Escape from Elba

Sports => Football => Topic started by: Admin on April 15, 2007, 09:33:04 PM



Title: NFL
Post by: Admin on April 15, 2007, 09:33:04 PM
Which draft pick will make the biggest impact in the NFL?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:12:02 AM
Well, the Browns's drafting Brady Quinn (if it happens) will doom the franchise to another four years of sucking.  Is that the type of impact you had in mind?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 01:15:11 PM
Hey liq!

Is it just me or is Ron Mexico's career really going to the dogs?

Where is that Falcons fan at....


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on April 28, 2007, 04:38:39 PM
Well, the Browns's drafting Brady Quinn (if it happens) will doom the franchise to another four years of sucking.  Is that the type of impact you had in mind?

Already posted this on the Giant forum, but you should be happier than a pig in schite.   Nice value for the next ten years on Thomas... and no... Brady... Quinn!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on April 28, 2007, 05:14:35 PM
Holy mack daddy, the Browns got Thomas AND Quinn!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on April 29, 2007, 12:23:20 PM
interesting contrarian moves by Belichick-Pioli dumping 2007 draft choices for FAs and 2008 picks (which some project as a better draft).

Seems like smart moves.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 29, 2007, 01:09:07 PM
interesting contrarian moves by Belichick-Pioli dumping 2007 draft choices for FAs and 2008 picks (which some project as a better draft).

Seems like smart moves.
By the way, I hope you noticed Detroit took Manny Ramirez in Round 4.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on April 29, 2007, 05:26:44 PM
I heard. I has hoped the Pats could have found a way...

ah well, just the Lions being the Lions


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on April 29, 2007, 08:10:26 PM
I can't believe that the Pats traded for Moss.  Doesn't sound like they had to part with much, still I hope Belichick knows what he is getting himself into since Moss can be quite a handful.  The Patriots receiving corps is completely revamped -- could be one of the best in the league.  I don't remember Brady ever having this many weapons before.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on April 30, 2007, 09:10:32 AM
Apparently Brady was tired of being the bad-boy on the Pats, either that or the bar's been raised, and he's on the prowl for another actress or model to knock-up.

with the addition of Moss, Stallworth, Welker: Air Belichick

I wonder about the D, always the real strength of the Pats, and whether it will be enough.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 10:41:34 AM
Yeah, I really think we could use another veteran corner. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sgrobin on April 30, 2007, 03:57:56 PM
I was also surprised at the Pats' trading for Moss. After having lived through the TO era in Philly, I'm skeptical of these kinds of acquisitions. Plus, the Pats already had Stallworth, who should do a great job.

But I'd rather spend my time whining about the Eagles taking a QB with their first pick. So many damn needs and they go after a QB. Idiots.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: DoctorDoom on April 30, 2007, 04:01:14 PM
My TOP 5 grades in the 07 draft:

Surprise surpise it isn't the Brownies at #1

#1 Atlanta: With what I think are four potential starters this IMO was the best of the draft.

#1A Oakland: Only because they had so many freakin picks some of em have to be keepers.

#2 Arizona: Just eaking out #3, only because #3 SF had to give up "next years" # 1 so...

#3 San Francisco: See above.

#4 Brownies: Again because losing their #1 for next year kinda makes it a gain but a loss too if you see where I'm comin from.

Honorable mention to the Steelers. I can't really put a finger on why other than a hunch.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 04:03:33 PM
At least Moss is relatively cheap at $3m and it only cost the a #4, it doesn't seem like it would be a big deal to cut him if his warts come out


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on May 01, 2007, 09:17:13 AM
the Pats have had sucesses with hi-profle reputed "prima donnas" in the past: Dillon and Harrison. IMO as the cost was a #4 not a big risk. btw, I read this AM that Brady restructured his contract to allow Pats to do the Moss deal.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 09:18:02 AM
I think the Pats had $13m in cap room going into this offseason


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on May 01, 2007, 09:19:37 AM
with all their FA activity I think most of it got eaten up.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 04:22:06 PM
My TOP 5 grades in the 07 draft:

Surprise surpise it isn't the Brownies at #1

#1 Atlanta: With what I think are four potential starters this IMO was the best of the draft.

#1A Oakland: Only because they had so many freakin picks some of em have to be keepers.

#2 Arizona: Just eaking out #3, only because #3 SF had to give up "next years" # 1 so...

#3 San Francisco: See above.

#4 Brownies: Again because losing their #1 for next year kinda makes it a gain but a loss too if you see where I'm comin from.

Honorable mention to the Steelers. I can't really put a finger on why other than a hunch.



No St Loo?

Giants get a C- from me just for leaving Leonard to the Rams at 52


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on May 01, 2007, 07:48:46 PM
BL would be a terrible choice. The jints already have two good running backs. You do not draft a third stringer in the second round. He could not even beat out Rice for the starting job at RU.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on May 04, 2007, 03:55:28 PM
How about worst 5 drafts? Big F for the Skins, not only did they trade away most of their picks but wasted their number one on another safety. They needed help in so many other areas like the DL or even QB. Next at F+ is the Dolphins Passing on Brady Quinn for an injured, fragile WR/KR, see you in the top 5 again next year. D- for the Pack making an injured DT slug their number one, another team headed for the top five. Also San Francisco drafting the poor man's Robert Gallery at one.

F Skins in a class by themselves
F+ Phins
D- Pack,49ers
D Jets for trading away too much to move up. Revis is just not that good. Better value with TE Olsen or DE Spencer.


Title: Blank says he was 'stern' with Vick over recent troubles
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 12:53:24 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AkR7ZJs8SvQ2XkejUtVoeeo5nYcB?slug=ap-vick-blank&prov=ap&type=lgns


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on May 20, 2007, 07:56:05 AM
An interesting best and worst draft review from On the Clock;


http://www.ontheclockdraft.com/news/article/123
Losers


1. Tennessee Titans

  If top pick safety Michael Griffin had come from any other college other than Texas, he might not be a Titan right now. Earlier in the draft season, I jokingly predicted to a friend that Griffin would be the team's first round pick, since the team seems to be aiming of late to become the Tennessee "Longhorns" and surround their much-hyped QB Vince Young with as many former teammates as possible. Lo and behold, the team reached on a position that didn't really warrant a 1st round selection, especially with hometown talent Robert Meachem on the board at wide receiver, who could give Young an explosive, young, deep threat in the passing game. The Titans' draft didn't really go on to make much more sense from there. In the 2nd round, the team reached on a raw, inexperienced RB to pair with LenDale White---Arizona's Chris Henry. The Titans showed some confidence in their 3-WR package from the 2005 draft, but also recognized that help at the position was necessary by selecting Fresno State WR Paul Williams in the 3rd round, Florida State's small, speedy Chris Davis in the 4th round, and Joel Filani of Texas Tech in the 6th round. Williams has the most potential of the 3, with a big 6'1” 205 pound frame, but is not ready to make an impact yet. Davis and Filani are most likely long-shots to be difference makers. The Titans did manage some solid picks, but not nearly enough to salvage a decent grade. They added North Carolina State offensive lineman Leroy Harris with their other 4th round selection, and in the 7th round got a good value in Purdue offensive tackle Mike Otto. The Titans do have a knack for finding and developing later-round offensive linemen. Additionally, Florida cornerback Ryan Smith (6th round), Mississippi State defensive tackle Antonio Johnson (5th round), and speedy Central Arkansas defensive end Jacob Ford (6th round) have a reasonable shot of making the team and earning significant playing time down the road. But overall, given the reaches and not addressing key areas like WR and CB early, this draft was just a mess for first-time G.M. Mike Reinfeldt.

2. Miami Dolphins

  Coming in a close second is the Miami Dolphins. And not so much for Ted Ginn Jr. than the totality of the draft overall. Like the Titans, they undoubtedly added some solid players with some of their 10 picks. But for the most part, Cam Cameron's first draft is full of gambles and uncertainty. Ted Ginn Jr. was a surprise pick at #9 overall, but the team grabbed the guy they wanted all along, one pick before the Houston Texans had planned to take him. Though Ginn will miss a substantial amount of the offseason recovering from a foot injury sustained during the National Championship game, he could make make an immediate impact both in the deep passing game and as an explosive return threat. But in the 2nd round, the team gambled on B.Y.U. quarterback John Beck to be the QB-of-the-future. Problem is, Beck will soon be 26 years old, never was spectacular in college, only coming on as a senior, and has the aura of being a "system" B.Y.U. QB, which hasn't produced a star since Steve Young. The Dolphins struck gold with their next two picks, landing mammoth Hawaii guard/center Samson Satele in the 2nd round, who should be a day 1 starter, and in the 3rd round selecting speedy Lorenzo Booker of Florida State to be the change-of-pace back to Ronnie Brown. Both were rock-solid choices. In the 4th round the team took huge Utah DT Paul Soliai to eventually become the NT in the team's 3-4 sets. But the next pick, albeit in the 6th round, was just awful. Hawaii FB Reagan Mauia checks in at a whopping 6'0 and 272 pounds. Mauia is a convert from the offensive line, so he's raw and will be a project. Mauia could reasonably be groomed into a guard at his size, but if he slims down and cuts some fat off his frame, he could also end up at FB. Mauia was more of a free agent grade. Guys they could have had instead? Florida linebacker Brandon Siler, who has potential inside in their 3-4 defense, or Delaware tight end Ben Patrick would have made great picks. The team took some solid, depth and special teams players the rest of the way, including intriguing players like Central Michigan guard/center Drew Mormino in the 6th round and Syracuse linebacker Kelvin Smith in the 7th, a sleeper at the position who will take time to develop but has great instincts.

3. Houston Texans

  Houston earns a poor grade for ignoring big needs and adding a bunch of raw, risky picks to their roster. After just missing out on Ohio State WR/KR Ted Ginn Jr, Louisville defensive tackle Amobi Okoye can be justified at the 10 slot. Pairing him up with last year's gem defensive end Mario Williams certainly helps the pass rush, as Okoye is a great interior pass-rusher and gets excellent push up front. But from there, there was absolutely no one taken who is assured of helping the team long-term. Without a pick in the 2nd round (traded to Atlanta for new franchise-QB Matt Schaub) the team did not pick until the 3rd round, where they could have helped aging-FA RB Ahman Green with a falling talent like Antonio Pittman of Ohio State. Instead, the team gambled on big Lane College wide receiver Jacoby Jones, who will be a big longshot to contribute anytime soon to the offense. The team could have also instead taken Cal's Daymeion Hughes at cornerback, but instead settled for Fred Bennett from South Carolina in the 4th round, who has bad ball skills and gives up too many big plays. He will probably never be more than a nickel corner. The rest of the Texans draft consisted of depth players who may never contribute much to the team. Safety Brandon Harrison of Stanford and Virginia Tech offensive tackle Brandon Frye in the 5th round, Texas offensive guard Kasey Studdard in the 6th, and Kansas State linebacker Zach Diles in the 7th round. This is a team that needed to address WR, CB, S and RB in a big way, and failed to do so.

4. Green Bay Packers

  Wow, where was G.M. Ted Thompson's mind this entire weekend? It couldn't have been on Green Bay's needs too much. With the 16th overall pick, the team reached on Tennessee defensive tackle Justin Harrell, who is recovering from a torn biceps injury. But at the same position Harrell is expected to play, the team just re-signed promising Cullen Jenkins. One pick later, Florida defensive end Jarvis Moss was taken by the Denver Broncos. Even Moss could have helped the defensive front more by adding a pass-rushing presence across from Pro Bowler Aaron Kampman. Fans’ expectations of Harrell will be high after being over-drafted by Thompson. But the big mistake was in not adding a top-flight WR to help out young Greg Jennings, when both LSU's Dwayne Bowe and Tennessee's Robert Meachem were available. In the 2nd round the team added raw Nebraska running back Brandon Jackson, whom they expect to come in and make a difference right away in a committee approach with Vernand Morency and Noah Herron. In the 3rd, San Jose State's James Jones, and 5th, Virginia Tech's David Clowney, the team finally added WR help, although neither are likely to provide much help in the short-term. The team's best picks were made late. 6th rounders Korey Hall (Boise State converted LB) at fullback and kicker Mason Crosby (Colorado) could end up starting, and 7th round running back DeShawn Wynn of the National Champion Florida Gators could end up surprising and stealing some thunder from the aforementioned Jackson. If 7th round tight end Clark Harris of Rutgers develops as a receiver, the team could have a 7th round steal, and a replacement for underachieving Bubba Franks. But the bottom line from this draft was a big reach in the first round (it's arguable Harrell was even the best defensive tackle still on the board at the time), and not addressing key needs early at WR, CB, and DE.


5. Philadephia Eagles

  A team who usually drafts well, the Philadelphia Eagles appeared to lose their edge for one year, though they too added a few helpful players along the way. But the choice of Houston quarterback Kevin Kolb at 36 overall in the 2nd round was not a smart one, regardless of how much Kolb may have intrigued them. For starters, there's Donovan McNabb. How much longer does the team plan to employ him? If it's for more than 2 years, which it should be, then Kolb doesn't make much sense here. The Packers have probably second-guessed their decision a few years ago to take Cal QB Aaron Rodgers in the first round, after watching Brady Quinn fall to their pick at 16 overall this year. Rodgers should endure his third straight season of little-to-no playing time behind Favre this year. Well, same applies here for Philadephia. Why settle for a wallflower one year when a supermodel could come along looking for a date later on down the road? The pick of Notre Dame defensive end Victor Abiamiri didn't fill a big need either, though down the line he could replace Jevon Kearse. In the 3rd round, the team did much better in adding Nebraska LB Stewart Bradley, who could earn a starting spot as early as 2008, and by finally getting their big power-back to pair with RB Brian Westbrook--Penn State's slow, bruising Tony Hunt. The second day was full of longshots, but Clemson safety C.J. Gaddis (5th round) could help out at either safety or cornerback, and Cincinnati TE Brent Celek (5th round) could be a longshot to replace L.J. Smith at some point. The team could have done much better in addressing their weaknesses at WR and in the secondary though. The fact that they did not add a WR at any point in the draft is a ringing endorsement of Hank Baskett, whom the team obviously feels is a viable starting WR across from the equally-iffy Reggie Brown. Both receivers showed flashes last year, but too often disappeared in games. USC wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett was available to the team at 36, and McNabb sure would have appreciated the help at receiver, over a replacement at QB.


Winners:


1. Cleveland Browns

  Very simple, they walked away from this draft with Wisconsin stud offensive tackle Joe Thomas at the 3rd overall pick, and amazingly landed franchise-QB Brady Quinn of Notre Dame as well. Both were consensus top-10 talents at positions of key needs, and all it cost the team to move up from the 2nd round back into the 1st to grab Quinn at the 22nd pick was next year's 1st round pick. Sure, the general thought is that the pick will be a top 10 pick. Maybe it will be. They probably would have used that pick on a quarterback anyway. Best of all, they get Quinn at a #22 rookie salary, which would be a bargain if Quinn lives up to the hype. It's hard to do much better than that from this draft, and you could argue no team did. The Browns went on to mortgage later picks to move back into the 2nd round and select talented, but troubled UNLV cornerback Eric Wright. You can second-guess the move, but the team did address yet another big, big need. Those 3 picks were the bulk of the draft, as the team did not pick again until the 5th round, but with big DE's Melila Purcell of Hawaii (6th round) and Chase Pittman of L.S.U. (7th round), the team possibly may have uncovered a couple of late-round gems, as well.

2. Carolina Panthers

  This class is all about value and potential. Their first three picks after the 1st round all could have easily been 1st round selections as well. It starts with the 1st round pick, Miami (FL) linebacker Jon Beason, who the Panthers targeted all along, but were able to trade down with the Jets from #14 all the way down to #25 to gain picks and still grab their guy. Beason can play outside but will likely take over at some point for fellow Miami alum Dan Morgan in the middle. In the 2nd round, the Panthers may have found the steal of the draft in USC wide receiver Dwayne Jarrett, who slid all the way into the 2nd round after questions surrounding his (lack of) speed at the position. Jarrett was a playmaker in college whom guys like Matt Leinart and John David Booty always looked to for a big play. If he can carry that success and production over into the pros, he will have been a steal. Carolina considers him a starter-in-waiting, and already has cut ties with Keyshawn Johnson, knocking down one barrier in Jarrett's way. Carolina also added the top center in the draft in the 2nd round, another USC player, Ryan Kalil. Kalil will be an opening day starter, pushing Justin Hartwig inside to guard. Kalil is a stalwart inside with great power and a strong base, and could develop into a Pro Bowl center. The value kept coming for Carolina in the 3rd round in the form of Georgia underclassman defensive end Charles Johnson. Johnson had a better year as a junior last year as his more bally-hooed fellow defensive end Quentin Moses did as a senior. But Moses was the higher drafted of the two. Johnson has alot of potential though, and is penciled in as the successor to Mike Rucker across from Julius Peppers. The Panthers made a nice pick in the 4th round with Miami of Ohio WR/KR Ryne Robinson, who can help both as a receiver, and returner. Along with Jarrett, the two players solidify the WR position for the foreseeable future. The team polished their draft off with two picks who may surprise---Penn State linebacker Tim Shaw in the 5th round, and Baylor cornerback C.J. Wilson in the 7th round, who impressed at the East/West Shrine game with excellent size at 6'1”, 195 pounds, and whom could slide over to safety and help out at a big need area that seemed to go largely over-looked in the draft.

3. Minnesota Vikings

  Though they should have done better with their QB pick than Coastal Carolina's Tyler Thigpen in the 7th round, this was a phenomenal draft for Brad Childress and G.M. Rick Spielman. Adrian Peterson is a franchise-back who will not be pressed into hard duty with Chester Taylor already on the roster. With a big need at WR, the team added South Carolina phenom Sidney Rice in the 2nd round (who could have returned to school and possibly been a top 10 pick in 2008) and got a steal in East Carolina's Aundrae Allison in the 5th round. The good picks were not just limited to RB and WR though. In the 3rd round the team addressed CB by taking Fresno State's Marcus McCauley, who could end up starting sooner rather than later, and may have also uncovered starters in the 4th round with Texas DE Brian Robison, and in the 6th round in Oklahoma LB Rufus Alexander, who at one time was considered a likely 1st round pick. The draft was not perfect, and needs at QB and TE were largely ignored, but in terms of bang for their buck, the Vikings grabbed a plethora of potential impact rookies in this class.

4. San Francisco 49ers

  Scott McCloughan and Mike Nolan loaded up on defensive players for the 3-4, and came away with a jaw-dropping haul. When you consider they also landed Seahawks wide receiver Darrell Jackson for a 4th round pick, their draft is made even better. The pick of Ole Miss middle linebacker Patrick Willis broke the hearts of many teams picking after them. Willis was hands down the top linebacker in the draft after running a 4.3 40 yard dash at his Pro Day workout. The team went on to trade a 2008 1st round pick to New England to move back into the 1st round and stop the slide of Central Michigan offensive tackle Joe Staley, who should come in immediately and replace bust Kwame Harris at RT, eventually taking over for Jonas Jennings at LT. Gotta keep the franchise QB upright. The team didn't pick again until the 3rd round, but chose twice in the round and hit on two big names--Washington State WR Jason Hill, and Florida DE Ray McDonald. Hill will give Alex Smith another deep threat to look for down the field, and McDonald gives the team a probable starter at defensive end in the 3-4. Nebraska DE Jay Moore was next in the 4th round, and the team plans to try to use him at stand-up linebacker in the 3-4. Two more 4th round picks (Washington safety Dashon Goldson & Florida DT Joe Cohen) and a 5th round pick (troubled Texas CB Tarell Brown) produced more defensive players for Nolan. Goldson could challenge Mark Roman at free safety at some point, while Cohen could become the team's NT. If Brown can keep his nose clean, he had 1st round-ability at cornerback. The 7th round produced a nice depth player at RB--Kansas State's Thomas Clayton, who could give the team the luxury of moving athletic Michael Robinson to WR. On top of adding CB Nate Clements and SS Michael Lewis in free agency, it is safe to say that the 49ers are now putting the pieces together, and should be a team to watch out for.

5. New York Giants

  Any fan of good old-fashioned drafting of solid, need-filling players must love what Jerry Reese was able to do in his first draft as the team's G.M. Recognizing that CB was his top need, and knowing that the position was running dry in a hurry, Reese re-buffed trade offers from the Browns and stood pat to take Thorpe-Award winner Aaron Ross of Texas. Ross could win a starting job as a rookie over either Sam Madison or Corey Webster. He was a fine pick for the team, filling a big need that lacked alot of in-house options. In the 2nd round the team grabbed a great value in USC wide receiver Steve Smith, who the team hopes will be a solid downfield weapon for Eli Manning. Given Plaxico Burress' inconsistency and Amani Toomer's age, it was a fine pick. In the 3rd round the team grabbed the under-tackle they desperately needed in Penn State's Jay Alford, who could boot Fred Robbins from the starting line-up as a rookie. Not a flashy pick, but a good one that filled a need. In the 4th round the team grabbed productive Ivy League linebacker Zac DeOssie, whose father Steve is a former Giants linebacker. He will strengthen the depth at LB and could eventually challenge for a spot in the starting line-up. Western Oregon tight end Kevin Boss was taken in the 5th round to do what Visanthe Shiancoe proved he could not--back-up Jeremy Shockey properly. Boss is a big (6'7” 252) target who could be a great back-up to the Pro Bowler. The remaining picks were all of great potential, and all 3 could make the final roster. Sixth round OT Adam Koets of Oregon State was a productive tackle in the Pac-10 and will get a long look at the position. Big, athletic Arizona safety Michael Johnson was a potential steal in the 7th round, and the final 7th round pick, Marshall RB Ahmad Bradshaw, could be the change-of-pace RB behind Brandon Jacobs that the team sought. Overall, a very solid draft with alot of potentially good players, with few busts in view. They may be able to keep the playoff hopes alive this season if some of these picks contribute early.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:18:15 AM
Pretty funny column, if it wasn't discussing how embarrassing the NFL is to itself.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07144/788642-150.stm

:o


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 11:35:33 AM
The league is clearly going to the dogs.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 11:58:31 AM
The league is clearly going to the dogs.

I think you're right, and the Commissioner is going to have to prove that is NOT "all bark and no bite".


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 12:09:05 PM
I hope they don't just try and let sleeping dogs lie on this.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 12:18:04 PM
I hope they don't just try and let sleeping dogs lie on this.

I agree. Don't want to see them dragging their feet and not doing anything until, say, the dog days of August.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 12:18:43 PM
Of course the Commissioner has to make sure he doesn't go barking up the wrong tree, too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 12:23:23 PM
In other NFL news....


Dan Rooney is not happy that the Steelers' organization and the words "pornographic video" have been linked, and he may do something about it.

"I'm terribly disappointed," Rooney said yesterday after he arrived back at the team's headquarters from the spring NFL meeting in Nashville, Tenn. "It's not us; it's not our culture."

Offensive line coach Larry Zierlein, hired in January, forwarded an e-mail Friday that he received from Doug Whaley, the Steelers' 10th-year pro personnel coordinator, that contained a video attachment that the Steelers admitted was "inappropriate." Zierlein, by mistake, sent it league-wide, and ProFootballTalk.com reported it on its Web site.

Rooney, the Steelers' chairman, said he will "look into it." An NFL spokesman has said it is a club matter. Rooney said he is considering some sort of discipline for his two employees.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07144/788645-66.stm

I'm sure he will "look into it"...wonder if this will show up on the NFL Network?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sgrobin on May 31, 2007, 03:54:49 PM
A little late, but I dispute this analysis of the Eagles’ draft as being one of the five worst:

But the choice of Houston quarterback Kevin Kolb at 36 overall in the 2nd round was not a smart one, regardless of how much Kolb may have intrigued them. For starters, there's Donovan McNabb. How much longer does the team plan to employ him? If it's for more than 2 years, which it should be, then Kolb doesn't make much sense here.

I questioned this as well, but a couple of points. First, McNabb has had serious injuries that either sidelined him or almost sidelined him for the past 3 years. He might just be more brittle than I hope he is. Second, it’s not a bad idea to have a roster of solid QBs. Third, Andy Reid comes from the Green Bay coaching tree, and part of that philosophy is to groom QBs either for future use or as useful trade bait later on.

I’m a big McNabb fan; I think he’s one of the best. If Kolb can challenge him for the job, then it means that the Eagles will have drafted a very good QB.

The pick of Notre Dame defensive end Victor Abiamiri didn't fill a big need either, though down the line he could replace Jevon Kearse.

Kearse is prone to injury; Darren Howard is also. McDougal is probably a few weeks away from being cut. Also, Eagle Des tend to be light; this guy is pretty big. A decent change-up.

finally getting their big power-back to pair with RB Brian Westbrook--Penn State's slow, bruising Tony Hunt.

Slow, bruising Tony Hunt had a great career at Penn State.

The team could have done much better in addressing their weaknesses at WR and in the secondary though

They brought in Will James to compete for one of the CB positions, and as the writer noted, they drafted a safety in the fifth round. And their CB situation, while not perfect, is still pretty good.

The fact that they did not add a WR at any point in the draft is a ringing endorsement of Hank Baskett, whom the team obviously feels is a viable starting WR across from the equally-iffy Reggie Brown.

The Eagles snagged Kevin Curtis in free agency, who will replace Stallworth. I’d like to know why Reggie Brown is considered ‘iffy’.

When NFL reporters write about specific teams, they stick their necks out because it’s difficult to thoroughly know the dynamics of 32 of them. This is another example. The Eagles may not have had the perfect draft, but they probably know their team just a tad better than an NFL beat writer.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 06, 2007, 09:51:24 AM
Amazing, isn't it, how some people would do anything for the opportunity to play in the NFL, while others feel no qualms about pissing away their careers:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnIDwtRh8GJfiv.Xxecom4I5nYcB?slug=ap-bengals-thurman&prov=ap&type=lgns (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnIDwtRh8GJfiv.Xxecom4I5nYcB?slug=ap-bengals-thurman&prov=ap&type=lgns)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on June 06, 2007, 09:52:30 AM
Funny that many of them are Bengals....


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on June 06, 2007, 01:02:34 PM
I guess its too soon to be thinking of another remake of The Longest Yard, but when they do...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on June 27, 2007, 02:15:22 PM
...and as the writer noted, they drafted a safety in the fifth round.

They didn't just draft a safety - they drafted CJ GADDIS, from CLEMSON, same as FUTURE HALL OF FAMER BRIAN DAWKINS. 

I'm not saying Gaddis will ever be half the player that Dawkins is, but still, could be a very nice return for a 5th-round pick.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on July 23, 2007, 10:36:02 AM
Where is Merrtz when you want to discuss Vick's recent forays into dogfighting?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 23, 2007, 11:26:59 AM
Where is Merrtz when you want to discuss Vick's recent forays into dogfighting?
Apparently, not "recent."  I tell ya, the Falcons' season is going to the dogs!

By the way, are you doing a Fantasy League this year?  I'd like to sign up, but you'd probably have to put it up this week or I will have troubles signing up.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on July 23, 2007, 11:40:08 AM
Yeah I was planning on it, maybe I'll get it up and going again at lunch.  Thanks for the reminder.

I bet the Falcons wish they held onto Schaub


Title: Ironman Football League
Post by: liquidsilver on July 23, 2007, 01:18:42 PM
ID# is 236949 and the Password is convictvick

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/register/tos?league_id=236949&password=convictvick


Title: Re: Ironman Football League
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 23, 2007, 01:39:47 PM
ID# is 236949 and the Password is convictvick

http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/register/tos?league_id=236949&password=convictvick

Otto Graham Institute reporting and ready to kick some ass.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on July 25, 2007, 02:52:48 AM
I have never done a fantasy league in any sport but this looks interesting.But how does one go about drafting players?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on July 25, 2007, 09:17:00 AM
Its a live draft, just show up at the designated time and pick your players.  If you can't make the date, you can pre-rank your players and the computer will autodraft based on your rankings and the players left.  If your pre-rank list becomes exhausted the computer autoselects for you based on Yahoo ranking and position of need.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 26, 2007, 09:03:21 AM
Join us, bosox!  It's fun, and the more people who don't know what they are doing, the better.....

By the way, I see Warrick Dunn's out for a few weeks.  He'd better recover, it'd be a shame for Atlanta to lose their top two running backs like that.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on July 29, 2007, 03:50:22 PM
bo - we got an odd number of teams now....  You could set things right!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on August 10, 2007, 04:09:29 PM
...it'd be a shame for Atlanta to lose their top two running backs like that.

Atlanta still has their best running back - Jerrious Norwood.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on August 11, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
I like how the Jags kicker got iced with a FINAL TIME OUT in PRESEASON, uh, DOWN TWO FROM 40 YDS.

IT WORKED.

LOL.  Let's just burn this final TO in Preschool to lay a block of the solid H2O on a brother.  And he misses a chip shot.

Grab 8K and make it rain small in the JAX, wide right, because you just lost a free shag in the games, uh, THAT DON'T COUNT.

And, on another matter entirely, big ups to Gaines Adams on his 40M, nice work, Buck.  Roger, that.


Title: Vick agrees to plea deal, prison possible
Post by: liquidsilver on August 20, 2007, 03:44:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/20/vick/index.html?eref=yahoo


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 20, 2007, 06:28:22 PM
He'll get off way too light.

Sucks the Falcs stood by him and lost Scwaub


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Dzimas on September 04, 2007, 03:00:13 AM
He'll get off way too light.

Sucks the Falcs stood by him and lost Scwaub

You're a moron!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 10, 2007, 08:19:22 AM
with 15 weeks to go, this may be a little premature, and injuriies...

but if any team other than the Pats or Colts snag the SB, the game was likely fixed.


Title: Re: NFL Belichick's Apology
Post by: kitinkaboodle on September 12, 2007, 12:34:49 PM
So?  What's the consensus here.  IS BB really that much of a sleaze that he would deliberately cheat via video-taping or was it truly a misinterpretation of the rules?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 02:01:40 PM
Yes, He was caught cheating.

Now we get to see what the NFL will do.

Possible that they lose a draft pick.

Good.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 03:24:38 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 03:28:56 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



justice. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 12, 2007, 03:30:18 PM
I don't like or dislike the Patriots or the Jets, so I'm not out for revenge or justice or anything else.  I just like the NFL generally - any NFL game is my favorite thing on TV, so there you go.

I'm just wondering, though - if you're caught cheating in a beauty pageant, they take your crown away, so why not make the Patriots forfeit the Jets game?  Like Willy Wonka said, "You stole Fizzy Lifting Drink.  You lose.  Good day sir."   Has that not occurred to Roger Goodell?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 03:32:38 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



justice. 

what do you think is a fair penalty?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 12, 2007, 03:34:50 PM
what do you think is a fair penalty?

Would a forfeit of the Jets game be unfair?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 03:39:40 PM
Quote
I'm just wondering, though - if you're caught cheating in a beauty pageant, they take your crown away, so why not make the Patriots forfeit the Jets game?

I'm pretty sure "Unsportsmanlike conduct" is a 15 yard penalty, not loss of game.

heh

maybe they couid just forfeit the impacted part of the game, the 1st quarter.

Pats would win 31-14. NBD.

(http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/img/rulebook/signals/referee-unsportsmanlikeconductsignal.gif)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 03:43:34 PM
I don't think forfeiture of the game is really an option on the table, I do think the forfeiture of draft picks is a more likely scenario.

