The Unknown Poster

Haven't heard him say that. There was definitely talk that his coming out would negatively impact his draft position. I can see that being true. But regardless I hope he didn't say that. That's not setting the example he said he wanted to set by coming out.

Yeah true about Clitsome. I forgot about him. If Morrissey can slot in as a starting LHD that's huge for the Jets.

I feel Im on a roll and I read a post on another message board I frequent that discussed the possibility of a Democratic ticket with Biden as the POTUS (and Warren as his running mate). That led to a discussion where most people feel we are headed towards another Clinton/Bush race (which I, quite honestly, would love to see). I wrote a blog before Obama's first federal election with some predictions that were 100% wrong (though I did predict Jeb would eventually run even though he said he wouldnt...remains to be seen). Do we have some people on here who are interested in US politics (and please not the "America sucks and Bush flew the planes into the buildings stuff). Early predictions?

Yeah...I can see that. But the argument would be, why should we ignore it? The N-bomb stuff was cowardly losers on twitter. Not one of those people would have the guts to say that to Subban's face. Not to mention that, if they really feel that way, I guess they dont want Malcolm Subban on their team or Iginla etc. Its just cowardly people immediately going to the deepest hole they can to insult someone. Very ignorant people. In Sam's case, forget the lowly losers who no one knows, Im talking the pro athletes on twitter putting their name to their ignorance. Just makes you shake your head. But no one ever got drafted for sports for being a rocket scientist.

yeah I agree. But the fact this *is* a huge story speaks to our society right now. And the fact people took the time to actually tweet negative nonsense is head-shaking worthy. What public-eye pro athlete could be stupid enough to do that? Well, yeah I know. A lot. What I find interesting as a study in human pyschology is the reactions. Like those twins the Benham's (I think) who got booted from HGTV because one of them made anti-gay remarks. It solidifies the anti-gay ultra religious types who feel it's their right to be "against" it. And it makes the debate about religious freedom when it should be about individual freedom. Interesting nontheless

That might be in the ball park but I'd *hate* to lose Kane for a D-man that I think people will always be just a bit disappointed in. *Maybe* if this years draft was deeper but Im not a big draft guy so Im not sure how "for sure" a player at #8 is. But having #8 and #9 would certainly add to the Jets' "building through the draft" mentality. But it leaves a gaping hole up front. Though if you consider Kane had a poor year (mostly due to injuries) and Buff was a forward convert late in the season, perhaps it works if Buff gets pencilled in top six LW. makes it easier to fill the 3rd line LW. I'd see Edmonton as a better fit. I think DP is from Edmonton and he'd likely have more value to them then to us (ie. he'd be a 1-2 D man for sure there) and they have the forward players that Toronto would surely love. Flipping first rounders could easily factor into the mix also. If we want to get crazy, how about we take the aforementioned Kane & Pavs to Toronto for DP, Reimer and 8th overall. Then flip DP, 8th Overall and 9th overall to Edmonton for 3rd overall and Eberle ;-)

I read one suggestion of Kane vs Phaneuf, 8th overall and another player and people thought it was giving up too much on Toronto's part. I think thats what gives me pause. All things being equal, I'd love to have DP here as I think we're building a solid D corp and he'd really cement that. But I wouldnt want to part with any "core" players for him because if given the choice between Phaneuf and Kane, I'd rather have Kane. and the same can be said for pretty much all the core guys.

True true. Jets could see him as a top pairing guy. I think most teams look at DP as a 3-4 guy in skill. Leafs certainly paid him like a 1-2 guy. It all depends on how much money they are willing to take back. I believe he's a left D. So would that give us: Enstrom - Trouba Phaneuf - Bogo Stuart - Morrison

Was he that bad that they would just release a NI?

