bukie

I'm not saying that. And I don't think Emmitt should be off the radar. However, you do have to take the strength of the team each guy played for into consideration. Emmitt's line blew open tremendous holes play after play. Barry and Walter had to create their own holes and then get creative to get downfield. You didn't, but the poster above the post where I responded with that did. I agree that Sanders was fun to watch and Payton was a great back. Payton is number two on all the lists that have Smith as number one. Payton definitely has the numbers. I'm not going to argue that Smith didn't have a great O-line. He did. But why does everyone play the "what-if" game with Smith, but not a reciever like Rice? Rice is considered the greatest reciever ever because he has the numbers to back it up. But would Rice have been as good without Montana and Young throwing to him all those years? Could another receiver have been just as good with those QB's in the same system? Maybe. But those didn't and Rice did. He put up the numbers and so he's the best ever. No argument. Smith put up the numbers. Yardage. TD's. Championships. He's the best in my opinion. I'd rank the best backs: 1. Smith 2. Payton 3. Brown. Looking at video, I'd probably put Brown first, but he quit early because he wanted to make movies or be an activist or something. I could "what-if" him to the top, but what if he had gotten hurt. We don't know. What we do know is that Smith played with guts and likely did more with less talent than the others. He's at the top of the statistical measures and should also be at the top of any list discussing the best back ever. Your argument is akin to the argument that Pete Rose is the best hitter ever because he has the most hits. Or Cy Young being the best pitcher ever because he has the most wins. And championships? Championships is a personal stat now? If championships and intangibles counted towards the best player ever, they should just induct Jeter now.

Smith deserves points for longevity, which is why he has many of those longevity-based records. YPC-wise, though, it's Brown-Sayers-Sanders-Payton-Smith, and unfortunately, 4 of those careers were cut shorter than they needed to be. Smith didn't do anything spectacular, he just did it long enough to get his all-time records. Watching Brown, Sayers, Sanders, and Payton was spectacular. Smith deserves consideration due to his longevity, but the other 4 were simply better at what they did for less time.

Well, they pitched to Lee, and it paid off for the Brewers.

Be surprised if Lee sees a strike here.

Well, managed to get through Blanco-Perez-Pierre with 2 on, and the only contact being a sacrifice and Pierre-on-ball. Possibly the best-case scenario, really.

I deal with Cub fans every day. We should never trade with them, either. It's not THAT different in Chicago, unless you have some sort of jealous envy towards Sox fans because their team won the World Series last year. Of course, if you just want something to rub in their faces, that's being no different than the fan base you despise. The White Sox have no bearing on the Cubs making the playoffs or winning their division. None AT ALL. Even if Sox fans are predisposed to be concerned about the Cubs, relaying the favor is doing nothing to make any Cub fan look any better as it is. I married a die-hard Sox fan. She went to all the parades, saw 3 playoff games last year, got a ball signed by their whole team, got on TV at the parade in her fully decked out Sox gear and partial tattoos and face paint, and enjoyed every minute of it. My feelings on it? More power to her. Congrats on something long coming. Didn't affect the Cubs at all.

I know it's not likely, but what if the Czechs win by more than 2? Wouldn't we have to win by less than 4 goals then? If the Czechs win by 2, the US would need to win by at least 3 and have scored more goals than Italy (so if it was 2-0, the US would need to win 3-0 to advance). Of course, the US is automatically through if they win 5-0.

Ecuador 3, Costa Rica 0. Germany and Ecuador are through to the second round. Germany needs to win the match between them to win the group.

Meanwhile...1-0 Ecuador early in the second half.

Yep, basically. If Brazil wins their group and the US finishes second in theirs, they will play. Of course, if the US wins their group and Brazil finishes second in theirs, they'll still play each other. So most realistic hope for the US is to get to a game vs Brazil and not get embarrassed? That would definitely be considered a successful run this year. Finishing ahead of Italy or the Czech Republic would be a surprise to many in Europe.

Yep, basically. If Brazil wins their group and the US finishes second in theirs, they will play. Of course, if the US wins their group and Brazil finishes second in theirs, they'll still play each other.

ESPN World Cup Pick-em group created: http://games.espn.go.com/worldcup/frontpage Group name: NSBB Password: obp300 Just involves picking the outcome of each game.

Yankees of the World Cup: Brazil Cubs of the World Cup: USA White Sox of the World Cup: Mexico

Portugal 2002? 2002 was played in South Korea, not Europe. The US has traditionally been awful in European World Cup finals.

Just FYI, those semi matchups would be reversed (Netherlands/England and Brazil/USA), not that it makes a whole lot of difference.

I do think for sure that whoever does win the USA v CZE match will win group E. I just don't think the US has it in them to do that first match in a European final.

Well, here's what I'm thinking right now: Group A: 1. Germany 2. Poland Group B: 1. England 2. Paraguay Group C: 1. Argentina 2. Ivory Coast Group D: 1. Portugal 2. Mexico Group E: 1. Czech Republic 2. Italy Group F: 1. Brazil 2. Japan Group G: 1. France 2. South Korea Group H: 1. Spain 2. Tunisia I think the groups are horrendously balanced this time around, though. 3-4 good teams in groups C and E, and I honestly think just about any squad from those 2 groups would win group A or D. England, Germany, Spain, and France seem too well protected not to reach the second round this time around.

So...any predictions? Or are we waiting until it starts to predict anything?

So, honest question, who's had a worse day, the Cubs or Bears?

So let me get this straight. The Bears get a lot of talent to slide down to their #1 pick, so they trade down to get the 11th DB in the draft...

Who?

Only 3 weeks into the season, and already 6.5 games out... ...of 5th place.

So, the game is being called closely, Shaq is actually getting called for travels and fouls, Haslem is ejected, pretty much negating the Heat's frontline advantage after Shaq, and the Bulls are down 12. Amazing how much that double technical killed the Bulls' momentum, though.

6 seed is now out of play thanks to Indiana's win. Either 5 or 7 is still available, pending the Washington-Detroit game, and Washington seems to be pulling away.

Washington pulled it out last night, which simplifies the scenarios a bit. No spots were clinched, but it's now a guarantee that Washington will finish higher than Milwaukee. - If Washington wins, they are the 5 seed. - If the Bulls lose, they are the 8 seed. - If Washington loses, the Bulls cannot get the 6 seed that everyone seems to covet. The Bulls would get the 5 seed if they won. - The only way the Bulls get the 6 seed is if they win, Washington wins at Detroit, and Indiana loses at home to Orlando. - If Washington, Indiana, and the Bulls all win, the Bulls finish with the 7 seed.