Teams steal signs all the time, Belichick certainly is not the first. It was the videotaping that posed a problem.  They were warned last season about it, now they should be penalized appropriately. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 03:48:04 PM
I hope when they check the videotape, they find the last Soprano's episdode, the one with Mangini in it.

If the Pats are guilty some punishment is deserved. Loss of draft pick(s) seems to be  the interweb wisdom.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 03:53:59 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



justice. 

what do you think is a fair penalty?

Send the Jets a 4th round draft pick.  Thats a stiff enough penalty to discourage others from cheating. I'm not a Jets fan either.  But they are the ones who were hurt by the cheating.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 12, 2007, 04:01:02 PM
I'm pretty sure "Unsportsmanlike conduct" is a 15 yard penalty, not loss of game.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a late hit or whatever, perpetrated by a player or coach on the field.   What we're talking about here is a systematic deception at the institutional (or organizational or whatever) level. 

There's a difference between committing a penalty and cheating.  It's not cheating to commit pass interference or to have an ineligible receiver downfield or whatever.  If the ref sees it, he throws the flag, and they walk off the applicable yardage, etc.  In that situation, you're not talking about  fundamental fairness, keeping the playing field level, etc. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 04:01:43 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



justice. 

what do you think is a fair penalty?

Send the Jets a 4th round draft pick.  Thats a stiff enough penalty to discourage others from cheating. I'm not a Jets fan either.  But they are the ones who were hurt by the cheating.

the Jets aren't going to get shit. They got taped for 1/2 of the first quarter.

btw what penalty do you believe is appropriate for the NY Yankees to "suffer" seeing how they have knowingly used and enabled player(s) using illegal PEDs, and have benefitted from such actvity?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 04:03:06 PM
Quote
Send the Jets a 4th round draft pick.  Thats a stiff enough penalty to discourage others from cheating. I'm not a Jets fan either.  But they are the ones who were hurt by the cheating.

I wonder if that is enough to discourage others from doing it.  Only two rookies from their draft class made the Pats roster.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
As far as videotaping during a game, does that really impact the game at hand or the next game that they face each other?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 04:05:35 PM
Quote
What we're talking about here is a systematic deception at the institutional (or organizational or whatever) level.  


deception is part of the game.

pump fakes, fast counts, etc.

so lets call it illegal use of a videocam,

admit it you're still pissed about the "Tuck Rule"



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 04:08:38 PM
FTR, teams are allowed to have their own videographers on the sidelines but they must sport a credential that authorizes them to shoot video and wear a yellow vest.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 04:13:19 PM
Quote
good

kam is your response driven by your seeking justice or revenge?



justice. 

what do you think is a fair penalty?

Send the Jets a 4th round draft pick.  Thats a stiff enough penalty to discourage others from cheating. I'm not a Jets fan either.  But they are the ones who were hurt by the cheating.

the Jets aren't going to get shit. They got taped for 1/2 of the first quarter.

btw what penalty do you believe is appropriate for the NY Yankees to "suffer" seeing how they have knowingly used and enabled player(s) using illegal PEDs, and have benefitted from such actvity?

How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

"the Jets aren't going to get shit."

What good is a penalty of it doesn't have teeth?  Either way, i don't care who gets the pick as long as its a decent pick and as long as in aint the pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 12, 2007, 04:16:03 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 12, 2007, 04:20:24 PM
Quote
What we're talking about here is a systematic deception at the institutional (or organizational or whatever) level.  


deception is part of the game.

pump fakes, fast counts, etc.

so lets call it illegal use of a videocam,

admit it you're still pissed about the "Tuck Rule"


I'm not pissed about anything.  I just don't see why having the Pats forfeit the game wouldn't be a fair result.

I mean, if you're going to call secret cheating cameras "part of the game," why not just go all out and pump invisible odorless fatigue-inducing gases into the visiting team's locker room?   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 04:30:59 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?

You're right.  Fine.  Take away all their rings since they signed the Giambino.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 04:33:46 PM
While you're at it, you're welcome to take Mussinas as well.

Back to the NFL, i've got another wacky idea:  Make the Patriots forfeit homefield to the JETS so they play 2 games on Jet home turf next year.  That will hurt Kraft in the wallet.  I mean, Goodell talked about making GMs and owners accountable.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 05:24:46 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?

thanks liq-

Cashman was a willing accomplice in Giambi's cheating.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 05:26:22 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?

You're right.  Fine.  Take away all their rings since they signed the Giambino.

how about their pennants? And compensate the teams they cheated.

kam-perhaps you should think before you post.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 05:31:06 PM
Quote
I'm not pissed about anything.

I didn't think you were, nor am I. I'm just playing around.

If the Pats cheated, some punishment is needed. I'm just not sure forfeiting a game is equitable. Particularly as the "cheating" (if its true) was discoverd about 7 minutes into the game and had no impact on the outcome of the game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 05:34:10 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?

You're right.  Fine.  Take away all their rings since they signed the Giambino.

how about their pennants? And compensate the teams they cheated.

kam-perhaps you should think before you post.

Perhaps you should crawl outta my butt  :)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 05:43:00 PM
Quote
How do you compare the two? The Yankees had some bad apples. That wasn't cheating sanctioned by the organization. Brian Cahsman wasn't in there signing Giambi and then telling him to do some steroids.

Didn't they remove specific language regarding performance enhancing drugs when they signed Giambi to a contract?

You're right.  Fine.  Take away all their rings since they signed the Giambino.

how about their pennants? And compensate the teams they cheated.

kam-perhaps you should think before you post.

Perhaps you should crawl outta my butt  :)

kam-this is the interweb, if post dumb stuff, as you do, it gets reBUTTED.

I'll try be nicer in the future, if you try to think before you post. :D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 05:51:47 PM
Plus ... Steriods weren't illegal then right?

But Videotaping like BB did is so.... there you go.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 05:52:39 PM
So .. there's using me noggin eh? I thinky, then i posty.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 07:03:17 PM
Quote
Plus ... Steriods weren't illegal then right?

Wrong. I'm sorry PEDs were illegal then, but thanks for playing.

Quote
But Videotaping like BB did is so.... there you go.

If BB did what was alleged the organization should be punished.

Quote
So .. there's using me noggin eh? I thinky, then i posty.

And you wonder why you have developed a reputation as a fanboy. And so soon. Nice work.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 07:10:46 PM
What does fanboy mean bankshot?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 07:24:59 PM
Quote
Plus ... Steriods weren't illegal then right?

Wrong. I'm sorry PEDs were illegal then, but thanks for playing.

Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 08:17:13 PM
What does fanboy mean bankshot?



it is when a fan of a given team always takes the position of said team without any discernible thought given to the position taken. You are a fanboy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 08:20:19 PM
Quote
Plus ... Steriods weren't illegal then right?

Wrong. I'm sorry PEDs were illegal then, but thanks for playing.

Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.

 You've uncovered what most of us knew. MLB started in policy against steroids in 2002. Giambi admitted in Grand jJury testimony to taking steroids in 2002 and 2003. So he broke the rules, and other teams were impacted.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 08:26:51 PM
Quote
Plus ... Steriods weren't illegal then right?

Wrong. I'm sorry PEDs were illegal then, but thanks for playing.

Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.


 You've uncovered what most of us knew. MLB started in policy against steroids in 2002. Giambi admitted in Grand jJury testimony to taking steroids in 2002 and 2003. So he broke the rules, and other teams were impacted.

Thank you for just making my point.  He broke the rules.  Brian Cashman didn't break any rules when he signed Giambi in 2001. So your attack on the yankees holds no water.  Blame Giambino. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 08:34:40 PM
What does fanboy mean bankshot?



it is when a fan of a given team always takes the position of said team without any discernible thought given to the position taken. You are a fanboy.

You've given no discernible thought to why you think i'm a fanboy. You just like to throw insults around when they might actually apply to you if not all of us.  Also, you're bringing up the Yankees on an NFL thread showing your obvious RedSox fanboydom.  Because a fanboy, according to Wikipedia  may go out of his way to point out negative and often untrue statements about their obsession's rivals

And i believe we just danced that tango above when your negative statements that you went out of your way to post about the Yankees were refuted as untrue.

Geezus man.  You picked on the wrong feller.  Go lick yer wounds.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 10:10:24 PM
I didn't say Cashman broke the rules I said :


Quote
btw what penalty do you believe is appropriate for the NY Yankees to "suffer" seeing how they have knowingly used and enabled player(s) using illegal PEDs, and have benefitted from such actvity? 


Cashman was asked to turn a blind eye to Giambi's behavior and he did.

Quote
Also, you're bringing up the Yankees on an NFL thread showing your obvious RedSox fanboydom. 


I brought up the Giambi thing to see what your response was to other examples of cheating/bending the rules/gamesmanship by other organizations.

I said early on that if the Pats were guilty of cheating they should be penalized. I didn't look for excuses. They got caught they should be penalized. That's not fanboyism.

Your splitting hairs of what Cashman did and when he did it and what he knew, when it was pretty damn obvious in 2001 he was signing a drug abuser, in the name of to exonerating the Y organization from taint, is fanboyism.









Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 10:33:05 PM
You admit the pats should pay a penalty.  Thats a start.  Now I'm a Giants fan so the Jets can go to hell but why does it matter to you if the Jets get the pick or not?  They were the team that the pats cheated.  Explain why Patsfanboy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 12, 2007, 10:51:39 PM
You admit the pats should pay a penalty.  Thats a start.  Now I'm a Giants fan so the Jets can go to hell but why does it matter to you if the Jets get the pick or not?  They were the team that the pats cheated.  Explain why Patsfanboy.

I said the pats should be penalized this afternoon.

Quote
I hope when they check the videotape, they find the last Soprano's episdode, the one with Mangini in it.

If the Pats are guilty some punishment is deserved. Loss of draft pick(s) seems to be  the interweb wisdom
.

A fanboy would make excuses, like you did for Cashman . But I digress.

The Jets should not get a pick, another home game or a make-up game because the Pats taping had no effect on the outcome of game. The tape was nabbed half-way in the first quarter before it could be analyzed. You want to penalize the Pats, fine. Take away a 2 and a  6, or whatever, and slap a $250K fine on them. But the Jets aren't going to get dick. Except a flimsy excuse why they got their asses handed to them.

edit: to add quote


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 12, 2007, 11:29:37 PM
I think my offer was better.

--
edit:

You would rather give up a 2 and a 6 when i suggested a straight 4 to the jets?  your obvious dislike for the jets is clouding your judgment fannie.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 13, 2007, 08:02:19 AM
Quote
edit:

You would rather give up a 2 and a 6 when i suggested a straight 4 to the jets?  your obvious dislike for the jets is clouding your judgment fannie.

I'd rather a fine and BB sent to his room with no cookies.

And then the season resumes, the Pats play like the Pats, return to the Meadowlands in December and kick the crap out of Giants. And then go to the post-season. And they will.

But first things first.

Yes a 4 is less than a 2 & 6. 

Neither you nor I know what the NFL will do. I've seen posters post all sorts of penalties including: forfeit, loss of a Pats home game, a replay of the game and the awarding extra draft choices to the Jets, suspension off BB, and overturning the Tuck call.

I think the NFL will come down hard on the Pats and make an example of them. So a 2 & 6 with a large fine seems about right, hi/low and dough.

Could I be wrong?

Of course, I could, but I tried to give it some thought.

And my thoughts on the Jets are irrelevant. They are just a division rival, usually an inept one. If the Pats did this to any team the penalty woud be (or should be) the same.




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 08:48:36 AM
What does fanboy mean bankshot?



it is when a fan of a given team always takes the position of said team without any discernible thought given to the position taken. You are a fanboy.

You've given no discernible thought to why you think i'm a fanboy. You just like to throw insults around when they might actually apply to you if not all of us.  Also, you're bringing up the Yankees on an NFL thread showing your obvious RedSox fanboydom.  Because a fanboy, according to Wikipedia  may go out of his way to point out negative and often untrue statements about their obsession's rivals

And i believe we just danced that tango above when your negative statements that you went out of your way to post about the Yankees were refuted as untrue.

Geezus man.  You picked on the wrong feller.  Go lick yer wounds.

The guy isn't a fanboy Kam. He's an asshole.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 13, 2007, 10:45:03 AM
cap

as I told you a long time ago, you really should put away the anger

heh

edit: kam-perhaps in a few days we can discuss the NFL's decision


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 11:47:53 AM
There's no anger in stating a fact. I'm sure Kam was pretty much thinking what I said.

But you can go into faux kiss-up mode with him after doing a pearl harbor like you usually do. Hell, he might even buy it, but don't hold your breath.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 13, 2007, 12:05:15 PM
Lol.  Yeah, Cap you might have read my mind but taking the low road won't help much.  I prefer we all talk as if we're sitting face to face.  We would all be much better behaved and less likely to insult others that way.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 13, 2007, 12:18:11 PM
Okie dokie Kam. Hang loose man.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on September 13, 2007, 02:49:30 PM
Uh, oh, criminal stuff from Boston;


Smooth criminals
Patriots bring cheating in the NFL into modern era
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/13/cheating/index.html?eref=T1


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 14, 2007, 09:20:30 AM
I think its ridiculous that the quality of draft picks are contingent on whether the Patriots make the playoffs.  For one, I hardly doubt the first game of the season will dictate whether the Pats make the playoffs or not.  And secondly, why should playoff status matter?  Just penalize them, set the precedent, and move on.  If its a first rounder so be it, but to make a penalty contingent on the playoffs is ridiculous.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 14, 2007, 09:49:43 AM
Wow.. what does it matter if they make the playoffs or not that penalty is harsh either way.

500,000k penalty for Belichik! a 1st rounder or a 2 and a 3. Yikes!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 14, 2007, 09:51:07 AM
Its a good thing they had two first rounders I guess.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on September 14, 2007, 03:05:04 PM
OK how about some picks?

Locally Favre is a diva who has outlived his team. The dying scene takes s000000 long. You have to score to beat the jints. This aint the iggles. Eli/Jload good for 27-13.

Jets forgot to rebuild the OL, lets see how they do against a team that does not cheat. Birds 20-17.

Game of the century, Bolts vs the criminal horde, a win for the Pats. Just too much talent, and too many gizmos.  League should check into those strange FA signings.

Colts over the Titans in a close one. Ready for Pats-Colts in the AFC finals.

Any games won by the Chefs, Phins, or Browns are flukes. Could Texas be the Saints of 07, maybe now that they have dumped their too accurate QB.

Rest of the games should be one-sided snoozefests for the favorite.







Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 16, 2007, 05:48:37 PM
"Favre..."

Yeah.  Don't call it a comeback.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on September 16, 2007, 11:31:17 PM
OOps, hope you did not bet the rent money. The crystal ball needs a little tweaking. Did not expect the total meltdown by the locals. The moral, cheating does pay in the NFL. How about if the Pats win the Super title again, what message does that send? 80 points in the first two games, wait until a good QB in his prime faces the Gmen. Romo and Favre, o my. Cleveland and Detroit for crisakes, wrong week to play too many faves.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 09:37:56 AM
Quote
How about if the Pats win the Super title again, what message does that send?

message: great players + great coaching = championships

btw, the message would be the same if the Colts win again.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 10:32:17 AM
The Pats took it to the Chargers last night.  So much for videotape.  Norv Turner is terrible - did he decide not to have his team practice the past week for fear of spying?  That team was woefully unprepared. Never should have replaced Schotty with him.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 10:35:50 AM
The Pats will always have the asterisk ("*") next to their championships just the way the steroid era has tainted achievements in MLB.  Cheating to gain an advantage is cheating, plain and simple, and I think it was wise of Goodell to leave the door open to investigating past coordinated abuses of leage policy.  Shoud "hoody" be pushed out of the game or have some sort of lifetime ban like Pete Rose?  No.  Should he be suspended indefinitely following a serious inquiry into Patgate: If necessary.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 10:39:11 AM
I think its ridiculous that the quality of draft picks are contingent on whether the Patriots make the playoffs.  For one, I hardly doubt the first game of the season will dictate whether the Pats make the playoffs or not.  And secondly, why should playoff status matter?  Just penalize them, set the precedent, and move on.  If its a first rounder so be it, but to make a penalty contingent on the playoffs is ridiculous.

I was also "surprised" by the contingent nature of the penalty.

How about if they win the AFC Championship game, they lose Brady for the next game?

While the penalty was steep, it was about in-line with what I thought (hi-low draft choices & dough) and was intended to make an example of the Pats and set precedence.

I wonder who ratted them out?

and the next time the Pats/Jets play, take the Pats, you could give the Jets a calculator and they won't come up with the #s to cover.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 11:01:22 AM
Quote
I wonder who ratted them out?

Mangini would be my guess.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 11:05:37 AM
or someone real close to Mangini.

Goodell and his source, let'scall him, "Deep Route"  meet in a Meadowlands parking lot...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 11:12:09 AM
The Pats will always have the asterisk ("*") next to their championships just the way the steroid era has tainted achievements in MLB.  Cheating to gain an advantage is cheating, plain and simple, and I think it was wise of Goodell to leave the door open to investigating past coordinated abuses of leage policy.  Shoud "hoody" be pushed out of the game or have some sort of lifetime ban like Pete Rose?  No.  Should he be suspended indefinitely following a serious inquiry into Patgate: If necessary.

The Patriots are hardly the first team to cut corners.  Teams routinely bring in a guy for a week who was just cut by the team they're going to play and pump him for information before releasing him.  The Jets brought in Caldwell just days before their game against the Pats to glean information. Heck, teams routinely plant spies at each other's practices.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 11:14:30 AM
Heck, the NFL took no action when the Dolphins purchased audio tapes of New England games to pick up Tom Brady’s cadence and audible calls last season.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 11:22:29 AM
IMO 15 minutes of videotape should not diminish 3 SB. But to some, it will.

IMO2 The Mad Monk of Foxboro will use that as a motivational device to further motivate a highly skilled and very deep team.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 11:44:21 AM
15 minutes of footage?  Where do you get that number from?  You think this was the first time, and they just happened to be caught?

BTW i don't care.  I don't think it tarnishes anything.  I think all teams should do this kind of stuff if they can get away with it.  Just don't be so blatant and stoopid about it that you get caught.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 11:56:29 AM
15 minutes of footage?  Where do you get that number from?  You think this was the first time, and they just happened to be caught?

BTW i don't care.  I don't think it tarnishes anything.  I think all teams should do this kind of stuff if they can get away with it.  Just don't be so blatant and stoopid about it that you get caught.

The Pats got nailed in the middle of the 1st quarter. It was probably more like 7-10 minutes of game tape.

And until someone comes up with some EVIDENCE that the Pats cheated before, this incident would be the first and only time that they did so.

But I do understand your skepticism. And I share your sentiment it was stupid.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 12:00:56 PM
Quote
And until someone comes up with some EVIDENCE that the Pats cheated before, this incident would be the first and only time that they did so.


Barry Bonds did steroids.  I'm sorry I have no evidence.
Evidence showed OJ killed his wife, yet he got off innocent.

The PATS had to have cheatd before, otherwise the Mangenius wouldn't have recognized it as such.  Of course, 'officially' this is the only time the PATS have cheated, but we all know.  We know.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 12:09:09 PM
Quote
And until someone comes up with some EVIDENCE that the Pats cheated before, this incident would be the first and only time that they did so.


Barry Bonds did steroids.  I'm sorry I have no evidence.

Did MLB officially penalize Bonds for anything? Was he suspended or docked pay? Or will his record go into the books with a asterisk?

What's your point? If it is that the Pats are serial offenders, the burden of proof is on you. They broke the rules were caught and were penalized. They now will be under a fair degree of scrutiny. And its all deserved.
   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 12:10:48 PM
There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. As you say, the PATS are already damned and can never prove themselves NOT guilty.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 12:22:42 PM
Quote
There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion.

Yup.

Quote
As you say, the PATS are already damned and can never prove themselves NOT guilty.

I'm not sure about the "damned" part. Some people (and some players) are going to believe what they want to believe. If some people want to accuse the Pats of cheating in the past, they will. Even if there is no evidence. 


But as to disproving the charges. They can come close-All they have to do is play good football and this "15 minutes of infamy" might recede.

btw, do you think they cheated last nite, when they totally outplayed one of the best team in football under the bright lights and scrutiiny of the NFL?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 12:33:10 PM
The PATS kicked butt yesterday.  I'm a fan of theirs.  They're my starting Defense/ST unit in Fantasy Football.  I have a vested interest that prvents me from caring too much but don't you think its possible the PATS had a tape of the Chargers from a previous game they played?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 12:39:04 PM
The Chargers have a new head coach and new offensive and defensive coordinators from the last time they played, so I'm guessing they're using different hand signals.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 12:41:05 PM
I'm sure the pats have a shitload of info/intelligence on the Chargers, But If the Chargers didn't change signals from time to time (btw, they changed coach after last year) they're morons and deserve to lose.

that reminds me of the TB/Raiders SB after Gruden went to TB. The Raiders kept their pre-Gruden signals, his staff recognized it, and c'est la guerre, Gruden got a ring and a good laugh.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 12:45:35 PM
Well then we have to figure the PATS either won through fair means of found some other way to cheat.  If they cheat and don't get caught, its the same as not cheating.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 12:47:43 PM
Why shouldn't Goddell gather evidence and then put Belicheck under oath to testify about whether or not there have been violation and what the course of conduct has been.  Until the Pats and Hoody state "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, but once," then you have to assume there is a planned course of conduct.  If Mangini is aware of prior violations he is likely in violation of league policy himself by failing to report such conduct while an assistant coach.  Of course, he would've been fired and so the onus really falls on Bellichek and when he gave the go ahead for illegal surveillance.

I think if anything the general public is under-reacting, because you are talking about essentially efforts to reverse engineer someone's playbook which is tantamount to stealing it.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Belichek finds himself before a Congressional inquiry should Goodell not use due diligence in ferreting out the magnitude of the infraction, and whether we are talking about an isolated incident or essentially a "loose cannon" within a corporation acting with reckless disregard for the rules that govern the corporate relationship between two separate but similarly policed organizations.  

Additionally, if any persons had knowledge that the Patriots had an edge by using videotape, the potential for use and abuse of that information in gaming is potentially damning not only for an organization but for the NFL.  In my opinion, in a world of men, and not electrocuted dogs, such conduct is more dishonorable if not more reprehensible, at best shameful, and quite possibly criminal.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 12:51:36 PM
It's the most straightforward delineation that you can make between what is essentially "white collar" crime and "thug" or "player" crime.  There's a double-standard here and letting Hoody off without an ongoing investigation is not going to satisfy the public or in all likelihood the player's union.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 12:53:34 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Belichek finds himself before a Congressional inquiry

Well then, God help us all.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 12:56:22 PM
my guess is that the NFL (Goodell) wants to put this behind them PDQ. Probably much the same way the NBA would not want to dwell on the sanctity of their refs.

Does the NFL really want to find out that just 1 team has taped others, what if its 15 or 25, or... They want people to focus on the game.

Although i'm pretty sure Goodell does not want to stand on a podium and hand a trophy to Kraft and BB.

Who knows to that end we may see a shitload of holding calls all of a sudden.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 01:05:00 PM
Quote
And until someone comes up with some EVIDENCE that the Pats cheated before, this incident would be the first and only time that they did so.

Didn't they get warned doing the same thing last season?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 01:07:10 PM
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if Belichek finds himself before a Congressional inquiry should Goodell not use due diligence in ferreting out the magnitude of the infraction, and whether we are talking about an isolated incident or essentially a "loose cannon" within a corporation acting with reckless disregard for the rules that govern the corporate relationship between two separate but similarly policed organizations. 

Somehow I doubt it. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 01:14:08 PM
It wouldn't shock me at all if some representative from that august body called for a Congressional investigation into "cheating in American sports." 

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 01:15:28 PM
Quote
And until someone comes up with some EVIDENCE that the Pats cheated before, this incident would be the first and only time that they did so.

Didn't they get warned doing the same thing last season?

Was it a specific warning? Because if it was, you would think the NFL would cite that as a reason to come down so hard on them. I thought the entire league got warned via a memo about videotaping this past off-season..



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 01:18:55 PM
Quote
It wouldn't shock me at all if some representative from that august body called for a Congressional investigation into "cheating in American sports."

Actually, you're probably right, given that Congress is holding a hearing into the compensation system for retired players in the NFL tomorrow.... 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 01:21:02 PM
It wouldn't shock me at all if some representative from that august body called for a Congressional investigation into "cheating in American sports." 

 

heh that would make the Army-McCarthy hearing look tame.

"There are 37 known cheaters in Major League Baseball"

"Information recently uncovered leads us to suspect 112 known cheaters...

"There are 30 known cells operating within a highly centralized and controlled network known to support and spread cheating"

Yup Congressional hearing could be a blast.






Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 17, 2007, 01:21:43 PM
But I'd very much like to think Congress has more important things on their docket.  A very small part of me can understand the fanfare of PEDs in regards to their consitituents - I'm not so sure about peeping tom on an opponent's signals is in the same league.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 01:24:18 PM
That they have more important things on their docket is precisely the reason that they'll hold these investigations.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 01:28:20 PM
Quote
But I'd very much like to think Congress has more important things on their docket.

we got elections coming up, some posturing about the sanctity of sport is just what we need. Just as long as Disney, GE & Fox's interest are not really put at risk.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 04:26:52 PM
The term "show business for ugly people" comes to mind whenever Congress "subpoena's" people who will invite coverage. 

Effectively stealing signals through the use of advanced photoelectronic equipment might not seem like a big deal in the Big Brother Era, but you think a little about corporate espionage and the fact that money and job-security are tied to winning, you see the fine line between professional sports and any other corporate endeavor.  While play-calling doesn't involve patent-protection or anything of that sort, the league acknowledges that efforts to ascertain somone's secret "recipe," or "game plan," especially with billions on the line in Vegas with untainted gambling and TV with an untainted professional sport, and that's why this is a much bigger deal than the average guy getting hit with a Milwaukee's Best Can is able to appreciate.

Defenders of Patgate abuses seem to think it's like an opposing fraternity stealing Ugga or the razorback before the big game and holding it hostage.  This is not a matter of hijiinks and gritty sportsmanship and fair competition, but corporate espionage with a potential for abuse that can't be brushed off by calling Bellichek a "mean bastard."

The integrity of the league is on the line, this is more Enron and Worldcom and more complicated ethically than electrocuting dogs, but that doesn't mean that it's not important.  The same white journalists banging at the typewriter with latent racism over the Vick case should consider that laughing off Patgate is the same sort of double standard between players and management that makes people with personal demons who fail or have friends that do, recoil when there is systemic corporate corruption using advanced photoelectronic equipment.

One man's "hey, what's a little dogfighting" is another mans "hey, what's a little organized corporate espionage," and that's the story that won't go away.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 04:33:36 PM
I'm not laughing off the seriousness of the matter (actually-though when you think about-cheating in professional sports is hardly a life or death situation), I'm laughing at the notion of Congress doing anything about it, the separate notion that Congress SHOULD do anything about it, and the notion of them sitting up there with there  little icrophones posturing about it.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 04:47:25 PM
Cheating in sports is most certainly a life or death matter in livelihoods if not blood.  Hoody should feel lucky to still have the ability to make a living coaching in the NFL.  But like Pete Rose, he refuses to disclose the depth and level of sophistication involved in cheating, and that's the problem.  Look what happened to Rose and say hey, it's not a life or death matter.  It affected how Rose lived, so unless Bellichek wants to sell hoodys on e-bay for a living he should come clean, lawyer up, or both, because the witch hunt is on:  I'm telling you this is a story that will not go away and may involve the Feds at some level.  What is an "unfair trade practice," is what Belichek didn tortious in any way?  Does a loss affect the future earnings and prospects for the loser and doesn't Belichek's contract incentivise winning, etc.  I'm not a lawyer, but if you consider the money involved, there might be something illegal or wrongful about what he's done that goes beyond a mere fine.  Should the franchise be yanked.  I don't know, but I do know that there will always be an asterisk in the minds of most people concerning Pats Superbowls, you only have to look at how on the defensive some of the veterans like Bruschi were today to know that the policy of cheating, the coaching version of human growth hormone, has probably been utilized for a while.  I didn't even watch the game last night because the proceeding were tainted for me.  Of course, the "water-cooler" was "...the Pats showed them what was what without cheating..." and I'm like "whaaaa????"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 17, 2007, 05:01:43 PM
All your comments might well be true, but I think we're taking different directions.  My scorn for Congress far exceeds the scorn I could possibly hold for this kind of cheating.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 05:12:14 PM
Congress should just pass the "No cheating in sports" law and order will be restored and faith in the important institutions that most of the citizenry hold dear, reaffirmed.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 05:20:03 PM
Quote
The integrity of the league is on the line,

You so overstate the magnitude of camera-gate.

The league's response was appropriate. BB broke a rule, (once)  he and his team was punished. This in no way is similair to Rose's violations in baseball. BB was trying to win games, it could be argued that Rose did not try his hardest to win all the games, just the games he bet on. That would strike at the integrity of the game. The NBA has a bigger problem with consumers questioning each call and whether it might have been motivated by an official beholden to a gambler. That strikes at the integrity of the game.

BB overstepped the line in trying to win a game. He was wrong.

To compare BB actions to those of Lay, Skilling, who killed a corporation, deeply hurt thousands of families, and cost investors bilions of dollars in a multyi-year scam is wrong.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 05:39:39 PM
Quote
BB broke a rule, (once)


Caught once. Broke it probably every game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 05:42:39 PM
Quote
BB broke a rule, (once)


Caught once. Broke it probably every game.

a ridiculous claim, toally fabricated and unsupportable.

I'm on more solid ground claiming that Cashman knowingly used illegal assets in his pursuit of championships far longer than than BB did.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 05:50:06 PM
Quote
BB broke a rule, (once)


Caught once. Broke it probably every game.

a ridiculous claim, toally fabricated and unsupportable.

I'm on more solid ground claiming that Cashman knowingly used illegal assets in his pursuit of championships far longer than than BB did.   

Forget the Yankees -- even though i won that point last week (you must be a republican thinking you can repeat something often enough that it becomnes true) -- the Patriots are the issue here.  If this was the first time they cheated, how was it so readily apparent to Mangini? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 05:52:55 PM
No more sleezeball posting tactics.  This is the NFL forum. If you have to talk about Brian Cashman on an NFL forum you've lost it.  And you're only bringing him up because you know i'ma Yankee fan and want to argue with me from a RedSox perspective.

YOU SIR ARE THE BIGGEST FANBOY EVER!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 06:04:00 PM
No more sleezeball posting tactics.  This is the NFL forum. If you have to talk about Brian Cashman on an NFL forum you've lost it.  And you're only bringing him up because you know i'ma Yankee fan and want to argue with me from a RedSox perspective.


Kam-Yiou lost that argument. The use of prescription steroids and hgh without a prescription has been illegal for a very long time. Its a federal crime. That baseball finally formalzed a policy doesn't mean it wasn't illegal to do those drugs, it was, it meant that that baseball finally woke up what was happening in the sport.

I brought up the baseball /Y analogy for 1 reason, both Cashman and BB knew what they were doing was against the rules. 

You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset, but you've no problem with Cashmna using an illegal asset. I had a problem with both doing it. 

