5wide

What was he supposed to say when posed w/ the question? "Nah, they'd smoke us?" IF this team can run through their opponents by 25+, then they can be brought in to be compared to '92. I say that b/c the International Game is better overall than it was back in '92. I don't believe that '92 Lithuania or Croatia beat '12 Argentina and Spain. That being said, the '92 team is the reason that basketball took off world wide. That contribution is often understated.

 

Additionally, until this team wins in convincing fashion, '96 is the 2nd best team, followed by 2008.

 

Finally, if Jordan can't laugh this off and remember where Kobe is sitting in regards to the media, then he is even closer to beating out Oscar Roberston for another "greatest" title. Greatest Grumpy Ex-Player. Take a page from Larry Bird's book. Admit that the young guys are very talented and appreciate it. Maybe that's why he was a great coach and executive, and Jordan and Magic struggled.

He didn't have to admit that the '92 team was better.

The original Dream Team was better in my, and most peoples, opinion. Regardless, I like the attitude that these 2012 guys have. I want them to think they're better. I want that to motivate them.

Why single out Jordan? Pippen said they could beat this team by 25. Barkley, if I'm not mistaken, was the first to comment and get this started. You asked me what Kobe was supposed to say. What was Jordan supposed to say?

That's part of why these guys are what they are. It isn't just their natural talent alone. It's that desire to be the best and to compete.

As for the debate, it is about which team is better. And, IMO, Kobe blinked first. He went from saying they could beat the Dream Team, which could mean he thinks they're better or could mean...that he thinks they could win one in a best-of-seven, which is what he said in the quoted response. Sounds like to me the debate is over. He just admitted that the '92 team was better.

Quick thoughts at first glance through the list...

I agree with Rodgers as #1. I'd have Brady at #2, Brees next, with Megatron at #4. I'd move Fitzgerald up to #5, above Revis.

I don't think Jimmy Graham should be rated above Andre Johnson. I think Gronkowski should be the top rated TE.

I don't think Justin Smith is one of the 20 best players in the league.

Arian Foster should be higher on the list and the top rated RB.

Eli should be higher.

Victor Cruz is too high.

Devin Hester is way too high. He shouldn't even be on the list.

Peyton Manning should be higher. Cam Newton should be lower.

Tony Gonzalez shouldn't be on the list.

(No need to included Vilma on the list since he won't be playing.)

Philip Rivers is too low.

I would rank Justin Tuck higher. I think he's a very good player and his versatility is a huge key for the Giants and what they like to do on defense. He gets overshadowed somewhat by the guys on the end that put up the big sack numbers, but he's an excellent pass rusher in his own right and the work he does makes life a lot easier on JPP, Osi and the rest.

I'd rate Vick higher.

Joe Flacco shouldn't be on the list.

DeSean Jackson is too high, if he should even be on the list.

Nnamdi, Wilfork, and Joe Thomas should be higher.

Hakeem Nicks, Tony Romo and Chris Johnson should be moved up as well.

I'd probably take London Fletcher, Marshawn Lynch, Cortland Finnegan and Willis McGahee off the list.

Tebow on the list is a joke. It had to be.

And finally, with all due respect to the unglamorous position of FB, Vonta Leach and John Kuhn shouldn't be on the list. If someone was adamant about Leach remaining on, he should be in the bottom ten at the least.

You're telling me that a guy who plays FB on a team that, by attempts, runs the ball about 40% of the time, and by yardage rushing accounts for less than a quarter of their total offense is a top 100 player. Kuhn has had double digit touches in games twice in his career. He was fourth on the team in rushing attempts with 30 (Rodgers was third with 60). He was targeted 18 times in the passing game, catching 15. He had 155 combined yards. He did score 6 TD's, so he's a solid short yardage option, but I hardly think that is worthy of his ranking. But, back to the Packers offense...they are a pass heavy team. I'd be surprised if Kuhn is on the field for 40% of their snaps. They run a lot from one-back sets, and their leading rusher had 578 yards. The duo of Starks and Grant combined for 1137 and 3 TD. So, he isn't paving the way for big production. And, he isn't a crucial pass-blocking guy who stays on the field for that reason. Why is he on the list?

