TrueBlueGED

I can't believe Dudacek hasn't shown up yet to defend Foligno's honor. Where art thou, Dudacek?

I hate that clip of Bylsma. Guy had a team with Crosby, Malkin, Neal, Letang...and there he is talking about grinding a team down.

I really felt good coming into this week, too. Then Julio poops the bed, Rodgers goes off to non-Nelson receivers, and that's that.

Camp Good Days. But I was honestly just joking. Hate sex > makeup sex.

I'm not sure Gorges-Franson would really hurt that much given limited minutes. I remember early last year that Weber-Franson was passable despite the glaring foot speed concerns.

I do.

Bringing the tank to youth hockey. I approve! Seriously though, cool to see the dramatic turnaround.

Dude, he couldn't run. Even if you insist on giving him a go, it was painfully obvious early on that he couldn't be effective.

Maybe it's personal, but it's not unnecessary. You're yelling about analytics and Nate Silver and 538's sports projections, self-admittedly without any knowledge of it. Every time the entire field of analytics comes up, you come off like you have a visceral hatred of it and are just waiting for "it" (as if an entire field can be held accountable for a specific implementation in an even more specific instance) to fail so you can slap it down. And I'm tired of the shtick. Nate Silver is worthy of quite a bit of criticism this cycle IMO, but you appear wholly uninterested in learning enough about the field to properly critique, so you resort to shouting "it's all crap" as loud as you can. When I said her lead was never 12, I meant as a whole, not in that specific poll you cited. What you cited was obviously an outlier at the absolute high end of possibilities for Clinton the day it was published, so fretting over that swinging to nearly the absolute low end is really just yelling for the sake of yelling. Also, the race was already within the margin of error as the margins of error that get reported with the polls are for each point estimate, so the overall margin of error for the race is actually about double that. But none of that matters much because when polls with are consistently going Clinton +3, 4 or 5, you can be pretty confident that's a fair representation of the lead. Elections narrow, this is what they do. You're losing your mind in the change from polls at the height of Trump's Murphy's Law ~10 day stretch to now. Nobody should have expected the margin to remain Clinton ~+9; the terrible stuff about Trump causes some Republicans to temporarily withdraw support, but as that stuff goes into the rearview mirror, they "come home" so to speak. This happens all the time with the news cycle, in every presidential election, particularly as election day approaches. But the overall race has been very stable for a long time now, with Clinton looking at an Obama-esque 2012 win (speaking of 2012, that race was in a dead heat at this point in the polls, and Obama won by 4). I've tried to explain all of this at various points this cycle and back in 2012. I'm done. People can take it or leave it, dive into a Trump-proof bunker or remain calm while sipping a cocktail. Don't care. In 9 days I'll return for my victory lap.

For a bit of good news, Shaq looks fantastic. Really think that pick is going to be a home run.

Want to double it?

Plenty of people around here predicted it.

Wrong because the posts were not the product of the start to the year. Last season and Bylsma's time in Pittsburgh were much larger parts of it. They were only "reactionary" because you were more interested in dismissing the criticism than engaging it on the merits. It's okay, you weren't alone on that front.

There you go again, zeroing in on a single poll. The race was never +14 for Hillary in the first place. You just have no idea what you're talking about. Ignorance of the highest order.

McCoy was a net negative last week. Gillislee was clearly the more effective runner. So if your definition of being smart is playing to win each game on an individual basis, then playing McCoy last week was even dumber as it reduced the team's chances to win that game.

In addition to being wrong, you realize this post is the functional definition of reactionary, right? Arguing against reactionism by being reactionary is, as the kids would say, a bold strategy.

For all of your foot stomping on this, do you even know to what degree he's involved in building their sports forecasting models?

Icing on the PK. Nice.

This Ennis can play on my team. He'll never be perfect, but he's the type of depth skill I want.

Comment of the thread :lol:

I, for one, am happy to see Snow do something so predictably moronic. I was really uncomfortable with him on such a long streak of good moves.

What can I say? The man is more stubborn than he appears! :w00t:

I had a meeting with Disco. Set him straight. You're all welcome!

Yea, I'm not even mad. Seriously, what can anyone expect with the injury list on offense?

Don't forget Sheppard for Hughes!