I was curious if you'd defend the Cashman and bash BB. And you did. No surprise there. 




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 06:08:36 PM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 17, 2007, 06:09:08 PM
No more sleezeball posting tactics.  This is the NFL forum. If you have to talk about Brian Cashman on an NFL forum you've lost it.  And you're only bringing him up because you know i'ma Yankee fan and want to argue with me from a RedSox perspective.


 That baseball finally formalzed a policy doesn't mean it wasn't illegal to ...<...................>............do those drugs.........




KNOWINGLY


Title: GO BRONCOS!
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 17, 2007, 06:19:02 PM
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/TRND/FP4103~Denver-Broncos-Posters.jpg)



(http://images.sportstation.com/images/wcn/Northwest/325/Nor1Den-800Flash.gif[img][img]http://www.sportsteamlayouts.com/layout-small/DenverBroncos2.jpg)





(http://www.departments.dsu.edu/studentaffairs/aod/images/Personal%20pics/Denver%20Broncos.jpg)




(http://www.celebopedia.com/denver-broncos/images/denver-broncos.jpg)




(http://image38.webshots.com/39/3/49/72/326034972vtJRip_fs.jpg)





2007 MVP:



(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/jeffri_chadiha/11/21/shutdown.cbs/p1_bailey_si.jpg)





2008 Superbowl:  Broncos 21 Cowboys 17






Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 06:53:19 PM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?

You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted. 

[quoted]
You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset,[/quoted]

When did i say that?

I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 17, 2007, 07:00:51 PM
The difference between an individual cheating with steroids is that he bears sole responsibility for the action;  when BB coordinates a surrepticious effort to spy and reverse-engineer another team's playbook you are entering the arena of conspiracy to commit fraud and coordinated corporate espionage.  

The ramifications of such malfeasance are not clear yet, and quite typically RG is waiting to see what the public reaction will be before closing the door on the issue.  Unfortunately for him, with any coordinated conspiracy to violate laws, rather than an individual act, it really does become a question of who knew and was told to do what when and for how long, the admission of a knowing violation has opened the door to a more comprehensive inquiry which is at this point as inevitable as the snowball rolling down the mountainside, it's bound to gather momentum, weight, and the destruction can only be magnified.  If BB insists this is a one time only incident he may be guilty of lying to league investigators.  A refusal to answer questions about prior conduct will be seen as uncooperative at best.  It's going to be important for the league to clear the air of this issue and practice and how widespread it is in the league.  Vegas surely wants matters to go back to normal, maybe :)))

A coordinated effort to subvert league policy is a serious violation, no different from a coach securing HGH for one of his players, except for the drug laws coming into effect.  You are still talking about the difference between an individual act and corporate deniability of the knowledge it's players are doping, and the clear demonstration of a corporate policy of espionage which implicates an entire organization.

I agree that Rose, a simple gambling junkie without much of a brain, was a mere addict and ding-dong, in comparison with what can only be called the Nixonian machinations, paranoia, and messianic arrogance of BB.  That, sadly, may be the more apt comparison.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 17, 2007, 09:35:58 PM
Quote
You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted.
 

It seems I taught you a new word. Its unfortunate you have not grasped its meaning quite yet.

I misrepresented nothing. I'm sorry that your inabilty to comprehend Cashman's decision to cast morality to the wind and turn a blind eye to illegal drug use in pursuit of a championship offends your pin-striped sensibilities. Too fucking bad, but that's the way it is.  He, like BB, took a moral short-cut.   

In any case, I do support the sox and pats, but when they are in the wrong, as I felt BB was, I say so. And I outlined what I thought was a reasonable punishment. My sense of self is not usually determined by a W or L. Morality rarely comes in a one uniform.  I leave the fellating of teams to fanboy cocksuckers like you.

Quote
I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

and it may not be I said "prove it". And you couldn't, but you continued to make the same baseless charge.
You are a persistent but stupid cocksucker.

Quote
Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

I don't believe I said that, see above

and your inability to provide some proof for your assertions makes you a cockgobbling kum slurping moron.

I fear we're not going to best friends, ahh well.


edit: there is no evidence that kum slurping is one of kam's practices.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 17, 2007, 10:30:25 PM
You've been betrayed by your own key board as someone with no self-control.  Obviously a redneck. Goodbye and good luck.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Detective_Winslow on September 18, 2007, 03:06:12 AM
Quote
You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted.
 

It seems I taught you a new word. Its unfortunate you have not grasped its meaning quite yet.

I misrepresented nothing. I'm sorry that your inabilty to comprehend Cashman's decision to cast morality to the wind and turn a blind eye to illegal drug use in pursuit of a championship offends your pin-striped sensibilities. Too fucking bad, but that's the way it is.  He, like BB, took a moral short-cut.  

In any case, I do support the sox and pats, but when they are in the wrong, as I felt BB was, I say so. And I outlined what I thought was a reasonable punishment. My sense of self is not usually determined by a W or L. Morality rarely comes in a one uniform.  I leave the fellating of teams to fanboy cocksuckers like you.

Quote
I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

and it may not be I said "prove it". And you couldn't, but you continued to make the same baseless charge.
You are a persistent but stupid cocksucker.

Quote
Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

I don't believe I said that, see above

and your inability to provide some proof for your assertions makes you a cockgobbling kum slurping moron.

I fear we're not going to best friends, ahh well.




Maybe Yam does like the meat.


Title: Re: What goes around kams around
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 08:33:34 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/sports/jets/billick__jets_d_cheated.htm

BILLICK: JETS' 'D' CHEATED

Quote
September 18, 2007 -- Ravens coach Brian Billick yesterday accused the Jets of using an "illegal" ploy to draw Baltimore offside during Sunday's game.


I sense a trend developing.

hmmm, serially deceiving another team. I suspect Mangini has been engaged ini illegal deceptive practices forever, maybe longer. IMO Goodall needs to investigate immediately, dock Mangini at least 2 weeks allowance and force him to watch Giant games. That should be punshment enough for this egregious act of corporate deception.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 09:19:16 AM
fwiw the Selena Roberts take on Mangini ratting out BB

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/sports/football/18roberts.html?ref=sports

Quote
Coach Hoodie is the Patriots’ Bill Belichick. He answers with growls, is hardwired to be ruthless, and would have lost a congeniality contest to the dearly departed Leona Helmsley. He comes as is: obsessive, cold, and brazen enough to have cheated with his video spy games out in the open of a sideline.

Coach Hoodwink is the Jets’ Eric Mangini. He replies to questions in his library voice, visits Sesame Street in his downtime and readily reveals his soft, fatherly side. He comes off as duplicitous: paranoid, brutal, and nakedly ambitious enough to have double-crossed the organization that nurtured his career.

Mangini didn’t just flip on Belichick, costing his former mentor a celebrated image that has been reflected in a shelf-full of Lombardi Trophies, as well as a $500,000 fine and a prime draft pick. He did more. He also humiliated the respected Patriots owner and league power player Robert K. Kraft.

That sin has left Mangini toxic to some team executives. After all, would you trust him? Is there anyone — a player, assistant, general manager, owner or mascot — that he wouldn’t betray in a pinch?

you may need a subscription or access to the "insider" feature to access the entire article.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 09:58:19 AM
I wonder how far the dominoes will fall


Title: Re: What goes around kams around
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 18, 2007, 10:25:36 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/sports/jets/billick__jets_d_cheated.htm

BILLICK: JETS' 'D' CHEATED

Quote
September 18, 2007 -- Ravens coach Brian Billick yesterday accused the Jets of using an "illegal" ploy to draw Baltimore offside during Sunday's game.


I sense a trend developing.

hmmm, serially deceiving another team. I suspect Mangini has been engaged ini illegal deceptive practices forever, maybe longer. IMO Goodall needs to investigate immediately, dock Mangini at least 2 weeks allowance and force him to watch Giant games. That should be punshment enough for this egregious act of corporate deception.


I see this as Billick defending Bill B


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 10:28:58 AM
Quote
I see this as Billick defending Bill B

kid-I think that's a good read


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 10:39:59 AM

Others have labelled him a rat, saying Mangini should know better - especially after his cameo on "The Sopranos" - than to a blow the whistle on a procedure he might have known about and benefited from when he was in New England.

Besides, some have said, this is something that has been occurring in the NFL for years, and not just by the Patriots.

Washington Redskins assistant Gregg Williams said not only has he been taped giving defensive signals, he's been accidentally mailed the evidence.

"I've seen myself on tape before, when people forget to cut it out of the coaches' copy," he said.

Williams also doesn't believe the penalties levied against the Patriots will end this type of activity.

"Nah, that's something that's been going on since Pee-Wee Little League Baseball," he said. "Those kind of things happen."


http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTjGFkS2BOobUIqc5upfMOgwo51w



Title: Everybody's Doing It
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 10:46:13 AM
Former Giants linebacker Carl Banks says he is not surprised or appalled by Bill Belichick’s Spygate fiasco because espionage, legal or otherwise, is a rampant league-wide phenomenon.

"It’s something that every team does in one way, shape or form," Banks told The Post last night. "Every team has a TV show, every team has a highlight show with a camera crew on the sideline. You think they’re just shooting highlights for their team? With the advent of all these access shows - ‘Inside the Panthers,’ ‘Inside the Lions’ - they’re not all shooting highlights, I’m telling you now.

"What the league has to do now is monitor the number of people on the sidelines who operate cameras. I bet a few people disappear this weekend!"

But not the opposing team scouts in the press box.

"When you’re sitting in the press box and see all those scouts from other teams," Banks began, "they’re not all watching the game. They’re watching the sideline, for calls, for signals .ñ.ñ. they do all of that stuff. It’s however you can get an advantage to help you prepare for the next week."

Banks pooh-poohed the notion that the Patriots could have gained a competitive advantage over the Jets by stealing their defensive signals.

"I can’t debate the legality of it; but any fan who is appalled and thinks the outcome of the game was impacted based on this videotape has been misled," Banks said. "There’s not enough time to process and corroborate the information.

"The biggest spies during the course of a game are the players on the field."

Then what would be the purpose of a cloak-and-dagger video scam?

"Library," Banks said. "It’s a library of calls and signals."


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/sports/banks_on_nfl_spying__everybody.htm


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 18, 2007, 11:54:04 AM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?

You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted. 

[quoted]
You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset,[/quoted]

When did i say that?

I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

Like I tried to tell to before you'll get nowhere arguing with this asswad Kam. Better to just move on Pal.

Any future posts of his you see from the moron you should just print up, crinkle up, and use it for toilet paper. I mean it's basically already full of crap to begin with.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 12:03:37 PM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?

You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted. 

[quoted]
You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset,[/quoted]

When did i say that?

I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

Like I tried to tell to before you'll get nowhere arguing with this asswad Kam. Better to just move on Pal.

Any future posts of his you see from the moron you should just print up, crinkle up, and use it for toilet paper. I mean it's basically already full of crap to begin with.

what its full of is the crap that I've kicked out of poor corporal clueless, the high priestess of Y-fanboys.

Hi cap how's did that the Clippard comp work out for you ? Did you follow him down to AA?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 18, 2007, 12:53:05 PM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?

You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted. 

[quoted]
You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset,[/quoted]

When did i say that?

I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

Like I tried to tell to before you'll get nowhere arguing with this asswad Kam. Better to just move on Pal.

Any future posts of his you see from the moron you should just print up, crinkle up, and use it for toilet paper. I mean it's basically already full of crap to begin with.

You were right Cap. It takes no guts to hide behind his keyboard while hurling insults. The child is gutless, classless, and just plain misinformed.  Also, he cannot stomach any criticism of his teams so he is basically nothing more than a Boston apologist.  A fanboy.  A sniveling cowardly classless fanboy.  With the self-control and comportment of a bratty 12 year old. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 01:00:00 PM
Kam-cap is the high priestess of fanboyism, perhaps if she takes you under her wing, you might be able to learn something from her.

best of luck

p.s, Kam from time to time it might be helpful if there are some facts supporting your opinions. Otherwise your credibility will be challenged and people might conclude that you really suck at consructing a logical and thoughtful opinion.

Just trying to be helpful.

edit
Quote
It takes no guts to hide behind his keyboard while hurling insults. The child is gutless, classless, and just plain misinformed.


and you're posting this from where?

Kam-Does your mom know you're playing on the computer again?





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 18, 2007, 01:02:11 PM




Hi cap how's did that the Clippard comp work out for you ? Did you follow him down to AA?

[/quote]

Can you believe the Brenners arte so hungry for a title (lost it to Sox last year at same level) that they had AAA/big league hurlers down there for the AA playoffs?

TFF


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 01:10:48 PM
"Corporate malfeasance using surrepticious photoelectronic espionage protocols..."

Let's just understand the difference between this and your D-line barking out "hut HUT."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 01:19:09 PM
"Corporate malfeasance using surrepticious photoelectronic espionage protocols..."

Let's just understand the difference between this and your D-line barking out "hut HUT."

I'm pretty sure one of them is a 5-yard penalty.

I'm not sure why the charge, "Corporate malfeasance" wouldn't apply to a corporation using trickery in any form or using any technology, if its aim was to gain an advantage.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 01:20:10 PM
Quote
Let's just understand the difference between this and your D-line barking out "hut HUT."

"New England realistically may have been able to catch one or two plays from doing that and they could've had somebody in the press box getting the same information," said former Atlanta Falcons general manager Ken Herock, who also worked as an executive in Oakland and Green Bay. "And what you're actually talking about is one or two plays out of about 60 snaps a game. That really isn't a great advantage."

Seems like the difference would be pretty similar to your D-Line illegally simulating the snap count.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 01:25:11 PM
The point is tha it is an organized corporate conspiracy to commit malfeasance, and not A-Rod yelling "I got it."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 01:29:25 PM
The point is tha it is an organized corporate conspiracy to commit malfeasance, and not A-Rod yelling "I got it."

the point is that perhaps the "conspiracy"  to tape defensve signals is not too different from the conspiracy constructed by Mangini huddling with his defensive coachs to have them instruct the defensive players to illegally confuse and disrupt the offense.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 01:30:34 PM
If Torre told A-Rod to yell, "I got it" would it be an organized corporate conspiracy under your logic?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 01:52:18 PM
If Torre told A-Rod to yell, "I got it" would it be an organized corporate conspiracy under your logic?

liq do you think anyone ever says "good point you're right" and then drop the argument?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 01:57:05 PM
I think it would spell an end to the forums as we know it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 18, 2007, 01:58:50 PM
excellent point

you're right.

heh


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 18, 2007, 02:46:03 PM
and Kam you can type whatever charge you'd like and put it in capital or boldface. It doesn't make it true. I'll repeat this: a fanboy mindlessly supports their team right or wrong without questioning the position taken.

Who's doing that here?

You can misrepresent facts all you want fanboy but your support of the Pats and RedSox is noted. 

[quoted]
You have a problem with BB breaking his rule and using an illegal asset,[/quoted]

When did i say that?

I said one thing: This aint the first time BB cheated

Your undying insistence that it was the first time makes you out to be nothing but a sniveling fanboy.

Like I tried to tell to before you'll get nowhere arguing with this asswad Kam. Better to just move on Pal.

Any future posts of his you see from the moron you should just print up, crinkle up, and use it for toilet paper. I mean it's basically already full of crap to begin with.

You were right Cap. It takes no guts to hide behind his keyboard while hurling insults. The child is gutless, classless, and just plain misinformed.  Also, he cannot stomach any criticism of his teams so he is basically nothing more than a Boston apologist.  A fanboy.  A sniveling cowardly classless fanboy.  With the self-control and comportment of a bratty 12 year old. 

Yep.  The guy is a whirling hub on endless circle jerk duty.

But you live and learn Kam.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 03:22:51 PM
Liquid:  Good point, you're right, even though it doesn't encompass the insidious and abominable act of photo-electronic corporate espionage by a number of wholly non-player oriented corporate co-conspirators.


Title: Someone, please - shake this idiot:
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 18, 2007, 03:33:19 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-mcnabb-blackqbs&prov=ap&type=lgns


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 18, 2007, 08:35:49 PM
It would have been interesting if he'd said that immediately following Limbaugh's comments when he was an NFL commentator


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 18, 2007, 11:17:21 PM
Yeah, but we can all agree that "blackface quarterbacks" face greater scrutiny.  That's just a truism, now, the reasons for that are the story, but everybody knows that black quarterbacks are going to be accused of being more athletic, and not as intellectual, etc., that's just a cultural bias that is manifest.

Whether you yank a guy because he's a black QB when Matt Shaub is waiting in the wings in a question for historians to resolve, etc.

But if a guy like BB is trying to get an edge any way possible, then it naturally follows that any owner, ticketholder, etc., are going to try to win, period, adjusting for the fact that in a Marxist way, black QB's sell more jerseys.

At this point, though, I think that money rules over prejudice, unless you are talking about a particular organization. 

Plus:  Imagine being a black accountant who fears that he is being socially promoted or the white guys who are saying the same thing.  In the NFL that flies for no, meaning zero time, because you have a backup, black or white.

There actually, despite historical bias, is no more egalitarian and merit-based job a black guy could have in my opinion, not saying that it doesn't come with criticism, but it's a fairly sorry "bitch point" when you have to be that much better in every other profession except you are fucking benched when you don't perform in the NFL.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 19, 2007, 08:39:45 AM
Quote
But if a guy like BB is trying to get an edge any way possible, then it naturally follows that any owner, ticketholder, etc., are going to try to win, period, adjusting for the fact that in a Marxist way, black QB's sell more jerseys.

jbottle-While I understand the concept of gaining an edge (by an owner, coach, or player) to a secure a victory, would you please explain the above referenced passage? And is it Karl, Louis, or Groucho (or another sibling) you are referring to?

thanks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on September 19, 2007, 08:48:25 AM
NFL is a meritocracy, if McNabb was playing well, he wouldn't be criticized.  He says Peyton Manning doesn't get criticized like he does.  Well, duh, Manning is a better quarterback.  If he wants to see a white quarterback with a pedigree that gets regularly ripped by the media, look at Peyton's brother Eli. 

As an aside, I don't think the Philly media and fans are quite as forgiving as in other parts of the country either though


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on September 19, 2007, 11:06:30 AM
While I'm not certain of the merits of McNabb's position, i.e., that black qbs are criticized more, it does seem to me that Brett Favre has thrown a lot of dumb passes and made a lot of idiotic decisions over the last few seasons without, it seems, nearly as much criticism as other qbs who make those throws and decisions would have received.

Now maybe Favre has earned the right to poor play, and God knows, the Packers have had some lousy teams over the last few years, but it seems to be that McNabb has always had mediocre receivers (except for T.O.) and excepting Westbrook (who can hardly run 30 times a game), has had pedestrian rbs as well.

I don't really know what the hell I'm trying to say, though.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 19, 2007, 11:15:27 AM
QBs because the nature of the position draw more heat than anyone. Perhaps McNabb should try another less visible position, as long as that position is not bent over blowing lunch during the SuperBowl. IMO that position will probably draw the fan's ire as well. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 19, 2007, 03:35:47 PM
I'm suggesting that if you follow the money it's hard to bench Vick for Shaub when he was having a bad game because of the backlash and because of the fact that MV at the time was selling more jerseys than anybody else in the league.  So, what might've been a smart football decision, give Vick a rest, let him collect his act with a set of downs by Matt Shaub, is not a good money (Karl Marx) decision, and would be highly unpopular in an overly "urban" (read black) big city like Atlanta.  So, while Vick and McNabb have faced a lot of criticism, I think the popularity and the nature of the cities in which they play matter.  The press will murder you in Philly.  You think Eli Manning gets a pass because he's white when he underperforms.  No, he gets hammered, it's New York.  When the perrennially injured Jets QB gets injured again and has a weak arm anyway, that's New York fans being assholes to a nice guy with limited arm strength, but that's New York.  Look at the Dolphins, they fire a black guy to go with a black guy, and if it had been Jeff Garcia or somebody waiting in the wings wouldn't there be accusation of lack of loyalty to your black QB you invested time and money in?  Sure.  I don't mind people viewing things through a sort of racial prism at every turn, because that the nature of our culture, race is always going to be involved when something happens, but whether it's a matter of perception or reality or a combination or a misperception, distortion, exaggeration, etc., always hard to tell, but McNabb is full of shit on this one, because it's about performance above all.

Was it disgusting the way people came down on Vick and tried to blame him for all of hip-hop culture and thuggishness.  Sure.  That was a big part of it, but that wasn't the main story, which was about cruelty to animals.  Most people understand that but if I was a black guy and heard white journalists making the leap from Vick to a greater cultural problem, I would be pretty pissed off...

...that would be my afternoon ramble, but at least I'm off the Belichek tangent that I was only half-serious about...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 20, 2007, 05:39:29 PM
I thought TO was right on time with his camera spoof of Belicheck, and Patsgate, one of the more bold political statements during the NFL season this year, and yet another reason that the story refuses to go away.  The fact that he got fined for reminding RG of the story that refuses to go away should remind RG that his investigation is ongoing.  I don't think that the Patriots will lose their franchise, but Patsgate or Spygate, or the conspiracy to commit corporate espionage using illegal advanced photo-electronic surveillance equipment, whatever you like to call it, will reach such a fever pitch during the next few weeks that the Pats onfield play will be affected and Congressional hearings a near certainty.  The orgainization may be suffused with corruption or this may be a one time incident.  BB's answers so far have been evasive at best, subterfuge certainly, misleading and incomplete without a doubt.  He needs to answer the question about whether there was surveillance going on in previous years, particularly when they won "*" NFL Championships, because the only way to remove the "*" will be to testify under oath in front of a Congressional Committee.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 21, 2007, 10:03:49 AM
Coaches have been trying(and succeeding)to steal signs ever since they became popular as a means of setting up offenses and defenses. Nothing new. Taping them was just a way to study them more efficiently.

But the bottom line is that Bellichork broke the rules knowingly. He and the Patriots were punished(ever-so-slightly) by the NFL. So why not move on?

Ut oh now I done it, I said "move on".

I'll expect to be censured by the moron corporate sellouts in congress in the near future.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 21, 2007, 10:12:15 AM
jbottle

there are so many fun things to respond to in your rant/post, I don't know where to start, so for now I'm going to pass.

But as for Patsgate it appears the NFL and Goodell not only erased 18 1/2 minutes, but in fact found Rose Marie Woods and had her destroy the entire tape collection.

As Howard Cosell used to say, "lets go to the vodeotape"

Quote
FOXBOROUGH - There will be no further sanctions against the Patriots as a result of the NFL's investigation into the team's videotaping procedures, a league source confirmed last night.
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts According to the source, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to all 32 clubs last night in which he said he was satisfied the Patriots fully cooperated and complied with his instructions.

Goodell wrote that NFL staffers met twice with top Patriots officials and took possession of all tapes and documents relating to the team's videotaping of opposing signals. All materials were destroyed and the Patriots also certified in writing that no copies or other records exist, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed.

I for one think you should be enraged, yes ENRAGED!!!!!

There wil be no Congressional investigation into this sad sad tale of corporate espionage, deception, subtergfuge and yes unsportsmanlike conduct.

But wait, what's that? Why its a red flag thrown on the field by Jet Coach Mangini, he's looking for the call to be over-turned;

Quote
An NBC report during last Sunday night's Patriots-Chargers game, claiming the Jets alleged that the Patriots had illegally placed a microphone on a defensive player, was found to have no merit.

"We have no evidence to support that claim," Aiello said

after reviewing the play....


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 12:42:25 PM
NFL is a meritocracy, if McNabb was playing well, he wouldn't be criticized.  He says Peyton Manning doesn't get criticized like he does.  Well, duh, Manning is a better quarterback.  If he wants to see a white quarterback with a pedigree that gets regularly ripped by the media, look at Peyton's brother Eli. 

As an aside, I don't think the Philly media and fans are quite as forgiving as in other parts of the country either though

Maybe McNabb should call Dick Allen and have a chat about PWB in Philly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 12:43:49 PM
Coaches have been trying(and succeeding)to steal signs ever since they became popular as a means of setting up offenses and defenses. Nothing new. Taping them was just a way to study them more efficiently.

But the bottom line is that Bellichork broke the rules knowingly. He and the Patriots were punished(ever-so-slightly) by the NFL. So why not move on?

Ut oh now I done it, I said "move on".

I'll expect to be censured by the moron corporate sellouts in congress in the near future.

LMAO!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 12:47:45 PM
As for the whole Videotape mess, I don't see the big deal.

If you think someone is stealing your signs in baseball---you change your signs---

If you know someone is stealing them because you were in charge of stealing them in your last job---like Fat Man Genie----you create two sets--- one for the videocam of your opponent and another for your team.

Technology is used all the time in the NFL---there should be no limits....I want cameras, moles, listening devices---everything...because in the end, you still have to make the plays.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kitinkaboodle on September 21, 2007, 01:14:28 PM
Mr. Utley:

Great reply ;D!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 21, 2007, 03:20:04 PM
I'm willing to move on, but until BB comes completely clean about past malfeasance, which he will neither confirm nor deny, I view all Pats victories under his leadership to have asterisks by them, but especially the Superbowl victories that are based on seasons in which the conspiracy to subvert league policy using advanced photoelectronic surveillance.

I consider BB and Barry Bonds and Pete Rose to all be in the same category, basically.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 03:29:01 PM
I'm willing to move on, but until BB comes completely clean about past malfeasance, which he will neither confirm nor deny, I view all Pats victories under his leadership to have asterisks by them, but especially the Superbowl victories that are based on seasons in which the conspiracy to subvert league policy using advanced photoelectronic surveillance.

I consider BB and Barry Bonds and Pete Rose to all be in the same category, basically.

Translation: I willing to move on, but I want total embarrassment of my enemy first, and then I want to put in ridiculous punishments based on supposition only.

None of which has to do with Barry Bonds or Pete Rose, of course.

Maybe you want to lump Benedict Arnold and Dick Cheney's 5 deferments to avoid conscription in there, too.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 03:30:09 PM
INteresting take on the McNabb OVEREACTION (read that last word whichever way you choose):

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/20070921_David_Aldridge____Reaction_proves_race_is_still_an_issue.html


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 21, 2007, 04:27:53 PM
Belicheck hasn't said "We've never used videotape illegally before we were caught against the Jets..."

When he says that, I'll remove the asterisk, otherwise he may be as much of a liar as Pete Rose (confirmed) or Bonds (head size, shoe size, obvious).  He can remove the cloud by asserting that he's only conspired with other coaches to subvert league policy to gain an illegal advantage over an opponent on one occasion.  Otherwise, what is the public supposed to think.  That he cheated his way to elite status in the NFL but no big deal?

For homers, sure, I mean Bonds still catches claps in the PARTS OF THE BAY AREA, and ROSE IS EMPLOYABLE IN LAS VEGAS, but that is about the extent of the love/credibility, and I suspect the same is true here.

I'm guilty of hyperbole to make my point, but he's not yet removed the cloud of suspicion over his past wins, and if he's not interested in doing that I'm not going to meet him all the way and say, okay, no problem, "coaches always try to get an edge."  NOPE, because this isn't "all in the game," this is POOR SPORTSMANSHIP, CHEATING, all in a COORDINATED WAY.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 21, 2007, 09:25:06 PM
Your flagged for piling on.

First,  your "asterisk" means nothing, and second, I don't think Billy B. gives a flying fish what you think about him.

Beyond that, the guy's a Hall of Famer, and if you understood sports and could move beyond your own prejudice and bias, you'd know that information is just information.

Execution and motivation are what win games in football.

Billy's the single-best motivator in the NFL, and his teams always play well and execute.

You could give the Jets all the defensive signals of the Pats, but they ain't beating them with "Can't Throw" Chad or the newbie Roger's Lost Brother Clemens.

Shut up and take your losses like a man.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 23, 2007, 07:13:43 PM
They got this stupid rule we saw last week where Janikowski's apparent game-winning field goal was negated because a time-out was called right before the kick.  This week, Oakland does it to the other team and then block the second kick.

Does anyone else hate this rule or is it just me?  You shouldn't be allowed to call a time-out in that situation.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on September 24, 2007, 08:34:25 AM
They got this stupid rule we saw last week where Janikowski's apparent game-winning field goal was negated because a time-out was called right before the kick.  This week, Oakland does it to the other team and then block the second kick.

Does anyone else hate this rule or is it just me?  You shouldn't be allowed to call a time-out in that situation.

I agree. there should ber some window (5-10 seconds) after which, if the defense is unprepared to  defend a FG attempt, too bad. Its like a batter bailing calling time on a pitcher when the hurler goes into his wind-up, the play should be ON. Cleveland got dicked.

Anyone got a read on the Steelers?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 26, 2007, 05:34:47 PM
BB may be a Hall of Famer, but he will get no respect from anyone but homers, he's the Ken Lay of Pro Football, it's not MY ASTERISK, it's the one everybody I talk to who isn't a Pats fingers in their ears stomping up and downer places next to BB's name.  Pete Rose?  Mike Vick?  Shoeless Joe?  Bingo.  Except he's a hall of famer because RG is after all a mgt. mouthpiece who is not about to go after the northeast white mafia of which he is a product.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on September 26, 2007, 08:13:54 PM
BB may be a Hall of Famer, but he will get no respect from anyone but homers, he's the Ken Lay of Pro Football, it's not MY ASTERISK, it's the one everybody I talk to who isn't a Pats fingers in their ears stomping up and downer places next to BB's name.  Pete Rose?  Mike Vick?  Shoeless Joe?  Bingo.  Except he's a hall of famer because RG is after all a mgt. mouthpiece who is not about to go after the northeast white mafia of which he is a product.

A post with BB and an asterisk apropos in two different sports forums?  Who knew?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 26, 2007, 08:52:32 PM
Why can't Monday Night Football just be Tirico and Jaworski?  They had Michaels and Madden as a 2mancrew and that was fine/ok/etc, but I think Tirico and Jaworski would be great.

I never liked Jaworski as a player.  I was a huge Eagles fan after he was gone (those late 80's early 90's uniforms were cool-looking and Randall would sling the ball and the D was awesome, etc.), but while he was there I didn't like him or them.  And now he's like my favorite football-talking-guy-on-TV, and mostly because of the content of what he's saying. 

His delivery is okay, he's capable of injecting humor and going along with the other fellow's joke if it works, etc., all of that.  But just the explanations he gives of, sure, x'sando's, but also personnel and player strengths and weaknesses and tendencies, etc., in terms of pure content, enhancing the viewing experience, giving you things to look for - I don't know that anyone is as good as he is at that.

Anyways, nothing against Kornheiser, who I think is funny.  It's just that I think MNF would be much better with just Tirico and Jaworski.


Title: Fine
Post by: CaptainCargo on September 28, 2007, 08:42:39 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3039734

New England Patriots nose tackle Vince Wilfork has been fined $12,500 by the league for his low hit on Buffalo starting quarterback J.P. Losman on the first play of last Sunday's victory over the Bills.

The league informed Wilfork of the fine on Thursday afternoon. It is not yet known if the fourth-year veteran will appeal the fine.


Videotape seems to indicate that Wilfork was blocked into Losman on the play, a first-and-10 from the Buffalo 21-yard line, as the quarterback threw to tailback Marshawn Lynch for a 4-yard gain. But as he fell into the quarterback, Wilfork appeared to extend his right elbow, making contact with Losman.

