timeEd32

Serious? Yes, why? So how would to line up if you think Perez will play up front? Same formation we've been playing (Watford antics aside) with Townsend in Perez's spot and Perez in Mitrovic's spot. Not saying it's right, but McClaren pretty clearly called out Mitrovic in his post-match comments.

Serious? Yes, why?

Would not be surprised at all to see Perez up front and Townsend on the wing.

It really is amazing how we always act like there are only 1-3 players in the position we need. In a sport that has more professionals than any other on Earth.

If the goal is to concede 5+ goals a game, then absolutely.

I'm siding with the London sources on this one. We're just denying it until terms are agreed/medical is done.

Very few followers and no verified symbol for the sports deputy editor of the Guardian isn't he? Definitely legit him? Yes, it's him. Links on Guardian articles go to that handle.

Good, I don't care about the money and he's a better option than Gouffran when chasing a game. Now sign a fucking striker.

Pardew and Carver aren't involved so that's a good start.

That doesn't take much imagination given the players they have.

Ugh, hope not. He'd rescue Churchill.

Pats went into that game with an 18-0 record. The Giants came in as a wildcard, with a 10-6 record. Oh and no way Eli Manning was/is better than Tom Brady. I have no idea what you're getting at? In what way were they the 'best team?' The best team for that one off game? Yes. Better team and quarterback over the course of 16-20 games? No way. I love the playoff set up for American sports, where you have different conferences and a s*** load of teams. I don't see the need for it in England, when we have league systems that work well, with the current format. The record books show that we won like. The fact you think that's what this argument is about says it all.

According to Ryder, Remy might still be available if Chelsea sign Pato. He wrote like 20 paragraphs (sentences) on pure speculation. What a job.

Pats went into that game with an 18-0 record. The Giants came in as a wildcard, with a 10-6 record. Oh and no way Eli Manning was/is better than Tom Brady. I have no idea what you're getting at? In what way were they the 'best team?' The best team for that one off game? Yes. Better team and quarterback over the course of 16-20 games? No way. Sanity. The fact any of that even needs to be pointed out once, let alone 100 times, is highly concerning.

You're like a tabloid journalist cherry picking quotes.

This thread needs to be locked and it's quite clear the NFL should never be discussed on here if these are genuine opinions.

We beat Liverpool at home.

PL - 38 games that all matter NBA - 82 regular season games and 2 months of playoffs NHL - 82 regular season games and 2 months of playoffs MLB - 162 games plus playoffs So is the NFL the only league you like?

Why don't you think the next 15 matches in the PL won't be intense? Leicester basically has 15 straight playoff games with a chance to do the unthinkable.

I just don't understand what you mean when you say random champions in a derisive way. I mean....the team that wins is the best team. This is where we'll never see eye to eye, I figure. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. Would it produce some really exciting moments? Of course it would, but do you know how dull a #4 Spurs vs. #5 Man Utd. match would be? LVG would be playing for 1-0 or penalties. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way?

If we had our shit together we could finish above them. Now that would be glorious.

Small donation made. Thanks for everything - this place is the best thing about being a Newcastle supporter at the moment.

Hopefully this is true and it's because we've realized we need that extra money to get a proper striker in.