hellamarine has posted 0 links and 113 comments to SportsFilter and 0 links and 0 comments to the Locker Room.
posted by hellamarine at 12:10 PM on February 20
If the women in the shower looked like these women, are you telling me you couldn't help but get an erection? Oh yeah baby, that does it right there! You know, I don't like showering with a bunch of people, period. As for having an erection in a locker room full of naked showering women, I don't think so! Whether they look like fatma's pair of lookers or are of the Jenny McCarthy/Angelina Jolie mold, Im thinking you're not getting one. Remember, this is a room full of people you are talking about. I don't know about you, but seeing as how there are generally attractive/unattractive people in every locker room, I don't want fatma's pair thinking that my appreciation is of them. ;)
posted by hellamarine at 06:51 PM on February 15
Okay, while I don't agree with Hardaway and think his opinion is just that, an opinion. It is an ignorant one for sure, but again it's his opinion. It's unfortunate that in today's world there is still this kind of backward thinking, but how many people here have listened to Rush Limbaugh say vurtually the same thing and not get offended? To say that Hardaway has committed sexual harassment is ludicrous, though. What he has committed is SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. As a black man, I would think he understood what discrimination felt like, and would be among those less willing to commit it. It just goes to show that discrimination runs rampant throught our society. Oh, and I know this is old news, but did it bother anyone else the Michael Richards (Kramer) was villified for racial slurs when he was responding to hecklers shouting racial slurs at him. Um, I do not use those words myself, but I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I'm trying to do my job, some idiots keep yelling racially motivated slurs at me, I finally blow up and then I yell racial things back at them. Childish yes, but I don't feel that constitutes racism. What it constituted was someone losing their cool and sinking to the level of those idiots. I know this was off the subject of Hardaway, but I'm curious how many other people felt like this. Anyway, I think that Hardaway is expressing how he feels, and that there is nothing wrong with that. Would you rather know that his opinion is of such or not? Myself, I like to know what subjets to avoid when speaking to prejudiced individuals so we don't end up causing a scene whe I feel the urge to bitch-slap them over their stupidity. Of course knowing they were like this would prevent me from having to long a cht with them. However, I'm sick of people not being able to voice their opinions in this country anymore. I've hung out and went to places with many homosexuals. Does that make me gay? No, but I still wouldn't shower with them. :) Oh, and one last thought, Do you think the fact that Hardaway apologized means he has changed his whole outlook on homosexuals?
posted by hellamarine at 01:08 PM on February 15
but did anyone see the first fumble that occured between peyton and the running back on the hand off. Can anyone tell me who Manning's backup is? Yes, I know it's Sorgi, but who is he? They don't even have a third string, so if I'm Dungy, I'm telling Peyton to stay the hell away from those too. Tell me this mflinn, do you think the Colts had a shot in hell of winning if Peyton went down? As far as Benson getting hurt, I'm not sure that it would've made any difference. I guess it could've, but I don't think it would've really changed the game.
posted by hellamarine at 09:17 PM on February 07
Well said, BornIcon, I wish I could've have written that eloquently.
posted by hellamarine at 11:28 AM on February 07
Carson Palmer was amazing after sitting out for a single season. Rivers was in the same situation, and he is headed to the Pro Bowl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Palmer have Pete Carroll as a coach in college? Pretty much an NFL style offense, wasn't it? And the last time I checked, Rivers had Drew Brees to learn from for 2 years. Do you realize that the Bears had a different QB ahead of Grossman for every one of his previous seasons? He didn't even have the same head coach at Florida for his whole career there. I think Chicago needs to get a better QB coach, and/or bring in a decent past-his-prime veteran to back him up, then see if he can grow under some decent tutelage. Before you question bringing in a different QB coach, let me reiterate that, including Grossman, the Bears have had a new starter at QB for at least four years in-a-row. Maybe a QB coaching change would be appropriate, ya think?
posted by hellamarine at 11:27 AM on February 07
How do you spell Colts? C.O.W.A.R.D.S! For not kicking to Hester after the run back. Can't really say anything about this that hasn't already been said, but, seeing as how your username is chisox29, maybe you oughta stick to baseball. Rex is a hex, and they aren't going anywhere till they get rid of him! It was like the Bears were playing with 10 on offense, and the Colts 12 on D. Good year, but '07 will be better for Chicago! Um, bet you were singing his praises earlier in the year though, huh? I realize Grossman was not good at times this season, but there were times when he was. Keep in mind that this was his first season as the starter. I say let's see what happens next season; if he still has the same troubles, as often as now, then cut the strings. I don't know what you do for a living, but it usually takes a little time to get proficient at one's chosen profession, so please afford Rex a little time. That said, he was obviously having trouble with throwing a wet ball, so maybe, sometime in the 3rd, Lovie shoulda went with Griese. However, I can't say I can really question Lovie on anything, because, the last time I checked, he coached the Bears to the Super Bowl. When was the last time they were there? The 1985 season? Considering that most people consider Lovie to be an excellent coach, and excellent coaches know their players, then what does that say about the backups?
posted by hellamarine at 10:23 AM on February 07
Finally, That horse got better medical attention than most people do. Hmm, I guess if it can be afforded...
