PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
How is defeating my argument? Jim Rice should have been a HOF a long time ago but because he had a bad relationship with the media it took him a long time to get into it.
Manning is loved by the media... that helped him, i never said it was a horrible choice.
My argument is that the writers don't look at every aspect, Favre made everyone else around him better, and last time I check MVP mean Most Valuable Player. Which mean person who does the most and helps out the most
Favre made Sidney Rice into a threat, Percy Harvin looked very good his first year catching the ball, and made the vikes TE look good
Who did Manning make look good? Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne? They were good before this season.
Anyone who wacthed the NFL in 09 saw a Colts team with no running game and a very average defense win 14 straight, including 7 by less than a TD. You said yourself,Manning wasn't a BAD choice.
That's why it defeats your argument. The writers didn't make some ridiculous or illogical or emotion based decision.
Therefore all you're really saying is that the writers shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't agree with YOU.
Get over yourself.
-
i'm not saying Manning wasn't a good choice, i just believe Favre and Brees who both had better stats were the better choices
By saying Manning was a good or even viable choice, you're sort of defeating your argument that writers shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It's an opinion based award, just like the HOF.
Also, considering how awful the coaches polls can be in NCAA basketball and football, and how reticent to change the veteran's committees in all the HOFs have been, I'm not sure the solution is to give the decisions over to people 'in the business' as it were.
-
The problem then is that you are splitting the focus. Whereas they could hold off on Low Ki and have a similar dominant dynamic on the next "season" of the show.
Possibly. I guess the difference is I dont think the WWE sees Low Ki as a 'star' the sameway they do Danielson, so that even if he wereon next "season's" show he's not going to be the focus regardless.
-
I think not having lowki was a great movie. There is one dominate person on the show right now. That is danial........if you brough in ki would you want him to play second fiddle to him. Or would you want to take some screen from danial to give to ki?
Low ki would be a clear second fiddle. The only problem I have with the show right now is that no one seems that interesting beyond Danielson.
But of course, that could change as the show goes along.
We'll see...I just don't think it would've been a bad idea to have another more seasoned worker in this batch of rookies.
-
heath slater already gets on my nerves. that stupid taunt and head shaking thing has got to go. bush league.
on a positive note, i liked tarver a lot.
Totally agree. it was so incredibly repetitive. He did it so often during the video pormo thing that I wondered if there is anything to his character byond the head wag and toungue deal. He looked like a one note indy card guy.
Also agree that I like Tarver. A lot.
Heath Slater impressed me. I think that he has the perfect gimmick, and he plays it real well. Also, Daniel Bryan has great in ring skills imo, but I just can't buy him as a future world champ. I just don't think that he has the star quality and charisma that makes world champions, well, world champions. To me he looks like some skinny kid who works at a fast food place, not a pro wrestler. But that's just my opinion. Anyways, I think that he has great in ring skills, so it will be cool to watch his matches."great in ring skills imo" lol
The more you post the more I realize we - as fans - have almost nothing in common.
I really liked the show. I thought the storylines were varied and the interactions were smart. I loved the fact that the first episode was the American Dragon Power Hour, because he's obviously the one performer with the biggest following.
Not including Low Ki was a mistake.
I don't know tons about the rookies, and the show made me want to tune in and learn more about them. So...mission accomplished.
-
Y'know...this HBK/Taker thing has been built so well..how does it NOT main event WM?
-
A "full-fledged babyface" turn, wherein he becomes a hand-slappin' fun-lovin' happy-go-lucky babyface, would be the dumbest thing ever. No one would be dumb enough to suggest that.
That's sort of what they did last time.
but you're right: if written in the manner you describe, it would work.
-
I'm just kinda surprised at the apparent "OMG he must be an insider!!!!" reactions. In an age where Chris Jericho is twittering about getting arrested and Matt Hardy is on Youtube asking fans whether he should wear tights or cargo pants, why do we care that a mysterious message board poster may or may not be an 'insider'? Celebrity worship run amok.
In a world full of web writers and fans talking out their ass, someone who actually knows what's going to happen comes off as cool. Especially because they are posting in a really obscure section of the site.
EDIT: Here's the live PBP thread. Do a search for Mysterious and you'll find his posts. Not that big a deal, but it keeps the commentors entertained.
Currently both heel, but Orton should be turning babyface. For reasons that escape me, WWE are trying to keep him heel for the time being. Orton could /should be a GIGANTIC babyface. The crowd popped huge for his entrance. There were tons of RKO chants. He seems to be mainly fighting Heels right now, so I don't know why they haven't turned him. No way fans are gonna cheer Cody or Ted over him. Maybe they're just saving the turn for the build to Wrestlemania.His last face turn was a disaster. A face turn here would probably be as well.
