specifics

[J.D.]

Re: specifics

Specificity is a great word

[Happy]

Re: specifics

Snodgrass is going down the tubes.

[state of hockey]

Re: specifics

Pastrami just isn't the same without it being on rye.

[jcarter7669]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site the lack of concrete comments is discouraging. The closest approach to analys is stuff like "goaltending was good [or bad]," or "Nemo had a great game [or not]." I'd rather read that a goaltender is vulnerable on the stick side, or a forward never goes to his backhand, or the power play is built on Snodgrass rotating to the slot. Dang near anything besides chest beating and a horde of Glendowers calling spirits from the vasty deep.

NickP masturbates with his right hand. Specific enough?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: specifics

lol. Sorry dude, I've been around here for 11+ years and you need to adjust your expectations.

You have to forgive Bear Red. He's just trying to give Cornell an advantage. What he doesn't realize is that we don't call out our players like that.

[Zudnic]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site

lol. Sorry dude, I've been around here for 11+ years and you need to adjust your expectations.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: specifics

Specifically, this thread sucks.

[huskyfan]

Re: specifics

bah. if you don't like it change the channel.

[goldy_331]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site the lack of concrete comments is discouraging. The closest approach to analys is stuff like "goaltending was good [or bad]," or "Nemo had a great game [or not]." I'd rather read that a goaltender is vulnerable on the stick side, or a forward never goes to his backhand, or the power play is built on Snodgrass rotating to the slot. Dang near anything besides chest beating and a horde of Glendowers calling spirits from the vasty deep.

You're right. For your own good, I think you should just abandon this site and never return. There is nothing of any value posted here.

[moose97]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site the lack of concrete comments is discouraging. The closest approach to analys is stuff like "goaltending was good [or bad]," or "Nemo had a great game [or not]." I'd rather read that a goaltender is vulnerable on the stick side, or a forward never goes to his backhand, or the power play is built on Snodgrass rotating to the slot. Dang near anything besides chest beating and a horde of Glendowers calling spirits from the vasty deep.

You misspelled David's last name, but the old-school UAH reference is very timely...

[alfablue]

Re: specifics

hockeyplayer: You bill yourself as a player. I am only a fan, but willing to learn. Teach me. Teach something besides ego-generated predictions and belittleings, if you are able.

Step #1, don't belittle people who could be giving you useful information.

Since you can't seem to get past #1, no need to post step 2.

Seriously- you claim to want to be taught something, and belittle opinions of people posting information without actually asking a specific question like- what makes a good pass, or what would be a good shot. Just tell everyone the information is useless. That's a great way to get more/better info out of people....

[Osorojo]

Re: specifics

hockeyplayer: You bill yourself as a player. I am only a fan, but willing to learn. Teach me. Teach something besides ego-generated predictions and belittleings, if you are able.

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: specifics

Wait, we're supposed to read the posts here? All I ever do is visit to check out what new thread titles have been put up. Seriously, this board has some of the most creative (and humorous) thread starters on the Inter-web. Of couse with a title of "specifics" this thread is sub-par in that regard. You should at least go with an upper case "S" or add some other characters like ?!$@!*&!? to jazz it up a bit.

Ryan J

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site the lack of concrete comments is discouraging. The closest approach to analys is stuff like "goaltending was good [or bad]," or "Nemo had a great game [or not]." I'd rather read that a goaltender is vulnerable on the stick side, or a forward never goes to his backhand, or the power play is built on Snodgrass rotating to the slot. Dang near anything besides chest beating and a horde of Glendowers calling spirits from the vasty deep.

Osorojo never posts anything substantial. Better?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: specifics

With the experience and sophistication of posters on this site the lack of concrete comments is discouraging. The closest approach to analys is stuff like "goaltending was good [or bad]," or "Nemo had a great game [or not]." I'd rather read that a goaltender is vulnerable on the stick side, or a forward never goes to his backhand, or the power play is built on Snodgrass rotating to the slot. Dang near anything besides chest beating and a horde of Glendowers calling spirits from the vasty deep.

Fat Mike's job needs to be as difficult as possible.