Jump to content


teeray

Member Since 10 Jan 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 10:16 AM
-----

#2731251 Panthers Sign Avant to 1 Year Deal

Posted by teeray on 08 April 2014 - 08:00 AM

You're missing the point. It's about maximizing your investment. Within the next two years Cam Newton will be the highest paid player on the Carolina Panthers. If you want to win with defense and running the ball while having your qb only throw when needed then go get a Trent Dilfer. I'm not against that philosophy, it can and has worked in the NFL. But the biggest mistake you can make is to have a talent like Cam Newton, pay him 100 million dollars, and stop him before opposing defenses ever get a chance.


No, you are missing the point. It is about winning, not maximizing investments.

How many Super Bowls have Manning won with all those great offenses? How many have Brees won with those great offenses? Brady has never won a Super Bowl in a year he has thrown more than 28 TDs.

We are doing it right. When you have a QB as talented as Cam you build your defense first. That takes pressure off of Cam. His first two seasons if he had a bad game, we lost.

When you have a great defense, when Cam is clicking you blow people out. When he is struggling you still have a chance to win.

We are trying to build a winning franchise. Not just the offense.


#2731042 The racial divide on paying players

Posted by teeray on 07 April 2014 - 11:21 PM

BTW I was a scholarship athlete at a smaller school. Life was good.

Education, lodging, and food were paid for. We got first dibs on registration so I could take any class or professor I wanted (meaning: easier classes). I had free tudoring.

On top of that if I went out around town I rarely paid for a drink.

Fun times

Life was good


#2731033 The racial divide on paying players

Posted by teeray on 07 April 2014 - 11:11 PM

I am not for schools or NCAA paying them directly.

But I think they should remove all the agent restrictions and allow them to take money from agents as well as let player make money off of their name and likeness.

That way the players who are actually generating all that revenue get paid, it makes the rulebook smaller, and NCAA can maintain that players are amateurs.


#2729953 Game of Thrones-HBO-Seasons 1, 2, 3

Posted by teeray on 07 April 2014 - 12:34 PM

I think of Game of Thrones kinda like professional wrestling especially from back in the 80's when they weren't on TV as much as they are today.

 

Especially the NWA/WCW when Ric Flair was champ forever (pre-NWO stuff).  Every time the wrestlers you cared about would wrestle him they would lose.  Over and over again.  Every time the guys you cared about looked like they may win something would happen.  Ref gets knocked out, Flair pulled something out of his trunks, someone would interfere, etc.

 

Then sometimes just to troll fans they would have the good guy win after the ref got knocked out, but another ref would run down and they would overturn it because good guy threw the bad guy over the top rope (back in the day that was a disqualification), or the good guy would win, but by disqualification so the champ would keep the belt.

 

Some of that stuff happens now, but back then it would go on and on for years.  The promoters seem to have a sick joy of pulling the rug out from underneath the fans.

 

But when a good guy finally won, it was that much more rewarding and surprising to the point of irrational elation by fans going absolutely batpoo.

 

That is a lot that goes on here.  I don't know how it will all end, and knowing Martin it won't be all rainbows and butterflies, but these last two books (if they ever get done) are going to have moments of complete elation and cheering, and complete devastation and sadness.

 

And it will all be earned, not a forgone conclusion or meaningless or contrived.  Every cheer and every tear will be earned.  And that is great storytelling.

 

 

 

Edit to add:  I am not saying that the storytelling of pro wrestling is on the same level as Martin.  I use the analogy of the build up of emotion over time with to build real emotion in a character's success or failure is not dissimilar to what happens in ASOFAI




#2729938 Game of Thrones-HBO-Seasons 1, 2, 3

Posted by teeray on 07 April 2014 - 12:14 PM

GOT is a superior show to The Walking Dead, but part of that is because they don't kill main characters until it means something to do so. 

 

But GOT has slow episodes as well. but they develop the characters so much you are actually invested in them if they meet their demise.  And because of that it hurts more.  Or if they experience success, it elates you more.  Dany last season going all badass on the slavers, was one of the most satisfying moments in the series.

