eva unit zero

Denny's Slamburger with bacon and extra eggs added on. iPod Touch or netbook-style computer?

I dance all the time, people looking or not. One, I'm a good dancer, and two, who cares if people watch or not? The person below me is a huge Tigers fan.

*sneaks into edicius' house and reroutes the audio cables to provide a different feed* "Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby Crosby..."

Crosby is good along the boards at digging out the puck in the offensive zone. Key word in that sentence is bolded. As far as backchecking, he's maybe above average and needs serious improvement in his defensive positioning and general defensive skills. He's no Gretzky in the back end, but you'd have to work very hard to be that much of a liability defensively. As for faceoffs, I can name more than a few guys who rank ahead of Crosby based on last season. Mikko Koivu, Patrice Bergeron, Rod Brind'Amour, Jonathan Toews, David Steckel, Jarret Stoll, Paul Gaustad, Scott Nichol, Joe Pavelski, and Eric Belanger were all better on draws than Crosby. They all took a significant number of faceoffs and posted a better percentage than Sid. Sure, Crosby took 8 million faceoffs, but that doesn't make him the best at it. Based on these statements, it again shows me that you take a player's scoring ability as the defining factor, with things like defense and such as minor tweaks. A 90 point player who is the best defensive player in the league is probably a better player than a good defensive player who scores 100-110 or so points. The ultimate thing is, who helps the team win more? Sergei Fedorov is a great example. In his prime, he was among the best players in the league at almost everything. During Fedorov's prime, it's difficult to argue that any other player offered a combination of skills that would help a team win more than his. Crosby's offensive skill ranks him among the best despite having weaknesses, but there are better players than him.

No, Jeff Taffe is something that you can get in a bag on Mackinac Island. You should try it, it's good stuff.

Assuming that you mean a center who scored 80+ last season, I can name four centers who beat that mark who are better defensively than Crosby, plus a winger who is a natural center and is far, FAR better. Crosby is an excellent offensive player. But that's the only area of the game he's good at. If other players produce almost as much or more offense and are better in other areas of the game, how can Crosby be the best? It's like the argument about Gretzky vs Fedorov in 1994. Gretzky scored 130 points and won the scoring race. Fedorov scored 120. Who's better? But Gretzky only scored 38 goals to Fedorov's 54, and Fedorov won the Selke as the best defensive forward. Offense matters in hockey, but if you make a great play and score a goal, but your poor defense results in the opposition being able to score on the next play, how well have you done? And beyond that, this isn't even considering defensemen or goaltenders. Skilled defensemen are huge assets offensively yet often don't get points when they factor into a play. And a good defensive defenseman can not only keep your team from giving up goals with his solid play, his ability will allow the offense to play more aggressively. Goaltenders are often the most important player a team has, so to rule them out of the debate for "best player" is silly.

I remember back in the early 90s, watching Fedorov post times in the low 13s. My favorite was the 94 skills competition, Fedorov vs Coffey when Fedorov broke the existing record by about two tenths of a second.

Based on the nature of your question, I'll assume you are asking in reference to coffee and such drinks. So, sugar. And BTW, polo is not a water sport; you are thinking of water polo. Polo is basically four-person soccer on horseback using mallets to hit the ball instead of kicking the ball.

My point was not that tough guys weren't needed; it was that if a guy like Cooke is going to throw a dirty hit, he's not going to say"Oh no, they have an enforcer on their roster. I'd better not." It's going to happen. The secondary question I had was, of course, this one. You want to eliminate the instigator to allow enforcers to extract payback for dirty hits. What happens when it's a legal hit thrown by one team's star player at another team's star player, and the second player's enforcer extracts payback by going after the first guy, injures him, and puts him out for a week?

What if you think hockey includes more than scoring?

Ok, explain this one to me. I understand the idea of "immediate payback" by having an enforcer. I've been a hockey fan for a long time, I grew up watching Probert and Kocur. But explain to me how eliminating the instigator rule gets rid of injuries. Better yet, explain it to Cam Neely. Explain it to Pat LaFontaine. Explain to them about how enforcers protect star players from cheap shots. I bet they'd like to hear it as much as I would.

Halloween is fun. I have kids and enjoy taking them out, plus I always liked going out when I was younger. The person below me has had martial arts instruction at some point in their life.

The Johnson catch was probably ruled correctly; the problem is that the Bears' TD pass earlier in the game should have been called incomplete based on the same rule, and wasn't. Consistency is the biggest issue; what exactly qualifies as a hook/trip/cross-check/etc. according to the rules? It's laid out in the rule, but it's not always called the same.

