Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Shooter McGavin

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Shooter McGavin

  1. On 1/8/2020 at 6:47 PM, urbanhack said:

    @Shooter McGavin




    I’m alive! Weird timing, because I haven’t logged on in years, but I came here today to try to find something, and saw I had a notification and followed it here. I spend a little time on the GolfWRX message board, still, but that’s about it for posting these days.

    • Like 3
    • Love 1
    • Laughing 1
  2. Well, to be fair, the guy didn't really recommend anything. He freely admitted that he loves "peat-bombs" and that it wouldn't be the best for a new drinker to drink one of those.Let's say that I go to the store and they don't carry Oban. What should I look for? Trust me when I say that the place in town is monstrous in terms of its liquor selection....if it's not super obscure, it's probably there. They might not have the selection of a scotch-specific place, but I'm sure they have most of the basic "good stuff".

    If you're new to whisky, Speyside is usually a good place to start. Many of the more well known single malts come from that area, including Glenlivet, Glenfiddich (not one of my faves), Macallan (10 or 12 year are great starting points), Balvenie, and Aberlour. Glenmorangie is a personal favorite of mine, which comes from the Highlands, but it's similar in style to the Speyside malts.All of these will be on the lighter, crisper side, and they don't have the smoke and peat that turns some people off.
  3. I've been drinking my scotch at about 1/3 water and 2/3 scotch and really like it. Give it a try if you're usually a rocks guy and see what you think.

    :goodposting:ducking from the backlash bound to occur once the scotch guys read this! ;)
    I think a few drops of water should always be added to bring out the flavor, but I'm not a snob about people who add a lot of water like that. My advice is to drink it so that you can enjoy it and slowly start adding less water.
    This is correct -- drink it how you like it. The "if you don't drink it neat, you have a ######" crowd is way off. In Scotland, when you order a dram, it comes with a little pitcher of water. Most whiskies do well with a few drops of water added to release the aroma and flavor. If I'm trying a whisky for the first time, I'll try it neat and adjust accordingly. Some don't need anything, and others need several drops of water.
  4. I'm loving the flavour map. Wish I'd asked about it previously...I'd looked forever, but I was thinking about it more linearly, so I never found anything like what I was looking for.

    I wish I could find the really detailed one I saw in Scotland. We might have gotten a paper copy of it somewhere during one of the distillery visits or the Whisky Week event we went to in Speyside. I'll try to dig through the stuff I saved from the trip.


    This happened to correspond to when we were in Scotland, and it was awesome. At the Glenfiddich distillery, it started with a tour, followed by a tasting of about 20 different whiskies from various distilleries in the area (including Macallan Glenlivet, Glenrothes, etc.), followed by a great dinner with two whisky pairings with each course. What a great night.

    Also, my FIL wants to go to Scotland. We're planning the trip for some time in the next year or so. We will be visiting a distillery or 5. Looking very forward to it.

    When you go, distillery visits are cool, and it's a good way to try various types from distillers you like, including some varieties you might not be able to get elsewhere, but if you want to do some serious sampling, I'd recommend going to a bar where they specialize in whisky. In particular, I'd recommend this one.

    Highlander Inn

    Check out their whisky menu. You may faint from its beauty. As a bonus, it's a decent hotel with really friendly owners, so you can try as many as you want, and not need to worry about driving.

  5. Shooter, have you had anything from Balvennie? I'm not familiar enough with their catalog to know if they have one in your price range, but I like their $35-$50 bottles a lot when I am looking for a less peaty alternative to my typical Islay scotches.

    I kind of "grew up" on Balvenie -- it was one of the first single malts I tried, and it's a really good option in the price range you mentioned. I can't say that I've seen anything from them in the price range that I'm looking at, but it would definitely be a consideration if I saw one.
  6. Also, I've been looking for a resource that I've been unable to find, so I'm thinking of making one on my own and thought maybe one of you long time Scotch drinkers may be interested in helping. I want a "Peat Continuum" for single malts. My first bottle of single malt Scotch ever was a gift - Talisker 10, which is peaty. It is less peaty that Lagavulin or Laphroaig, but it's far more peaty than Macallan or Glenlivet. I did not know that when I first tried it, and if I hadn't known about other styles, I'd have never tried anything else, I'd have just thought I didn't like Scotch. This is not meant to be a definitive resource, and I realize other factors such as aging will have an impact, but I thought it would be helpful, especially for neophyte Scotch/whiskey drinkers. I'd have loved to have been able to look at some resource after I tried my Talisker that said "Hey, that was too peaty? If so, try Glenlivet, Macallan, or Dalwhinnie. Not peaty enough? Try Laphroaig or Lagavulin".

    Anyone interested?

    This may be helpful:


    I saw a grid like that with a lot more whiskies at a couple of different places when I was in Scotland last year, but I can't find it on the interweb.

    I just mentioned my preference for blends right now, so for that kind of money, my choices would be JW Green, Gold, or Blue depending on where in that range you want to be. For the Green, you'd have enough left over to get something else, and likely the same with the Gold. Get Green and Gold and compare them. Blue is stupidly expensive, but if the money doesn't matter, it's spectacularly good IMHO.

    If you're intent on getting a single malt and aren't a regular Scotch drinker, I'd stay away from the peatier brands and stay more middle of the road like Macallan or Glenlivet and get the aged as long as you can afford. Macallan 18, like JW Blue, is overpriced, but again, if the money doesn't matter, it drinks beautifully to me. With Glenlivet, you can probably go out to 21 and still be well in that price range.