Consider the source but fun to speculate. As soon as I heard the Leafs were shopping Phaneuf, I thought "he'd look great as a 3-4 pairing on the Jets but would they be willing to give up?" hockeybuzz.com There is a ton of speculation surrounding the two captains as we come into the draft and their names have been out in the rumor mill for many weeks now. This morning I talked to one of my favorite sources who is familiar with both of these situations to get a feel for whether or not the interest has picked up in the recent days: "Spezza will have plenty of suitors. The Leafs are having a much harder time selling Dion Phaneuf to the NHL GMs," my source continued, " While it would appear he is the kind of defender most teams want, he is not only expensive, but doesn't have the greatest history of being safe with the puck in his own zone." Phaneuf is also a very big personality to bring into any dressing room. So far, the best I can tell is the Winnipeg Jets have shown the most interest in Phaneuf. Spezza, on the other hand, is a much easier sale. At this point I am hearing the Wings, Sabres and Sharks could be among the teams interested...however, the Leafs could very much get involved with the Spezza trade game. They will have interest in him as a UFA a year from now for certain.

Well, I hate to stir up emotions (lol) http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/michael-sam-nfl-kiss-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Not long after Michael Sam became the first openly gay player drafted to the NFL, some made clear his reaction was not welcome. Shortly after learning of his selection by phone, a visibly emotional Sam turned to his boyfriend and kissed him. "I'm sorry but that Michael Sam is no bueno for doing that on national tv," former Super Bowl champion Derrick Ward tweeted. "Man U got little kids lookin at the draft. I can't believe ESPN even allowed that to happen," he added. Ward, who played for the New York Giants and the Houston Texans, said he has received death threats against him and his children after the comments. In an image taken from video, Michael Sam, left, and boyfriend Vito Cammisano kiss at an NFL draft party in San Diego. Sam was selected in the seventh round, 249th overall, by the St. Louis Rams. Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones also expressed his disapproval, tweeting "horrible" and "OMG" after the kiss was aired. He has since deleted those comments. But the Dolphins responded quickly, ordering Jones to pay an undisclosed fine and barring him from team activities until he finishes "training for his recent comments made on social media." "We met with Don today about respect, discrimination and judgment," the Dolphins said in a statement Sunday. "These comments are not consistent with the values and standards of our program." Jones issued a mea culpa for his remarks. "I want to apologize to Michael Sam for the inappropriate comments that I made last night on social media," he said in a statement Sunday. "I take full responsibility for them and I regret that these tweets took away from his draft moment. I remember last year when I was drafted in the seventh round and all of the emotions and happiness I felt when I received the call that gave me an opportunity to play for an NFL team and I wish him all the best in his NFL career." Michael Sam's kiss spurs many reactions Sam's boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, a former University of Missouri swimmer who graduated last year and now interns for a broadcasting company in Columbia, Missouri, wasn't fazed by the vitriol and publicly celebrated his lover's achievement. The Kansas City native first tweeted, "We are staying home! Could not be more proud of my babe! #stl #rams #missouri," then followed it up a few hours later with "Wow.What a day. On cloud 9. So proud and happy! #stl #rams #draft @MikeSamFootball." The second tweet linked to a close-up of Cammisano, his face covered in cake, sharing another smooch with Sam. Other reactions extended well beyond current and former NFL players. "Any straight person who says "#MichaelSam/bf kiss pic doesnt look disgusting" can't pass a lie detector test saying it. Prove me wrong. #nfl," Patrick Dollard tweeted. "It's annoying that people can't say anything about the Michael Sam kiss without people pointing at them saying "homophobe," Robby Schultz said. But many welcomed Sam's seventh-round selection by the St. Louis Rams. His new team is just two hours away from the University of Missouri, where Sam was an All-American and the Southeastern Conference's defensive player of the year. "Welcome to the squad @MikeSamFootball #D-LineShowtime," fellow Rams defensive end Robert Quinn tweeted. President Barack Obama also weighed in. "The President congratulates Michael Sam, the Rams and the NFL for taking an important step forward today in our Nation's journey," the White House said in a statement. "From the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove everyday that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are." Some compared Sam kissing his boyfriend to other athletes kissing their wives or girlfriends. "NFL guys get drafted. Kiss girlfriends. @MikeSamFootball kissed his boyfriend. Don't like?..that's a "you" problem," ESPN anchor Stuart Scott tweeted. "Congrats Mike!" Others poked fun at the controversy surrounding Sam. "How do I explain Michael Sam to my kids?" Andy Kerman tweeted. "A man with TWO first names?" Obama congratulates Michael Sam ****We live in an interesting time. Wont it be nice when we live in a time where a player's orientation wont be headline news?