If I were him I definitely appeal it. I saw the film it wasn't intentional IMO.




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 28, 2007, 12:18:26 PM
I didn't see it - what is a "low hit" exactly?  Is there some rule prohibiting you from hitting a QB's legs when you tackle him? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 28, 2007, 12:43:08 PM
I didn't see it - what is a "low hit" exactly?  Is there some rule prohibiting you from hitting a QB's legs when you tackle him? 

yep


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on September 28, 2007, 12:56:00 PM
Wow, that seems harsh.  Or is it only applicable if the QB is still in the pocket? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 28, 2007, 01:35:17 PM
BB may be a Hall of Famer, but he will get no respect from anyone but homers, he's the Ken Lay of Pro Football, it's not MY ASTERISK, it's the one everybody I talk to who isn't a Pats fingers in their ears stomping up and downer places next to BB's name.  Pete Rose?  Mike Vick?  Shoeless Joe?  Bingo.  Except he's a hall of famer because RG is after all a mgt. mouthpiece who is not about to go after the northeast white mafia of which he is a product.

Well, I'd keep talking to you about it, but apparently your mind, unlike a bad parachute, isn't open.

Enjoy the landing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on September 28, 2007, 01:36:20 PM
and --um---j, before you go back to hitting that bottle, I am NOT a Pats fan.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on September 29, 2007, 10:01:07 PM
Like I give a fuck who you root for, BB knows that he has an asterisk, like most ordinary folks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on October 01, 2007, 03:43:12 AM
Oh, and Brewski was on brilliantine again, yeah, when you call into question the history, I start a list of names...uh, yeah, but I don't see a denial of a corporate conspiracy to subvert ordinary NFL regulations, so, as a Pitt Fan, I don't care if your coach stomped on what would have been their exploits...it's totally uninteresting to me.  I don't care, Teddy.  And, hey, hey, I know that you can have championship back-slapping brewskis with the gentlemen who came before you with or without the camera that hasn't been denied.  It's like somebody saying Barry Bonds games that were won with him all roided up denigrate the guy that fielded the grounder on D.  Yeah, nice play, but if you're guy jacked a three run homer, it is a LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT than if BARRY WASN'T JACKED ON ROIDS, and from the cheap seats, it's DIFFERENT when a guy doesn't deny a corporate conspiracy to subvert league policy.  It's much more complicated and worse.  Turning a blind eye to juicing even when a guys head and feet change by 2.5 sizes which, ask your family doctor, can't physically happen without someone putting a needle in your ass, and then contrast that denial with the denial that BB has put forth by not admitting that he subverted league policy to win superbowls, cover spreads, and otherwise succeed.

All he has to do is say it didn't happen and if it didn't happen and nobody can prove him wrong it's a non-story and non-starter.

He didn't do that.  So, I'm thinking that he's parsing his words like Bill Clinton, who said a blowjob isn't sexual relations in the south, and hell, I think that's different from vaginal sex, I just do. 

Fact is BB has all but conceded that he won Superbowls by cheating, and until he denies it, I'm not going to give him "that's football" excuse, because he's free to give up Mangini and others if it's commonplace rather than corporate conspiracy.  He's not paid like Sylvester Crooms, who I only bring into the discussion because maybe he doesn't do that shit because he is a MAN.

It also is a game of DOUGH, and BB makes more when he wins, the problem comes in in the ordinary way of where there is an incentive to make more money and win by cheating, and you are busted on that on one occasion, and don't deny past wrongdoing, you put the weird on yourself.

It doesn't take a stripper from Durham to get held and skewered by her words, why should the standard be differet for an NFL coach??

Because YOU DON"T WANT THE ANSWER...

...because you know that he's a chronic CHEAT, or a regular guy, but he won't fess up to either, and why at that pay-level should you???

We have a dumb coach, byt hey....it will not lead the unclean across the sea, it will not make him throw better,  and Smelly is a scapecoag, nice work if you can get it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on October 01, 2007, 07:40:53 AM
untill BB denies complicity in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I've got my doubts

Until BB denies complicity in handing the A-bomb secrets to the Ruskies, I've got my doubts

until BB denies complicity in Goldfinger's plan to steal the gold from Ft. Knox, I've got my doubts...

until BB denies complicity that he tried to sell Freedonia's secret war code and plans, I've got my doubts ...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 01, 2007, 12:38:44 PM
Like I give a fuck who you root for, BB knows that he has an asterisk, like most ordinary folks.

 

 LMAO!
 If you're like most ordinary folks, you'll learn whom it is your addressing before you decide to jump ugly with them, you little twerp.

Stick your head up your asterisk!

BTW, Mangini is doing a great job with those Jets! Who's his secret weapon? Wilie Randolph?

 ;D ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 12:41:04 PM
On an unrelated note, I did enjoy your peformance with Buffett Saturday Night!

good times...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 12:41:38 PM
oh wait...are you not "that" Mr. Utley?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 01, 2007, 12:43:29 PM
Your the Trojan Horse. Surely you understand the importance of a good disguise.

  ;)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 01, 2007, 12:46:26 PM
Your the Trojan Horse. Surely you understand the importance of a good disguise.

  ;)

Say no more...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 02, 2007, 09:40:45 AM
Patriots look unbeatable right now.  Hard to believe that Harrison still has yet to suit up for a game


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on October 02, 2007, 09:48:30 AM
or Seymour.

the question is are they really this good to make the teams played so far look this bad?

however a few tests are coming up (they got a tough schedule): at Dallas (more like a pop-quiz) and the Colts in Indy which will be like a mid-term that you really have to study for, and then the Steelers in Foxboro.

but so far the Pats are bordering on "scary" good, with no obvious weakness apparent, except maybe their undercover/espionage work needs to be alittle more clandestine.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 07, 2007, 07:51:19 PM
Not a big fan of the showboating but the Patriots are looking far and away better than any team in the league right now


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on October 15, 2007, 09:19:21 AM
The Pats did well on the pop-quiz, but its was hardly a perfect performance, thus giving the spymaster some fresh humble pie to dish out. But beating an undefeated home team, and probably the best team in the NFC by 21, ain't bad.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 15, 2007, 09:23:02 AM
The Pats seriously look like they could run the table with the only speed bump perhaps being Indy


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on October 15, 2007, 09:28:30 AM
that clearly is the big test (for both teams), and if both teams hit that week 9-0, the hype/interest we heard this week about Pats/Boys will seem like a page 47 fireman save cat from tree story.

Steelers at Foxboro could also be interesting, but barring a trap game, (Miami) Pats/Colts sure smells like it determines homefield advantage for the AFC championship game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 15, 2007, 10:48:02 AM
Have the Pats clinched the division yet?  It can't be much longer before its mathematically impossible for anyone in the division to catch up


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 15, 2007, 05:26:40 PM
What the heck is going on in Phoenix?

I'm thinking of walking on for QB when I go out there to watch USC-ASU game on Thanksgiving.

BY then the 3rd string QB will be injured also...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on October 21, 2007, 09:13:17 PM
Have the Pats clinched the division yet?  It can't be much longer before its mathematically impossible for anyone in the division to catch up

The announcers said the magic number is 6 over Buffalo.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 22, 2007, 12:25:38 PM
Reggie Bush is becoming very productive the last few games.  He seems to have started slowly in both of his first two years--seems odd...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 24, 2007, 05:43:23 AM
Looking more and more like its going to be a battle of the undefeateds with the Colts and Pats rolling. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 24, 2007, 11:02:27 AM
Yup,  Brady is looking unbelievable.

His stats might go down just a bit before the year is over since he has so many outdoor games in cold weather stadiums in the last half of the season.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 28, 2007, 07:54:57 PM
Well I never thought it would be possible but watching the Patriots games is getting kind of boring - they are just rolling through teams like its a Madden game.  Looking forward to the Colts matchup.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 29, 2007, 07:36:25 PM
Looking forward to the Colts matchup.

I'm not so sure that is going to look any differently.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on October 30, 2007, 10:59:53 AM
I admit it. 

I was one of those that felt Brett Favre should have retired two years ago.

What a stud.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 31, 2007, 12:47:33 PM
Yup,  Brady is looking unbelievable.

His stats might go down just a bit before the year is over since he has so many outdoor games in cold weather stadiums in the last half of the season.

I kind of miss the old days when it comes to talking about sports. Knowledge of stats seems to have replaced knowledge of the game in discussion.

Not you personally, mind you, just in general.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on October 31, 2007, 01:08:34 PM
Yup,  Brady is looking unbelievable.

His stats might go down just a bit before the year is over since he has so many outdoor games in cold weather stadiums in the last half of the season.

I kind of miss the old days when it comes to talking about sports. Knowledge of stats seems to have replaced knowledge of the game in discussion.

. Not you personally, mind you, just in general.

A certiain level of stats is fine and probably necessary to bolster/support talking points, but many things about sport may be unquantifiable. IMO watching a game, and getting to know a sport or a team is independent of knowing stats to the nth degree.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 31, 2007, 04:38:03 PM
Good points, all.

I don't need stats, this year's or any other's, to tell me that if I wanted to win a football game I'd want Brady as my number one QB.


The guy is a winner, and he makes everyone else around him play better. He's the anti-Vick.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on October 31, 2007, 06:55:59 PM
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071031/capt.5562df9d7b95435f95ad46f38fd70d94.lions_kitnas_costume_football_dt101.jpg?x=180&y=175&sig=0jaIYBGSxAAe7PfMrYrZ.w--)

Detroit Lions quarterback Jon Kitna and his wife dressed up as a naked man and a fast-food drive-through attendant at a teammate's Halloween party, depicting an embarrassing moment for one of the team's assistant coaches.

Defensive line coach Joe Cullen pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct and guilty to impaired driving after he was arrested twice last year, once in August 2006 after police said he was driving nude through a Wendy's drive-through lane, and a week later when they said he was driving under the influence of alcohol.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071031/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_lions_kitna_s_costume


Title: This Years Game of the Century
Post by: bankshot1 on November 01, 2007, 09:17:30 AM
seems weird that the defending SB Champ, undeafeated and playing at home is a 5 point U-dog.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 01, 2007, 10:54:09 AM

I kind of miss the old days when it comes to talking about sports. Knowledge of stats seems to have replaced knowledge of the game in discussion.


Statistics are simply a way to measure.  almopst everything in sports is meaurable other than heart, preparation, etc.  And we certainly talk about those things also don't we?  I think there has always been room for both.  When you are watching a game or even talking about a (singular) game then that lends itself to the type of conversation I think you are refering to here.

When comparing an individual or team to others either in that season or in historical terms, I don't know that you have a lot more to go on.

Plus I just posted something afrter that other message about Brett Favre's "heart"   which is of course inherently difficult to measure, but very obvious to even the casual observer.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 01, 2007, 09:11:19 PM
I disagree . Statistics are not scientific measures, nor necessarily objective measures, since what has been decided to be worth measuring involves judgment as to what is most important.

I just think, in general, they clutter more than clarify.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on November 02, 2007, 01:00:02 AM
kgw.com  (http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/northwest/sports/seahawks/stories/NW_110107SHB_hasselbeck_practices_JG.1c974762f.html)
Quote
Matt Hasselbeck wore a black and a blue necklace, intertwined and laced with titanium, throughout practice. It's the fashion rage among baseball players these days.

"Worked for the Red Sox. Trying it," the Boston-area native and former Boston College Eagles quarterback said Wednesday.

 :)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 02, 2007, 04:06:36 PM
The Lesson of Andy Reid.

This is what happens when work comes before family:

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=299137

This is MUCH MUCH MORE OF A TRAGEDY than BB exposing Eric Mangenius as a whiny little pussy, who all the NFL coaches now disrespect.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 02, 2007, 04:49:17 PM
Belichek's weak assessment that "It's been ruled upon" without denying it makes him the Pete Rose of the NFL, and nothing will ever change that much as he thinks blowing out teams means he's not a cheater, now he's just a cheater who is blowing out teams.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 02, 2007, 06:52:02 PM
You are a bitter, bitter man.

And know little about football, apparently.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 02, 2007, 10:58:55 PM
Statistics are not scientific measures,

huh?

You can go ahead and argue that they are measuring the wrong thing if you want (and many people do whether about sports or anything else), but I would have to argue that they are certainly scientific measures... if we're talking about real statistics


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 03, 2007, 05:12:56 AM
Utley, you know little about the difference between commerce and reality.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 03, 2007, 04:40:29 PM
While KC is good at home, they are not very good this year, and I predict a Green Bay defensive surge, and a couple of plays with a feeling for the Flarvre...."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 03, 2007, 10:17:49 PM
Dude, Brady squints on like every single play, and they never call it...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 04, 2007, 01:05:59 AM
Eli just hit the part of the learning curve where he has the internal dialogue of "don't think of yourself as developmentally disabled, fucking squint a little and punch it in and forget it," but that is admittedly a 5-6 year curve.  Favre just squints now to get the corners to bite. 

But I have noticed that Brady has been getting his squint on, respek.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 04, 2007, 08:12:58 AM
Bob Sanders said that if he sees Brady squint even once today, he's going to go up to Brady, rip his helmet off and keep punching him in the mouth until all of Brady's teeth are on the ground.  He knows he'll get a 15-yard penalty, and possibly a fine, but he's just had enough of the squinting.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 04, 2007, 02:04:29 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Belichek* and The Patriots* lose to Indy tonight, but either way it doesn't change my mind that a failure to deny wrongdoing, regardless of the matter "being ruled on" will fail to get Belichek into the hall of fame unless he consents to letting Marc Ecco put a large "*" on the back of his HOODIE.  I feel bad that a good guy like Tom Brady* will always have an asterisk next to his name because of his association with a head coach that conducted a conspiracy to undermine leauge rules using high-tech survelliance equpment.  He is to football what Nixon is to politics, what Enron is to Corporate America, what Pete Rose is to baseball, What Winona Ryder is to binge-shopping on Xanax, etc.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 04, 2007, 08:20:54 PM
The Pats* are still undefeated*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 05:32:25 AM
Utley, you know little about the difference between commerce and reality.

And this has to do with Bill Belichek and your constant whining, just how?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 05:35:05 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing Belichek* and The Patriots* lose to Indy tonight, but either way it doesn't change my mind that a failure to deny wrongdoing, regardless of the matter "being ruled on" will fail to get Belichek into the hall of fame unless he consents to letting Marc Ecco put a large "*" on the back of his HOODIE.  I feel bad that a good guy like Tom Brady* will always have an asterisk next to his name because of his association with a head coach that conducted a conspiracy to undermine leauge rules using high-tech survelliance equpment.  He is to football what Nixon is to politics, what Enron is to Corporate America, what Pete Rose is to baseball, What Winona Ryder is to binge-shopping on Xanax, etc.

guess that makes you the Michael Moore of this Forum.

Get back to us when you get over not having him as YOUR team's head coach.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 05:40:33 AM
Statistics are not scientific measures,

huh?

You can go ahead and argue that they are measuring the wrong thing if you want (and many people do whether about sports or anything else), but I would have to argue that they are certainly scientific measures... if we're talking about real statistics


SLOWLY READ THIS;  NOT SCIENTIFIC..."nor necessarily objective measures, since what has been decided to be worth measuring involves judgment as to what is most important."


Let me ask you. Do you think Roger Staubach knew what his QB rating was? Or Babe Ruth knew what his OPB was...

Statisticians are constantly attempting to quantify athletic endavor in an effort to try to understand that game, since they themselves can not play it at the highest level. To do so, they set about trying to decide what it most important and how to measure it. THese are SUBJECTIVE decisions. The data is preorganized before it is collected...hardly objective, nor scientific...

And we're talking about "statistics as applied to sports", btw, but you could extend this into a lot of areas that are alledgedly "scientific"---like test scores, for example.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 05, 2007, 08:13:12 AM
Great game yesterday. Not being a fan of the Pats or the Colts made it easy to just sit back and enjoy. Nice to get to see an in-season Super Bowl.

Note: IMO with a healthy Harrison the Colts win this game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 08:47:45 AM
 For Francessa watchers/listeners/critics:
 
A caller on Francessa’s NFL radio show yesterday morning said that the game would be decided at 24-21, Colts. While he got the score and winner wrong, he was accurate in forecasting the effectiveness of the Colt’s defense. Francessa’s reaction: What? If you think the Colts are going to hold this team to like 21 points in a game, you’ve got yourself some story.

Wonder what his reaction will be today?

Colts should have won that game and blew it. Great comeback by the Pats. Now you know why they play their starters into the fourth quarter and why it's not running up the score. You have to condition your starters to play through the game, regardless of the opponent.

BB continues to rewrite NFL history, much to the dismay of jbottle and the like.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 09:17:25 AM
For Francessa watchers/listeners/critics:
 
A caller on Francessa’s NFL radio show yesterday morning said that the game would be decided at 24-21, Colts. While he got the score and winner wrong, he was accurate in forecasting the effectiveness of the Colt’s defense. Francessa’s reaction: What? If you think the Colts are going to hold this team to like 21 points in a game, you’ve got yourself some story.

Wonder what his reaction will be today?

Colts should have won that game and blew it. Great comeback by the Pats. Now you know why they play their starters into the fourth quarter and why it's not running up the score. You have to condition your starters to play through the game, regardless of the opponent.

BB continues to rewrite NFL history, much to the dismay of jbottle and the like.


some very good points re 4th quarter playing time, but I'm still a little uncomfortable about going for another 7, with huge 4Q leads...

in any case, this was a tough game to figure, I thought it was to be a 3-point type of game too, but as a Pat fan I felt uncomfortable, giving 5 1/2 to the Colts and putting dough on this one and I didn't. So I watched a helluva a game instead, one that lived up to the hype. 

just great defense on both sides, that mostly befuddled two great QBs for most of the game.

I look forward to the next Game of the Century in in January and in Foxboro.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 05, 2007, 10:57:11 AM
Great game but those refs need to be collectively shot - some of the worst pass interference calls I've ever seen


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 11:04:19 AM
I thought the call against Hobbs was totally BS while the one against Moss was non-existant.

I was starting conjure up the whys of a NFL conspiracy theory.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 05, 2007, 11:09:56 AM
I'd say that pass interference penalties are most inconsistently called penalty/foul calls in all sports.  While the NFL has attempted to make it easier by going with a "was he going after the ball" standard, it's almost impossible to apply that with any consistency and confidence. 

I wonder what would happen if the rule was done away with.  We'd see DBs and WRs the size of offensive lineman, I guess.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 11:17:36 AM
I'd say that pass interference penalties are most inconsistently called penalty/foul calls in all sports.  While the NFL has attempted to make it easier by going with a "was he going after the ball" standard, it's almost impossible to apply that with any consistency and confidence. 



More so than fouls in the NBA?  Or fan interference in Yankee Stadium?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 11:18:50 AM
I thought the call against Hobbs was totally BS while the one against Moss was non-existant.

I was starting conjure up the whys of a NFL conspiracy theory.

That would make you the  anti-jbottle, banks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 11:19:48 AM
outside of the PI calls that went against the Pats, the one call I thought was interesting from a conspiracy theory POV (mostly joking) was a Colts play early (IIRC) in the game, where the Colts receiver caught the ball, but his foot was clearly in the white and out of bounds. There was a ref with a perfect view a few yards away, and he signaled catch. It was over-turned on review but, how do you make that original call?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 11:20:22 AM
I thought the call against Hobbs was totally BS while the one against Moss was non-existant.

I was starting conjure up the whys of a NFL conspiracy theory.

That would make you the  anti-jbottle, banks.

Ham-I certainly hope so.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 11:23:03 AM
I'd say that pass interference penalties are most inconsistently called penalty/foul calls in all sports.  While the NFL has attempted to make it easier by going with a "was he going after the ball" standard, it's almost impossible to apply that with any consistency and confidence. 



More so than fouls in the NBA?  Or fan interference in Yankee Stadium?

PI and holding call seem to be the worst judgement calls in football

charging/blocking in the NBA

the strike zone in baseball


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 05, 2007, 11:40:44 AM
Great game but those refs need to be collectively shot - some of the worst pass interference calls I've ever seen

The one against the Pats defender on that long pass sure as hell was. And they missed one against the Colts that should've been called.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 11:48:28 AM
the first defensive PI cal against the Pats was PI, the call on Hobbs wasn't even close.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 05, 2007, 11:55:33 AM
I'd say that pass interference penalties are most inconsistently called penalty/foul calls in all sports.  While the NFL has attempted to make it easier by going with a "was he going after the ball" standard, it's almost impossible to apply that with any consistency and confidence. 

I wonder what would happen if the rule was done away with.  We'd see DBs and WRs the size of offensive lineman, I guess.

They should at least allow replay to overturn such calls


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 05, 2007, 12:00:55 PM

SLOWLY READ THIS; 


Oh, now I see my mistake, I thought you wanted me to read it fast the first time.

Now I understand it much more clearly  ...if it makes you feel any better

I wasn't arguing with the part of your post that said that "what they are choosing to look at is subjective"   

That's not the same as agreeing that statistic measurements are not scientific.  At any rate, let's not get into a semantics argument.  We're basically on the same page.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 05, 2007, 12:35:42 PM
"BB["*"] continues to rewrite NFL history..."

BB* continues to rewrite MLB history, too...

The only differerence is that there is no evidence gathered on Barry Bonds though his cheating is obvious, while Belichek conducted an illegal conspiracy to subvert league policy, which has been "ruled upon."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on November 05, 2007, 12:59:51 PM
Indianapolis apparently cheated yesterday when crowd noise was pumped into the building with the PATS on field.  The compact disc containing the crowd noise can be heard 'skipping' here: http://www.profootballtalk.com/Moss_Catch_Audio.mp3 (http://www.profootballtalk.com/Moss_Catch_Audio.mp3)



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 05, 2007, 01:06:21 PM
Indianapolis apparently cheated yesterday when crowd noise was pumped into the building with the PATS on field.  The compact disc containing the crowd noise can be heard 'skipping' here: http://www.profootballtalk.com/Moss_Catch_Audio.mp3 (http://www.profootballtalk.com/Moss_Catch_Audio.mp3)


I was at one of the Laker NBA "final" games in Indianapolis and I have never heard so much noise, nor seen so much bad sportsmanship on the part of a team or arena.

Sort of odd, considering most of the people I have met in Indianapolis are extremely courteous...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 02:47:43 PM
According to this link, the NFL considers this a serious enough violation that they sent out a memo to the league after the Steelers accused the Colts of piping in crowd noise back in 2005.

"The NFL has reacted to reports in the Post-Gazette and others about the Colts pumping up artificial crowd noise in their dome. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue sent a memo this week to each team warning that if caught artificially raising the volume of crowd noise they could be heavily fined and be subject to losing draft choices."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05352/624277-66.stm

NFL should investigate immediately the possibility of this breach of NFL policy.

imagine the arrogance of a team, having been warned to then intentionally violate NFL policy.

heh


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 02:56:02 PM
outside of the PI calls that went against the Pats, the one call I thought was interesting from a conspiracy theory POV (mostly joking) was a Colts play early (IIRC) in the game, where the Colts receiver caught the ball, but his foot was clearly in the white and out of bounds. There was a ref with a perfect view a few yards away, and he signaled catch. It was over-turned on review but, how do you make that original call?

you work for the mob???


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 02:59:35 PM
"BB["*"] continues to rewrite NFL history..."

BB* continues to rewrite MLB history, too...

The only differerence is that there is no evidence gathered on Barry Bonds though his cheating is obvious, while Belichek conducted an illegal conspiracy to subvert league policy, which has been "ruled upon."

I think you should have a little * after your name, jbottle*.
























*Has returned to Earth to save us all from eternal damnation.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 03:05:03 PM
outside of the PI calls that went against the Pats, the one call I thought was interesting from a conspiracy theory POV (mostly joking) was a Colts play early (IIRC) in the game, where the Colts receiver caught the ball, but his foot was clearly in the white and out of bounds. There was a ref with a perfect view a few yards away, and he signaled catch. It was over-turned on review but, how do you make that original call?

you work for the mob???

yes, the little known 6th crime family of greater NYC-The Cohens


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 03:12:14 PM
No I meant in reply to : How do you make that call?

You work for the mob.

Not YOU, but the You in the original question....got it?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 03:19:32 PM
hmm, I guess I forgot the smiley-face.

from my mob sources, the NFL had the Colts and the under, the NFL doesn't lose.

edit: and you'll notice I didn't append a smiley-face to the above statement.

 :D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 05, 2007, 03:49:41 PM
"BB["*"] continues to rewrite NFL history..."

BB* continues to rewrite MLB history, too...

The only differerence is that there is no evidence gathered on Barry Bonds though his cheating is obvious, while Belichek conducted an illegal conspiracy to subvert league policy, which has been "ruled upon."

I think you should have a little * after your name, jbottle*.
























*Has returned to Earth to save us all from eternal damnation.

Don't fault the guy just because he happens to be right Hammer.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 05, 2007, 04:27:04 PM
If the decision to pump in artificial crowd noise was a decision made by Dungy, he should be terminated.  It's a matter of who know what when, before it is "ruled upon" by the league Goodell should launch an investigatory committee to everybody from corporate decision-makers, to coaches, to the guy who plays the organ, cheerleading executives and others to get to the bottom of the matter.  If Dungy is holding the smoking gun, he should be terminated, a lifetime ban from the NFL considered, and every Colts game where fabricated crowd noise is used to conspiratorally subvert league policy regard sound equipment should have an asterisk placed next to it.  If it is the act of a lone soundman, perhaps a two home game suspension of audio-visual crowd inducement and a ban of the cheerleading corps, a suspension of the sale of Colts memerobilia, especially oversized foam "#1" hands might be more appropriate.  I'm not a league official like Goodell, but there are appropriate action that could be taken, and the sooner the better.

The fact that the Belichek* conspiracy was not more substantively investigated is still disconcerting and disheartening, but that shouldn't stop fans from encouraging subpoena's and testimony under such auspices where legitimate concerns lie.  Only then can the scoundrels who will stop at nothing to win (off the field) might be ferreted out and given lifetime bans, so that the integrity of the sport might be returned to what it was in the pre-Belichek* era.  The NFL has a glorious history that has been most recently tainted by the acts of a few bad apples, I still believe that it has the possibility of sustaining fan interest once the present atrocities are well in the rear-view mirror.

Yours,

jbottle*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 05, 2007, 04:35:08 PM
If the decision to pump in artificial crowd noise was a decision made by Dungy, he should be terminated.  It's a matter of who know what when, before it is "ruled upon" by the league Goodell should launch an investigatory committee to everybody from corporate decision-makers, to coaches, to the guy who plays the organ, cheerleading executives and others to get to the bottom of the matter.  If Dungy is holding the smoking gun, he should be terminated, a lifetime ban from the NFL considered, and every Colts game where fabricated crowd noise is used to conspiratorally subvert league policy regard sound equipment should have an asterisk placed next to it.  If it is the act of a lone soundman, perhaps a two home game suspension of audio-visual crowd inducement and a ban of the cheerleading corps, a suspension of the sale of Colts memerobilia, especially oversized foam "#1" hands might be more appropriate.  I'm not a league official like Goodell, but there are appropriate action that could be taken, and the sooner the better.

The fact that the Belichek* conspiracy was not more substantively investigated is still disconcerting and disheartening, but that shouldn't stop fans from encouraging subpoena's and testimony under such auspices where legitimate concerns lie.  Only then can the scoundrels who will stop at nothing to win (off the field) might be ferreted out and given lifetime bans, so that the integrity of the sport might be returned to what it was in the pre-Belichek* era.  The NFL has a glorious history that has been most recently tainted by the acts of a few bad apples, I still believe that it has the possibility of sustaining fan interest once the present atrocities are well in the rear-view mirror.

Yours,

jbottle*

see...I couldn't even bite on the first one, but this one is so way over the top that there can't be any more doubters out there...

 This whole post makes LOW Highlights and serves as an example to everyone else as to how good humor is created.

the theory of the lone soundman... indeed.  Thanks for "lighten"ing things up around here...



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 04:57:11 PM
"BB["*"] continues to rewrite NFL history..."

BB* continues to rewrite MLB history, too...

The only differerence is that there is no evidence gathered on Barry Bonds though his cheating is obvious, while Belichek conducted an illegal conspiracy to subvert league policy, which has been "ruled upon."

I think you should have a little * after your name, jbottle*.


 





















*Has returned to Earth to save us all from eternal damnation.

Don't fault the guy just because he happens to be right Hammer.

Right about what, Lieutenant?
The "scoundrels who'll stop at nothing to win"?  Dude has a bit of a Jesus Syndrome going.

i come here to talk sports, not attend an Evangelical Meeting of the What's Wrong with American Sports Crusaders!

jbottle* has to get over losing. Soon...

Before it eats him up.









*Loser


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 05, 2007, 04:59:53 PM
If you squint hard enough, you can almost see how a lone soundman could pull it off.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 05:05:27 PM
if Bill Polian is going to be taking requests at the RCA Dome I hope he plays

You can't always get what you want



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 05:10:54 PM
if Bill Polian is going to be taking requests at the RCA Dome I hope he plays

You can't always get what you want



Will you be surprised if the Colts beat the Pats in January in NE?

You shouldn't be...

So that song can be played again with deeper, richer meaning...


I'm just sayin'....watch how you strut.

Pride goeth before the fall.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 05, 2007, 05:30:13 PM
if Bill Polian is going to be taking requests at the RCA Dome I hope he plays

You can't always get what you want



Will you be surprised if the Colts beat the Pats in January in NE?

You shouldn't be...

So that song can be played again with deeper, richer meaning...


I'm just sayin'....watch how you strut.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Actually the Colts new-style of football of tougher D and a running game may be well-suited for a cold windy January Sunday in NE.

but you fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia. The second, only slightly less well known, is this: never go up against Tom Brady on a cold windy Sunday in Foxboro.

edit: obligatory  :D

and if the pats do succumb later this year on a cold windy Sunday in Foxboro

I'd might request can't get no Satisfaction

Go Pats

Go Stones


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 05, 2007, 05:40:03 PM
If you squint hard enough, you can almost see how a lone soundman could pull it off.

Yes, the squinting was not lost on me either...

but I believe it is a close second...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 05, 2007, 06:47:34 PM
if Bill Polian is going to be taking requests at the RCA Dome I hope he plays

You can't always get what you want



Will you be surprised if the Colts beat the Pats in January in NE?

You shouldn't be...

So that song can be played again with deeper, richer meaning...


I'm just sayin'....watch how you strut.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Actually the Colts new-style of football of tougher D and a running game may be well-suited for a cold windy January Sunday in NE.

but you fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia. The second, only slightly less well known, is this: never go up against Tom Brady on a cold windy Sunday in Foxboro.

edit: obligatory  :D

and if the pats do succumb later this year on a cold windy Sunday in Foxboro

I'd might request can't get no Satisfaction

Go Pats

Go Stones

I never bet against Brady, but January is a long way a way...almost as far as Australia where I developed an immunity to iocane powder and bullshit like the above. ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 05, 2007, 07:49:27 PM
"If you squint hard enough, you can almost see how a lone soundman could pull it off."

