shrader

You need to tell the individual stories first. There's a shocking revelation. I can't believe they didn't realize that right from the start. They have two really good ones under their belt. Shazam's got a really campy feel from the trailer. I'm not sure what to expect there, but it could be free standing enough to not have too much impact on their brand if it flops. Now we'll see if they can ever get their Flash movie off the ground. They were supposedly going to call it Flashpoint, so there's a bad sign that they may go right back to over-reaching on this one. That's way too big of a story for an intro movie. They've build up Thor really well in the last two movies. I wasn't too crazy about the over the top humor in Ragnarok, but the character development as a whole was really good. I hope they don't kill him off. They can write him off into more of a role like Odin, but he should live on in the MCU. And as for this thought in here as to whether or not Captain Marvel would show up as the savior, that can't really happen. It doesn't matter how heavy of a hitter they bring in, none of them can undo what's already done. He won't do the heavy lifting, but Antman will be the key to it all. On a side note, what a weird spot Sony is in having to push the next Spiderman movie. Sure, it could be in the past, but it's kind of odd sitting through that trailer thinking "hey, they're both dead".

They didn't change the actor. It was the same guy, just made to look younger just like the other 3 characters that have appeared before.

They have to be given permission to talk to the player, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's strictly about the public statement that they tried to trade for someone. I don't remember seeing that type of comment on the record while right in the heat of the battle so to say. But yes, tampering does extend well beyond just pending free agents. We've got two fairly high profile stories about within the last couple weeks in both the NBA and MLB, granted they are different sports and different rules most likely apply. The whole thing is highly subjective, but I do wonder how many more guys like Mario Williams are out there who are drawn by the outdoorsy stuff like he was. I don't know the exact demographics for the league, but they definitely draw a ton from the so called flyover portion of the country. I know it's completely anecdotal, but as someone who grew up rural then found himself in a bigger city, I'd much rather stick with the smaller area. I'd suspect that there's a lot more of that out there and we can draw hope from already landing one marquee free agent in that manner.

Everything is fast except his metabolism.

In recent years they’ve had a big push for diversity in comics. We’ve seen it in the movies too (Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Captain Marvel...). So when do they create a fat speedster?

The policy specifically mentions not being allowed to make public statement of interest in a player currently under contract. Maybe the statement had enough legalese in it to not count as interest, but I’m just surprised they’d put it on record like that and even have the slightest hint of tampering out there. You typically see that type of think reported out there through “sources”.

If Pittsburgh never allowed them to talk to him, I’d say it could be. They’re signaling to a guy under contract with another team that they’re interested in him. Now I’m not naive enough to think that’s not happening all the time behind the scenes, but there’s no shroud of mystery with this one. In this case, Pittsburgh doesn’t care since they’re trying to move him anyway. You really don’t see the teams acknowledge things like this publicly like the Bills did.

So Beane actually acknowledged all of it and mentioned Brown by name? Teams don’t usually do that since it inches into tampering territory.

Maybe the Pegulas can gain $110-132 million and lose 5 or 6 players.

Anytime there's a twitter post on here with the tiny thumbnail picture of John Vogl, all I see is a Kim Jong Un haircut.

It's amazing the insanity that surfaces around deaths in the family. I'd rant right now, but it's not worth raising the blood pressure. Just know that the only way you are unique in all of this is if you're from the family that has no issues whatsoever.

I'm good with the brute force stuff. Those projects that involve precision and planning, they don't end well.

I wish I had the slightest clue how to do anything like that. Even the most basic of building skills escape me. Oh, and you can tell where my mind is today when I was chuckling a bit since ogre's post mentioned both vertical members and stiffening.

I'd say the shark was jumped with the shootout. It's a plague against humanity that I would gladly be rid of. Is it obvious enough that i hate shootouts?

I just saw this story on TSN where Columbus' GM proposed one minute penalties in OT. I'd sign up for that one. I've always felt like things should be scaled to the shortened length of time in OT. You'd probably see a few more calls made since the refs might not feel like they're deciding the game themselves by making a call. I'd pair it with extending the OT to 10 minutes. One other OT thing that I'd love to see and seems like a natural is that if you are in the penalty box at the end of OT, you should not be eligible for the shootout. Particularly in the final seconds of OT, you are pretty much free to mug someone in your own end with essentially no punishment.

They're only similar in that the head was the primary point of contact. The human missile aspect of that ASU hit takes it to a whole new level. Go back and watch the Campbell hit, he stays on the same exact plane throughout the whole hit. The results of Campbell/Umberger were unfortunate, but I have a hard time lumping that one in with something blatantly illegal like this one. I'm not so sure that, even today, that hit would get a penalty in the NHL. I may need to re-educate myself on the NHL definition of blindside, but Campbell comes in parallel to the direction Umberger is skating. It's used too often, but there are cases where the skater does need to be aware of his surroundings. And as for college, the Campbell hit would have been a penalty back then. They've had strict contact to the head rules for a long time now. I forget when they started up on it (you know, due to the haziness of being in my mid-20s when that hit happened), but I'm pretty sure those rules pre-date that hit. But anyway, anytime a the hitter goes flying like this kid did, it's a huge red flag. That is not in any way natural.

Paging @inkman. You have a call on the white courtesy phone. Inkman, call on the white courtesy phone.

Looking back on the thread, this post is pretty funny today.?

Ref kind of trolled the crowd a bit with the way he announced it. Funny.

There's a very large following within the college hockey community that typically buys these tickets up right away. Those tickets then get bounced around in the secondary market depending on who makes the field. Ultimately, I'd say there are two main factors for the final attendance, once of which is an immediate loss for the games in Buffalo. 1. Are there any local teams in the field? 2. Is North Dakota in it? You might think I'm joking on #2, but I'm dead serious. Their showing is like nothing else I've ever seen.

Isn't the essentially the plan of every single team if you swap out the names? So you pretty much nailed it when saying that the team building process only works if: So that takes it right back to what I originally said was my whole issue with the "what if" scenario. These things only work if the talent evaluation is accurate. Now you've also added in the idea that the talent development also has to work out and I'm completely on board with that. We don't yet know whether or not Boterill's "plan" is working, but it does seem pretty clear with Murray that it was lacking in both of these aspects. I'm not quite sure if we can pin the lack of development on him given the short tenure, but we at least say that his guys have not developed properly so far.

Was he wearing the neck roll?

It's a bit of a weird topic in general though. Imagine the defense forcing a turnover and handing you the ball on the five yard line, then the offense punches it in. Now technically that is the offense putting up the points, but I'm mostly crediting that one to the defense. The 5 yard line's a bit extreme for obvious reasons, but where is that line where you'd start to give most of the credit to the offense? I'd like to see the exact quote that True* referenced. That word "threat" is what's making me wonder. If there's more to the comment, like maybe being a threat to put up 21 from your side of the field, I might be willing to mention. *Have we ever created a shorthand name for TrueBlueGED. I wanted to say Blue, but that's reserved for LabattBlue even though he's gone. I don't dare you call you TB because I don't want to associate you with that jackass QB.

And I bet you watched a couple hockey games in there too.

No I completely understand that. But the point is that every single team can put together lists like this. When everyone is making the same decision, it starts to point you towards realizing just how unlikely it was to actually make that so called correct pick. And you know what's even more unlikely than hitting on a very low probability event? Hitting on 2 or 3 of them. I always hate the what if game for this reason, but the article misses on one very big factor in why they are where they are today. It ignores who they actually brought in, who they actually drafted. My example above is the perfect one. They passed on Point several other times even without factoring in the traded away pick. So is it really the trades themselves that are the issue or is it the evaluation of talent?