell. I've seen cocky fans before, and EVERY fanbase holds a bias, but holy shit.
I mean, the way they're talking you wouldn't know they're going up against the #1 Offense in the league; as a matter of fact, it reminds me a lot of how Bronco fans talked, myself included, going into the playoff game last year against Baltimore. "Oh, man, we got this! It's going to be a piece of cake! They're not that good!"
Peyton's a man on a mission, and if Hawks fans think this game is going to be a walk in the park for them they've got another thing coming.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 17:36:20 GMT -5
Still one of the worst plays you've ever seen, you bitter old Sith Lord?
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 12:32:23 GMT -5
I can't speak on soccer, but I'll echo Bravo Echo November in that I've never heard anybody say they outright hate the Cubs. I mean, can you really hate a franchise who hasn't won the big one in so long? That'd just be unfair.
Not sure as far as football goes, but I'd have to wager a guess at a team that hasn't won in a long time, or ever, like the Jags or the Browns (current FO situation aside).
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 12:29:00 GMT -5
Denver Broncos Offensive Coordinator Adam Gase called the Browns to officially withdraw his name from their coaching hunt in order to focus on the Super Bowl. twitter.com/MikeKlis/status/425663223585452032So, if the ticker on NFL Network is right about their two top candidates being Gase and Seahawks DC Dan Quinn, they're down to one, and I can't imagine a guy leaving Seattle to go work for the hellhole that's become of Cleveland.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 21, 2014 11:59:07 GMT -5
In the case of Richard Sherman, he issued the apology for himself and by himself, because he felt bad that his antics were getting more attention than the team's win. It had nothing to do with anybody being entitled.
|
|