White Sox Josh

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 04:24 PM) I read the book and it seemed to have a lot of side stories and flashbacks. Is the film the same? yes. I loved the book. They have to cut out some background stuff and the stay seems a bit shorter in the movie than in the book but it is very true to the book.

QUOTE(DePloderer @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) Jarhead is coming out over here soon. The adverts look good but is it? Best film of the year. JMO. Warning though: Don't go into it expecting a huge War Epic.

QUOTE(Spiff @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) Broken Flowers, worst movie evarrrr, surefire cure for insomnia. yeah that was bad. Here is my top 10 list: 1. Wolf Creek 2. Yours, Mine & Ours 3. Transporter 2 4. Brokeback Mountain 5. Memoirs of a Geisha (my mom made me see it with her for her birthday) 6. Broken Flowers 7. Son of the Mask 8. House of Wax 9. Doom 10. Alone in the Dark

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Batman:Begins.. Though I didn't like the fact they are going to use Joker as the next villian. Sin City Wedding Crashers Be Cool The Skelton Key liked it but Get Shorty was much better.

QUOTE(BDavisFutureHOF @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) The first half of the WOTW was pretty good -- atleast entertaining -- but the 2nd half was absolutely horrible -- I honestly could not believe that it was one of the highest grossing movies of '05 -- don't people talk anymore? I liked War of the Worlds for the most part. I think it was sort of a reminder of how good a storyteller Spielberg is. I really liked Tim Robbins performance.

My Top 5 Worst movies of 2005 are: 1. Wolf Creek 2. Yours, Mine & Ours 3. Transporter 2 4. Brokeback Mountain 5. Memoirs of a Geisha (my mom made me see it with her for her birthday)

Confidence is a great movie. This movie shows why Dustin Hoffman is a great actor. He gives one of his best performances. A very funny movie with big surprises, great twists, and a top notch cast.

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 12:07 AM) Fans of the female body will be happy to know there is plenty of heterosexual action in Brokeback Mountain. there is more of that than there is gay sex.

QUOTE(q\/\/3r+y @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 06:52 PM) Only because there are two gay guys in it. Two lesbians? You guys would be loving it. Dude my cousin is gay.I have no problem with gay people. I just didn't like the movie.

1. Jarhead 2. Crash 3. Syriana 4. King Kong 5. Sin City 6. Hustle & Flow 7. Batman Begins 8. Two for the Money 9. Wedding Crashers 10. 40 Year Old Virgin Films I haven't seen yet but that could very well make this list once I have seen them: Match Point The New World The Producers

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 06:53 PM) Have you two seen the movie? I haven't and I don't plan on it, but I don't know how you can definitively say its a piece of crap without watching it. It doesn't interest me one bit but to say its horrible is another story, especially since I've never seen it, nor will I. I never saw Titanic either. yes i did. The acting was great and deserve Academy Award nominations. However the screenplay is awful and they try so hard to be dramatci it almost becomes laughable.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 05:27 PM) ^^^ It's the perfect choice. Propaganda piece with big names. What we need now is a movie about abortion and the woman's right to choose... It's kinda funny that the people fighting for the right to have personal responsibility and rights, defend people who in general have zero regard for their personal responsibility. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN=OVERRATED!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 12:26 AM) And I'll ask again, how much money will the Texans be paying those 2 if they keep em both, and will using Bush that way be beneficial to the Texans if they are going to pay him like a #1 pick? They were pretty high on the Salary Cap this season as well, IIRC. Why not just draft an offensive lineman. I mean they have a good RB.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 11:07 PM) He will be? To be honest, if those are our lefty candidates, I'd rather we ditch the idea of 2 lefties in the pen, and just go with the best available arm. Last year, when we were desperate to have two lefties on the team, it cost us a couple of games cause we had Kevin Walker on the team. Don't judge Munoz by the start against the Expos. He was put in an awful situation. He came back in September of that year and had a an ERA below 2 pitching out of the bullpen for the sox. I think hitters hit like .180 off of him that month.

Munoz will be fine as the 2nd Lefty Reliever. I am glad he is getting another chance.

Good. I think the Sox maybe need another arm in the bullpen and they will be all set.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) How much money are the Texans going to be paying those two RB's if they keep both though? Plus I think Bush is more valuable than a change of pace back, the way Cinci use Chris Perry somehow. And then of course the Texans have a LOT of other needs to fill. Davis is a good RB and Bush can start at WR and still return punts. He would get 10-15 rushes a game and play the rest of the game at WR and return punts for the Texans.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) I sort of agree with you, but Favre is a little different because he directly affects the outcome of every game. Now if you want to talk about past baseball superstars, I completely agree with you. Roger Clemens, Frank Thomas, Wade Boggs, Eddie Murray, etc. All of them played past their primes and still contributed to their respective teams. How can you say Clemens is past his prime? He had an ERA below 2 this season.

Michigan also landed the #9 Cornerback in the country Steve Brown. Great start in recruiting this year for the Big Blue.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2283797 Texans taking Bush, even if Young enters. like is said before keep Davis as the starting RB however you use Bush the way USC used him this season. He could pretty much become another WR who could also get 10-15 rushes a game.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 7, 2006 -> 04:54 AM) Oh, I see now. Character over talent only applies to the 1st three rounds of the draft because drafting a questionable character player in the 5th round would minimize your risks. Yep, I see exactly how character fits into this equation. Because when you draft a guy in the first 3 rounds he will probably make more money. pretty much drafting a guy in the last 4 rounds you are just filling up roster space. You won't have to pay much and he won't be expected to be anything other than a backup. If he does better great. If not it doesn't hurt you that much.

http://michigan.scout.com/2/486455.html

Saturday Washington Tampa Bay Jacksonville New England Sunday Carolina NY Giants Pittsburgh Cincinnati

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) He still going to get drafted. Talent is always above attitude. Otherwise the sox wouldnt have picked up bobby jenks for example. People are always willing to take a chance, especially when your last name is Vick. that is different. It didn't really cost them that much and if he sucked or was still injured they could just let him go. Now if Vick was still around in the 4th or 5th round I would say yes. But not in the first 3 rounds.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jan 6, 2006 -> 03:49 PM) well, he's obviously a talented football player, and yes, he has major character issues and too many off-field troubles. but if Clarett can bomb at the combine and be drafted on the first day, and character issues knocked someone with Randy Moss's skill set to #18, why wouldn't Vick get drafted? because I would put the character of a person higher. He is going to represent your franchise and you don't want a guy getting arrested and be in trouble with the law. Character first, talent second if the talent is close.