Banedon

Hmmm...ProHockeyTalk.com has a blurb about the Hawks offseason cap issues this year...and one of the ideas they hinted at is using Byfuglien as a way to get rid of Huet's contract. If you tell teams that Byfuglien is available, but you have to take Huet to get him...would that work?

No team has ever played a home game in the Superbowl. I realize the Jets wouldn't be "home" in that scenario, but still. The chances are always there for that, no matter the locale. If the Super Bowl is in Miami, and the Falcons make the Super Bowl against say...the Seahawks....there's definitely an advantage fan-wise there too.

I don't know any Philly fans personally, but this description definitely fits the ones I've come across online. blackhawk fans are probably not in a great position to talk about not paying attention until their team is good. Ok...if it helps, I was agreeing more about the "crap talking goons" part than the bandwagon part... :hello:

Buccigross picked the Flyers because his preseason Stanley Cup prediction was Flyers over Blackhawks and he wants to be right. He made that guess before the playoffs started? Heckuva guess just to get the teams right. I'm confused though. He picked Boston over Philly in round 2. No he made that pick back in September, before the season started. Which is actually less amazing just because the Flyers were supposed to be pretty good coming into the season. Ahh...right...gotcha.

Buccigross picked the Flyers because his preseason Stanley Cup prediction was Flyers over Blackhawks and he wants to be right. He made that guess before the playoffs started? Heckuva guess just to get the teams right. I'm confused though. He picked Boston over Philly in round 2.

Well, only for 31 teams....but since it's never happened that a team has played at it's home field in the Super Bowl, I'll concede the point. Regardless, if you know that to win your division/conference you have to win games in cold locations, why is it a problem for one more game? You know 4 years in advance that this Super Bowl will potentially be cold. How much warning is necessary?

Yeah, Niemi would be the only threat for Toews I think.

ESPN picks are up. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5222651 2 pick the Flyers. Nobody thinks it will be shorter than 6 games.

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl. A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ. But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with. Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other?

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

lol...the Sharks blog, FearTheFin, did a Finals analysis...this was the final couple of paragraphs...made me laugh... lol @ the bit about Buff.

Are those the media members most likely to be there? I think the majority of super bowl attendee media members are not based in NYC. And ESPN being close does not count. I guarantee Chris Berman won't be scared to expense as much as he would in Miami. Guys who appear on sports reporters in midtown get their hotel taken care of, i'm sure it will be the same here. There will be media members from both participants, just like there would be if the Dolphins ever played in a "South Florida" super bowl or if New Orleans played in a Superdome Super Bowl. There will be media members from every NFL city (probably). Plus all the BS media. Ok...even conceding the point. I still think the "we don't want a Super Bowl in a cold locale" is more of a media driven thing. I don't think it matter much to most fans.

I don't think it will be tough for them to justify expensing nights out in Manhattan. Yeah? Even if that media is NY based? How would they justify spending the companies dime on spending a night out in the town they live/work in? Most of the media is not based in NY. And the ones in NY still expense their work related functions. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, and Reuters are all based in NYC. ESPN is 2 hours away...and is part of ABC anyway. I understand they'll expense work related functions. I'm saying they'll have a harder time saying some things are work related when they are at "home" than they would when they're "on the road".

I don't think it will be tough for them to justify expensing nights out in Manhattan. Yeah? Even if that media is NY based? How would they justify spending the companies dime on spending a night out in the town they live/work in?

Honestly, the people it really effects are the media. That's why they're screaming the loudest about this. For them, it's a week long party in Florida or New Orleans, or California in most years. If it's in NY/NJ, they don't get to travel, and I'm guessing it's a lot harder for them to justify expensing a lot of the stuff they normally can.

Not sure if you are joking, but Delaware is right next to Philly, and Wilmington (Delaware's biggest city) is pretty much a suburb of Philly. Not joking...just apparently bad with New England geography. In my head, I figured Delaware would be more of a Capitals or Devils fanbase than Flyers. But yeah...I guess not... And I swear NJ wasn't red when I just looked at that....haha. New England? ROFL...ok...I'm apparently bad at more than New England...considering I thought it included more states than it apparently does.

I don't know any Philly fans personally, but this description definitely fits the ones I've come across online.

Not sure if you are joking, but Delaware is right next to Philly, and Wilmington (Delaware's biggest city) is pretty much a suburb of Philly. Not joking...just apparently bad with New England geography. In my head, I figured Delaware would be more of a Capitals or Devils fanbase than Flyers. But yeah...I guess not... And I swear NJ wasn't red when I just looked at that....haha.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=1284 I only post this because I think the map is interesting. Only 2 states are picking the Flyers to win...Pennsylvania and....Delaware. Weird.

I think that's where potentially an argument could be made. Playing devils advocate here, but how many hard throwing starting pitchers would be able to be unhittable if they only pitched one inning at a time? Certainly there'd be plenty that couldn't make the transition, but still...you have to think his role as a reliever helps him with those stats. That said, he's crazy good...not really trying to diminish that.

But it's ok for that to happen in the NFC and AFC Championship games? What's the difference?

Man I hate Philly fans.

Not when you pick and choose to compare just the "good" offenses, and forget about the other phases of the game. Not when you consider that even if we are just talking offense that the best offenses don't always have great years. Not when you consider that the most talented team doesn't always win. If you want to be good in any phase of the game it makes sense to compare yourself to the best teams in those phases. I'm fairly confident that we can have a good offense relative to the Lions, Rams, and Raiders but that gets you where exactly? For what it's worth I do think the front 7 on D has a chance to be one of the best in the game. But what does each individual player have to do with the unit as a whole? I know in most cases, more talent = better offense. But the Texans were the 4th best offensive team in the league. Yet they only have Andre Johnson who would be a shoe-in to start for the other top 10 offenses in the league. I mentioned Martz's Lions before. They had a bunch of nobodies and were one of the best offensive teams for 2 years. And you even said the front 7 on D could be among the best in the league. Doesn't that mean it could be good enough that the offense matters less? We know the ST will be top 10 in the league. That makes the offense matter even less. It's also worth mentioning that the "names" that Martz had in STL were "names" only after the fact. I mean come on...Kurt Warner was freaking nobody until he was in Martz's offense. Marshall Faulk was a good back in Indy, but was nowhere near what he became in STL.

I would guess it remains rare. No way Chicago ever gets one, Soldier Field is way too small. Lincoln Financial is also relatively small. Denver would actually be a really good place, and Washington is always an option. Not to mention I don't think Chicago will get one until they get a better playing surface.

Three weeks can't come fast enough. Just get this overwith. I disagree there. I love the journey. The destination just means the end of hockey for a while... It's just the downtime that I hate.