posted by hellamarine at 06:04 PM on January 29
Okay JJ, that's what I was trying to get out of you. I figured you were either a pro, good enough to be a pro, or talking out of your arse. I really was hoping you weren't talking out of your arse, btw. Okay, I'll give in to you on the JJ vs. Tiger - best vs. worst arguement, then. I myself used to be an above average tennis player, and I know on my best day and his worst, Federer would pound me. I wouldn't stand a chance against Tiger whether he was playing his best or not. I think you're right, guys making around 3/4 a milllion dollars have to be a little worried about losing their card, I would think. I can't remember exactly where the line is, but it's somewhere right around there. I also agree with you on your opinion of the Europen wins Ryder Cup. Sorry I pressed you so much. I was just trying to figure you out. ;)
posted by hellamarine at 09:52 AM on January 29
Of course I'd beat him on my best day compared to his worst. He's shot over 80 (twice in his professional life I think) and I've shot less than that. Okay, so you are a decent golfer, but have you ever played a course set up like the pros have to play? Those greens are unbelievably fast and the pin placements are a little difficult to say the least. I don't know you, but I'm pretty sure that Tiger's worst day would probably get your best. Of course this debate is moot because we'll never really know, will we? As far as rivalries go, look at this: http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2006/109.html I mean you have to get all the way down to number 94 before you find some making less than a million. Maybe some of these guys would play a little harder if they actually had to win to make a paycheck. I realize that Tiger doesn't have this problem, but the difference is that he's not just playing against himself and the field, he's playing against Jack. He wants those records so bad that he keeps his drive to win, while, it seems to me anyway, the rest of the tour is happy getting a fat payday even if you're ranked as low as 93. Of course that's my opinion, and I'm not wrong. :) p.s. sorry about the link, couldn't get it to work.
posted by hellamarine at 09:04 AM on January 29
It's not like Tiger is just out there hitting the ball further than anybody else. (He's not.) True, Tiger's not outdriving everybody on the tour, but, when he needs to, he can knock the ball well over 300 yds. I've watched him hit in the 340-350 range and not even sweat it. What percentage of the tour has that in their bag? The other thing that bothers me is this: why, when Tiger can pound the ball so far, do you "Tiger-proof" (not my word) a course by lengthening it? Wouldn't it make more sense to put more trouble out there and make it about shot-making? To me, "Tiger-proofing" is ridiculous if not impossible, but, if you didn't lengthen the course and did make it about shot-making, you wouldn't be making guys like Justin Leonard obsolete.
posted by hellamarine at 11:56 PM on January 28
Think you meant to say, "...and then you win the tie breaks by a point," since you would have fewer points than your opponent but would still have won the match. Um, you're both wrong, tie breaks have to be won by 2 points. If I went out and played my best golf against Woods on a day when he was playing his worst golf, I'd stuff him. As far as you being able to beat Tiger on his worst day, I don't believe it. Are you a tour player? Unless you are, it doesn't matter if your playing your best and Tiger his worst, you are not beating him. The sad thing is, even if you were a tour player (a lower ranking one, anyway), you still might not be able to beat Tiger on his worst day. He's that good. As far as comparing Federer to Woods, true, they play different sports and it's hard to compare the two accordingly, but I feel that Federer is the more dominant of the two. Both are favored to win every tourney they enter. However, it's a shock when Federer loses (which isn't very often}, and, to me, that's the difference. At his worst, Federer can still compete with everyone in his sport (except for Nadal on clay), and if Tiger is playing his worst, he can't. One last thing, you have three days to overcome a bad golf day, but you don't have that luxury in tennis. A bad day in tennis sends packing your bags. This alone makes what Federer has done all the more unbelievable.
posted by hellamarine at 11:34 PM on January 28
I think the amazing thing about Federer is this: even when he's not playing his best tennis, barring Nadal on clay, he still can't be beat. I'm still watching the finals, but he definitely didn't play his best tennis today. I mean, Gonzales made no mistakes in the first set really, and Federer won in the tie-break. Who has ever been able to do that? How do you beat this guy on any surface other than clay. "I was missing too many forehands, I didn't know what to do exactly with his slice," Federer said. "Maybe the wind, maybe his court coverage and everything put me under pressure, and I wasn't feeling that great right from the start." If he can't be beat on a bad day, maybe he just can't be beat. I've watched him start like crap so many time but never so bad he's out of the match, then he raises his game to another level and wipes his open off of the court.
posted by hellamarine at 01:11 PM on January 28
2006: Joey Harrington - 57.5% completions = 22th in the league and a QB rating of 68.2. Joey Harrington? He has a career QB rating of 68.1. Not much to work with here, I think. As for as Frerotte, he has played for 13 seasons with a rating of 75.3. Granted, 71.9 is lower, but if Frerotte were Mr. Consistency, he wouldn't have played for 7 different teams in this time. Don't you think blaming Garret for these two is a little unreasonable? Give him some talent to work with and I think he'll be fine. That said, will he be a good head? A bad one? No-one knows. Myself, I think he'll be fine, but there is still the TO factor to think about. I mean look how well that went with both Reed and Parcells, and there's no debating whether or not they're good coaches.
posted by hellamarine at 09:26 AM on January 25
That said, I don't ever remember seeing a team as dominant as the 85 bears. You know, that's what I was thinking. The only team even close to them was the '86 Giants. Very similar teams, bland offense, stellar defense.
posted by hellamarine at 12:03 AM on January 25
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.