That is certainly one opinion to carry. Its not a very enlightened one, but its one. I mean, by that stance, we could literally jusitfy any behaviour because "bad things happen". Im a hypocrit because I eat meat. But I certainly wish I was strong enough not to support these places that treat animals so poorly. As far as humans treating humans poorly, thats awful too. But human nature is such we have free will to be as nasty and mean to one another as we choose. Unfortunately.

If people feel there are some health benefits to being a vegetarian I don't really agree but respect the thought process. Drives me nuts though when people pretend their lifestyle is more morally acceptable. Regardless of whether you eat them directly or not animals stills die to support your lifestle. The survival of the entire planet is based on living things eating other living things. If anyone is looking some kind of moral high ground, there are better places to look. Yes...to an extent. I agree with what Paul McCartney is saying. For me personally, after watching the documentary Earthlings (and a couple of others), I have a real hard time eating meat. I certainly feel guilty. That feeling wears off in time. I have a buddy who is incredibly stubborn. He's the "i would eat steak in a slaughterhouse" type and I showed him a documentary and he was fighting back tears and admitted he wished he could not eat meat and would try to eat less. Its really a very immoral thing we do to animals. Im not rich by any stretch but if government regulations forced meat providers to be far kinder to animals in the process and it cost a bit more, I would have ZERO problem with that. But Im weak. I like my leather seats. I like my leather jacket. Its a terrible thing. But we're supposed to be an enlightened species and we *should* treat animals a lot better than we do. Earthlings also goes into how house pets are treated, showing cats literally being stuffed into a box for mass euthanization. Very sad.

I see things in a very logical way. If I engage in a discussion with someone, its almost never personal to me. its almost never a scenario where I'm angry. I just dont work that way. But if I qualify my position by explaining that I love milk and meat, used to embrace the "common" belief that we need both to be healty and then changed that position based on reading several books, studies etc and the person(s) Im discussing it back up their position by saying "yeah but I like milk", then Im not being closed minded by dismissing their position. Because it's not a real position. Its an opinion with little in the way of logic, common sense or science backing it up. Also, the vast majority of counter pounts to anything I wrote was either putting words in my mouth or attacking me, not debating my position. Anytime I summarized my position in a very clear and logical way and in such a way that most people were probably close to agreeing, those posts were ignored. Because its more fun for people to whine and argue on a message board then it is to work towards consensus. So in closing: - I love milk and meat (had both this weekend) - Humans don't *need* either Milk or meat (the nutritional benefit to both are readily available elseware) - the health drawbacks to milk (especially common store bough milk) far outweigh the positive health benefits which only ammount to calcium which... - ...the only real health benefit to Milk is calcium and the *debate* is whether we need calcium to that degree or not. I cant take a position on it (though I feel that we dont) but there debate is too large to say which side is correct. And ofcourse, if we do need calcium, we can get it elseware. - none of this changes the fact that I enjoy milk. I just rarely drink it because of the negative health implications. - I dont believe there is a debate at all about Milk. Like I posted several times, if you read anything about dairy or ask any doctor and discount the crazies on both sides of the spectrum, you will get X amount that say "no, dont have dairy" and X amount that say "everything in moderation" but you wont find any that say "yes, you need to have milk to be healthy". Thus, there is no debate. But I enjoy the discussion. But accusing me of being closed minded is attacking the messenger when you have nothing to say about the message. If I was closed minded I wouldnt have enjoyed the tall glass of delicious milk I had last night.

