[QUOTE="Denji"]The PSN isn't limited to a perticular console, it's a online service that will always continue to grow and evolve, look at Xbox Live, that started on the Xbox and Microsoft have carried it over, there's no reason why Sony will not do the same and implement the network into the PS4 . I'm not familiar with the xbox and 360 online seeing as how i've never owned either. But you're saying that the account that was created on the xbox in 2003 for example (username xboxking or something like that), is still the same account in 2010? You have the same name, and a record of everything you did on the account since 03? If that's the case it would only make sense that sony would do something similar right?Meh, PS3's version of PSN would be completely dead by 2018/2020. That's my opinion anyways. They always seem to kill an online service over a set period of time that isn't on PC.
MushroomWig
sixringz1's forum posts
Sorry if this has been explained, but what is going to happen to your psn account, trophies, etc once the ps4 comes out? has it already been clarified that everything will just continue and you won't lose anything or will you have to register all over again with the new system and not carry over your trophies from the previous system? thanks
[QUOTE="Darth_Revan_666"][QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]Exactly, aren't there like 50 guys on an NFL roster? But we judge the QB on SB wins :roll:monkeytoes61
Yeah, and thats even without considering the whole coaching crew.
Whether we like it or not, QBs are judged on how much they win. If Marino had won a couple, he would be the greatest QB of all time, over Elway or Montana. But he didn't, so he drops behind those two. If Jim Kelly gets just one of those four, he is top ten of all time. That's why unless Peyton puts up some ridiculous numbers that can dwarf Brady's, Tom will ALWAYS be considered the better QB .That right there is my problem. "If Jim Kelly just wins one of those four, he is top ten of all time". Jim Kelly did the EXACT SAME THING in his first SB that Brady did in his (actually it was harder cause the Bills were losing, the Pats were tied). He lead his team down the field in the final minute to set up a game winning fg from 47 yards (the same distance as Vinaterri's kick). Norwood misses his and Viniaterri makes his. So because SOMEONE ELSE makes the kick, that somehow dictates the QUARTERBACKS greatness despite the fact the QB had NOTHING to do with that final kick. Brady's kicker makes the kick, Kelly's misses the kick FROM THE SAME DISTANCE, and because of that Brady is looked at as an all time great clutch qb, while Kelly is looked at as a choker who couldn't get it done when it counts. They were in the EXACT SAME POSITION. one kick went in, the other didn't.That makes ZERO SENSE to me and there is no way to justify or defend that argument.Forget sports, how would anyone like it if "their" legacy in whatever profession they have is dictated by someone elses performance. It's ridiculous. There are 3 aspects to football - offense, defense, special teams. All of which have a significant impact on the game. And with the few exceptions (Bush, Hester, Harvin, etc) you only play one of those 3. And you DEFINITELY only play one of those 3 if you are a qb. So let me break this down to everyone in something they can relate to since most people here are in HS or College. If you have a group assignment with 3 people and you get an A on your part but your 2 partners get an F, guess what = YOU FAIL. A qb can only do so much. In football more than ANY OTHER SPORT, one person, especially a qb, should NEVER have their greatness dictated by what the TEAM does. Now if your D and special teams play great, and the qb sucks (rex grossman), then he can take the heat. But if you are Kurt Warner and have the 3 highest passing totals in SB history, but yet you only win one of three SB's, he shouldn't be looked down on cause of that. Hell, big ben got a hist first SB DESPITE him cause he SUCKED in that game.