It's not hard to imagine a disgruntled organist dismayed at his error of letting a scrached CD of recorded crowd noise expose wrongdoing; have Belichek* and Ashley Simpson taught this nation nothing?  I think it goes deeper, however, and I hope that the suits were smart enough to insulate Dungy from the inevitable blowback; if the idea that you're own crowd noise wasn't enought to get underneath Belicheck
  • 's skin (ear), you are now answering to a fan base that didn't or couldn't be expected to root hard enough, and the retaliation of an embittered, highly-scrutinized Photriot* team that is still living down known corporate conspiracy. 

I could see Dungy trying to defuse the situation with a handy-cam gram, with crowd noise muffling his words so much that the transmission is subtitled, short of that, I feel that there will be a continued high-stakes technosprint to the championship, where the line between artificial intelligence and the comments of Mike Tirico becomes blurred where color commentary becomes an excercise in dadaism, where the first one who blinks suffers mightily, and the mere football fan there with a fizzy bev and cheeze snap, sniffling a little for what could've been had we all not gotten a little too greedy.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 06, 2007, 09:02:32 AM
"BB["*"] continues to rewrite NFL history..."

BB* continues to rewrite MLB history, too...

The only differerence is that there is no evidence gathered on Barry Bonds though his cheating is obvious, while Belichek conducted an illegal conspiracy to subvert league policy, which has been "ruled upon."

I think you should have a little * after your name, jbottle*.


 





















*Has returned to Earth to save us all from eternal damnation.

Don't fault the guy just because he happens to be right Hammer.

Right about what, Lieutenant?
The "scoundrels who'll stop at nothing to win"?  Dude has a bit of a Jesus Syndrome going.

i come here to talk sports, not attend an Evangelical Meeting of the What's Wrong with American Sports Crusaders!

jbottle* has to get over losing. Soon...

Before it eats him up.


*Loser

He said Belichick knowingly cheated. Well he did.

Doesn't mean I want Belichick's head on a pike though. Now take it easy before you blow a gasket bruh.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 06, 2007, 10:28:02 AM
...have Belichek* and Ashley Simpson taught this nation nothing?    

Or even Fred Funk?

In any event, I, for one, have no problem with the artificial sound-pump, or the secret cameras, or the ensuing asterisks.  As Bob Watson chanted in "Bad News Bears II: Breaking Training" - "LET THE KIDS PLAY!!" 

I've often wondered why a deep-pockets football team owner hasn't thought of building the football field on top of a giant "see-saw"-type structure, so that when the home team has the ball, you can push a button and tilt the field ever so slightly so that your team is going a few degrees downhill.  Then, at the end of the first quarter, you push the button again, so that the see-saw tilts back the other way.  That way, the home team is going downhill the whole time.   Ever try to tackle someone when he's going downhill and you're going uphill?  I haven't, but I would imagine it would be difficult.

Plus, the Pythagorean Theorem takes effect on field goals.  With the economies of scale and so forth, the see-saw is so big that the barely-perceptible-to-the-human-eye (notwithstanding effects of squinting) few degrees tilt has the effect of turning an otherwise 30-yard field goal try into a 50-yarder.

Sure, once Goodell got wind of it, you'd get an asterisk and lose a draft pick or whatever, but so what?  It's a game, and once you stop playing, then the game is over.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 06, 2007, 11:10:24 AM
where I developed an immunity to iocane powder

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 06, 2007, 11:19:06 AM
Am I the only one wondering why there aren't outcries about running up the score in last night's game?  Big Ben takes a monster hit when the Steelers are already up by an insurmountable lead and eventually comes back in the game? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 06, 2007, 11:25:29 AM
where I developed an immunity to iocane powder

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

heh

(slaps head)

why didn't i think of that


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 06, 2007, 12:40:11 PM
Am I the only one wondering why there aren't outcries about running up the score in last night's game?  Big Ben takes a monster hit when the Steelers are already up by an insurmountable lead and eventually comes back in the game? 

Because the Ravens taunted and basically acted like jerks around Rothlesberger last year.

I personally don't have any problem with Belichick running up the score (to do it on Joe Gibbs who is truly a nice guy and gentleman in every sense of the word isn't the nicest thing in the world, but this is pro football), but more than any other sport what goes around comes around in the NFL.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 06, 2007, 12:47:24 PM
I'd have preferred we save it for New England.

Not sure Tomlin cares about last year, but who knows?

Final game (@ Baltimore) should be fun.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 06, 2007, 02:03:07 PM
Am I the only one wondering why there aren't outcries about running up the score in last night's game?  Big Ben takes a monster hit when the Steelers are already up by an insurmountable lead and eventually comes back in the game? 

Good point.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 06, 2007, 03:53:53 PM
You keep using that phrase, "running up the score"?

I do not think you know what that means.

Btw, you would not happen to have 6 fingers on your right hand, would you?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 06, 2007, 05:03:22 PM
I'm wondering if Dungy should only get a half-asterisk for the sound-pump thing, since it's not directly related to game-planning or whatever.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 06, 2007, 05:41:50 PM
There's a Chucky Knoll theory developing where he gave the a silent nod to the Pitt. OC guy in the booth, turning his superbowl ring four times after the first Pitt TD signaling that Big Ben should ring up five TD passes to punsh Baltimore for past abuses both verbal and non-verbal.

Just when the jbottle* theory of "Belichek*," who comes in with exactly the same asterisk blast but Don Shula, who actually has a fish in this fight.  I was trying to be objective about the conspiracy to subvert published rule policy through advanced photo-electronic equipment needing more of a resolution than a fine and Goodell with a "let's move on..." just because Belichek didn't electrocute pitbulls, but see, the Feds are handling Vick (and the locals for that matter), while Goodell, by simply placing a dollar figure on cheating when videotapes were known to have been destroyed, has made himself all that more complicit in the coverup.  I'm not saying that Shula's asterisk blast lends credibility to the jbottle* conspiracy theory, but I do know that my prediction at that time that this would be the story that refuses to go away is guess, what, Utley, just that, THE STORY THAT REFUSES TO GO AWAY.  My Bonds comparison that Shula alludes to is being espoused by about half of the mainstream sports journalists (who have a dish in this fight), but face that I'm not a "bitter, bitter man," just a jbottle* who was way out ahead of the implications and permutations that the coverup conspiracy of a Nixonian head coach like Belichek* wrought unnecessarily because of bitterness and paranoia.  Billy Bet-a-max this season has covered a lot of spreads as well as the story begins to take on a life of it's own.  If Vegas insiders were aware of when the Photriots were using surrepticious illegal survelliance equipment, because we are not talking about a coked-out lone soundman with a history of morning radio who thought amping crowd noise was just his wildman* side (theory, not assertion), but the coordinated use of equipment to gain a tangible advantage not through mere sinew, sweat, and smarts, but camera equipment.

The facts continue to develop around NoiseGate, but the factual question seems to be whether he could've really slipped a crowd noise CD into the sound system with an Organist, orther audiotech's, etc., around, i.e., was one man really able to squint, hit eject, slip in a crowd noise CD, and use the soundboard to nearly-imperceptibly blend that noise into ordinary crowd noise in the alotted time.  Maybe decades ago when he was know as "the Gator" on morning FM, nerves steadied by a fresh blast of the Bolivian, but now, deejay off on a prank, I don't think so.....it just doesn't add up and points toward something much more sinister, a coordinated effort to subvert published league policy.  I just hope that much like the PERSONAL FOUL that gets called on the guy who RETALIATES, that Goodell doesn't try to jam his credibility back together on SOUNDGATE, when SPYGATE he treated like some sort of '80's SUSPENSE/COMEDY rather than the dire, possibly legally asterisk-inducing event that it has become.

In the weeks of seeming hyperbole here, I am now seeming like the guy saying "hey, there's this girl who's kinda hot on this new show BAYWATCH," and while the world slept, PAMELA ANDERSON blew up a few mere weeks later.  I didn't discover CJ, hey, that's not me man, but what I'm saying is that people have been talking about nothing in the SPORTS MEDIA BUT SPYGATE, and I didn't create that.....

.....but I CALLED IT.

Yours,

jbottle*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 06, 2007, 06:08:49 PM
squint left   squint right

"INCONCEIVABLE"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 06, 2007, 06:27:11 PM
"I'm wondering if Dungy should only get a half-asterisk for the sound-pump thing, since it's not directly related to game-planning or whatever."

If he doesn't come clean and fast, he'll go down as Crockashit Dungy*, or the CROWN CLOWN OF SURROUND SOUND*, either way, the sooner he admits he brought in GATOR from 98.6, for special ROCKOPS, the better.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 06, 2007, 07:36:16 PM
how do you make a half an asterisk?

I think maybe you need an asterisk "scale" instead because it would just get too confusing going to halves.

So someone that is a mild offender could get one asterisk, all the way up to Barry Bonds, who would be assigned five.

Unless of course the asterisk actually means look below for a footnote and we'll explain what the problem is...wait a minute, isn't that what an aseterisk usually does mean?

Hey, we're missing a whole lot of footnotes here...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 06, 2007, 07:36:55 PM
how many asterisks should a squinter get?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 06, 2007, 09:10:29 PM
There's nothing wrong with squinting, it becomes as important as the pump-fake in curve year 5-8, fake-pumping of sound, now, that's something quite different. 

In all seriousness, Belichek*'s grim victory speech after the Indy win made it seem like he's a defeated man:  We've seen the little guy behind the curtain, and he knows it, and he can't stant us, or himself.  He's embarrassed, ashamed, asterisked*, and fucking lucky to have Tom Brady, who, unlike Peyton, has no GAME MEMORY.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 11:52:28 AM
"No Game Memory" calls for a reverse asterisk


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 11:54:06 AM
just so you all know


www.squinters.com   appears to be available...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 07, 2007, 01:41:19 PM
Just when the jbottle* theory of "Belichek*," who comes in with exactly the same asterisk blast but Don Shula, who actually has a fish in this fight.


Here's why Don Shula is wrong.

A) Name someone other than Eric Mangini and jbottle who believes that the Patriots won game 1 of the season because of a videotape to which they never had access.

B) When did Don Shula watch the tape? Uh--like---never. So, how could he tell that there was anything to be gained from it? He can't. So, how can he put forth the idea that BB and the Pats should get anything other than praise for besting his '72 Dolphins season, should that come to pass?

C) Since the tape was destroyed by the Commish, for reasons that remain unclear, it is equally unclear as to what was actually on the tape, and it is impossible for anyone else to develop and informed opinion as to what the tape reveals, and how it actually helped the Pats win game 1. That is true for all time to come.

D) Don Shula has a vested interest in seeing that his undefeated season be somehow seen as the one more difficult to attain, which by any measure is an argument that holds very little water. As such, he is prone to be critical, since he personally has something to lose.

E) Clearly, the Patriots are not winning because of anything related to those videotapes. anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda far different than revealing the truth.

F) Clearly, the Jets are not winning anything, and its because of Eric Mangini, the owner, the GM, and their lousy players. Their fans are in denial.

H) The Shula quotes appeared in a New York paper, which hopes to keep alive the "stain" they themselves know does not linger in the eyes of people who really understand what it takes to win in the NFL, and hopes to sell papers to Jets fans, who want desperately to be seen as victims of some crime, instead of accepting the fact that their team was ill-prepared for the 2007 season.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 07, 2007, 01:45:11 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the video thing happened the first game of the season.  Since no longer employing this "technique" the Pats have lost how many games?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 07, 2007, 01:49:12 PM
The Pats got nabbed in 1Q about 7 minutes into the game, and no "intelligence" was harvested. There's a joke there but since I'm already on shaky ground...

IMO Shula was right in one regard, the NFL wants to bury this thing ASAP.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 02:36:33 PM

D) Don Shula has a vested interest in seeing that his undefeated season be somehow seen as the one more difficult to attain, which by any measure is an argument that holds very little water. As such, he is prone to be critical, since he personally has something to lose.
 

Bingo.   Or did the media stir this one up, going to him becasue his perfect season is on the line...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 02:43:53 PM
Shula rattled the hornets nest pretty damn good, though, and as I told you before THIS IS THE STORY* THAT REFUSES TO GO AWAY.  Not because of whack job conspiracy theorists like jbottle*, but from every sports radio show this week, every Sportscenter, every watercooler, etc. 

And contrary to the assertion that the Commissioners destruction of the tapes make it a done deal, it actually opens up the door to more conspiracy, the integrity of the Commish office, and on and on...

And of course Utley you refuse to recognize that the only reason Belichek* got busted was because Mangini knew this was a KNOWN SURVEILLANCE PRACTICE because it happened when he coached under BB* and when they won SUPERBOWLS**


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 07, 2007, 03:14:46 PM

Here's why Don Shula is wrong.


All of [A] through [H] may very well be true, but how does any of that add up to "Belichek should not get an asterisk"?

I mean, Belichek has the asterisk, and it's there, and he has it.  What Don Shula says or how bad the Jets are or how much, if any, videotapes have to do with Belichek's record are all beside the point.  Or are they?  I don't know.  I don't see the relevance, but that's just my perception.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 07, 2007, 04:12:58 PM
Doesnt matter.  Pats will lose at least one of last 7.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 07, 2007, 04:14:58 PM
Shula rattled the hornets nest pretty damn good, though, and as I told you before THIS IS THE STORY* THAT REFUSES TO GO AWAY.  Not because of whack job conspiracy theorists like jbottle*, but from every sports radio show this week, every Sportscenter, every watercooler, etc. 

And contrary to the assertion that the Commissioners destruction of the tapes make it a done deal, it actually opens up the door to more conspiracy, the integrity of the Commish office, and on and on...

And of course Utley you refuse to recognize that the only reason Belichek* got busted was because Mangini knew this was a KNOWN SURVEILLANCE PRACTICE because it happened when he coached under BB* and when they won SUPERBOWLS**


EVERY sports radio show I've heard says it's much ado about nothing, that all the coaches including Jets' coaches cheat in one way or another, that an asterisk could go by any number of teams' championships, that the commissioner has dealt with it in a ham-handed way just to get it off his desk, and that the people who think BB is a criminal are merely low-life scum-sucking weasels with paranoid tendencies and who are in fact, primarily, disgruntled Jets fans.

As to what I recognize, I recognize sour grapes when I see them, jealousy, when it rears its ugly head, and shame---the shame of losing magnified by the previous.

Get over it, chum.

And if you think BB cares about any asterisk, or Don Shula's opinion,btw, you'd be wrong about that, too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 07, 2007, 04:23:34 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up

While its a long season and there are several games to go, if the Pats remain unbeaten through week 14 (the Jets, that should be a fun game), they will then turn their attention to week 15 and the Dolphins and hopefully extended their streak one more game. And perhaps BB could put the game  into historical perspective for his players.

In 1972 the Miami Dolphins put a 52-0 kick-ass on the Patriots en route to a perfect 17-0 season and a Super Bowl win.

I figure accounting for 3% inflation and 35 years of payback perhaps a Pats win along the lines of abouit  145-0 would be about right, and I figure that would deserve an asterisk.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 07, 2007, 04:25:34 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up

While its a long season and there are several games to go, if the Pats remain unbeaten through week 14 (the Jets, that should be a fun game), they will then turn their attention to week 15 and the Dolphins and hopefully extended their streak one more game. And perhaps BB could put the game  into historical perspective for his players.

In 1972 the Miami Dolphins put a 52-0 kick-ass on the Patriots en route to a perfect 17-0 season and a Super Bowl win.

I figure accounting for 3% inflation and 35 years of payback perhaps a Pats win along the lines of abouit  145-0 would be about right, and I figure that would deserve an asterisk.



Do you remember if the Pats complained of the Dolphins & Shula, the traitor to the Colts, of running up the score?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 07, 2007, 04:29:52 PM
That completed a six game stretch where NE was outscored 222-57

Plunkett to Vataha!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 07, 2007, 04:33:09 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up

While its a long season and there are several games to go, if the Pats remain unbeaten through week 14 (the Jets, that should be a fun game), they will then turn their attention to week 15 and the Dolphins and hopefully extended their streak one more game. And perhaps BB could put the game  into historical perspective for his players.

In 1972 the Miami Dolphins put a 52-0 kick-ass on the Patriots en route to a perfect 17-0 season and a Super Bowl win.

I figure accounting for 3% inflation and 35 years of payback perhaps a Pats win along the lines of abouit  145-0 would be about right, and I figure that would deserve an asterisk.



Do you remember if the Pats complained of the Dolphins & Shula, the traitor to the Colts, of running up the score?

Probably not. Back in the day pro football players didn't whine like pussies (can I say that?) when they got the shit (can I say that?) kicked out of them. They were too concerned that their coach would kick the crap out of them and then fire their sorry asses.

different times.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 07, 2007, 04:38:34 PM


Probably not. Back in the day pro football players didn't whine like pussies (can I say that?) when they got the shit (can I say that?) kicked out of them. They were too concerned that their coach would kick the crap out of them and then fire their sorry asses.

different times.

Fans weren't as whiny and snively then, either.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 04:57:32 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up


yeah but what's your take on squinting?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 07, 2007, 05:07:03 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up


yeah but what's your take on squinting?

If you squint long enough at the asterisk, it starts to look like a green dot.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 05:13:35 PM
I'm not a Jets fan, but I'm just pointing out Utley, that I'm NOT THE ONLY ONE COMING WITH THE ASTERISK BLAST.  I'm sure I didn't create it either.  But I was casually saying oh, a month and a half ago that the season would be tainted, prior Superbowls tainted, but even if Shula is senile and self-interested, doesn't mean that a conspiracy to subvert league policy, i.e., CHEATING, but not just CHEATING, an uninvestigated obvious CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT.  When I use the word CONSPIRACY, I'm not talking about JULIA ROBERTS/GIBBO or THE GRASSY KNOLL, I'm talking about a coaching staff coordinating their efforts to cheat.  That's what a CONSPIRACY is, and you don't have to break into THE WATERGATE to perpetrate one.

When jbottle*, who is no fan of Belichek*, simply calls a SPADE a SPADE, then why do you have to be a disgruntled JETS FAN to think that way.  I disagree with your assertion that most people laugh this one off though I agree that it helps now that Mr. Magoo has taken point on the argument.

It's also the FUCKING YEAR OF THE ASTERISK, why do you think that chick tennis player retired after BLOW POSITIVE, you got it, she didn't want the ASTERISK.  As to Barry Bonds and fey PROVOCATEUR MARC ECCO, that has become absurdist theater.  ECCO and SHULA should get together and jam a few Heinekins and really let out their inner asterisks.....

The problem isn't that everybody not a NE fan chooses to hate NE, they hate Belichek* and the fact that he is a cheater who cheated his way to superbowls, they hate that Goodell tells Belichek* to CUTACHECK* instead of investigating the matter, putting his integrity on the line so that Belichek*'s won't be examined.  But there's the rub.  Belichek* (CUTACHEK*) chose to pay the money and he well could have appealed a league decision, the way Pac-Man Jones just did and WAS DENIED.  That's a tacit admission of guilt, he's the Senator who tapped the shoes, slid the hand, has a wide dump stance, and wanted to make it go away with a misdemeanor.  So far, so good, except for he is POPULARLY ELECTED, and can never be again if he doesn't withdraw his GUILTY PLEA.  Belichek*'s assertion that "the league has ruled" isn't satisfactory because he has effectively chosen to admit guilt by not appealing the fine, giving Goodell no reason to preserve the evidence, that's why I say hey man NICE SHOT, NICE SHOT* MAN.  

But you OWN IT NOW AND IT HAS AN ASTERISK.  Or appeal, CUTACHEK*  Your PLAY.

Yours,

JBOTTLE*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 05:14:27 PM
Jim Rome and Around the Horn lead with the story that I broke 1.5 moons ago, but who's counting.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 07, 2007, 05:16:01 PM
heres my 2 scents on Shula, asterisks and running it up


yeah but what's your take on squinting?

I usually squint on 4th down


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 05:26:27 PM
Another thing I noticed is that an asterisk kind of resembles an asshole, like in anatomy, the human asshole, and I can't think of two bigger ones than Barry Bonds and Bill Cutachek*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 05:39:19 PM
J

Can you actually change your user name to add the asterisk?  I think that would be helpful for the rest of us...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 07, 2007, 06:04:12 PM
I can't think of two bigger ones than Barry Bonds and..............

Don't kill the new Yank


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 06:18:44 PM
"Can you actually change your user name to add the asterisk?"

I suppose I could, but as a 5-star "hero," I wouldn't go back to newbie to asterisk, which, in my case, means*

*logician, user of the scientific method, drawing conclusions based on facts, etc.

Fact:  There is no reason for Goodell* to preserve videotape evidence of wrongdoing if punishment for same is acceded to...

Fact:  Belichek* then retreats to position of "the league has ruled," which can also be parsed out as "I have refused to challenge or appeal the ruling of the league that wrongdoing has been committed..." or further "I cheated..."

Fact:  Belichek* was "outed" by a former employee familiar with Photriot tactics designed to subvert published league policy, leading one to the conclusion that he can back up his allegations if necessary, all Goodell has to do is subpoena him being the implication. 

Fact:  Asterisk tighents up and Cutachek* emerges with the conclusory and fallacious statement that "the league has ruled," not factually correct unless agreed to because otherwise league rulings are appealable, CORRECT?

This is all shit that Cutachek* doesn't want to hear because the Photriots are 7-0 or whatever, and on his way toward a collision with Shula who will certainly be interviewed prior to the Photriot/Flounder game, so not only does the story not GO AWAY because it's been RULED UPON, but it lasts ALL SEASON LONG.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 07, 2007, 07:14:35 PM
Jbottle sees asterisks in his sleep evidently.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 08:05:12 PM
Are you sure you would lose your stars by adding an asterisk?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 08:26:18 PM
I'm simply not going to do it, that's my decision, and I will delete this post tomorrow.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 08:30:38 PM
I'm simply not going to do it, that's my decision, and I will delete this post tomorrow.


ROFL


don't worry. I won't turn you in...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 07, 2007, 08:32:47 PM
"Jbottle sees asterisks in his sleep evidently."

No, the would be easy.  The problem is that I SEE THEM WHEN I'M AWAKE!!

Jokes.  Cheers.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 09:40:42 PM
well you can count your lucky asterisks then...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 07, 2007, 10:41:21 PM
No, I'm relatively certain that you can change your screen name without affecting your stars...

In fact I'm pretty sure a couple of people have done it...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 08, 2007, 05:18:00 PM
I really don't have my Photriot Games hat on today, don't want to use that symbol, now that everybody is saying it, and you have the less moronic Mike from Mike & Mike making points about the significance of retreating from saying [symbol indicating footnote], just great stuff.  The whole world is arguing about that symbol now.  I'm sick of typing it, even typing the smybol.  You've never see ">" get this much attention.  Wait, did he say he was putting a "greater than" symbol between the Dolphins who went undefeated vs. the Patriots if they go undefeated?  Because that would be so wack.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 08, 2007, 05:28:11 PM
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_Z8uTwz_SvSU2M:http://www.actusa.com/images/asterisk.gif)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:zyGmQ3OuKgExzM:http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/0060-0503-2516-2426.jpg)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RrbLt-zkIrNCVM:http://rossbender.org/asterisk2.jpg)

jbottle-feel free to use these whenever the need arises


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on November 08, 2007, 06:17:10 PM
If there is a rule against electronic surveillance on the books, then Belichek deserves whatever penalty people put on him.  If, on the other hand, people just find this spying stuff distasteful and there was nothing prohibiting it from occurring, then I figure "all's fair".

If it were up to me, i'd allow as much spying as you can get away with.  Makes the game more interesting.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 08, 2007, 06:42:46 PM
You don't get fined for doing something that is within the rules, or within the contractual understanding between teams in the LEAGUE, however you want to define it, you don't CUTACHEK* unless there is a misdeed, or wrongdoing, but you are also free to appeal the decision of the league that wrongdoing is committed.  You know when you pay a speeding ticket of "<" 10 mph. over when you were doing 48 in a 30?  You don't have to do that.  You can challenge, have a trial, appeal, etc.  You know when you, not YOU YOU, but when a person pleads guilty to "disorderly conduct," instead of asking for a trial on "solicitation of homosexual sex in an airport mens room," see, that guy is trying to "make it go away."  Otherwise, he would have a trial, or in the Goodell administrative law vs. criminal law sense, he could APPEAL THE DECISION.  In other words, CUTACHEK* created his own ASTERISK, because if he didn't want one he should have appealed the League Decision, well within his rights.  The fact that he SPUN his paying of the fine as "the league has ruled" instead of "I admitted my guilt by not challenging or appealing the league ruling," is when he is engaging in pretending that he didn't create the asterisk.  CUTACHEK*, by cutting a check, is the guy who admits to juicing and a suspension rather than the league showing a tape of him putting a needle in his own ass.  That's as simple as it gets.  That's what makes him bitter and he is stewing on, that he knows he admitted wrongdoing, it's his ASTERISK TO BEAR, because if it was BULLSHIT, hey pal, APPEAL THE RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSION.

OTHERWISE YOU CAN SHUT IT ON THE MATTER AND THAT GOES FOR YOUR PLAYERS AS WELL, you can't play the victim card when that card is a CHECK YOU CUT, CUTACHEK*

I called Shula "Mr. Magoo" yesterday and I apologize to him for that.  He got it right, when CUTACHEK wrote a CHECK, he assented to the ASTERISK and to losing a DRAFT PICK.  You don't want to lose a draft pick, fucking appeal, or EAT IT.  THAT'S WHY HE IS MORE BITTER THAN EVER.

He is to coaching what Bob Novak is to political journalism...prince prick of darkness.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 08, 2007, 07:24:19 PM
tell us how you really feel...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 08, 2007, 08:06:11 PM
Nice of Shula to take everything back, I wonder if someone reminded him of "accidentally" leaving the sprinklers on for that Jets playoff game.

Glass houses...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 08, 2007, 08:42:17 PM
It's a slippery slope, or was, I take it...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 09, 2007, 11:39:48 AM
outside of the PI calls that went against the Pats, the one call I thought was interesting from a conspiracy theory POV (mostly joking) was a Colts play early (IIRC) in the game, where the Colts receiver caught the ball, but his foot was clearly in the white and out of bounds. There was a ref with a perfect view a few yards away, and he signaled catch. It was over-turned on review but, how do you make that original call?


Sportsguy on the officiating in the Pats/Cotls game

fwiw he has the same observation about the same play

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/071109&sportCat=nfl

Quote
I knew the Pats were in trouble less than three minutes into the game, when Aaron Moorehead's entire left foot landed out of bounds on a first-down catch. Standing 10 feet away from him on either side, two officials improbably decided Moorehead landed inbounds, forcing the Patriots to waste a challenge to overturn a miserable call.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 09, 2007, 11:48:23 AM
I know I certainly feel sorry for the picked upon Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 09, 2007, 11:52:49 AM
Houdini-in-the-Hoody* will just use the "world hates us/us against the world attitude" to his advantage.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 09, 2007, 12:33:54 PM
Regarding Simmons incessant whining about the referees:

(http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50266954/Tissue_Box.jpg)

 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 09, 2007, 12:56:27 PM
incessant?

heh

just you wait for Sportsguy's rant when Aleksandr Belov suits for the Colts in the AFC title game and calls the coin flipped by Larry Barnett. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 09, 2007, 12:58:32 PM
Regarding Simmons incessant whining about the referees:

(http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50266954/Tissue_Box.jpg)

 



Is Simmons a Pats fan as well?

Saw his piece on the latest ESPN (E60 is it?).  Funny stuff, as he toured teh Upper Deck premises.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 09, 2007, 01:10:40 PM
years ago Sportsguy used to be Boston Sportsguy.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 09, 2007, 01:13:14 PM
...and he still is.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 09, 2007, 01:25:55 PM
he's having a good year so far

and his favorite sport is hoops


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on November 09, 2007, 04:50:45 PM
Regarding Simmons incessant whining about the referees:

(http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50266954/Tissue_Box.jpg)



Put a couple of those tissues over that photo of yours while you're at it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 10, 2007, 01:18:18 AM
Sorry me no asterisk boy tonight.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 11, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
I like Pitt, Titans, Packers to develop a 1:00PM position going into the 4PM games.  3-0, play 2/3 rds of kitty on your favourite game, win, and play half on the Night Game.

*Note:  The above is not to be construed as gaming advice, and even if it were construed that way, the lack of past performance is no indication of poor future results, but is the reason that I'm not even taking my own advice anymore.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 11, 2007, 12:15:45 PM
I have the other side of all 3 of those games.  :)

But thanks for the advice


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 11, 2007, 01:38:24 PM
They'll likely split 2-1 your way or mine.  I'm not in there so good luck.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 11, 2007, 08:24:22 PM
I have the other side of all 3 of those games. 

Ever tried Contrarian Theory?   Go through all the games, think them over, and pick a winner for every game.  Then, call your guy, and for each game, put a dollar on the team you didn't pick.

I don't know if it's ever worked or not - I've never had the guts to try it.  I'm filing it away with the old "If you study while you're stoned, then you have to get stoned for the exam" theory.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 11, 2007, 08:32:11 PM
"Gosh, that seems like easy money, but I'm going to bet it anyway...wait..."

"You're thinking about 'contrarianism' again aren't you??"

"No, I was just pausing, I was thinking of calling Papa John's, I mean I'm already up..."

"Yes, YOU ARE UP, and YOU are thinking of pizza, but aren't you thinking about contrarianism at all??"

"Well, yes, now I have to admit I am.  I've thought about it before.  It goes against my best instincts..."

"Yeah, yes, yeah, that's right..."

"...but that's why sometimes one should..."

"...no, go ahead, I agree..."

"...reconsider the gut, and go for the unenvisioned alternative, the hard money being the smart play..."

"...I don't know, you sure..."

"Oh, I'm sure..."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 12, 2007, 12:36:09 AM
Sorry.  Ass you were.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 12, 2007, 10:13:34 AM
Wow Manning sucked yesterday and they still almost won the game.  What happened to clutch Vinatieri - I wonder if kicking in that dome is affecting his ability to kick on the road.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 12, 2007, 11:02:46 AM
that was a strange game-if SD had any offense yesterday that would have won that game by about 35 points.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 12, 2007, 02:59:33 PM
You don't get to blame the idiot kicker when you have not a pick 6 but 6 picks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 12, 2007, 07:27:52 PM
You don't get to blame the idiot kicker when you have not a pick 6 but 6 picks.

I'm going to start drinking, so I can understand your posts.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 12, 2007, 08:36:27 PM
You don't get to blame the idiot kicker when you have not a pick 6 but 6 picks.

I'm going to start drinking, so I can understand your posts.

I'll try this one

A few years ago Vanderjagt got stinko and went on a radio show in Canada or somewhere, and he said something about the Colts, particularly Dungy and Manning, being soft.  When Manning was asked about it, he said he couldn't be bothered by the ramblings of an idiot kicker who was liquored-up, etc.

A "pick 6" is, in the parlance of our times, a term to describe a play in which an interception is returned for a touchdown.

Manning threw 6 "picks" (interceptions) in last night's game.

Am I close?  What do I win?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 12, 2007, 11:58:03 PM
A free Mr. Utley mug and hey, you gained a draft pick for being witty instead of cheating.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 13, 2007, 10:47:00 AM
...you gained a draft pick for being witty instead of cheating.

Actually, I have to confess, I did cheat.  When I posted that answer, I was squinting the whole time.  Put an asterisk on my Utley mug, and I'll show it to Belichek next time I see him in the waiting room at the therapist's office.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 13, 2007, 10:49:01 AM
The Utley mug has not been signed, officially, so it has very little worth. If you ship it to me, I'll sign it, and get BB's autograph on it, too.