Oh yes, dont get me wrong. I think Kelly was raked over the coals for an unfortunate incident that sounded a lot like a non-violent fight between two adults. If Kelly was someone other than Kelly, the Bombers might have stood by him. But this was the final nail in his coffin and you cant really blame the BoD. But I have nothing against Kelly personally. I think he let the power of his dream job go to his head and when the expected success didnt come, he had no clue how to handle it. Id like to blame Bauer a bit for not giving Kelly more support. It was obvious pretty early that he needed some lessons in managerial professionalism and PR. On the flip side you have whatshisname who tried to get funky with his teenage babysitter and people still want to hire him.

I sort of thought the same thing but then wondered if trying to get Rabb there was planting a seed for a future attempt to get himself on the board. I wouldn't put anything past Sammy. Surely he's looking at the deals and subsidies the Bombers have received and is wondering what he can get for the Goldeyes.

The latter. They were given a heads up by John Titor that Kelly would do that. Obviously.

The bod were given a heads up that Kelly was going to hit his gf. It's unconscionable that they sat on this info.

That's unbelievable.

The last thing I want is more sports, more channels and more choice. This makes me so angry.

Atomic's? Cause my argument isnt my argument. Its the argument of many doctor's, scientists and nutritionists. Although it does suck that milk is unhealthy. No you're argument for why you are right. It's a terrible argument which basically boils do to you screaming "NUH UH!!!!! USE COMMON SENSE *******!!!1111!!!!one!!!" You aren't interested in hearing opposing viewpoints you're convinced you are correct and will shout down anything contrary to your opinion. That's what makes it a terrible argument. Again, I'm not taking sides in this, I don't care enough about it to bother, but I know when an argument is bullshit and when it isn't and you are too closed minded to ever have a proper debate on the topic. Uhhh...hmmmm. Its difficult to respond to such nonsense. I assume you read one post you didnt like and used that as the basis to form an incorrect opinion of the entire discussion. That is unfortunate. Please, show me where I said anything close to what you wrote. I believe Im the only who has engaged in an debate that provided evidence to back up my position actually. But hey, if you disagree, just make stuff up. Im the most open-minded person here so far.

I agree. And I am certainly not taking part in this debate to try and convince anyone of anything. As I freely stated, I do NOT adhere to what I consider the best diet for humans. Im far too weak. I love my meat and cheese too much. Most of my posts are actually correcting the words that others are trying to put in my mouth when in fact, I never made such statements.

Atomic's? Cause my argument isnt my argument. Its the argument of many doctor's, scientists and nutritionists. Although it does suck that milk is unhealthy. Many doctors, scientists, and nutritionists take the opposite position. This is undeniable. The mistake you're making is that you believe that your position is unanimously supported by doctors, etc, which is obviously untrue. And you are claiming that any of those professionals who disagree are just part of the milk lobby or whatever your position is on them. This is incorrect. Please show me many doctors, scientists or nutritionists that say we as humans need meat and milk to be healthy. You yourself admitted that was not the case. You're confusing your like for milk with disagreeing with my position. My position is: - Milk is unhealthy. There *might* be a debate about the health benefits to milk insofar as calcium but outside of the government food guide which *is* heavily influenced by lobbyists, I've yet to see any doctor state that we need milk to be healthy. Most doctors will subscribe to the Message to the Masses, which is "everything in moderation" and even then, most will tell you milk needs to be moderated. And even then most will admit the steroids and hormones that go into our modern general supply of milk is not healthy - Humans dont need milk & meat to be healthy - the optimum diet for humans is fruits, veggies, whole grains. That's my position. Your position is that milk & meat can be eaten in moderation as part of a healty diet. I agreed with that insofar that many many things that we would all agree are unhealthy or needless can be eaten in moderation as part of an other wise healthy diet. As for unanimous support, Im not sure anything exists which has 100% support, no matter how obvious it is.

Atomic's? Cause my argument isnt my argument. Its the argument of many doctor's, scientists and nutritionists. Although it does suck that milk is unhealthy.

Big fan of Ian Wild.