He gets face pops because of how he's portrayed as a heel...so he can't go full-fledged babyface. And in this environment, I'm not sure how the E would do with an anti-hero type. They're better off just leaving him as is actually and allow the fans to respond to him based on his opponents.
-
Please point to me in Mr T's post where it explains all that extra information. Of course I don't "get it" based on only knowing that he called two things - one which was remarkably obvious.
BTW, if this guy's so good, why do Dirt Sheets run any other stories at all? Why not have him be the sole voice, since he's the only right one?
He posts in the comments section of the live play-by-play article the day of the event. That's it. He doesn't write stories. IIRC he doesn't even post on the site's message boards.
Really, if you don't check the site regularly enough to know the comments section is pretty f'n entertaining, you would have no idea who this guy is.
But everyone who does read the comments regularly during the live PBP knows who Mysterious is.
The columnists mention him/her every once in a while, but I'm sure if the site tried to make a big deal out of it, the insider would be found pretty quik and it'd be done with.
-
Has he done this long?
If he is an insider would the WWE not be aware of who it is?
A couple years.
How much do you think the people at the E read sites?
-
Mr T, I don't think that "Mysterious" guy has any edge regarding the second thing you mentioned (in white). I called that from the Royal Rumble.
You're not getting it. He doesn't "predict" or do ridiculous fantasy booking type posts.
He posts in the comments section the day of the PPV and tells you what happens on the card. Not just W/L's but suprise appearances, surprise appearances, the whole bit.
He almost HAS to be an employee of the WWE; he predicted Sheamus' win, the Edge appearance..I could go on.
In the years that I've read the site, I can count the times he's been wrong on one hand.
-
Yep Kaz at the time was around the uppermidcard and Suicide never got past midcard. If they where going to do it much better to put an undercard wrestler or a "new" signing under it and then have him revealed and then move on.
I actually thought it would've been interesting to run a multiple personality storyline with Daniels: Suicide, Curry Man, Fallen Angel, and then finally just 'Daniels'
-
Has anyone seen the "Mysterious" guy who posts the results in the 411 coverage before the PPV? Called the Batista thing, called there would be no women's title match... Spoiler in white (Don't quote) Called Jericho to win the SD chamber with HBK's interference.
YES!!!
This guy is the single best reason to read the PBP on 411.
-
I just don't agree with having Cena win then have him lose 30 seconds later, I would have rather seen Batista enter the EC some how or have Cena defend the title on RAW only to lose to Batista by cheating or w/e then. If they want Batista/Cena for WM fine, I dont think any of us really saw Shamus keeping it long anyway.
Because havign Batista come out to 'take advantage' of a weakened Cena puts him over as a heel and furthers the McMahon/Batista partnership.
Seriously..it's a pretty effective swerve and makes sense on a lot of levels.
-
Um and what was the point of that? (In regards to the Spoilers w/o going into it)
It's a publicly traded company making sure that their world title main event in the biggest event of the year will involve two of (if not the two most) over and marketable performers in the company...AND a well known angle that will probably draw in tons of viewers on its own.
I mean...keeping the belt where it was would've been frickin nuts.
-
Some people play their personality up, while others that is their true personality. Richard Hatch is a jerk (family site must not swear) in real life, what you saw on television was not him playing to the camera it was him.
But I guess people couldn't possibly be jerks in real life and they all play it up for the cameras.
I guess, and I know this is just your opinion, but like I said: what difference does it make? He's a ****y heel. You're not supposed to like him.
-
I agree his background is not any less legitimate, my problem with him is I did not like him on the RW/RR Challenges. Now I am not sure if he was playing to the camera while on those shows but to me he came across as a jerk.
Is this a valid reason? Who knows, but it is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
You're not sure? So..you're still not sure if the people on those reality shows are working the camera or being encouraged to 'play characters.'
OK
EDIT: Actually, if you didn't like him on those shows, and his character is basically an arrogant Hollywood douchebag, wouldn't it make it easier to at least appreciate his work as a heel? I mean..his is actually playing someone you're supposed to dislike.
-
Call be narrow minded but I will never be able to take the Miz seriously. To me he will always be the guy from The Real World.exactly.
You're being narrow minded.
He was a 23 year old guy who loved wrestling his whole life before he went to UPW. And then Tough Enough. And then OVW.
He's not a seasoned worker, but he's certainly not the worst new worker that has showed up in recent years. He has good charisma. That's the reason he showed up on RW in the first place and why the producers kept bringing him back for challenges. And he knows how to work a crowd.
It's a work. What kind of background does someone need to have before you can 'take them seriously?' NCAA champion? Years in the indies? Former strip club bouncer?
