Thursday, March 17, 2011

Shorty & Garrett Just Got Keslurked


Have a gander at the 1:30 mark of this video. That's Ryan Kesler, dropping a nasty Keslurk on John Garrett and John Shorthouse at the end of tonight's postgame coverage. In a clever touch, Kesler does this while wearing Garrett's old-timey goalie mask. That takes some serious planning. I mean, those things aren't just lying around. Did Kesler break into Garrett's house?

This is a whole new ball of wax for Kesler. Prior to this, he's only been Keslurking teammates. Now he's moved on to members of the broadcast team, and potentially, B&Es. He's escalating, and he's broadening his scope. Where will it end?

Terrifying grandiosity. What happens when he Keslurks all there is to Keslurk in this realm? At this rate, that'll happen by Sunday. Then what? Extraspheric Keslurking? I hypothesize a scenario in which Ryan Kesler Keslurks everyone he possibly can think of, then invents a time machine, and goes back in time and Keslurks himself while Keslurking, creating a sort of Keslurkic recursion loop. What if Kesler's drive to innovate new Keslurks causes him to fracture his own psyche and develop a schizoid psychosis wherein his subconscious constantly Keslurks his conscious self? What if he cracks the laws of physics, expands the size of his atoms, then pulls a Galactus and starts Keslurking entire planets?

God help us. Actually, God should stay away. If he shows up, Kesler will probably Keslurk him.

12 comments:

  1. i think i've seen this on an episode of 'criminal minds.' he's escalating. first he wears stolen gear, then the heads of his victims.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i think the only way to stop him is to just interview him all the time. i mean he can't actually Keslurk himself.....can he? he can' have figured out time-travel yet, that'd take him days at least. or has he already planned this all out? OH MY GOD! what does he want? where will this end?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Man, can you imagine a Galactus Kes in front of the net? Way better than Buyfuglien. Would never lose a draw again.

    He can Keslurk Harper at 24 Sussex as long as he leads this team through 4 rounds in a few weeks.

    And everyone from the team to the coach to the goalies to the fans seem to be really digging it.

    Could we all fall prey to an alternate universe Kes ( with evil goatee, of course) Keslurking for evil?

    Maybe our Earth Prime Kes would have to battle him in a Lurk-off to restore the space time continuum...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've got a Dear Keith brewing where I'm going to beg and plead for him to put Kesler in his place.

    This video was awesome though, a 'keslurk' if I -MUST- call it that...and John Shorthouse. Someone messaged me when I was already in bed and I had to actually get back up and come watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Kesler from the future does come back to this time period we should definitley consider signing him. Can you imagine having two identical players with that skill level? It'd be um, a lot like this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This one had to be pre-planned a lot more than the others. Not just the mask, either.

    When was the last time Shorty & Garrett were in the bowels of the stadium instead of being in their booth?

    Still F-ing hilarious, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uh, last I checked, God is omnipresent, making him the original lurker. I think he could handle a little Keslurking.

    -Rachael

    ReplyDelete
  8. I love you guys, don't pass any hate my way please, but I find Keslurk/Keslurked/Keslurking irritating. If Kes, the inventor of the action, calls it Bomb/Bombing/Bombed then why call it any different?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous 4:01 Kesler didn't invent the action. Photo bombing's been around forever, and he's definitely not the first person to bomb and interview. But we don't like calling it interview bombing, and we definitely don't like Kesler bombing. It's not just a bomb; Kesler doesn't just show up in the background. He lurks and he creeps. Hence: Keslurking.

    Sorry if you don't like it. It's what we're going with.

    ReplyDelete