THat will certainly increase its value.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 13, 2007, 11:00:36 AM
speaking of BB (and Pioli)

having watched the absolutely brutal performance by the 49ers last night, it appears that the NFL might want to penalize the Pats for picking the 49ers pocket.

While it may be a long-shot, it might be pretty f'ing funny to see Commish Goodell on the podium announce:

with the 1st pick of the 2008 NFL draft the world Champion NE Patriot select...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 13, 2007, 11:23:06 AM
Sched gets a bit easier here on in for Niners

I don't mind what they did, especially since they added the Colts #1 for 2008.

Staley and Willis appear to be players.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 13, 2007, 11:25:24 AM
I don't know about #1 pick but I think a top five is highly likely


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 13, 2007, 11:28:13 AM
In the NBA, teams often protect their picks.  I wonder if SF even tried.  Or if NFL allows for this.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 13, 2007, 11:31:48 AM
I don't know about #1 pick but I think a top five is highly likely

a 1 or 2 looks like a real stretch, but...

a win or two out of the Fins and Mangeniuses would certainly help.




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 13, 2007, 11:33:40 AM
I don't think I've ever heard of protected picks in the NFL only conditional picks.


Title: Rice for Freeney
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 13, 2007, 11:42:21 AM
The Colts have added SIMEON RICE off waivers from Denver

Dwight Freeney is expected to miss a good chunk of time.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 13, 2007, 10:14:20 PM
J

I only added the asterisk to my name to prove to you that it could be done since you seemed concerned that there would be an adverse affect.

I know how hard it is to venture out through the black door into the unknown, so I've made it risk free for you...   :)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 13, 2007, 10:16:18 PM

Actually, I have to confess, I did cheat.  When I posted that answer, I was squinting the whole time. 

I read you as a squinter all along...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 13, 2007, 10:47:15 PM
From "MrUtley" on "College Football":

"You continue to miss the larger points...One, Belichek doesn't admit to anything by paying the fine."

Sure he does, he's purchased the asterisk for himself, there is and appeals process that he chose not to avail himself of had he put forth the position that he denied wrongdoing by not paying the fine.  Ergo, a tacit admission of corruption and cheating.  Otherwise, as I've articulated, say you are innocent, tell Goodell he can kiss it and lawyer up..."

"...plus you're an idiot if you think he did..."

The ad hominem attack, you're just digging a hole for yourself...

"Two Goodell needed the publicity and found his sacrificial lamb. Better to slaughter the white coach, than to address the real problem the NFL has---a public face that is black and criminal..."

If there was a lamb sacrificed, beside the fact that you are changing the subject, then who got burned.  Nobody, "the league has ruled," and "let's all just move on..."  Nah, I'll watch it burn and heat up the asterisk poker the better to sear Cutachek*'s pompous ass with...

"Three, what was actually on the tape? No one knows, because it's been destroyed and no one is allowed to talk about it, or face more wrath (faux or otherwise) from the Commish."

This is the precise issue that where the interests of Belichek*, Goodell, and the League all coincide, and I'm not sure that Goodell isn't in breach of his duty as lawyer to the league for destruction of evidence...where's the harm in preserving it pending some appeal or review...unilateral destruction of evidence is the smoking gun that points toward corruption...

"Four, Barry Bonds does not play in the NFL and never has and never will."

You think so, doctor?

"Five, the idea that someone like you states with authoriity what BB "thought" or that he gives a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks is just plain laughable..."

I think he didn't want to be revealed for the cheater that he is and that's the genuine consensus, that he doesn't care what I or anyone else thinks is probably correct, but has no effect on his admission of wrongdoing.

"Finally, it appears that the problem for you in all these discussions is an inability to conceptualize the possibiliy of simply being wrong."

I don't know whether there needs to be an asterisk by the season no matter what the result at the end may be, but I'm satisfied that by paying a fine, giving up a first round draft pick, and not availing himself of the appeals process, that there is little doubt that I'm right that there is at a minimum a tacit admission of wrongdoing...the appearance that the office of the Commisioner is complicit in compounding the suspicion by the destruction of evidence, that is absoulutlely not in dispute by thinking persons anywhere.  The fact that Belichek* doesn't give a fuck is the most hilarious defense and a point that I'll gladly concede...I know he cares about his own asterisk or else he wouldn't have purchased it for $.5M

"The only asterisk that needs to be applied is an extra large one to tatoo your pompous ass."

Calls 'em as I sees 'em, another ad homenim attack that underscores the futility of your other, ahem, "arguments..."

"And don't worry about what I enjoy, seasons or otherwise."

I like Summer the best.

"You wouldn't be able to fathom it."

I'm guessing you like the Photriots, but otherwise I'm sure you're quite correct.

Next.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 14, 2007, 10:55:50 AM
The ad hominem attack, you're just digging a hole for yourself...

Sewing the seeds of green-dots??


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 14, 2007, 02:11:40 PM
Calls 'em as I sees 'em,

No doubt...and there's the rub.

I see them far differently, and with an accuity you can only hope to achieve some day.

Apparently, that in itself is enough to provoke long, rambling nonsensical posts rife with complaints, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods.

YOu sure you don't work in the Bush West Wing.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 14, 2007, 04:56:12 PM
Have my mug signed Cutachek* or Belichek* or Uttermess*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 15, 2007, 06:28:19 PM
The Science was that tight, huh? 

Dropping the logic, damn.

As you were.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 15, 2007, 10:56:12 PM
The Science was that tight, huh? 

Dropping the logic, damn.

As you were.

Jboggled*









* Specializing in misinformation, disinformation. lies, and distortion...Call 1-800-SPIN-DOC today!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 15, 2007, 11:09:48 PM
You can't spin an admission of guilt, much as you may try.

Will send jbottle* mug along promptly, as you and I both seem to be out of words on this topic.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 16, 2007, 02:46:50 PM
...as you and I both seem to be out of words on this topic.


I take great comfort in the knowledge (or hope or whatever) that no poster here will ever let that be an impediment to posting.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 16, 2007, 04:12:30 PM
Yeah, you can always conjure up some "quite frankly" Stephen A. Smith...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 18, 2007, 12:53:45 PM
I started off the poll with a Yes on the Pats-consider it the Kiss of Death.

tonite

Bills 49

Pats 2
 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 18, 2007, 07:32:27 PM
I like the Photriots* tonight, with the understanding of most of the American people, that the game will be played in shame, and under the spectre of the inevitable asterisk*.

Tom Brady is a hell of a quarterback, too bad that he has Richard Nixon for coach of the year*

Sign here __________  if you would like to CUTACHEK*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on November 19, 2007, 10:39:15 AM
That 'flex' schedule thingy really worked out well this week ...
the Bills/Pats game was SO much better than the Bears/Seahawks   ::)



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 19, 2007, 10:41:43 AM
Its funny listening to Madden figuratively go down on the Patriots like he did with the Rams in the Super Bowl in 01.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 19, 2007, 10:51:37 AM
That 'flex' schedule thingy really worked out well this week ...
the Bills/Pats game was SO much better than the Bears/Seahawks   ::)



ratings

you got a big-market team that will pull in viewers/fans from that market then you got the rest of the country wanting to see if someone can knock them off.
 
IIRC we (out market Pat fans and Pat haters) get a couple more weeks of Pats in primetime coming up

week 11 v Philly 

week 12 v Balt.

3 birds in a row?

Turkey-Eagles-Ravens

TurEaglens?

burp!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 19, 2007, 10:53:46 AM
Its funny listening to Madden figuratively go down on the Patriots like he did with the Rams in the Super Bowl in 01.

I just hope the Pats don't listen to it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on November 19, 2007, 12:50:37 PM
Quote
ratings
yeah, but how many non-Pats fans were still watching after half time?  At least the Hawks game was pretty exciting right up to the last snap.

from NFL.com ...
Quote
Flexible scheduling ensured quality matchups on Sunday night in those weeks and gave surprise teams a chance to play their way onto primetime.
Right.

Sorry, I guess the fact that my opponent in FF this week had BOTH Brady AND Moss has left me just a bit bitter toward the Pats   :P


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 19, 2007, 01:27:02 PM
Maybe the Pats should have an asterick next to their team as all their opponents are doing an NFL imitation of the Washington Generals.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 19, 2007, 10:01:03 PM
Titans' Bironas missed a 56-yard FG try near the end of the 1st half, but Shanahan called the sneaky right-before-the-snap time-out to "ice" him.   Because, you know, Shanahan is a genius and all.  So, Bironas gets another try and of course he makes it.

Can we put the whole "call time out to 'ice' the kicker" thing to bed now?  How about this one - "ice" the kicker by... NOT calling time-out!!  He'll be standing there, squinting at the holder, wondering why the other team's coach hasn't called time-out, and he'll ice himself, etc.  Worth a try, no?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 20, 2007, 02:34:16 AM
Whatever happened to yelling "Hey, shankley, you bum, punch it in there Snow White," i.e., something that they will have trouble deciphering right before they squint for impact.   That's where the fan has to sort of "wing it," like "Hey, slam dunk it Pocahantas, you fairy..."  where the idea is to not really "ice" but "vex."  "Hey sluggo, punch it in for Uncle Gary...," etc. 

If you have the right seat.  The fellow that set the single game record for three pointers for Clem. did so because of the encouragement of two fans, and one was me.  He had the ability, and me and my buddy tried to amp him up by giving him the idea that they were giving him too much space on defense.  His name was David Young, and we were in the money seats.  "Jack it up Dave, they can't hold you..."  Bam.  Bam.  "Shoot 'em up Dave..." and he would look around and be like sure, wtf, I don't not have the green light, and we gave him the green light and he hit (I think, we were moderately intoxicated, like six beers, no cursing) like 8 3's like 8-10 from the arc.  We always felt like we had to help him lay the sickness on them, and I know he was like "who are those guys?" but he knew we were being genuinely supportive, every time he touched it we were telling him "fire away," it was a beautiful thing to witness and have a hand in...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on November 20, 2007, 04:55:50 PM
Nice effort by the Bronco's. 


They're finally looking competitive.  Cutler's gonna be amazing someday, but will never hold a candle to his counterpart from last night.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 20, 2007, 06:27:30 PM
Titans' Bironas missed a 56-yard FG try near the end of the 1st half, but Shanahan called the sneaky right-before-the-snap time-out to "ice" him.   Because, you know, Shanahan is a genius and all.  So, Bironas gets another try and of course he makes it.

Can we put the whole "call time out to 'ice' the kicker" thing to bed now?  How about this one - "ice" the kicker by... NOT calling time-out!!  He'll be standing there, squinting at the holder, wondering why the other team's coach hasn't called time-out, and he'll ice himself, etc.  Worth a try, no?


LOL!



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 20, 2007, 06:30:18 PM
Heard on ESPN how BB is "running up the score"

and they went on to say that BB is "building up bad karma" that "could come back to haunt him" later on..

i can't believe they pay people to go on their shows and come up with such drivel.

It's not Woody Hayes going for 2 against Michigan with a 36 point lead out there.

It's the NFL.

Shut up and play, or get out of the way.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 20, 2007, 08:55:05 PM
It's the NFL.  Shut up and play, or get out of the way.

Word - I totally agree re: "running up the score" - if you don't like it, then get your head out of your ass and play some defense.

But still I wonder how he'll answer the inevitable questions when Moss or Brady tears an ACL in the 3rd quarter of a 68-0 game.  Not that either guy is particularly injury-prone or anything, but still, no matter who you are, when you step on that field, there's always a greater-than-remote chance that the next play will be your last.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 20, 2007, 09:52:54 PM
Bitter guy that he is he will take his CUTACHEK* season and eat it when somebody gets hit low, because ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN, I WAS ONLY HAVING FUN.....I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE SCOREBOARD GETTING SPUN (to paraphrase Elvis Costello).  It's the same principle, and I'm glad you brought this up oilcan, of, be careful who you snub, i.e., Mangini, who tatooed an asterisk on his season for essentially being an asshole not happy for his success at getting a good gig and a pay raise.  EVERYBODY HURTS*, just not all at the same time, BELICHEK*. 

To paraphrase Robert Novak, Belichek*'s "ACL's," for any team are "in play," if you want to be the PRINCESS OF DARKNESS, you get the business end of the LOUSY SPORT every now and then, right or wrong.  I personally don't mind them running up the score by playing offense, but when he says, hey, am I supposed to kick a field goal??  LOL, PRINCE, but you will reap what you sow, asterisk*, the nickname CUTACHECK*, torn ACL's and retribution on the field against players who adhere to you're ruthlessness, inside and outside of the rules, good luck Brady and Moss, and godspeed your ACL/MCL/broken ankle recovery.

Hey, it's a tough, league, ever hear the one about the guy who used advanced photoelectronic equipment to cheat??  And the conspiracy he avoided by CUTACHEK*, it happened in 2007, and will forever, no matter what HOMERS claim, taint what had been an admirable team instead of the personification of the UGLY AMERICAN, it's tragedy on a grand scale, and putting the hammer down on lesser opponents doesn't affect the guy in head gear and HOODIE so much.....what an @sshole.....


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 21, 2007, 10:02:39 AM
I agree with the general sentiment that in professional sports "running up the score" is a ridiculous concept and stopping the other team from scoring is usually the best way to deal with it.

Still, in all, I can't see Joe Gibbs coaching with a 50-0 lead (in the unlikely event that ever happens again, but it happened plenty in the past) the same way Belichick does.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 21, 2007, 10:17:12 AM
I'm not really sure how he can be accused of running up the score in the last game.  Is it Belichick's fault that the Bills couldn't stop two fullbacks from gaining 5-6 yards every rushing attempt? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 21, 2007, 10:21:06 AM
No.  There's not much a coach can do there.  Doing other stuff in other games has, however, been well-documented.  Like I said, I don't much care.  These guys are all professionals.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 21, 2007, 10:27:29 AM
Then what happens when somebody tears out a knee?  Whoops.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 21, 2007, 10:57:47 AM
As I recall the backup QB has been regularly playing in the 4th and the cast of characters on the field in that second half are quite often the second stringers.  This isn't college where you carry 70 players on your roster though so you can't exactly field an entire backup offensive squad while your starters sit the rest of the game out.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 21, 2007, 11:13:54 AM
Belichick kept Brady on the field against the Redskins in the 4th quarter with a 38-0 lead.  He put him back in during the 4th quarter with a 3 touchdown lead against the Dolphins. 

Not very "classy" is the way I would describe this.  At the same Belichick doesn't care what I think.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 21, 2007, 12:31:22 PM
there have been a couple of instances this year, when I felt a little uncomfortable with BBs need (and ability) to prove a point.

But this past sunday was not one of those times, IMO they did not run up the score against the Bills, they could have scored 70+ in the game if they wanted as the Bills couldn't stop anything.

fwiw, the Pats right now are a 22 point favorite over the Eagles,

if they keep playing as they have been, we could see a 30 point spread v the Jets


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 21, 2007, 03:05:26 PM
I don't recall any Buffalo fans ruing the high scores of those Jim Kelly teams that went to 4 straight Super bowls, do you?

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 21, 2007, 05:10:00 PM
What do you care, Goodell didn't take away CUTACHEK*'s TURKEY DINNER, just $0.5M, and a draft pick not to be named later. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 22, 2007, 09:23:29 AM
I don't recall any Buffalo fans ruing the high scores of those Jim Kelly teams that went to 4 straight Super bowls, do you?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Patriots scoring 100 points in a game if the other team allows it.    This is the NFL, if you don't like losing by 100 points, then play some defense.

I do, however, think the coaching staff will rue the day they lost their starting QB or WR or key offensive lineman to an injury sustained in the 3rd quarter of a game in which they were winning 58 to nothing. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 22, 2007, 11:29:11 AM
oil...was it you that said  "Why didn't I think if that?"

thought it was a great line when I wasn't paying attention...



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 22, 2007, 11:56:44 AM
oil...was it you that said  "Why didn't I think if that?"

That sentence doesn't sound like it's going anywhere.  My posts generally consist of nonsense, I know, but my grammar is usually, uhh, correct or whatever.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 22, 2007, 12:05:00 PM
Why didn't I think "of" that...   I try to type too fast...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 22, 2007, 12:10:56 PM
Why didn't I think "of" that...   I try to type too fast...

Oh, I should have figured that out.  Anyways, if it was funny then I'll take credit even if I didn't say it.  Same goes for if it was stupid, why not.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 24, 2007, 01:22:34 AM
Finally going with NE to cover this week......................................so of course they wont


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 24, 2007, 08:55:00 AM
The proverbial sucker play?  They've been beating everyone 58-to-nothing, so a 22 or 24 point line should be nothing.  You'll have that covered in the 2nd quarter, etc.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 25, 2007, 07:41:05 PM
Book one, one-way to Vegas, yes, no, no, I'll be the one travelling, yes, I will be the one, it will be me on the plane..., etc.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 25, 2007, 11:15:24 PM
cover?

oops


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 25, 2007, 11:31:50 PM
A great win at home, on a night when the other team does all it can to bet you...Congrats, Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 25, 2007, 11:36:25 PM
So ends the first exhibition game of the regular season for the Patriots. 5 to go.

Can they run the table while their coach is busy experimenting with different looks and players? That remains to be seen.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 25, 2007, 11:47:16 PM
"Can they run the table while their coach is busy experimenting with different looks and players?"

Depends on what camera ANGLE the PHOTRIOTS choose.  Ask CUTACHEK*, he's the one with the headband over his ears***



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 25, 2007, 11:53:03 PM
Remind us again? of what team you are fan, jbot??


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 26, 2007, 12:39:29 AM
Every team that hasn't paid a .5M fine and lost a 1PICK at the same time and doesn't have a coach that looks like Nixon's lousy one off, or any other team that's paid a .5M fine alone, do some research about what I loathe.  Teams that CHEAT TO WIN, hey, whoa, sweep the leg, sheesh, but using ADVANCED PHOTOELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT TO SURREPTICIOUSLY RECORD OPPONENT COACHING, that's my only objection.

I like how you feebly rise to the defense as a Pats fan, but I root for the Steelers, so, not as you imagine, a disgruntled JETS_GUY, so, go ahead and talk STEELERS SMACK, I won't respond until a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE subpoena's GOODALL and CUTACHEK*, in order to find out about, huh, UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, etc., the destruction of evidence when a federally-condoned gambling operation is still above reproach, and I mean VEGAS, that just seems weird, as does the SUSPICIOUS UNDER TODAY.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 26, 2007, 03:05:35 AM
"ADVANCED PHOTOELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT TO SURREPTICIOUSLY RECORD OPPONENT COACHING,"

"the SUSPICIOUS UNDER TODAY."

Surreptitious? Who are you kidding? Standard video camera being used in plain sight. No deep dark secret.

As for your 'suspicious under,' it was sealed when Buffalo lost their game that afternoon. To quote Ellis Hobbs after the game, "We had a plan and followed it."

They went the entire first half with no offensive huddles! It was enough to produce a lead - so, having learned what he set out to learn, he changed plans for the second half of the game. No Moroney in the first half - not even on the field, and then plenty of Moroney in the second half. 4 receivers all first half. Disappeared the second half.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 03:32:10 AM
Every team that hasn't paid a .5M fine and lost a 1PICK at the same time and doesn't have a coach that looks like Nixon's lousy one off, or any other team that's paid a .5M fine alone, do some research about what I loathe.  Teams that CHEAT TO WIN, hey, whoa, sweep the leg, sheesh, but using ADVANCED PHOTOELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT TO SURREPTICIOUSLY RECORD OPPONENT COACHING, that's my only objection.

I like how you feebly rise to the defense as a Pats fan, but I root for the Steelers, so, not as you imagine, a disgruntled JETS_GUY, so, go ahead and talk STEELERS SMACK, I won't respond until a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE subpoena's GOODALL and CUTACHEK*, in order to find out about, huh, UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, etc., the destruction of evidence when a federally-condoned gambling operation is still above reproach, and I mean VEGAS, that just seems weird, as does the SUSPICIOUS UNDER TODAY.

Giants fan, here. NOT a Pats fan. I am a fan of people being fair in their evaluations of others, though, instead of having MUTABLE STANDARDS built on their own prejudices...something that doesn't seem to be a part of your posts, YET.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 04:03:48 AM
BTW, jbottle, it's PRETTY CLEAR that the SUPER BOWL STEELERS' TEAM OF THE 70'S under CHUCK NOLL cheated in oreder to win.
I would think that in the interest of FAIRNESS that you would want  asterisks placed in the record books next to each one of their alledged "championships".


HERE"S WHY:  http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_328813.html


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 04:09:33 AM
Of course, when Belichek's video cam was used NOBODY DIED, unlike the STEALERS OF THE 70'S, whose cheating cost them their lives:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_462321.html


Just ask Mike Webster.

Oops, you can't.

Or Joe Gordon: uh--not him either..


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 26, 2007, 09:40:40 AM
Had videocameras even been invented yet back in the 1970's?   I could be wrong, but I'm thinking it was all filmstrips and Super-8 and microfiche and so forth.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 26, 2007, 09:43:56 AM
I don't know about video cameras but the first VCRs were sold in '71 by Sony


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 26, 2007, 10:15:03 AM
Or Joe Gordon: uh--not him either..

Who's Joe Gordon?  The Yankees 1942 MVP?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 26, 2007, 10:15:30 AM
Every team that hasn't paid a .5M fine and lost a 1PICK at the same time and doesn't have a coach that looks like Nixon's lousy one off, or any other team that's paid a .5M fine alone, do some research about what I loathe.  Teams that CHEAT TO WIN, hey, whoa, sweep the leg, sheesh, but using ADVANCED PHOTOELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT TO SURREPTICIOUSLY RECORD OPPONENT COACHING, that's my only objection.

I like how you feebly rise to the defense as a Pats fan, but I root for the Steelers, so, not as you imagine, a disgruntled JETS_GUY, so, go ahead and talk STEELERS SMACK, I won't respond until a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE subpoena's GOODALL and CUTACHEK*, in order to find out about, huh, UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, etc., the destruction of evidence when a federally-condoned gambling operation is still above reproach, and I mean VEGAS, that just seems weird, as does the SUSPICIOUS UNDER TODAY.

You don't have weapons at home do you?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 26, 2007, 10:27:02 AM
Nailbiter last night.  Eagles got some very good penetration on the offense.  Feely "came through" in the end though despite having a great game. Got to watch the game on my new HDTV though which was awesome. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 26, 2007, 10:29:50 AM
I don't know about video cameras but the first VCRs were sold in '71 by Sony

I was an "early adopter" of betamax in the late '70s.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 26, 2007, 10:43:49 AM
Or Joe Gordon: uh--not him either..

Who's Joe Gordon?  The Yankees 1942 MVP?

I think he was the guy in "Brother From Another Planet", directed by John Sayles, who also directed "Eight Men Out", which is the story of what I think is the first recorded asterisking in the context of major professional sports.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 26, 2007, 10:44:44 AM
I think that was Joe Morton.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 26, 2007, 10:46:47 AM
much better game than expected last nite,

Eagles came up with a great effort on O  & D and Feeley had a mostly great game (thank you Assante) but where the hell were:  

1-Pats's pass rush

2- Pat L-backers

3-O-PI on Randy  



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 26, 2007, 10:46:59 AM
I think that was Joe Morton.

No, I'm pretty sure it was John Sayles.  Anyways, if I remember correctly, 7 of the titular men got asterisks, and the other one was John Cusack.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 26, 2007, 10:57:35 AM
John Cusak could really run the bases...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 26, 2007, 11:06:17 AM
John Sayles directed "Eight Men Out".  Joe Morton played the "Brother from Another Planet."  Carl Morton won the 1970 NL Rookie of the Year Award and later, sadly, died jogging at age 39.

I still have no idea who the Joe Gordon who played for the Steelers was.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 26, 2007, 11:09:43 AM
Right, and therin lies the connection (I think) to which an earlier post referred.   Gordon was in "BFAP", directed by Sayles, who also directed "EMO", which involved asterisks conferred to professional sports figures in 1919 or whatever, a practice which has continued to modern times, as to which Belicheck can attest.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 26, 2007, 11:15:18 AM
John Sayles directed "Eight Men Out".  Joe Morton played the "Brother from Another Planet."  Carl Morton won the 1970 NL Rookie of the Year Award and later, sadly, died jogging at age 39.

I still have no idea who the Joe Gordon who played for the Steelers was.

As far as I can tell googling him, he was their former Director of Communications.....


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 26, 2007, 11:16:53 AM
Did he died from cheating?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 11:47:36 AM
Or Joe Gordon: uh--not him either..

Who's Joe Gordon?  The Yankees 1942 MVP?

Mea culpa: should have read:

Joe Gilliam


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 26, 2007, 11:49:16 AM
Ah...well Joe Gilliam was a drunk and a street-drug addict and probably not a good example of how the Steelers "cheated."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 26, 2007, 11:51:59 AM
IIRC Mean Joe Greene did Coke tm


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 11:55:06 AM
Nailbiter last night.  Eagles got some very good penetration on the offense.  Feely "came through" in the end though despite having a great game. Got to watch the game on my new HDTV though which was awesome. 


Hmmm. I watched that game and wondered what Pats fans were feeling in the fourth quarter, and behind...

You were nailbiting?

Interesting. I still thought Pats had command of that game.

AlsThey knew it would be tough, with Johnson being so itimate with Beleichek's coaching and schemes. And though the Eagles matched up well with the Pats defensively, they did not have that gamebreaker to undo the neutralization of Westbrook.

THe Pats got a good lesson last night/ During he remainder of the season they'll have to play knowing thay'll face tough opponents who want to knock them off ---regardless of what some nameless, faceless bookie says should happen. Last night was a test of mental toughness, and the team was up to it.

Time for the fans of the Pats to catch up to the team.


BTW, what HDTV did you get,liq----model-size--LCD or Plasma--etc????


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 11:56:36 AM
Ah...well Joe Gilliam was a drunk and a street-drug addict and probably not a good example of how the Steelers "cheated."


Probably not...but a good example of the kind of "ethically challenged" player that Chuck Noll Lo Contendre  built his HOF career upon.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 26, 2007, 11:59:45 AM
Nailbiter last night.  Eagles got some very good penetration on the offense.  Feely "came through" in the end though despite having a great game. Got to watch the game on my new HDTV though which was awesome. 


Hmmm. I watched that game and wondered what Pats fans were feeling in the fourth quarter, and behind...

You were nailbiting?

Interesting. I still thought Pats had command of that game.

AlsThey knew it would be tough, with Johnson being so itimate with Beleichek's coaching and schemes. And though the Eagles matched up well with the Pats defensively, they did not have that gamebreaker to undo the neutralization of Westbrook.

THe Pats got a good lesson last night/ During he remainder of the season they'll have to play knowing thay'll face tough opponents who want to knock them off ---regardless of what some nameless, faceless bookie says should happen. Last night was a test of mental toughness, and the team was up to it.

Time for the fans of the Pats to catch up to the team.


BTW, what HDTV did you get,liq----model-size--LCD or Plasma--etc????

my 2 scents

the Pats ease this year has probably resulted in a degree of complacency among the fans. While I should have "worried" more than I did, I thought the D would eventually stop the Eagles.

and they did.

edit: and I think you're right, every Pat-foe going forward will prepare for the game as if it were their Superbowl. Whether they will be a "successful" as the Eagles is another thing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 26, 2007, 12:14:08 PM
I don't know about video cameras but the first VCRs were sold in '71 by Sony

For $50,000 you could buy a commercial use video tape recorder (VTR) as early as 1951. It could record 16 minutes per tape. In '53, RCA improved the quality of the picture, but cut the time down to 4 minutes per tape. 1956 marked the breakthrough.

The Ampex VRX-1000 (sold as the Mark IV, also for $50k) had rotating heads, transverse scanning, and FM encoding which allowed broadcast quality recording at 15 inches/second and 90 minutes per reel (vs. RCA's 30 feet/second!!). One member of the Ampex design team? Ray Dolby! http://www.retrothing.com/2005/10/the_worlds_firs.html has a good picture of the VRX-1000 and team.

The first VTRs for general home use were developed and sold by Sony in 1964, but they only sold a few hundred of them.

The Sony U-matic system was introduced in Tokyo in September 1971. at $1400 for a TV/U-Matic combination. The Phillips Model 1500, came out on its heels,in 1972. And Cartrivision, in '72, had the first pre-packaged shows to watch/rent/buy. VHS was shown by RCA in 1976 and everywhere in the fall of 1977.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 26, 2007, 03:07:14 PM
Ah...well Joe Gilliam was a drunk and a street-drug addict and probably not a good example of how the Steelers "cheated."


Probably not...but a good example of the kind of "ethically challenged" player that Chuck Noll Lo Contendre  built his HOF career upon.

No.  Actually it's not.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 26, 2007, 07:27:54 PM
Cocaine is not exactly a performance-enhancing drug other than as a general anaesthetic if you know basic pharmacology, which doesn't seem to be in Mr. Utley's frame of reference if there is any frame at all. 

You got me:  A bunch of people did blow in the 1970', congratulations Mr. Bernstein, you just blew the lid off COKEGATE.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people ask ordinary questions like "Why was evidence so expeditiously destroyed?" or "If Belichek didn't cheat, then why did he aquiesque to a fine and the organization lose a draft pick when there is an appeals process on league rulings?"  Remember when Pac-Man Jones appealed his suspension and was denied?  You can do that if you want to.  Or admit to engaging in conspiracy to subvert rule policy, and purchase an ASTERISK for you and your season and your players.  Rather "prove it on the field," huh, don't blame you, but sorry, you are Barry Bonds or Pete Rose except they acted not as a corporation but as individuals.

Common sense is in such short supply here sometimes.  Or logic.  Pick one or the other and think it through and write a one page summation of your thoughts and I'll review it to point out the fallacies of your argument, or just realize that Cutachek* will always be Cutachek*, just like Michael Jackson will always be a pedophile, Vick a Thug, Bonds a JUICER, Rose a liar, Tyson and Bryant rapists, except for the fact that all those allegation were challenged by the athlete through a legal or administrative process, while Cutachek* admitted cheating.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 26, 2007, 07:35:51 PM
or
kraft did


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 26, 2007, 08:44:21 PM
Common sense is in such short supply here sometimes.  Or logic.

You said it.
Purchase an ASTERISK for you and your season (or)
...write a one page summation of your thoughts and I'll review it to point out the fallacies of your argument...

It doesn't take a full page.

1) Mangini knew about the videotaping before his game with the Patriots. He was part of the Patriots' management. He only complained after his team lost.

2) That was the first game of the season. The videographer was stopped before any footage got to Belichick's side of the field. So, nothing that was videotaped had a role in this season's games. (And one is allowed to tape it from anywhere else - just not on the opponent's side of the field.)

3) The commissioner indicated that the videotapes did not affect the outcome of games.

To answer your question about his admitting guilt, he did. He admitted he had videotape shot in ways it was not supposed to be shot. What would he have appealed? He was guilty. The sooner the discussion was over, the sooner he and his team could get their focus back on playing. They seem to have their focus where they want it.

No asterisk on his season because there was no impact on the games.

Good try.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 26, 2007, 08:58:49 PM
"He only complained after his teamlost"

Of course.  Wait for the infraction to actually help your team.