    I'm looking for a single malt. I don't turn up my nose at blends, and I actually just had a chance to have a dram of Blue last weekend (really good, but not $200/bottle good, IMO), but I'm looking for something I haven't tried before. I saw an 18-year Glenmorangie for $100 (Glenmorangie is my favorite "everyday" whisky), that I was thinking about getting, but I'm interested in any other ideas. Macallan 18 is always a consideration, but again, I'm looking for something I haven't tried before.

    I'm a pretty seasoned whisky drinker, but I prefer the Speyside and Highland malts over the Islay for the most part, though a peaty whisky can be a nice change of pace occasionally.

  7. Woods is switching putters mid-tournament. Then switching back. He is lost.

    To be accurate, he switched putters (to one he's been testing in practice for quite some time) before the tournament started. He then switched back in the final round. However, it's not that uncommon for players to change putters, even in the middle of tournaments. Mickelson does it all the time. Tiger hasn't been the same on the greens, and I would bet that's mostly his mental state. His focus hasn't been like it was when he was dominant, which comes as no surprise. I don't know if he'll get back to being able to hole everything, especially when it matters, because putting seems to fall apart as guys age -- even the great ones. That said, I'd be shocked if he moved away from a standard length putter. His swing is starting to come around now, especially with the driver. He hasn't been getting stuck and hitting that huge block as much lately, and he's gotten back to hitting it long again. Those sticking a fork in him are doing so way prematurely, IMO. The knee could derail him, but if that's really fixed, and with the condition he keeps himself in, he still has several years of what should be his prime left. I still think he'll end up with around 20 majors by the time he hangs them up.
  8. Dear closeted gay dude,

    It's sad to see you so beaten down by your beard marriage most days. But is good that you're still taking care of your grooming. I know you're, "on the fence. It has been a while since you had a pedi", but it's good to hear you're going for it and splurging for your hair and nail appointment this weekend.

    homoerotically yours,


  9. You really think Miami is going to re-sign Wade, then sign Lebron and Bosh?

    These guys are not meeting together to discuss pantyhose and popcorn, they are dead serious about all playing together and trying to win a ring. All of them will take a little less salary and try to get an extra endorsement deal if need to be to make up the difference. All of them are already uber rich and never have to work another day in their life if they desire. They want a ring to take with them to tell their kids and grandkids about. Also this is a unique year with all these free agents.
    A few flaws in your reasoning (thinking more about LeBron/Wade -- Bosch I could maybe see being a complimentary player, and not the main guy, but that's a stretch):-These guys are not going to take less than max contracts. -Despite the hand-wringing in the media about LeBron not having a championship yet, he's only 25. He has lots of time. I can't imagine that he'd take less than max money in an effort to "steal" a championship. As competitive as these guys are, they won't be willing to take that kind of shortcut. They think they can be the guy to lead their team to a championship (wherever they go).-The Lakers are aging, and their window will be closing within the next few years.
  10. Highlands Scotch is very peaty (smokey) by nature.

    Not really -- highland malts are generally in the middle between the lighter, crisper Speyside malts and the peatier Islay malts. Some may have smoky note to them (mostly the Island malts, which I think is what you meant. Island should really have their own category, because they don't really fit in with a lot of the other Highland malts), but in general, Islay has the monopoly on peaty flavors. A Skye malt may be smokier, but that's probably because the soil there is very peaty -- if not run through a filter to remove it, the water has a brownish tinge to it. It's oddly enough considered a sign of purity if the color isn't removed -- the peat is a natural filter.
  11. Can't believe I missed this before. I loves me some whisky. I went to Scotland last year, and it happened to fall during "Whisky Week", which was a series of events throughout the country at various distilleries and restaurants, sponsored by Whisky Magazine. It so happened that we were in Speyside for the event there, which was at the Glenfiddich distillery, which was about a mile or two from where we were staying. It included a tour of the distillery, a tasting of a ton of different whiskys from various distilleries in the area, and a great 3 course meal with two whisky pairings with each course. It was quite possibly the greatest event ever conceived.

    We also went to the Macallan and Strathisla distilleries while we were there. Besides the whisky, the area is absolutely beautiful. I highly recommend it if you ever have the chance to go.

    On the topic of neat vs. water/ice, in Scotland, every time you order a whisky, they will bring a small pitcher (like a coffee creamer) of water. They advise using a few drops to open up the aroma and flavor of the whisky and to tame the alcohol a bit -- you'd use more for a cask strength whisky, since that can be 50-70% alcohol. It's really personal taste, and there's no set rule about how much water to add.

    Now I'm thirsty.

  12. Made a big push last week and watched the final 6 episodes.

    Just one ending question

    mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

    Are we to assume Michael killed his mom? It's fairly clear, but the nature of it makes you wonder a little bit.

    *** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

    I don't remember this being suggested.
    Really she was the one to get the whole ball rolling. Without her conversation with Bunk nothing would have played out quite like it did. This also implicated Michael as a snitch at the worst possible time, and was the basis for the way he played out his string as a player and not a kingpin.

    If he didn't do her in then is this chalked up to being just a random killing?

    And why is it that spoiler tags are so screwed up in this thread? Is it because this one spans the quote limit timeframe?

    It's been a while since I watched it, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned that she'd been killed. I'm pretty sure that once Michael started running with Marlo's crew and getting money, he moved his brother (and Dukie) into a new place to keep him away from his mom. She's a junkie and had no actual interest in either of her kids, except for Michael's ability to support her financially. If you remember when she signed Michael out of jail after he'd been picked up for questioning in the triple murder at that one stash house, she made a quick show of telling Michael that he should let her see Bug more often, and then quickly changes the subject to getting him to give her money. I think the implication is that he's simply done with her.
  • Create New...