If this was basketball i'd be right with you cause you can have EQUAL impact on both ends of the floor and there's only 5 people on the court per team. You can have a greater impact on the entire game, but you can't do that in football. In football it's the eyeball test. Forget the SB's, John Elway was the same exact qb at the middle of his career than he was at the end (in fact he was better), but terrell davis came along, and his team was overall better, that's why he won. If you switch Marino and Montana, i promise you Marino has at least one ring. It's so much bigger than one guy and no matter what the "media and so called experts say", you will never catch me playing the SB card as the primary argument for who is greater. Is it a factor? absolutely. But it doesn't hold anywhere near the same weight as it would if we were talking NBA
University of Maryland in the house. 2 final fours, one ncaa title, and numerous trips to the playoffs. You can count on one thing - the lights won't be too bright for him. He won't sink under pressure. He'll play his game, which is more than enough for a backup pg in the triangle offense
[QUOTE="Not-A-Stalker"]I think by the end of his career, Peyton Manning will be the best QB to ever play the game. monkeytoes61He's gonna have to chalk up a couple more Super Bowls before he can come close to Montana, Elway and Unitas. Had to jump in on this one cause every time i see John Elway's name in this list it makes me laugh because of something i DISTINCTLY remember from when i was in my teens. It was 1995/96 and i was driving home from somewhere with my dad and all he listened to was sports radio. This was right around the time Dan Reeves and Elway were having all their issues, and Reeves either got fired that year or the next, i can't remember. There were talks about him potentially getting traded to the redskins (i live in the DC area so it was local sports talk radio). His career had reached a fork in the road. But here is the thing i will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS remember from that ride home. On that station their question to their listeners for them to call in and comment on was "Is John Elway a hall of famer"? This was before terrel davis and the 2 super bowls. Not is he the best ever, but is he a HALL OF FAMER? And now some people view him as the best ever. It just amazes me that you can be in the league for 12 seasons and have radio shows question whether you are a hall of famer, and then 3 years later people are saying "you are one of, if not the best qb ever". He didn't change in those 3 years. Terrell Davis came around, he had a better team, and he just happened to win 2 super bowls. "HIS" talent didn't improve in those last 3 years, but all the sudden now he's "the best ever" in some people's eyes. This whole super bowl = great individual player has, and always will boggle my mind.
oh and by the way, the answers were 50/50 from the callers on whether or not if he retired right then would he be a hall of famer (1995). Elway was the same guy all those years. He made it to super bowls before and just lost cause he didn't have the better team. He won the two when he had the better TEAM and because of that his greatness as an INDIVIDUAL went from questioning whether he was a HOF to best ever? I'll never get it i guess
[QUOTE="hockey73"]I've always enjoyed watching Reynolds play at Nova, I heard he he dropped out of the draft though. I hope he gets a chance with a team, I think he has the potential to positively contribute. taj7575
I think he can become a great player in the NBA. I can see him turn into another Aaron Brooks.
no way. isn't nearly quick enough or athletic enough to be successful in the nba. Aaron brooks is a blur to guard. Scottie reynolds can't break down players one on one at the nba level. I think he'll find a spot on a roster though because his athletic limitations should have stopped him from being a productive college player, but they didn't. He won't be able to be like that in the pros, but i def can see him as a solid backup or third stringpg for a decade. Trust me, these nba general managers know what they are doing. There'sa reason that not only didn't he get drafted, his name wasn't even on the top 100 list of prospects and wasn't mentioned at all during the entire draft. There's a reason for thatcall me old school but movies like bambi, pinocchio and cinderella have had more of an impact on pop culture than some of those movies ever will. To each their own
I'll take this serious for you. Right now would be the BEST time to get in the game because the genre has had a shift over the last few years. Whether you want to thank Kanye West or whatever, the idea that you have to be hood or from the projects, is something of the past. I mean you have white guys like Asher Roth who is a regular white guy with ZERO hood appeal. I'm in my late 20's and been into hip hop since the chronic came out. I can tell you now that the genre sucks in my opinion now. Half the stuff you hear on the radio now, would get ZERO airplay in the mid 90's. I mean come on, someone like soulja boy would get laughed out of the studio 15 yrs ago, but in today's world he's a platinum selling artist. I mean look at lil wayne. He sucked for his first couple albums (still sucks in my opinion), but the level of competition has died down so much that he can excel despite the fact that his style has never changed. He didn't get better, the genre got worse. Nowadays it doesn't even matter what you say, if you get a hot beat and a hot hook anybody could get on the radio.Can you make it in the industry not being a thugged out sterotypical rapper? Kinda like Drake. I love this genre, love the music, the realness in certain artists, stuff like that. While I respect people like Lil Wayne and the rappers that are "hot" right now, they lack a certain appeal to me. Basically I wanna be a hip-hop artist/rapper/whatever because I just have a lot to say and this is how I want to express it. Some quick things to address:
- I am white.
- I am notone of those white kids who acts like a stupid little gang banger.
- I have strong, meaningful lyrics.
- I have no clue about beats or any of that good stuff.