But you see it as sour grapes with your unclear eyes.  Tis OK.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 26, 2007, 09:21:00 PM
"He only complained after his teamlost"

Of course.  Wait for the infraction to actually help your team.

But you see it as sour grapes with your unclear eyes.  Tis OK.

It could be either or both. I suspect that had he won, he would not have said anything - because then it would be a secret he could exploit, helping his team relative to the rest of the AFC East (if he believed it really mattered).


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 26, 2007, 09:52:53 PM
"3) The commissioner indicated that the videotapes did not affect the outcome of games."

Which games did he indicate that the videotapes did not have an affect on, and how could he know this.  How did he 'indicate' this, having not ever been a coach, how is he in a position to know? 

The issue isn't whether or not the outcome of the game was affected, necessarily, but that the imprimatur of wrongdoing, the taint, if you will, rests with that first victory*.  A conspiracy or intentional wrongdoing in an attempt to gain access to material that is agreed upon by the league to be inaccessible to the opponent other than by the naked eye or permitted suveillance, i.e., a game plan, plays, signals, and the like, should have resulted in a forfeiture of the win by the league, which was not going to happen.  To speculate that "it didn't affect the outcome" is fine, but it's sort of like not eating the cookie that you stole from the cookie jar.  You still took it and knew it was wrong, and this isn't a "personal foul" that should get a player thrown out of the game, it's a corporate or coaching staff conspiracy that should have resulted in Belichek*'s suspension for at least 5 games with an admission, or a lifetime ban if all the information had been exposed.  Of course none of that is going to happen, but it's Humpty Dumpty, once he admits it, Roger Goodell, a LAWYER, can't PUT IT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN, as much as CUTACHEK would like to say "the league has ruled," but especially not if, as you assert, Goodell DECIDED that whatever happened didn't affect the outcome.  Ergo, asterisk*.

It's like Red and Blue states, 50/50, some think, hey, no big deal, everybody cheats, ha ha, and then there are interested parties in our government who watch professional sports very closely because of the symbiosis with the GAMING INDUSTRY.  That's why Goodell acted so quickly, so finally.  The deeper lie, naturally, the league and the American public couldn't stomach.  That Belichek has been doing this for years is the natural conclusion of about all the public and some people laugh at the barber shop, that SOB, etc., he's a PIECE OF WORK, etc., and some in the Dept. of Justice and the FBI don't think it's that fucking funny.  That's how you get a LAWYER to make a COACHING DECISION, as you assert, that it didn't matter, ant CUTACHEK* to make a LAWYER DECISION, GOODELL's, that is, THIS MUST GO AWAY IMMEDIATELY FOR A HOST OF UNSAVORY REASONS.

I don't really give a shit either way, it's just my opinion, but I think it's the TRUTH.  That there is a question that the season may be played under such a cloud of controversy is asterisk enough, the appearance of impropriety, trying to gain an edge, the impropriety, the conspiracy to cheat using advanced photoelectronic surveillance, is the thing.  Did it affect the outcome of the game?  Who cares?  That is the red herring that Goodell is clinging to and knows is a lie that betrays his Machiavellian actions.  "The league has ruled..." is the lie that CUTACHEK uses to explain how his wallet got lighter.  Oh, really?




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 26, 2007, 11:29:32 PM
Seems to me that you want to punish those who have already been punished.

You want to try and retry a case that's already settled.

And yet----it was steroids made the Steelers king back in the day, and we hear not a word for justice.

Chuck Noll and his "Super" trophies are stained with the steroid-filled blood of Mike Webster & company, and yet you, self-appointed sports moralist, stay mum on that, all the while trying to obfuscate the situation with the names of Rose and Bonds....two players who played baseball, not football.

While your out there in the land of logic, find some time to inject some into your hypocritic ass...   


Steelers laid down against the Dolphins tonight. Time to launch a Congressional Hearing.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 27, 2007, 12:13:00 AM
Steroids weren't illegal then, they could be prescribed by a medical doctor along with Dilaudid, other opiates, etc., and steroids, (yawn, back to basic pharmacology), were ordinarily prescribed to help people heal from injury.  Ever hear of Prednisone?  It's a wonder drug if you've had and kind of musculo-skeletal injury, and speeds the healing process of bronchial tubes, etc., treats a variety of illnesses, it's a STEROID.  HGH, on the other hand, is the thing that makes Bonds feet and head grow, not normal, and I can't speak to the specifics of the allegations you toss out, I'm sure there was steroid abuse and they should have been aware of the health considerations, etc., it's tragic the way that some players had hardening of the arteries, heart problems, etc. that result from steroid use or abuse, but that was also a time when you just took what the team doc gave you, you can make your case that that's a corporate conspiracy, no problem there, be my guest, but what I do know is that Belichek, a/k/a CUTACHEK* has admitted to corporate conspiracy and malfeasance, that's a part of NFL HISTORY now, in fact, we have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE SAME, and more when they don't have a draft pick to be named later, set you DVR.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 27, 2007, 12:44:16 AM
MAybe you should read this again:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_328813.html

Rooney & company were clearly trying to distance themselves, NOW, from what they had to know was going on THEN, as so many players knew of them.


I understand your taking the "legal approach" for your defense, but that is the same "defense" Mr. Bonds and company used----there was no league ban on it during the time when it was being used---hence, no asterisks need apply.

Nonetheless, you continue to hammer BB for doing the crime and paying the fine, and lumping him in with those who deliberatedly erred AND without penalty--

That is simply, unfair, and unnecessary.

BTW, your video "evidence" is not INDISPUTABLE, since the commissh destroyed the tapes, and nobody knows for sure what was on them. Still, you keep spinning, spinning, spinning.

I thnk it's time to unplug yourself and play a new record. That one has too many scratches, hisses, pops, and whirs---and its damaging the needle...




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 27, 2007, 01:17:21 AM
"3) The commissioner indicated that the videotapes did not affect the outcome of games."

Which games did he indicate that the videotapes did not have an affect on, and how could he know this.  How did he 'indicate' this, having not ever been a coach, how is he in a position to know? 

He indicated it by stating it out loud.

As noted, if it never got used in a game, then it is pretty hard for it to have affected the game.
The issue isn't whether or not the outcome of the game was affected, necessarily, but that the imprimatur of wrongdoing, the taint, if you will, rests with that first victory*.

No, that is where you are exactly wrong.

The asterisk goes on an achievement that is in doubt because of illegal activities or, sometimes in the past, other unfair advantage.

There was no unfair advantage. It's more like Sosa's corked bat - it gained him nothing. No home runs were taken away. His image suffered, but that was all. His home runs were not in question from that.

  A conspiracy or intentional wrongdoing in an attempt to gain access to material that is agreed upon by the league to be inaccessible to the opponent other than by the naked eye or permitted suveillance, i.e., a game plan, plays, signals, and the like, should have resulted in a forfeiture of the win by the league, which was not going to happen.

The ref does not throw a flag for intention to interfere with a pass. He throws it for interference. The umps don't call the baserunner out because he was in the way of a throw to first by being inside the line when the catcher never has the ball to throw. An attempt at wrongdoing is not punished. Wrongdoing is punished.

To speculate that "it didn't affect the outcome" is fine, but it's sort of like not eating the cookie that you stole from the cookie jar.  You still took it and knew it was wrong

No, that's not the analogy here. He got caught reaching for the cookie, but he never had it. The cookie remained in the jar and was still edible. He knew it was wrong to try to take it - and he got punished for the attempt.

I don't really give a shit either way, it's just my opinion, but I think it's the TRUTH.  That there is a question that the season may be played under such a cloud of controversy is asterisk enough, the appearance of impropriety, trying to gain an edge, the impropriety, the conspiracy to cheat using advanced photoelectronic surveillance, is the thing.  Did it affect the outcome of the game?  Who cares?

Everybody but you.

Unlike Rose or the NBA ref, no games were injured in the making of this movie - and that makes all the difference.

You are welcome to your belief in "the TRUTH." I think you misunderstand what an asterisk is for.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 27, 2007, 06:44:27 AM
Sean Taylor Dead:  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-11-27_D8T5VTC00&show_article=1&cat=breaking

Jbottle's Conspiracy Theory Linking Taylor to Barry Bonds and Bill Belichek to Follow...

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on November 27, 2007, 09:14:35 AM
While I'm not a big fan of such justifications, I think that steroid use in the NFL in the 70's and 80's was such that it made baseball look tame in comparison.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 27, 2007, 09:22:33 AM
IMO the play-with-pain "ethic" along with the relatively short careers for most NFL players led to a lot of questionable medical practices/abuses that NFL teams (management) were just fine with.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 27, 2007, 10:50:34 AM
One tragedy in the NFL is how the younger players refuse to take care of the players who built the league...and the owners have culpability, too, mind you.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on November 27, 2007, 10:58:04 AM
Sad story about Sean Taylor. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 27, 2007, 11:57:58 AM
That Pitt game last night was the worst football game at any level I think I've ever seen.  I switched over to "Dexter" and continued flipping.  Lucky nobody got seriously injured other than the advertisers fleeced for the time.  Speaking of which, enjoying the "dude" Bud Light series.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on November 27, 2007, 12:12:32 PM
Good job by the Miami staff staying in some games.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 27, 2007, 08:35:06 PM
I'm not sure that the field played on last night was up to NFL standards of turf condition, so it may well be discovered that the Dolphins go unundefeated with an asterisk*.....I'm still trying to sort out the legal, moral, ethical, and peurile implications of such a concept.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on November 27, 2007, 09:26:16 PM
Game was played in Pittsburgh.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 27, 2007, 11:20:40 PM
Game was played in Pittsburgh.


The Steelers blew off the national anthem last night, in order to help TV get more commercials in.

Rooney family are traitors to America.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 28, 2007, 01:35:02 AM
I'm not sure that the fact that the illegal field may or may not have contributed to the Dolphins "perfect" season, but I do know the the matter may be something that the Cushioner, Rogerer Goodsell*, may want to address going forward.  The idea that the DOLPHINS coudn't succeed in the water is irreconcilable to some; or has the appearance of impropriety at best.  Your mascot has a BLOWHOLE, use it or lose all your games.  It all seemed very unsettling to the average viewer who changed channels often, and should certainly be put under the microscope of NFL POLICY, even as the TELEPHOTO LENS is nearly ROUTINELY IGNORED if not DESTROYED.

Is there a coordinated conspiracy to have a Dolphin ZERO make a PAT HERO, well, irony sells, I reckon, and playing on wet scattered blades of grass on top of mud on top of water calls into question league rules about TURF MANAGEMENT, but I can see the logic in the LOL of a manufactured doppelganger to the Photriot, should they go undefeated, and I imagine the loss of all hope on the part of the Mia faithful, hell, I would give up after having the field "SUPPOSEDLY LEVELED" by NATURAL occurrence, except they laid down new turf just to lead the AmPub awau from the asterisk season, more irony, because, if the FINS go O-fer, there will surely be the same scrutiny applied as to the Photriot GAMES, i.e., shall I remind, the conspiracy to subvert league policy by means of advanced photoelectronic surveillance that was admitted to or aquiesqed to at best, no shame in being shameless in some quarters, in others, it's called CHEATING and CUTACHEk*, that timeless game where power wins over careful scrutiny, except, this is the STORY THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY...guy says "asterisk" on Jim Rome today, ordinary sports journalist and not Conspiracy Theorist, so, it's a bitter pill that you swallow once the tacit admission of guilt has been entered, or there is a path of denial not chosen by the Photriots, but by the "no big deal" crowd, that seems to disagree with the Photriot decicion that it's better to CUTACHEK* than face a horribly embarrassing appeal, but that's a Photriot CHOICE, and not something most people will consider other than, yeah, if I didn't do it, I would appeal, and if they didn't do it so would they, so they did it, and, SHOOT THAT WAS A HIGH PRICE Goodell placed on the ASTERISK, purchased by Belichek* via FINE and ORGANIZATION via PICK FORFIETURE, so there will always be that, it's in the books, hey, the league gave you the win, no replay, no loss of game, no coach suspension, but ethics led Goodell to stop short of any sort of forgiveness other than his invalid and ludicrous opinion on what might have mattered or been transmuted electronically, etc., being worthless, which he is in no position to rule on when some person or corporation fails to avail themselves of the APPEALS PROCESS.  C'mon, guys, it's always easier to go "ah, fuck it..." or "no big deal," or "no harm, no foul," except none of those attendand CHEATS really square the WRONGDOING, and most discriminating folks seem to agree, but even if we are in the minority, fuck it, GO NFL HARD AND MONEYMAKING INTO THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE TAINT OF IMPRIMATUR OF WRONGDOING, no, no prob, I get it, I woudn't want to do something to discredit or call into question the INTEGRITY OF CUTACHEK*, just imagine the horrible implication that there is a symbiosis between the billion dollars of Vegas books and the owners who pay LAWYERDELL his easy money, I mean, that would be crazy go nuts, because we should believe that when Goodell says "no big deal," it's no BIG DEAL, meanwhile the juice is accumulating and the lie has become transparent.

What a load of steaming shit.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 28, 2007, 09:28:43 AM
Michael Wilbon sees Sean Taylor only as a Victim of Being Black in America:

Here's something we know: People close to Taylor, people he trusted to advise him, told him he'd be better off if he left South Florida, that anybody looking for him could find him in the suburbs of Miami just as easily as they could have found him at the U a few years ago. I'm told that Taylor was told to go north, to forget about Miami. I can understand why he would want to have a spot in or near his home town, but I sure wish he hadn't.

The issue of separating yourself from a harmful environment is a recurring theme in the life of black men. It has nothing to do with football, or Sean Taylor or even sports. To frame it as a sports issue is as insulting as it is naive. Most of us, perhaps even the great majority of us who grew up in big urban communities, have to make a decision at some point to hang out or get out.

The kid who becomes a pharmaceutical rep has the same call to make as the lawyer or delivery guy or accountant or sportswriter or football player: Cut off anybody who might do harm, even those who have been friends from the sandbox, or go along to get along.

Mainstream folks -- and, yes, this is a code word for white folks -- see high-profile athletes dealing with this dilemma and think it's specific to them, while black folks know it's everyday stuff for everybody, for kids with aspirations of all kinds -- even for a middle-class kid with a police-chief father, such as Taylor -- from South Central to Southeast to the South Side. Some do, some don't. Some will, some won't. Some can, some cannot. Often it's gut-wrenching. Usually, it's necessary. For some, it takes a little bit too long.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702680.html
 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on November 28, 2007, 10:08:52 AM
I don't know about video cameras but the first VCRs were sold in '71 by Sony

For $50,000 you could buy a commercial use video tape recorder (VTR) as early as 1951. It could record 16 minutes per tape. In '53, RCA improved the quality of the picture, but cut the time down to 4 minutes per tape. 1956 marked the breakthrough.

The Ampex VRX-1000 (sold as the Mark IV, also for $50k) had rotating heads, transverse scanning, and FM encoding which allowed broadcast quality recording at 15 inches/second and 90 minutes per reel (vs. RCA's 30 feet/second!!). One member of the Ampex design team? Ray Dolby! http://www.retrothing.com/2005/10/the_worlds_firs.html has a good picture of the VRX-1000 and team.

The first VTRs for general home use were developed and sold by Sony in 1964, but they only sold a few hundred of them.

The Sony U-matic system was introduced in Tokyo in September 1971. at $1400 for a TV/U-Matic combination. The Phillips Model 1500, came out on its heels,in 1972. And Cartrivision, in '72, had the first pre-packaged shows to watch/rent/buy. VHS was shown by RCA in 1976 and everywhere in the fall of 1977.
Thanks for the history lesson.  Wake me when it's over.

Why do I think it entirely fitting that bs was a betamax guy?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 28, 2007, 03:00:14 PM
I don't know about video cameras but the first VCRs were sold in '71 by Sony

For $50,000 you could buy a commercial use video tape recorder (VTR) as early as 1951. It could record 16 minutes per tape. In '53, RCA improved the quality of the picture, but cut the time down to 4 minutes per tape. 1956 marked the breakthrough.

The Ampex VRX-1000 (sold as the Mark IV, also for $50k) had rotating heads, transverse scanning, and FM encoding which allowed broadcast quality recording at 15 inches/second and 90 minutes per reel (vs. RCA's 30 feet/second!!). One member of the Ampex design team? Ray Dolby! http://www.retrothing.com/2005/10/the_worlds_firs.html has a good picture of the VRX-1000 and team.

The first VTRs for general home use were developed and sold by Sony in 1964, but they only sold a few hundred of them.

The Sony U-matic system was introduced in Tokyo in September 1971. at $1400 for a TV/U-Matic combination. The Phillips Model 1500, came out on its heels,in 1972. And Cartrivision, in '72, had the first pre-packaged shows to watch/rent/buy. VHS was shown by RCA in 1976 and everywhere in the fall of 1977.
Thanks for the history lesson.  Wake me when it's over.

Why do I think it entirely fitting that bs was a betamax guy?

because you know, he knows and pays up for quality

the betamax was a great machine

F Sony for blowing betamax/vcr market

speaking of which, I got some great Linda Lovelace tapes in beta

edit: and the Buckner game too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 28, 2007, 06:50:07 PM
What a load of steaming shit.

Linking the Dolphins' record this year to the Patriots' record this year?

I agree. It is a load of steaming shit.

And, as previously noted, the assertion of the asterisk is asinine. There is no asterisk next to the Reds for their World Series championship or the Yankees for their pennant, nor should there be. You keep going on about forfeiture, but that is not how things are done at the professional level, even when there is reason to believe something might have changed the outcome of the game, let alone when it clearly did not.

This is not Track and Field, nor is it the Olympics. It's not the judges and ice dancing. It's not Little League with an overage player (again). The NBA is not going to declare a title un-won because the ref was gambling. That's not how the pros handle things.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 28, 2007, 08:10:06 PM
That's not how the pros handle things.

Well of course they can't give themselves asterisks - no one can.  That would be presumptuous or whatever.  Bona fide asterisks can only be assigned by other people.  In the case of the pros, if the source of the asterisk is something that will be mentioned when they do your little "Sports Century" mini-bio thing or what have you, then it's there whether the pro in question likes it or not, and certainly without regard to whether or not it's self-ascribed.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 28, 2007, 11:38:58 PM
That's not how the pros handle things.

Well of course they can't give themselves asterisks - no one can.  That would be presumptuous or whatever.  Bona fide asterisks can only be assigned by other people.  In the case of the pros, if the source of the asterisk is something that will be mentioned when they do your little "Sports Century" mini-bio thing or what have you, then it's there whether the pro in question likes it or not, and certainly without regard to whether or not it's self-ascribed.

I think some folks are born with the sign of the asterisk on their record, others have it thrust upon them.

Either way, josh is merely pointing out that jbottle operates from a point of diconnect to reality.

And that's not steaming shit.

Nor news.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 28, 2007, 11:45:21 PM
Cushioner Goodsell is not the one who is placing an asterisk on it:  He just priced the fucking thing, and Cutachek* purchased it and the team agreed to have a player not to be named later.  Nothing could be more clear to me, and it's not THIS IS HOW PROFESSIONALS DO IT.  A conspiracy is a conspiracy, and if anything Cushioner Goodsell has promoted not TRANSPARENCY, but OBFUSCATION, and for good reason, not only is there the $50B ELEPHANT in the room, Vegas, or the obvious idea that a transmission from a camera can occur remotely, to any source or any source hacking that transmission.  It's not like Photriotboy has to jog to the other side of the field and hand over a videotape or CD to somebody, he's either plugged, or bugged, but most certainly SWEPT UNDER THE RUG.  Cushioner Goodsell did what anyone would do:  Sell an asterisk, or behind the other curtain are supoenas and an investigation where evidence is recovered and revealed to the league owners and the press.  Follow the bouncing ball, josh, and welcome to figure skating, figures you can't begin to imagine homeboy.  It's the bird that cleans the crocodiles teeth without getting eaten and vice-versa, it's the WHOLE ENCHILADA, and it's rotten to the core, but let's not let one bad apple spoil the whole, oh right, what apple, that BAD APPLE it's all gone and it's destruction was purchased by the poisionous conspirators.  You don't get to EAT SHIT and pretend that your breath smells like spearmint gum:  "The league has ruled."  Sell is to somebody who doesn't see behind the hood asshole******


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 28, 2007, 11:54:16 PM
What color is the sky in your world, jbot?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 12:03:08 AM
Green, and yours?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on November 29, 2007, 07:37:38 AM
to summarize; jbottle and the NYPost think the Pats* and their head coach* are cheating scum not worthy of being mentioned in the same breathe as some of the great dynastic NFL teams of the past: the Doplhins, 49ers, Cowboys, Packers or Sterioiders. They also feel that its obvious the Pats were guilty of far more, this year and all the way back to 1960, but a league-led cover-up burried this thing before more dirt could be discovered.

Others feel that while the Pats/BB broke the rule they were penalized with large fines, loss of a draft choice and some tarnish to their once pristine reputation, but that their actions had no detactable impact on any game.

and some feel a little of both is true.

speaking of great dynastic teams: who's watching tonite?

I'm a sentimentalist: Go Pack


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 29, 2007, 08:22:23 AM
And it ALL makes so much sense that ALL the players from NE who have played for BB would keep their mouths shut for so many years, especially those who have been cut or traded or not resigned and have gone on to play for other teams that are ure and innocent,like the Pittsburgh Steorers.

They're ALL in on it together....just to get the People of the Green Sky.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 11:27:44 AM
Green as in, follow the money.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 11:45:10 AM
And the Bay, I'm a Packers fan, too.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on November 29, 2007, 12:23:43 PM
I think some folks are born with the sign of the asterisk on their record, others have it thrust upon them.

I think all folks are born without asterisks, and that ALL asterisks are earned by their bearers.   In Belicheck's case, if you consider his asterisk "unearned" or not legitimate or unfairly ascribed or whathaveyou, then that's your right.  Reasonable people can disagree on whether an asterisk is appropriate, and I don't define "reasonable people" as "only those people who agree with me."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 12:37:00 PM
Some even purchase it before the holiday rush.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 29, 2007, 02:06:25 PM
And the Bay, I'm a Packers fan, too.



You threw the Steelers under the bus rather quickly, jbot...why it seems lke only a few days ago...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 02:37:13 PM
Yeah, fair question, I liked the Steelers as a kid when every kid it seemed was either a Dallas or a Pittsburgh, during the mid- to late '70's, and that carried over, and I've been a fan of Green Bay because Favre is so much fun to watch, and I also like Carolina, troubled as they have been of late, because I'm from South Carolina.

I view Pro Sports a little differently than Collegiate sports in that you can like multible teams in different legues.  It's a little different when you live up North where you're either a New England, or Jets, or Giants, or Philly fan, based on where you live, grew up, etc., and Pro Sports fans are more avid in the Northeast I think.  Until we got the Panthers a lot of people were and still are Skins fans because that's what you could get on the radio prior to TV coverage of the NFL. 

I don't know if you can be both a Mets and Yankees fan at the same time, but that sort of choice isn't really a problem down here. 

Also, Pro Football is entertainment, so it's kind of like saying wait a minute, I thought you liked Journey and now you're telling me you're a Phil Collins fan, and what's with the Doobie Bros. box set.  Dude, you've got some explaining to do.  I just don't feel the kind of fan adhesion/fervor for Pro teams like I do for college ball, meaning football and basketball.

I think it's more of a regional thing as well, where Pro Sports affilliation is more of a priority than College loyalty.  So, in the sticks, it's no different than liking two different TV shows.  Hold on, man, I thought you said you liked "Judging Amy," and I catch you watching "Law and Order:  SVU," I thought I KNEW YOU better than that...

Jokes, but if you're a "you can only have one pro team" to root for, I get that argument too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 29, 2007, 05:06:24 PM
Yeah, fair question, I liked the Steelers as a kid when every kid it seemed was either a Dallas or a Pittsburgh, during the mid- to late '70's, and that carried over, and I've been a fan of Green Bay because Favre is so much fun to watch, and I also like Carolina, troubled as they have been of late, because I'm from South Carolina.

I view Pro Sports a little differently than Collegiate sports in that you can like multible teams in different legues.  It's a little different when you live up North where you're either a New England, or Jets, or Giants, or Philly fan, based on where you live, grew up, etc., and Pro Sports fans are more avid in the Northeast I think.  Until we got the Panthers a lot of people were and still are Skins fans because that's what you could get on the radio prior to TV coverage of the NFL. 

I don't know if you can be both a Mets and Yankees fan at the same time, but that sort of choice isn't really a problem down here. 

Also, Pro Football is entertainment, so it's kind of like saying wait a minute, I thought you liked Journey and now you're telling me you're a Phil Collins fan, and what's with the Doobie Bros. box set.  Dude, you've got some explaining to do.  I just don't feel the kind of fan adhesion/fervor for Pro teams like I do for college ball, meaning football and basketball.

I think it's more of a regional thing as well, where Pro Sports affilliation is more of a priority than College loyalty.  So, in the sticks, it's no different than liking two different TV shows.  Hold on, man, I thought you said you liked "Judging Amy," and I catch you watching "Law and Order:  SVU," I thought I KNEW YOU better than that...

Jokes, but if you're a "you can only have one pro team" to root for, I get that argument too.

So, what you're saying is that while Southern Man is loyal to the Flag of the Confederacy, the Second Amendment, and the local college team, when it comes to real sports, well---anything that may conflict with NASCAR---it isn't that important.

Gotcha.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 29, 2007, 05:18:34 PM
Michael Wilbon sees Sean Taylor only as a Victim of Being Black in America:

Here's something we know: People close to Taylor, people he trusted to advise him, told him he'd be better off if he left South Florida, that anybody looking for him could find him in the suburbs of Miami just as easily as they could have found him at the U a few years ago. I'm told that Taylor was told to go north, to forget about Miami. I can understand why he would want to have a spot in or near his home town, but I sure wish he hadn't.

The issue of separating yourself from a harmful environment is a recurring theme in the life of black men. It has nothing to do with football, or Sean Taylor or even sports. To frame it as a sports issue is as insulting as it is naive. Most of us, perhaps even the great majority of us who grew up in big urban communities, have to make a decision at some point to hang out or get out.

The kid who becomes a pharmaceutical rep has the same call to make as the lawyer or delivery guy or accountant or sportswriter or football player: Cut off anybody who might do harm, even those who have been friends from the sandbox, or go along to get along.

Mainstream folks -- and, yes, this is a code word for white folks -- see high-profile athletes dealing with this dilemma and think it's specific to them, while black folks know it's everyday stuff for everybody, for kids with aspirations of all kinds -- even for a middle-class kid with a police-chief father, such as Taylor -- from South Central to Southeast to the South Side. Some do, some don't. Some will, some won't. Some can, some cannot. Often it's gut-wrenching. Usually, it's necessary. For some, it takes a little bit too long.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702680.html
 

I thought he grew up in a fairly nice middle class neighborhood?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 29, 2007, 05:23:50 PM
I'm not sure that the fact that the illegal field may or may not have contributed to the Dolphins "perfect" season, but I do know the the matter may be something that the Cushioner, Rogerer Goodsell*, may want to address going forward.  The idea that the DOLPHINS coudn't succeed in the water is irreconcilable to some; or has the appearance of impropriety at best.  Your mascot has a BLOWHOLE, use it or lose all your games.  It all seemed very unsettling to the average viewer who changed channels often, and should certainly be put under the microscope of NFL POLICY, even as the TELEPHOTO LENS is nearly ROUTINELY IGNORED if not DESTROYED.


Water...grass ...    Surf & Turf?

I will say this J, you can be damn funny when you get on a roll...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 06:39:40 PM
"So, what you're saying is that while Southern Man is loyal to the Flag of the Confederacy, the Second Amendment, and the local college team, when it comes to real sports, well---anything that may conflict with NASCAR---it isn't that important.

Gotcha."--Utley

I think you're missing the point.  I didn't reference the Confederate Battle Flag, think that the second amendment should only apply to rifles and shotguns and not handguns, and certainly not semi-automatic handguns, not a NASCAR fan at all, just saying in an, I though, non-consdescending way that pro- (or "real") sports are more important as far as loyalty in the Northeast or urban areas.

If you live in rural Ohio even, you are probably either a Reds or Indian fan, no prob., and a Bengals or Browns fan and probably not a Pitt. fan, I was making a sort of ordinary observation from the sticks that college football interest is huge here relative to interest in pro football, the way that basketball in NC and KY and Indiana, at the high school and collegiate level, is king.  If you are from Philly, you probably have a lot of emotion invested in whether the Eagles do well, I get it, and my only point is that if you are from the sticks then NFL is more entertainment than team loyalty/emotional investment, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong about that but it's not because I worship the Confederacy, have a driver, and only because I prefer college football.

Occasionally some incident of corporate malfeasance will come to the attention of the mainstream media, and I notice and have an opinion informed by the known incestuous relationship between Vegas sports book and NFL integrity/lack thereof, and I become suspicious when there is evident conspiracy to subvert league rules when tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars dangle in the balance.  I get interested when a league Cushioner burns tape, when there are Photriot games afoot, and when Cutachek* purchases an asterisk and when an organization agrees to a draft pick not to be named later.

But, I was just pointing out in a good-natured way, I thought, the difference in fan-dom regionally.  Look at Raiders fans, they don't also watch Stanford games on TV for the most part.  It's kind of a different game the "real" level of sports that you seem to favor.  No opinion, I just prefer college ball, didn't mean for you to feel like I was being condescending, which is also no prob.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 29, 2007, 06:53:32 PM
"So, what you're saying is that while Southern Man is loyal to the Flag of the Confederacy, the Second Amendment, and the local college team, when it comes to real sports, well---anything that may conflict with NASCAR---it isn't that important.

Gotcha."--Utley

I think you're missing the point.  I didn't reference the Confederate Battle Flag, think that the second amendment should only apply to rifles and shotguns and not handguns, and certainly not semi-automatic handguns, not a NASCAR fan at all, just saying in an, I though, non-consdescending way that pro- (or "real") sports are more important as far as loyalty in the Northeast or urban areas.

If you live in rural Ohio even, you are probably either a Reds or Indian fan, no prob., and a Bengals or Browns fan and probably not a Pitt. fan, I was making a sort of ordinary observation from the sticks that college football interest is huge here relative to interest in pro football, the way that basketball in NC and KY and Indiana, at the high school and collegiate level, is king.  If you are from Philly, you probably have a lot of emotion invested in whether the Eagles do well, I get it, and my only point is that if you are from the sticks then NFL is more entertainment than team loyalty/emotional investment, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong about that but it's not because I worship the Confederacy, have a driver, and only because I prefer college football.

Occasionally some incident of corporate malfeasance will come to the attention of the mainstream media, and I notice and have an opinion informed by the known incestuous relationship between Vegas sports book and NFL integrity/lack thereof, and I become suspicious when there is evident conspiracy to subvert league rules when tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars dangle in the balance.  I get interested when a league Cushioner burns tape, when there are Photriot games afoot, and when Cutachek* purchases an asterisk and when an organization agrees to a draft pick not to be named later.

But, I was just pointing out in a good-natured way, I thought, the difference in fan-dom regionally.  Look at Raiders fans, they don't also watch Stanford games on TV for the most part.  It's kind of a different game the "real" level of sports that you seem to favor.  No opinion, I just prefer college ball, didn't mean for you to feel like I was being condescending, which is also no prob.