At least Leach paves the way for an elite RB in a rushing offense. Still don't think he's top 100 though, much less top 50 as he's rated.

OK, so the last thought on FB's wasn't so quick. :idunno:

Romo is better than he gets credit for, IMO. He's also gutsier and grittier than perceived. I think the perception of him to some degree is of a prima donna pretty boy. He'll play hurt, he'll stand up in the line of fire in games when his line is playing bad and he's getting killed. He's definitely one of the elite QB's in the league. Better than Eli? Can't say that in light of their post-season success, nor did Amani Toomer say that. I don't necessarily agree with what he said, because I think Romo has shown mental toughness. He just needs to win a Super Bowl. If he wins a Super Bowl, then a debate about he and Eli can be had.

This certainly makes the Lakers better. I doubt it is enough to get Kobe #6 though. I think it will be fun to watch Nash play with Kobe and Pau. There will be some adjustment for some of these guys though. Kobe's used to dominating the ball. Nash is used to an up-tempo free-flowing offense. Bynum is a traditional big man who plants his roots on the block and waits for the ball. I think Pau can adapt his game to play with anybody, and he's got the personality to do it. He may be the guy that makes it all work.

I don't know. I'd take Howard over Bynum at LA if Howard wasn't insisting on being the Alpha Male in LA. Bynum is such a headcase that it wouldn't be as bad as it seems if Howard and Bynum switched teams. Bynum is a three point shooting, sulking when he doesn't get the ball, cash the check mentality type of player and you know you're getting that. Howard is getting on my last nerve but when he gets to the Nets he'll still be the best big in the league with Bynum not far behind him at all.

I feel like Howard's attitude this season, and his insistence to be the alpha male puts him in the same class as Bynum's sulking. In the past, when Dwight was viewed as a nice guy, team player, etc., I think that would have swung things in his favor. But now, I don't see much difference.

My view is that at least with Bynum, he's only now emerging into a centerpiece-type player and he's only 24, so there is hope that he'll still mature.

I think Andrew Bynum would entice me more as an owner. I think this guy just started putting it together this year. I think we've seen what Dwight Howard is. Not that what he is is bad, but he has virtually zero offensive skill. He's an athletic freak that will get you 20, 12 and 2 on average.

Bynum is a couple of years younger in age and more than that if you look at wear and tear with minutes played. This was the first time he was featured as a focal point in the offense. He averaged a career high 35 minutes per game and produced just under 19 points, 12 rebounds and 2 blocks per game, which is roughly equivalent to Dwight's career averages. Dwight's career highs are 22.9 pts, 14.5 boards, and 2.9 blocks.

There are questions with Bynum. The two biggest are his health and his maturity. He stayed healthy this season, so that would seem promising going forward. He was up-and-down at times, often directly related to his involvement offensively. So, if I'm a GM that wanted him, I could easily convince myself that he'd be happy on my team because he'd be a centerpiece offensively, and because I wouldn't have Kobe Bryant dominating the ball. In a 7 game stretch late in the season with Kobe sitting due to injury, Bynum averaged 23 and 14. He's got real skills in the post and he can shoot FT's reasonably well (70%ish). That means he's not a liability in late-game situations, but rather a huge asset.

Plus, I think Bynum has more potential to improve. I think he can polish his offensive game, improve on his FT's, and step it up defensively. I don't see the upside with Dwight. He's been in the league for 8 years and is basically the same guy.

That said, Howard is still a max guy and any team lacking an impact star player would be crazy not to want him, but I don't see any team ever winning a title if he's their best player.

If you swapped Howard and Bynum, I think the Lakers would be a worse, not better.

By this definition, what qualifies as a cult is a moving target, depending on where you might be.

Absolutely. I think that is a flaw in the definition they gave.

It's just something that has fascinated me in the past. I was Mormon (10 years out in November - huzzah), and I still remember feeling it was strange that we/they were called a cult. When I think of a cult, I think of something that has less than a thousand followers, or if you didn't want to put a number on it, a very small group. Small enough that they could be in the same area entirely, which plays to the idea of isolation. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim a membership of over 7.5 million. Mormons now claim north of 14 million (it was around 10 million when I left). I certainly think both of those beliefs are separate from what I would call Christianity, especially Mormons. I don't know about the Jehovah's Witness origins, but I would say Mormonism's origins began in what I would call a cult. But I believe at a certain point something like that evolves past being a "cult" and becomes a "religion".