This is something of a dream for me so if OT could take it seriously and give me some feedback that'd be great. I know none of you are famous or have any experience in this, I'd just like to talk about it with someone who can appreciate what I'm thinking here. So yea, thats my question, to be successful in the rap/hip-hop industry, do you think you HAVE to meet the stereotype? And I don't mean "Can I be like Eminem?" I mean can someone like me (a young white male with a lot to say) break into a genre that wasn't made for people like me? And again, I'm looking for real opinions and feedback here, not stupid answers or someone making fun of it. That'd be great :)
kaze347
You are in an intersting situation because someone like you is taken more seriously now, but at the same time, that means there will be a lot more people like you that will be thinking the same thing. And since the genre is so watered down it's not necessarily who's "the best" anymore, it's just who is in the right place at the right time, and they'll take a shot on you.
And yes i have some experience with this as the cousin of one of my closest friends had a minor record deal and had a couple songs played on the local radio stations, when they try to promote local talent. It didn't work out for him. (He's a black guy and has spent a good amount of time in jail so he might not be comparable to your situation, LOL!). Anyway, go for it. The worst thing that can happen is you don't make it you. You won't be the first and you won't be the last. Just remember it's not what you know it's who you know. Get the right connections and there's always a chance
Ray Lewis is the best middle linebacker of all time in my opinion, but he's not that guy anymore and i don't think anyone says he is. So to have him on this list doesn't make much sense because it seems like you penalized him for his all time greatness he displayed during his prime.
[QUOTE="sixringz1"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"] It's true. Manning almost never gets sacked, and had all kinds of weapons around him. CleanPlayerboth of you are talking about "weapons" on offense as if that is the only reason teams win. With all due respect to Brady, Bledsoe, or whoever was playing qb. The PRIMARY reason the pats won 3 super bowls was cause of their superior defense and special teams. Offensively there is no question Manning had more weapons, but the reason the colts could never get past the pats wasn't cause of tom brady, it was cause of the likes of Ty Law, Bruschi, Mcginnest, seymour, etc and the patriots defensive scheme. I mean i sware a couple of those games ty law caught more balls from manning than harrison did. lol. The colts D has improved a lot over the years but they still can't stop the run, and at the end of the day they don't put any fear in opposing offenses. But because of their improved D they are now viewed as a legit SB contender year in year out, where as in the early 2000's they weren't. There are 3 parts to football - offense, defense, special teams. At the begining of the decade they were great at offense but terrible at defense and special teams. I can't believe i'm writing so much on something i don't care about. lol. anyway this debate will never go awayI disagree with you on primary reason the Pats won 3 superbowls....they won those super bowls because their QB took advantage of the oppurtunity to win the game. Brady, not anyone else, led his offense in field goal territory to win the game. Colts had a great defense if I'm not mistaken during those years, they had one of the best pass-rushers in the league, great corners, and a legit safety. I can't accept their defense being an excuse for them not getting past the Patriots. Its on the QB, he made mistakes when pressure was in his face. If both of these QB's were on a team like the Lions/Browns where they had no O-Line, I still think Brady would've had the better career. Brady is better under pressure than Manning. i'm assuming you're a pats fan so i'll try to bring a comparison into your wheelhouse. It would be like saying the reason the giants defeated the pats in the superbowl was because eli (ironically another manning, lol) "took advantage of the opportunity to win the game". No the reason they won that game was cause for 4 quarters the giants defense was living in the patriots backfield. Now if you acknowledge that the reason the giants won that game was cause of Eli and not their D i won't continue, but if you don't than you have to say the same thing about the pats first ring. It was the same scenerio. The defense of the pats held arguably the best offense in the history of the league to 17 points. Yes Brady lead the final drive, and yes vinetierri made the kick, but it was their D for 4 quarters that was the reason they won. As for the Colts D, LOL!!! They NEVER had a great D during the pats super bowl years. They were CONSISTANTLY ranked in the bottom 10 of the league. They had a couple solid PLAYERS, but not a great UNIT, and the numbers verified that. They have improved greatly over the last 3-4 years. Nobody is gonna confuse them with the Ravens or anything, but they are more than respectable, and that's why i said they are now viewed as LEGIT superbowl contenders year in and year out, where as before it was more of wishful thinking, or IF everything went their way. As for the lions/browns comparison that's something we'll never know. I used to have similar arguments growing up about Marino and Montana. If you were to switch those 2 could montana won a super bowl with miami (keep in mind marino never had another hall of fame player on his team. offense, defense or special teams)? I doubt it. Could Marino have won a super bowl on the 49'ers? Absolutely. Could he have won 4? that, i don't know. Comparing football players is always the hardest because football is so much more a TEAM game than any other sport. One player doesn't have the impact on an entire game like an nba player does for example.
Log in to comment