 

Arya's revenge, in last night's episode, was so satisfying because you don't take it for granted.  She went through a lot of poo for a small but significant victory, plus her actions represent a major shift in her character that isn't contrived it is understandable. 

 

That is what makes GOT so awesome to me.  When the character's you care about find success it feels earned and overdue.  Not inevitable like other series or movies.  Which makes success, even little one's more sweet, and failure or death more devastating.

 

 

 

 

 

 




#2729791 Game of Thrones-HBO-Seasons 1, 2, 3

Posted by teeray on 07 April 2014 - 09:30 AM

I just read this on Huffpo

 

 

Beyond the change to Polliver's death, Williams told EW that much of Season 4 will deviate from Martin's writing as well. "This year there's a few key plot twists and the way [the show's] writers go about it is different than the books," she said. "I think fans of the books will be a little confused, which I think is fantastic because it keeps it interesting for everyone."

 

"GoT" fanatics, you may think you know, but you have no idea.

 

Hmmmmm




#2729355 Game of Thrones-HBO-Seasons 1, 2, 3

Posted by teeray on 06 April 2014 - 09:33 PM

Arya and the Hound are awesome together.

Was Sir Duncan of the kings guard an easter egg for Dunk and Egg?


#2728679 Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008

Posted by teeray on 06 April 2014 - 06:35 AM

I chose to ignore it, just like you chose to forgo the context of that ruling. That Supreme Court of that day ruled on interracial marriage. The same ruling has now been applied to the gay marriage argument by it's proponents, mainly activist circuit court judges.
 

 

It doesn't necessarily matter what the ruling was on, it matters what the ruling says because it sets precedent.

 

So when the Supreme Court ruled and said marriage is a "basic civil right" that doesn't mean that it is a basic civil right for only interracial couples.  It is a basic civil right for everyone which is why interracial couples should be allowed to marry.
 




#2728555 Bobcats vs Cavs 4/5

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 09:46 PM

I'll never understand why they call fouls everyone someone hangs in the air... It's like an automatic foul.


Except when MKG gets his back destroyed on a no call


#2728551 PLAYOFFS!

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 09:44 PM

Hooray!


#2728541 Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 09:32 PM

Yeah, it was Loving vs. Virginia.  It was a unanimous ruling and the ruling stated:

 

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"

 

So by constitutional definition, preventing someone to marry is literally taking away someone's "basic civil rights"

 

http://en.wikipedia....ing_v._Virginia




#2728526 Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 09:23 PM

Marriage is a not a right, it is a privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right etc. People should know the difference between rights and privileges.


According to the Supreme Court I believe that is incorrect. If i recall (i will have to look it up again) when they ruled on interracial marriage in their ruling they explicitly said that marriage is a right.


#2728279 Mozilla CEO ousted for views in 2008

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 06:46 PM

You can't defend one person using his 1st amendment rights but get upset when others use their's to denounce what that person said, and him having to take responsibility for it.

Pubs always talk about personal responsibility but never hold themselves to the same standard. It is always someone else, it is never them.

It is stupid uninformed sheep

It is the taker's fault

It is the Dem's buying voting blocks.

It is the mainstream media's fault

It is liberal acedemia indoctrinating young people

It is the PC police

It is the feminazis fault

It is the party that preaches personal responsibility but whenever they lose a national election never stop and say "maybe our policies are outdated and tone deaf".

Instead they scheme to invent new ways to skew elections, blame everyone else for it, and then preach about the virtues of personal responsibility.

Okay, off my soap box. Time to go to the Lovely Ladies sub forum and let the boobs calm me down

;)


#2728206 High Court Voids Overall Contribution Limit

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 05:10 PM

Logical next step is going to be eliminating caps for individual candidates. Everyone across party lines should be concerned with these decisions (other being citizens united)


#2728119 The Clinton v. Bush possibility

Posted by teeray on 05 April 2014 - 02:49 PM

Seriously this will probably be my first time voting third party on the presidential ticket




Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.