Obviously, a lot depends on the definition. Based on the definition given on the documentary I watched, I think JW and Mormon's could still be cults because I don't think they're considered "normal" by society. I think Mormonism is closer to being "accepted", if I had to guess. Especially, with Mitt Romney now being a presidential nominee.

Here's the definition from the Yahoo! dicitonary - A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

From a Christian perspective, I think any religion that is outside of the accepted, mainstream Christian doctrine that still tries to present itself as "Christianity" is considered a cult. I think both JW and LDS would fall into this group regardless of their size.

I tend to agree with you for the most part though. When I think of a cult, I think of a small, isolated group of people that are devoted to a single leader. Like Wayne Bent's group (Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.)

I would also think longevity might be a factor.

With a trampoline maybe... :lol:

Maybe. His highlight videos reminded me of a kid I saw some years ago from Lower Merion High in Philly. Just blowing by people and dunking everything. What was his name?

Reality is they were exposed more for who they actually are instead of who they were projected to be a year ago. That's the true risk of staying a year too long...

That, and they passed on a weaker draft to stay and enter a deeper one.

At what point does a cult or a sect evolve into what we'd call a religion?

I was watching a documentary about Wayne Bent on the National Geographic channel the other night and their definition of a cult was something like this - a group of people who follow a leader or a belief system that is outside accepted society norms. That's a paraphrase from memory, but that was the idea.

It doesn't answer your question, but I think we could ask at what point does society accept it as "normal". I definitely think size would have an impact. How many people need to follow a religion for it to not be a "cult"? But, I don't think size is the end all. I think a belief could possibly be deemed normal without having X amount of followers.:idunno:

Wiggins needs to improve his athleticism...:lol:

His name is Andrew Wiggins...

Thanks for the heads up. I'm checking him out right now. When people see a great player, they always say they'll never be anyone that good, but that's silly. You never know.

I get a kick out of some people I talk to at work and in my family. Since Cal has been at UK I hear the same thing after every season. We'll be hurting next year, player like (insert name...Wall, Cousins, Knight, Davis, etc.) don't come along every year. I don't even think they realize that they've said it for 3 years. Now I'm reading about Jabari Parker being the best prospect since LBJ, and from the videos, I'm buying. If Calipari lands him, he may be the best player he's ever had.

Off-court concerns aside, he's an interesting prospect. Sort of a tweener. I'd call him a 3.5 instead of a 3 or 4. He's very skilled offensively and could be a real get at #16 if things work out.

There's no denying his skill with the ball in his hands. I think the question is on the defensive end where he may have trouble finding a spot...too slow to guard a 3 and too small to guard a 4. At the least, I could see him being a nice bench guy to put in and give you some offense.

Another interesting belief of theirs is that Jesus died on a stake rather than a cross.

I guess that means they don't use the term crucifixion? I wonder if they have a unique term for it.

They believe the scripture literally that 144,000 make it. I asked one once how it was decided who was part of the 144 since there has certainly been more than that over time. The response was "that is for Jehovah to decide". I politely said that I prefer better odds.

Nice.

But, don't they also believe that more than the 144,000 get to stay on earth.

144,000 go to heave.

The wicked are destroyed.

The rest get to stay on earth, or the new earth (or something like that).

I could be wrong, but I thought I read something like that once.

Even though many of us do not subscribe to their beliefs should those of us that call ourselves "Christian" respect them for walking the walk vs just talking the talk that most Christians do? I mean they get out and try to spread the word KNOWING they're going to get a lot of negative responses. We all talk about spreading the word but we rarely do.

They do this. Mormons do it as well I believe. Although not as frequently, I have had LDS members come to my house. Also, the Muslim's devotion...praying 5 times per day, etc. There is something to be said for their devotion, regardless of my view on their doctrine.