Of the ones you listed, I vote Ozzie. But how about these choices? #2 FISCHER #3 CHIASSON #10 CARSON #13 KOZLOV #16 KONSTANTINOV #24 PROBERT #26 KOCUR #29 VERNON #32 CHEVELDAE #91 FEDOROV

Look at it again. Boynton is coming in with the check towards Durno, Durno sees him, gives up the puck along the boards and tries to dodge the hit towards center ice. Had Durno not made any move, he'd have looked like Havlat.

Hmm... I've solved the problem. Charles Wang becomes owner of the Phoenix Coyotes, the NHL takes ward of the Islanders. A dispersal draft is held between the two teams, which allows for each team to hold onto certain players.

-The NHL was already having labor problems before Bettman was hired. Bettman was hired to SOLVE THEM, and for the most part HE DID. Yes, it wasn't ideal, but the end justifies the means in many situations, including this one. The NHL has a CBA which protects teams doing poorly financially, and might have prevented the Jets, Nordiques, and Whalers from moving had it been in place back then. -So in other words, you have to get cable to watch games? ESPN, Versus. Wow, shocking difference. -The ESPN deal was $600m over 5 years, or $120m per year. It was followed by a one-year deal for the 2004-05 season which was $60m, with a $70m option for 2005-06. The Versus contract was $130m for two years, with a network-option third year. In other words, Versus offered more money than ESPN for fewer games and lower broadcast priority; ESPN would have demanded far more games, regular season and playoff, than Versus had. They would have demanded top priority for scheduling over NBC, also. -The 2009 playoff scheduling, as far as the finals which is what I know you are referring to, is because of the television contract with NBC. -Better reffing than 1992 and prior. -Bettman doesn't just say "Hey, let's have a team in Atlanta/Nashville/Phoenix/Raleigh!" The team owner decides where they want the team to play, and the NHL Board of Governors either approves or denies that. -The NHL's talent level is higher than it has ever been. In 1990 there were 20 teams' worth of Canadian players. Now there are 16. Also NHL teams typically have more skill players now rather than having a bunch of goons populate the bottom lines. This is a significant INCREASE in average talent, and based on the percentage of Canadian players in the NHL the league has actually UNDER-expanded. Of course, getting much larger would be ridiculous, so it will probably not happen. -Playing in Europe to increase the global fan base for the NHL for a sport which is played globally? Terrible idea. -As far as the Phoenix situation, what exactly could Bettman do? Balsillie tried to circumvent league policy, and acquire the Coyotes from Moyes through bankruptcy while Moyes receives what basically amounts to a kickback. Bettman did nothing but stood firm on league policy, because folding would set a dangerous precedent of "well you did this for this guy" and Balsillie's inability to follow the standard league procedure prevented him from purchasing the team. -As stated before, the NHL's officiating has been of higher quality since the two-referee system has been implemented than it was before, and Bettman and co. have done work to improve the quality of new officials.

The clutch and grab era was happening regardless of Bettman. Bettman legitimately fixed a widespread problem with the league that occurred, give him credit. Is 18 years absurdly long? Maybe he's doing absurdly well. And he has been responsible for widespread improvement across the league. Bettman is responsible for the two-referee system, which has resulted in a significant increase in quality of officiating due to a second pair of eyes on the ice from another angle on the opposite side of the play. Bettman is responsible for the league increasing revenues at a rate beyond what anyone even considered possible. Yes, a couple of teams were sold and had to move, but that was largely due to a triple combination of market size, fan support, and in two cases exchange rate. Bettman is responsible for this: the NHL used to pay 75% of revenue to players, now it's less than 55%. Yet there are more players than ever now, and a record average salary. As far as play quality? Bettman is responsible for killing clutch and grab. Bettman's rule changes have resulted in teams using more roster spots on skilled players, rather than unskilled goons. Self-serving? How? Explain that one to me.

Lebda was on the ice for the PK? Was he the only defenseman dressed?

They're making those so that they can then decide not to use them, and donate them to youth hockey leagues, right?

Am I the only person who ever noticed Gretzky's considerable increase in size and strength over his career? Gretzky at 24 (1985-86): Gretzky at 33 (1993-94): Gretzky at 38 (1998-99): If it's so easy to look at the change in the size of a guy like Mark McGwire and say "duh, he's juicing", where is the question regarding a guy like Gretzky?

The guys in the NHL are almost as good as me.

Lebda will be lucky to be in the regular rotation. As far as PP, he has a very good shot at being on the second pair, and would probably be the first spare if not, if he is in the top 6. If not, he won't get much PP time. And he won't get much ES time regardless; and NO time on the PK. Sounds like he might even get less time in Toronto than he got here, unless he manages to be a "coach's favorite" and get an unearned spot there too.