Because if you look up and down that roster, I'm not sure how Miz's background is any less legitimate than the typical worker being brought up through the E's current development structure.
-
Well if their schedules are so light then why are they retiring ?
Where exactly is the news of their impending retirement?
-
Indeed. So by extension, their midcarders may have been just midcarders. But because the stage was bigger, they were still better known and thus bigger stars than the midcarders in today's number 2, TNA. Ditto fairly recent signees a la Desmond Wolfe just jumping up to today's number 2 for that matter.
Going back to your Nasty Boys point: they were bigger stars THEN but considering how long they've been completely out of the limelight do you think it's fair to think they carry the same name value?
I mean...really? I'd have to see demographics and numbers that show that TNA's audiences skews to failry old crowd (TV-wise) to believe that the Nasy Boys carry any sort of significance to the fans watching.
-
Here's my take on OJ: if he were an established character who happened to be bi, then fine.
But if the defining aspect of his character is his sexuality and the way he uses it to his advantage or whatever, then the only way it works is if he's a feel. Because wrestling fans aren't going to 'root' for that.
And that actually works for a heel character btw. He'd be black Adrian Adonis or whatever.
-
That is why i think it would work. I don't see jordon willing to make a joke out of his life style. Just as i don't see kanyon willing to play a over the top homosexual charactar. I would love to see a bad ass wresting who just happens to be bi. could work.
Not to sound completely insensitive, but I honestly don't think that sounds realistic.
Orlando's sexuality is his business. But in the world of wrestling, especially in a fed like TNA, his personal preferences won't be dealt with class or dignity or even basic common decency.
Him being bisexual is one thing. His on-air character is something completely different,
This is going to be treated as a joke and for shock value.
-
Thank and once again I am not knocking Thomas, I think he was a great player with great stats, just not the best at his position at any one given time, sure maybe in the AL he ruled the 1B position for 6 years or whatever, but I believe until the emergence of Albert P. Bags was the man, he was more athletic, was more durable, better glove, and a great bat.
Today the people who vote players in look at a lot more than HR, if it weren't true Jim Rice would have been a first ballot, but many things go into it
Look at Dick LeBeau of the Steelers, the man is the 8th on the all-time INT leaders, just being passed for 7th this year by Sharper, has had tons of great Defensive teams, and just not got into the hall
They look at everything now, if you had a crappy relationship with the media (Bonds, Rice) they will keep you out of it, if you were a bad person on the outside of the game (Irvin) they will make you wait, numbers don't do it anymore, a lot more goes into it
I think you're overstating the obvious here. The voters have ALWAYS looked at everything. That's why a true DH still isn't represented.
Rice was hurt by his relationship with the media, but his numbers also weren't exactly overwhelming (not even 400 HR or 1500 RBI at a power premium position).
Plus he was hurt because his candidacy came along right when offensive numbers exploded ...lotta 80 guys started looking bad in comparison: Garvey, Carter, Murphy etc
Frank Thomas put up historically significant numbers. He was bad in the field, and you could argue he wasn't the TOP 1b in the majors, but there's no way he's not in the HOF.
-
Actually, think about it. Does Danielson need much mentoring? Would he benefit with Jericho, or would Wade benefit better with someone like Jericho?
To me it makes sense, and I understand where other's might not think so, but I have to state that this is exactly how I would do it. I would pair up my bigger names with the more unknown wrestler's, and the ones that do have a name outside of the WWE I would pair with my lesser talent, perhaps they could learn from each other. ON a reality show, it will probably make Danielson look alot better with MIZ as his mentor (meaning, he might outshine Miz, where Jericho is not going to be easy to outshine).
Just saying, I think it makes sense.
I agree that it makes sense but not with your reasoning
What is Danielson's weakness? Mic work, promos, character. So pair him up with the obnoxious heel and then he doesn't have to worry about. He gets over as a character by standing up to the heel that fans love to hate.
Official MLB Discussion Thread
in The Dog Pound
Posted
You're still not getting it:
I never said I thought Manning was the right choice. That's not even the point.
You said that writers shouldn't be allowed to vote on the MVP (or anything, ever, actually ) based on the fact that they voted Peyton Manning the MVP.
Can you argue that others were more deserving? Obviously.
But the only way you could say that your argument actually holds up would be to somehow show that voting for Manning was so incredibly indefensible and unreasonable that it totally destroys their credibility. That voting for Payton Manning actually proves that the writers who voted for the award are completely incompetent.
So again...all you've really said in your last three posts is that all writers have zero credibility basically because they disagree with YOU.
Just because YOU don't agree with their votes does not automatically mean they don't know what they're talking about.
I'll take Peter King's opinion over GatorBait19 if it's all the same to you, ok?