My next question would be, if you believe this theology, why bother doing missionary work. If people are already predetermined whether they will be saved or not, your preaching to someone who is not part of the elect will not suddenly make them part of the elect (I would assume only God can do that) and if the person was already part of the elect, wouldn't you be wasting your time preaching to them since I would assume the Holy Spirit would "graciously cause the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent and to come freely and willingly to Christ" regardless to whether you ever preached to them or not?

 

I am surprised that the followers of this theology use St. Augustine of Hippo as a source. While I am not a Augustinian scholar, I know he did not teach anything close to this. If he did, the Catholic Church would have never canonized him a saint or declared him a Doctor of the Church, a status only held by 33 (I believe) people, a status only two popes have achieved.

I think one answer would be obedience to God.

I have seldom watched the "teen mom" show on MTV, but I have a couple of times. If the idea is for MTV to promote shows that would steer their viewers toward "better" behavior, then I think the current one would serve much better than a show that follows a teen virgin around. From what I've witnessed, the show does not pretty up or glorify being a teen mom in the least. I think it would have the desired effect on most normal people, which is to make them horrified at the though of a teen pregnancy.

The issue to me would be that they have many other shows that seem to glorify sex and hooking up.

Of course, in a society where people want to make everything relative and subjective and make their own rules, why is teen pregnancy a bad thing?

No.

I think they are a young team that is going through the process of winning a championship. You have to lose before you win to learn how to win. They'd be silly to change anything. They need to start a plan for either signing Harden or replacing him if he leaves in 2014. Change nothing. Move Perkins maybe if possible but I wouldn't change a thing.

Absolutely. Let's not overreact here. This team is/was right there with Miami. I think there were two huge factors that turned the series against them, 1) the difference in experience and 2) performance of supporting players.

I thought there were several points in the series where Miami's experience and OKC's lack of impacted the games. Now that they've been through it, they'll learn. And, I think it is safe to say that they will learn from these experiences, because they have steadily progressed since this team was constructed.

To the second, going into the finals, OKC's supporting cast was considered the better group. Unfortunately for them, the finals didn't play out that way. Miami's supporting players played better than they have since the Big Three was put together. They picked a great time to do it, but in all honesty, who expected that to happen. Battier thought he was a collegiate All-American playing at Cameron Indoor again. All those shooters who'd been disappointments (Jones, Miller, etc.) were lights out. Chalmers upped his game. On the flipside, OKC's guys never got going. Harden had a terrible series. The other guys, (Sef-a-losh-a), Ibaka, etc., did not play to their expected level, IMO.

Perhaps the Heat supporting players have found their groove, but I don't expect them to play at that same level again.

The point being, there wasn't a huge difference in these teams, IMO, and I think the valuable experience OKC gained from this finals trip will make them a better team.

Michael Jordan is the greatest.

Kobe is/was the best to come after MJ. Of the current NBA stars, I think only Lebron and Durant have a chance to make a run at that honor. Who knows what kinds of players will come in the future?

They are splitting ASOS into two seasons, right? At least that is what I've read. I think that will help out tremendously. I think that should have been done with ACOK and this season.

They covered the second book and part of the third in 10 episodes. Too much, IMO. As a reader, I have no trouble following the show, but I think it would be more difficult for someone else to catch all the nuances and such. That is, if they even have time to include it. I love it and think they've done a nice job thus far, but I think the show will benefit tremendously from the less material/more time combination. I think it will give it room to breathe a little, develop some characters, widen the story without things seeming rushed or crammed in. I got that feeling a few times during Season 2.

I wouldn't be surprised if Books 4 and 5 end up being 3 or 4 seasons on TV.

FWIW, I loved AFFC and ADWD, just like the first three. It is an amazingly detailed world he has created.

The reaction of the adults in the church is the most upsetting thing to me. I bet you'd be able to hear crickets in the church I attend in that same scenario.

I didn't see it as hate speech, but that's just me. (Admittedly, I don't know the laws regarding hate speech and how they are specifically written and applied.)

I agree with spindoc's posts. And, I do find it curious how certain "sins" seem to garner so much focus and attention. It is a difficult issue and this wouldn't be at the top of my list on how to address it.