I'll back you on that one.   And it's probably because many states never had (and still don't have) a local team.  Though there are probably some fans in the South that feel differently than you do,

I live in Orange County.  The rams and raiders left 10 years ago.  We don't have a team anymore.   People drift around between raiders, rams, San Diego? we'll that's sort of close...

I only watch NFL games to see teams that Trojan Alumni play for now.   Watching Pittsburgh and Seattle play in the Super Bowl a couple of years ago was fun, but only because I was interested in how Troy Polamalu and Lofa Tatupu were doing...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 29, 2007, 09:27:28 PM
speaking of great dynastic teams: who's watching tonite?

I'm a sentimentalist: Go Pack

No standard showing, no watching.

I am not going to cave to the NFL's avarice just for one or two games.

The NFL used to brag that all of their games were free to view. No more. Greed wins out again.

"It's a disgrace that they put that game on the NFL Network" said one of the TNT basketball analysts. Can't argue with him.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on November 29, 2007, 09:40:35 PM
While I was a little surprised that the game was put on the NFL Network, I have to say this could be the best quality HD broadcast I've seen so far.  Too bad the game isn't anything special.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 29, 2007, 09:56:17 PM
It's you vs. your cable company, workers of the whirl, untie!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 29, 2007, 11:22:09 PM
"So, what you're saying is that while Southern Man is loyal to the Flag of the Confederacy, the Second Amendment, and the local college team, when it comes to real sports, well---anything that may conflict with NASCAR---it isn't that important.

Gotcha."--Utley

I think you're missing the point.  I didn't reference the Confederate Battle Flag, think that the second amendment should only apply to rifles and shotguns and not handguns, and certainly not semi-automatic handguns, not a NASCAR fan at all, just saying in an, I though, non-consdescending way that pro- (or "real") sports are more important as far as loyalty in the Northeast or urban areas.

If you live in rural Ohio even, you are probably either a Reds or Indian fan, no prob., and a Bengals or Browns fan and probably not a Pitt. fan, I was making a sort of ordinary observation from the sticks that college football interest is huge here relative to interest in pro football, the way that basketball in NC and KY and Indiana, at the high school and collegiate level, is king.  If you are from Philly, you probably have a lot of emotion invested in whether the Eagles do well, I get it, and my only point is that if you are from the sticks then NFL is more entertainment than team loyalty/emotional investment, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong about that but it's not because I worship the Confederacy, have a driver, and only because I prefer college football.

Occasionally some incident of corporate malfeasance will come to the attention of the mainstream media, and I notice and have an opinion informed by the known incestuous relationship between Vegas sports book and NFL integrity/lack thereof, and I become suspicious when there is evident conspiracy to subvert league rules when tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars dangle in the balance.  I get interested when a league Cushioner burns tape, when there are Photriot games afoot, and when Cutachek* purchases an asterisk and when an organization agrees to a draft pick not to be named later.

But, I was just pointing out in a good-natured way, I thought, the difference in fan-dom regionally.  Look at Raiders fans, they don't also watch Stanford games on TV for the most part.  It's kind of a different game the "real" level of sports that you seem to favor.  No opinion, I just prefer college ball, didn't mean for you to feel like I was being condescending, which is also no prob.


Uh--dude, I was just yankin' your chain.

Of course most sports fandom is regional. Like the way most people become a certain religion---they're are born into a family of practicing Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, etc...

I used to like amateur athletes when I was a kid, watching the Penn Relays, and the Olympics, etc.. now there are no amateur athletics...

I still root for and against certain teams for no more rational reason than it's where I grew up, or what I witnessed on the way through the life of a fan.

You root for whoever you want, and I don't care one bit.

My interest today is not in the laundry that players where, but the way they play the game. It's why I can root for the Giants, but admire the Colts or the Pats.

STill, there are certain teams I can't muster any warm feelings towards----but generally, NOW, that has to do more with the fans of those teams, and not the teams themselves. I think that is because of all the player movement in modern sports.

When I was a kid, you could hate Don Drysdale, for example, and that was partly because you knew he'd always be a hated Dodger, supported by all the hated obnoxious Dodger fans.

Today, a guy you don't like one year, may be on your team next year. Suddenly last year''s schmuck is this year's golden boy.

It's really not the same.

  I don't know that it is better or worse. Just not the same.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on November 30, 2007, 12:08:45 AM
It's you vs. your cable company, workers of the whirl, untie!!

NFL wants us to think it is us against the cable company.

Cable company is just the middle man in this - NFL is trying to get their fans to pressure the cable companies to put it on basic - in essence, paying the NFL their rights fees and then raising prices on us to cover the cost.

The NFL is just being even greedier than usual - or more blatantly manipulative than usual, at least.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 30, 2007, 09:16:47 AM
Exactly, I was just making fun of the whole transparent lie you spell out, really silly.  They both get paid for the ads I guess so you would think they could work something out, but to set up a web site and pretend that you are "writing your congressman" or something is totally absurd.  Let them know you'll switch to a digital reciever unless they quit deny you your right to football.  Take the cheesehead off, put on your thinking cap, and follow the dough, really insulting to the fan with any sense.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 30, 2007, 01:33:04 PM
I always hear the complaints that X% of households won't get something only to find that we already have it on our cable package.

There was a lot of hoopla about the Vs channel awhile back and then I found out it was OLN and they had just changed their name to Vs..  I've been watching Tour de France on OLN for the last few years  and all the hockey and college football games are right there.

Similarly, NFL network is right there also. 

Those types of channels should obviously not be part of a 14 channel "basic" package, but probably should be part of an extended "full" package and they are here...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 30, 2007, 01:58:37 PM
Or more succinctly put, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on November 30, 2007, 02:07:32 PM
Or more succinctly put, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

precisely.    Why complain that eveything you want in life is not free?

And if you don't want to pay for extended cable, you can always go down to the local sports pub if it's that important to you...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on November 30, 2007, 10:56:43 PM
A "free pass" regarding corporate conspiracy ain't free either, it cost $.5M and a draft pick not to be named later when Cushioner Goodsell wags the finger, no, not only is lunch not free, you get to munch on an asterisk while you're at it, CUTACHEK*.  How does it taste?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 01, 2007, 12:02:17 AM
A "free pass" regarding corporate conspiracy ain't free either, it cost $.5M and a draft pick not to be named later when Cushioner Goodsell wags the finger, no, not only is lunch not free, you get to munch on an asterisk while you're at it, CUTACHEK*.  How does it taste?

Do the Reds have an asterisk?

How about the Yankees?

You keep harping on what will never be a big part of this year's history other than in your mind and that of a few other people.

The story of this year's Patriots depends on what happens from here on out.

1) They lose a regular season game, and become one more pretender to the perfect record.

2) They win the Superbowl and people still discuss them as one of the greatest teams ever.

The crap about the $500,000 and videogate will be one small piece of trivia, kind of like those Reds. Brady and Moss become the story.

3) They don't win the Superbowl.

If they lose in the first round, then the story becomes "Another team that peaked too early."

If they lose to Indianapolis, it becomes "But Peyton Manning and/or Tony Dungy has their measure when it counts. They showed they could play on the same field the first time - and that they could beat them, in the playoffs."

If they make it to the Superbowl, but lose there, it becomes a tribute to the coach of the other side or a superhuman effort by the other quarterback, or an uncharacteristically poor performance by (fill in the blank).

In terms of this season's results, the memory of videogate will be less on fans' minds than the Tuck Rule. It will get less air time than the snowplow does when playoffs are played in the snow.

The news is the Patriots' performance. First and last.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 01, 2007, 12:35:11 AM
And, of course, the asterisk.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 01, 2007, 01:23:35 AM
and the whispered hints of squinting


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 01, 2007, 06:01:06 AM
A "free pass" regarding corporate conspiracy ain't free either, it cost $.5M and a draft pick not to be named later when Cushioner Goodsell wags the finger, no, not only is lunch not free, you get to munch on an asterisk while you're at it, CUTACHEK*.  How does it taste?

When a drum gets beat over and over and over and over, eventually no one hears it, Grasshopper.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 01, 2007, 11:16:51 AM
and the whispered hints of squinting

And dressing funny for a coach


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on December 01, 2007, 01:49:55 PM
First there was the "sod slop" on Monday night in Pittsburgh, now I hear new sod was recently laid in Philadelphia ...
What's with the grass problems in Pennsylvania?  Just as baseball stadiums should have retractable roofs, football stadiums should have field turf.

Go Seahawks  :)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 01, 2007, 02:32:11 PM
The Pittturf* is a matter that needs further inspection, not only did it put in jeopardy the Dolphins perfect season, the sod was inferior to league standards which must be upheld in order to hold a football game.  When these rules are subverted, ignored, compromised, etc., either because of gross turf management negligence or even malfeasance, the question of whether a game was actually played or not, on a metaphysical level must be addressed, and as a matter of ordinary bookkeeping there should be a decision about whether there was a non-game game, and asterisk game, or punishment of the grounds crew if not lifetime ban in the case of intentional wrongdoing, as has been suggested in some quarters, the spraying of water, the laying down of a layer of mud, and the scattering of grass blades to give the appearance of turf*.  It's one of the low points in Pitt history at least in regard to facility compliance.  Is this more sinister than a needle sticking out of somebody's ass?  Not at first glance, yet perhaps we've just begun to splash the surface.  Had there been a grassy Knoll, I mean knoll, where some video evidence might've been gathered (I think Pitt. picked up a guy know affectionately as 'photriotboy,' so there is still hope I guess...).  Sad day in sod-dom, don't know why I was even curious about the flag flying at half-mast over the fertilizer store all week. 

"You keep harping on what will never be a big part of this year's history other than in your mind and that of a few other people."

I hear somebody mention the asterisk daily in the sports media on radio, Rome's show, or elsewhere, and I'm not even a sports junkie.  I think that when you get out of New England, opinion is split right down the middle as to whether this is a tainted season or not, which tells you that it's already tainted in fact if not in asterisk.

Oh and if you were thinking of purchasing one for the wife this Christmas, you might want to pick up a Lexus instead, cost you about 1/5th of what a decent-sized asterisk (which covers the whole season) will cost you, ask Cutachek*.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 01, 2007, 06:32:55 PM
Just as baseball stadiums should have retractable roofs, football stadiums should have field turf.

What's field turf?  If it's artificial turf, then I disagree.  Natural grass is the only acceptable surface for football and baseball. 

Oh, it's raining hard?  The field is muddy?  Get over it. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on December 01, 2007, 09:17:36 PM

Quote
Natural grass is the only acceptable surface for football and baseball.
Baseball yes.  Football no.

Quote
Oh, it's raining hard?  The field is muddy?  Get over it.
I don't think "muddy" covered it ...

PalmBeachPost.com (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2007/11/28/a1c_turf_1128.html)
Quote
"The field conditions on Monday night were less than satisfactory for playing the Monday Night Football game," Steelers President Arthur Rooney II said Tuesday in a statement. "Unfortunately, we were faced with about the worst possible weather conditions and we acknowledge that it did have an impact on the playing surface. We will continue to work with the NFL game operations people this week as our grounds crew works to improve the conditions of the field."
...

Even without the heavy rain - unusual in Pittsburgh at this time of year - Heinz Field wasn't a popular surface.

A 2006 NFL Players Association poll rated the field as the second-worst playing surface in the league, behind New England's Gillette Stadium. The Patriots responded by switching last November to Field Turf, an artificial surface that resembles grass.

Having six games in four days at Heinz Field, and seven in 11 days, exacerbated the problem.

Since the field opened in 2001, Steelers owner Dan Rooney has been adamant about allowing the Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League to hold its championship games there. The University of Pittsburgh also plays at Heinz Field and in the past has encouraged the Steelers to switch to Field Turf.

Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter likened the conditions to playing "on the beach," and Donnie Spragan said Monday's game was like "playing in the Everglades."

"It happens every year, but last night was the worst it's ever been," said Pat Rooney Jr., president of the Palm Beach Kennel Club and the son of Dan Rooney.

"You have to wonder if you hurt the integrity of the game playing on a field like that. The field should not be the lead story, but it was."
...

Pat Rooney Jr. said he has discussed with his father the idea of switching to Field Turf, a synthetic surface that is softer than traditional artificial turf and is used by dozens of college and professional teams.

Teams must get NFL approval to change their playing surface during a season, which the Patriots did last November after four-plus seasons of bad footing in late-season games.

Ten NFL teams use Field Turf, including open-air stadiums for the Bengals, Seahawks, Patriots, Giants and Jets.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 01, 2007, 10:36:10 PM
I disagree 100% with the "integrity" thing.  Integrity is playing on natural grass.  Playing on artificial turf is just yucky. 

Plus, if you're playing in a tsunami, then you're going to have issues in terms of dealing with water, no matter what the surface. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 02, 2007, 12:39:12 AM
Story #2 of the year that will not go away:  I don't know why I thought that a mere Coach*, Billy Cutachek*, should be mentioned in the same sentence with real fields of play that are well-maintained, when he does such a poor job with his end of the artifice we succumb to when we play a "game."  Not too hard for a lot of surfaces, tough for some humans who use advanced photoelectronic equipment to transmit by conspiracy images the transmission of which is deemed 'cheating behaviour.'

Sod or God*

Give me a decent field anyday, and until there has been an official word from the Groundskeeping Association, both Cutachek* and Pittiturf* may have blemished in some way two of the most coveted records in football.  Ofer, and Table.

Either way, the mainstream media will not accept an 0-16 Dolphin season any more than a 16-0 Photriot Game Season*

"Hey, man, get over it, nobody thinks that *crazy*"

Oh, yeah, it's all I can get on any TV or radio broadcast, so go get that loserdome go get that "we blanked the competition," but nobody cares, baby.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 02, 2007, 12:40:23 AM
everybody uses the new stuff now -- even my son's high school.   I still think grass is better, but this stuff is much better than the old "carpet" that everyone got injured on...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 02, 2007, 12:45:12 AM
The "grass" today is much better, if you are talking about the "green meanies" with purple and yellow and red hair, otherwise, I think there's a huge groundskeeping issue to be seetled by Cushioner Goodsell and, like, others.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 02, 2007, 05:20:03 PM
First there was the "sod slop" on Monday night in Pittsburgh, now I hear new sod was recently laid in Philadelphia ...
What's with the grass problems in Pennsylvania?  Just as baseball stadiums should have retractable roofs, football stadiums should have field turf.

Go Seahawks  :)

Well, South Carolina should admit its citizens were traitors in the 1860's and destroy all those statues paying homage to the same that are scattered around Charleston and Colombia and other of its cities, don'cha think?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 02, 2007, 10:05:41 PM
I think all of those statues have asterisks already, so they're all set.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 03, 2007, 12:29:12 AM
"Well, South Carolina should admit its citizens were traitors in the 1860's and destroy all those statues paying homage to the same that are scattered around Charleston and Colombia and other of its cities, don'cha think?"

We would be cool if no northerner ever did any business other than fill up off I-95, but if we can stick you with some "marsh view" real estate, etc., no prob.  You might want to re-think your choice of the word "traitor," but you yankees like federalism I reckon, I'm no big fan of it.  We smashed a bunch of unwelcome rapists and thieves, and the way they don't raise their voices beyond a certain shrill level before being told to kindly or unkindly shut the fuck up or go home, tells me that they would rather overpay for real estate and not raise a fuss with someone who will kick their ass into next week. 

But that's personal experience, come on down, bring your wallet, or better yet stay right where you are, they might build a statue out of you one day.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 03, 2007, 07:31:22 PM
I like Charleston -- though haven't been in a long, long time.   Looks like a great place to live.  I was only there for a few days, but it appeared to me that they have some fine sailing waters?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 03, 2007, 09:41:42 PM
"Well, South Carolina should admit its citizens were traitors in the 1860's and destroy all those statues paying homage to the same that are scattered around Charleston and Colombia and other of its cities, don'cha think?"

We would be cool if no northerner ever did any business other than fill up off I-95, but if we can stick you with some "marsh view" real estate, etc., no prob.  You might want to re-think your choice of the word "traitor," but you yankees like federalism I reckon, I'm no big fan of it.  We smashed a bunch of unwelcome rapists and thieves, and the way they don't raise their voices beyond a certain shrill level before being told to kindly or unkindly shut the fuck up or go home, tells me that they would rather overpay for real estate and not raise a fuss with someone who will kick their ass into next week. 

But that's personal experience, come on down, bring your wallet, or better yet stay right where you are, they might build a statue out of you one day.

Oh, I've been to that lovely, seductive city by the ocean, and other nearby places.

My wallet had difficulty opening up, though, since I wasn't in the mood to purchase Confederate Traitor flags, or t-shirts, ballcaps,  and shotglasses replete with those flags and with labels like, "If you don't like this flag, you don't know your history!"

Trouble is, I do know my history.

Just Andrew Jackson did not have any legal authority to relocate the Cherokee Nation and authorize the stealing of their land and its redistribution among his friends in Georgia, the yahoos in Charleston had no bidness firin' on Fort Sumter...an act of unforgivable treason which cost the Sons of the South and their respective mothers, and which damaged this country forever, even to the point of delivering us the evil known as George W. "Fuckhead" Bush.

And, FTR, I ain't no Yankee. And I ain't no Rebel.

I'm an American, and perfectly willing to accept you and others as Americans, provided that you remember that I am an American, and provided that you remember that you serve the U.S. Constitution first, and your native state and region last.

And all of us come without asterisks of any kind in that scenario, btw.

Meanwhile, I do believe that there is a game on...


later.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 03, 2007, 09:58:15 PM
I'm glad you "know history."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 03, 2007, 11:14:07 PM
The Constitution is littered with asterisks.

I wonder if Bart Scott gets an asterisk for the double personal fouls after the winning NE touchdown.  I think he was actually crying - can you do that in a football game? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 03, 2007, 11:38:18 PM

I'm an American, and perfectly willing to accept you and others as Americans, provided that you remember that I am an American, and provided that you remember that you serve the U.S. Constitution first, and your native state and region last.
 

yeah...well, I'm a state's rights person myself.  I think the federal government should limit itself to very big items as the nation was intended when it was founded.  There is room for diversity within the framework of the “united” states and that comes in the form of state's rights to determine their own destiny.  I don't have to agree with, nor do I feel the need to approve of, other states' decisions about how they choose to live, so long as we all know we have each other's back when the shit hits the fan. And I think overall we do a pretty good job of that.

I've lived in California all my life - and all over California from North to South. If someday, I decide I don't like the way California is headed, I can choose another state that suits me better and remain an "American."  That is a pretty unique thing in the world and in my opinion has been the strength of this nation.

It is not US Constitution “first” in my opinion, but rather US Constitution "last."  In other words, the US constitution gets the last word--or is the arbiter when arbitration becomes necessary.


I'm not sure how we got here in the football forum though...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 03, 2007, 11:50:05 PM
If you squint at The Constitution long enough, you can see these weird optical-illusion shapes in the parchment or whatever.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 03, 2007, 11:51:23 PM
Well, trojan, I can appreciate your opinion, but let's get back to the NFL.

The Pats either have the greatest luck, or the Ravens are snakebit.

Take your pick.


Nonetheless, in the history of the NFL, I've never seen a quarterback like Tom Brady.

He has the poise of Bart Starr, the guts of Johnny U., the comeback ability of Roger Staubach, and the confidence of Joe Willie Namath.

 Wow. What a game.

And I sure do feel for those great Baltimore fans.

They deserve a lot better than to have to root for that steroid-sucking HGH-eating group of thugs on their defense. who just melted down, and then acted like a bunch of PopWarner league parents once the go-ahead touchdown by the Pats was scored.

Still a great game.

Congrats, Pats!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 03, 2007, 11:52:51 PM
To divert the discussion from brand new fix and "Photriot" games.  Ticky-tack pass interference call, bobbled ball on the TD reception, 35 yds. of penalties tacked on to seal the deal post-TD.  Sure, the throwing of the flag was legit, but only if the personal foul was legit, and there's no need to add 15 on top of 15, an expected Mon. Night lol'er, potentially adding another asterisk to the PERFECT SEASON**.

Nice of the officials to sweep in and lock that one down, especially the one who called TD by looking at the guy's feet, pre-bobble, one foot in, ball slips, next foot in, no good.

You would have to make it up if it didn't happen if they didn't make it up as it was happening.  Too bad that it is all in the service of the profound joke that the league has become.  I haven't watched my last NFL game, but I'm getting there.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 03, 2007, 11:56:24 PM
"They deserve a lot better than to have to root for that steroid-sucking HGH-eating group of thugs on their defense. who just melted down, and then acted like a bunch of PopWarner league parents once the go-ahead touchdown by the Pats was scored."

Go ahead and use the word that's on the tip of your tongue...I mean, you fought the war of northern aggression to free the people and all...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 03, 2007, 11:57:42 PM
Pretty wild finish.

And jbot, I think you are providing a new definition for fantasy football.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 12:00:02 AM
You mean the one that shows up on my screen or the Photriot Boy screen?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 12:09:56 AM
 I haven't watched my last NFL game, but I'm getting there.


You prefer the always-above-board activity in College Football, we know.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 12:21:23 AM
The NFL is Elton John what sunglasses will he be wearing this week, college football is sloppy, but not entertainment with the dangerous Cushioner-Vegas nexus, but it is funny, now that you mention it, when the curtains come open to reveal a Cushioner in the service of THE MAN, while the thuggery off the field, absent criminal conviction, is routinely punished, while corporate conspiracy is not only figuratevely "swept under the rug," or TURF* in the Dolphin game, but where actual tapes are DESTROYED*.  It was another INTERESTING GAME, for sure.  No problem, I've come to expect corporate manipulation in the NFL, so I was no more disappointed in the outcome than I was amused.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 12:26:16 AM
Pretty wild finish.

And jbot, I think you are providing a new definition for fantasy football.


LOL!

jbot can't help it. He comes from a "country" rooted in delusion, fantasy, with just a touch of paranoia.

Sing along now, to Neil Young's "Southern Man":

  
  

 Southern Man, better hang your head
 Don't forget
 what that play book said
 Boston Pats
 gonna win it all
 Burns like crosses
in your crawl,
 Don't it, man?
 
 I saw Ravens
 dressed all in black
 Ya'll in your mansion
 eatin' snacks.
 J-Bot man
 when will you
 see the truth?
 I heard screamin'
 and flags of yellow
 Who won? Who won?
 
 J-bot man
 better hang your head
 Don't forget
 what the play book said
 Dolphin's best
 gonna fade to past  
 Crossing patterns
 yield a touchdown pass,
 J-bot man
 
 Billy Bee,
 his hood is gray, head's down
 I've seen Tom Brady
 comin' round
 Swear by God
 He'll score the big touchdown!
 I heard screamin',
 then instant replay.
 Pats win! Pats win!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on December 04, 2007, 12:29:27 AM
That last play made me want to puke my fucking guts out.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 12:43:14 AM
"They deserve a lot better than to have to root for that steroid-sucking HGH-eating group of thugs on their defense. who just melted down, and then acted like a bunch of PopWarner league parents once the go-ahead touchdown by the Pats was scored."

Go ahead and use the word that's on the tip of your tongue...I mean, you fought the war of northern aggression to free the people and all...



Oh? Interpreting that as a racial remark?

Hmmm.


Are there ANY limits to your paranoia?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 04, 2007, 01:41:18 AM
The Ravens lose and whine.The refs were against them .The refs were against them when they lost to the Chargers.The refs were against them when they lost to the.....They have about as much class as the Raiders do nowdays and it all starts with that whiny little shit head coach. :-*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 04, 2007, 08:17:23 AM
too damn bad about those 35 yards in penalties on the last kick-off, they could have used a couple of those

heh

I would have really liked it if Shula was in the booth for the last 5 minutes of the game, he can shove that bottle of champagne up his ass for another week.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 04, 2007, 09:54:59 AM
That was a brutal game to watch as a Pats fan - I thought for sure they were going to lose that one.  Thankfully the Ravens kept giving up the rock with penalties and one really odd timeout call.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 11:02:59 AM
too damn bad about those 35 yards in penalties on the last kick-off, they could have used a couple of those

heh

I would have really liked it if Shula was in the booth for the last 5 minutes of the game, he can shove that bottle of champagne up his ass for another week.


I think the league will fine the hell out of the Raven who picked up the flag and threw it into the stands.

And they should.

Bilick's kissy face to the idiotic taunting of Harrison shows two excessively immature lunatics, who evidently forget they are on camera.

Lots of classlessness in the final minutes and after the game.

Much more damaging to the League to have those kinds of behaviors demonstrated than with Spygate. Looked like a WWF match.


As usual the biggest trash talkers in the league, the Ravens, can't possibly admit that their team failed to close out the Pats---crybabies, for sure.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 04, 2007, 11:04:52 AM
The Ravens lose and whine.The refs were against them .The refs were against them when they lost to the Chargers.The refs were against them when they lost to the.....They have about as much class as the Raiders do nowdays and it all starts with that whiny little shit head coach. :-*

which coach...the Raven's   or the Raider's?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 04, 2007, 11:07:40 AM
Still...a great game I thought.  And as entertainment, it doesn't get much better than a last second hail mary that is caught at the two yard line...

As Maxwell Smart would have said, "Missed it by that much."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 04, 2007, 11:10:17 AM
the Pats---crybabies, for sure.

Word!!   Between their crying and the Ravens' crying, last night may have been the single crybabiest NFL game ever played.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 12:38:50 PM
The review showed a clear bobble, or BOBBLEGATE* which introduces further taint to an already suspect campaign.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 04, 2007, 01:48:49 PM
Mr.Horse,The Ravens head coach ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 04, 2007, 01:56:28 PM
Clear TD.

Unfortunate loss for Baltimore.  I agree with W Wolf that a change needs to be made to the rule where the offense gets the benefit of a false start penalty.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 04, 2007, 02:03:03 PM
The review showed a clear bobble, or BOBBLEGATE* which introduces further taint to an already suspect campaign.

That must be why the TV analysts and Baltimore Sun writers were split on the subject. Because it was so clear...

I suspect that had it been ruled an incomplete initially, it would have remained an incomplete.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 04, 2007, 02:57:14 PM
I'm beginning to wonder where everyone's sense of humor went...

Maybe we should investigate the Patriots for that also...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on December 04, 2007, 05:02:28 PM
I still can't get over the time out call. So, what was it for? I can see it if there are 12 men on the field etc ... otherwise, why get cute. The players all but win the game for you and yet you, the coaches, who are suppose to be the smart ones, take it away. Things like that drive me nuts.

I was rooting for the Ravens but I thought that the final touchdown was the right call. There was an incidental bobble all right but it wasn't a struggle for possession. He had possession. The ball bounced from his forearm to his chest on the way out of bounds but it seemed a secure catch, IMO. Too overturn that would have been going to far.

I, too, am getting fed up the NFL. They need to do some clean up. This problem of the offensive team benefiting from a false start has to be remedied. And the icing the kicker a la Shanahan phenomenon has to be stopped as well. These sorts of problems cheapen the game. And how about no more timeouts from the sidelines. How about only two players on the field can call timeout after the huddle is broken. The quarterback  and a designated defensive player (the deep safety, for instance).
If Shanahan wants a last second timeout he'll have to get the attention of his player on the field who will be too busy getting ready for the snap and maybe this problem will be resolved. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 04, 2007, 05:16:41 PM
Word to all of that!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 06:46:03 PM
What of the hail mary Photriot clear hold/arm-bar, which, if flagged, would not have allowed the game to finish on a defensive penalty.  Sure it was a long pass, but the principle is the same as the defensive holding call against Balti in the prior Photriot possession.  Sure, there was contact, but you have to go make a play on the ball and get the win because we (the officials) aren't going to bail you out with a close holding/pass interference penalty.  Like in the NBA, no official ever makes a call on the last shot where there is blatant contact because you basically have to man up and get the ball in the hoop regardless of contact because it's on you.  Seems to work for the NBA.  Well, apply that same principle to the hold/pass interference when Brady throws desperately into double coverage--total bail out.  Then, when there is an even more blatant Photriot hold/arm-bar pass interference, easy call, why not the BAIL OUT THEN.  If you apply the "you have to make a play, period" rule, and we are not going to interfere if it's close, then just do it both ways.  I think there is a vested interest in keeping the Photriots undefeated; that much was clear from the non-disqualification quick-fine destruction of evidence speedy justice play with Cushioner handing off pen to Cutachek*, he signs, he signs, the league has ruled, PHOTRIOTS WIN, PHOTRIOTS WIN.....

.....lest ye think I am the only one who has questioned last night's game, simply look at the scrutiny applied today by the mainstream media, I even heard the terms "conspiracy" and "Oliver Stone" on ESPN radio, so calling me paranoid for not suckling at the teat of a Cushioner Goodsell press release or a glib "the league has ruled" lie from someone who has admitted to cheating, because I can separate fact from the popular fiction swallowed whole by typical NFL fizzybev/dorito drooling idiotboxers, because I can see that the integrity of the game exists primarily to have a non-dysfunctional corporate apparatus in synch with the Vegas gambling culture and racketeering subculture that pervades our society.....

Somebody has to stand up and call Photriot Games and Cutachek out for what they are, and to identify the various points of conspiracy, collusion, monetary interest, the illusion of fair play, etc., and I will continue to do so where'er there is the mere appearance of impropriety, the scuttled controversy, the lie after lie after lie.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 07:07:53 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 07:26:43 PM
I heard someone on talk radio actually praise Cushioner Goodsell for handling SPYGATE so expeditiously to save the league embarassment.  Whew!!  That's what I'm thinking as a fan, thanks Cushioner, able to leap large bureaucratic due process considerations and the scrutiny of a free press and destroy evidence in a single bound.  Look, he's handing his mighty pen to CUTACHEK, to save the integrity of the league.  YAY!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 04, 2007, 08:11:00 PM
Doesnt matter - Steelers and Giants have them lined up.  But it would ahve been nice, with Shula in the booth.........................................

I have to say I did not sense the appearance of whining amongst the Patriot players and coaches, trailing most of the way.  That MOSS behaved shows that BB has something to speak of in terms of coaching prowess.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 04, 2007, 08:50:03 PM
I have to say I did not sense the appearance of whining amongst the Patriot players and coaches...

They're always whining about the asterisk.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 10:12:38 PM
That's correct.  There is the saying that "the truth hurts."  Denial is also not just a river in Africa.  I think the Steel will take care of business.  The arrogance of somebody blowing off suggestions of a tainted season after admitting to corruption by using advanced photoelectronic equipment is truly through the looking glass, beyond the LOL and into the arena of absurdism, almost a parallel to Bush's assertion that the new intelligence on Iran not pursuing nukes for the last 4 years proves that we must remain vigilant instead of, duh, I didn't know what I should have know for a year and have been spewing propaganda.  "The league has ruled," issue closed.  NOPE*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 04, 2007, 10:24:22 PM
advanced photoelectronic equipment

Very much well within the LOL zone.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 04, 2007, 10:32:41 PM
They're always whining about the asterisk.

They don't think Barry Bonds should have an asterisk?  Or are we still on Roger Maris -- I swear you guys stay on one topic for what seems like forever....   No one even pays attention to the asterisk anymore.  Roger earned that home run title through frazzled nerves and hair loss...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 04, 2007, 10:34:25 PM
They're always whining about the asterisk.

They don't think Barry Bonds should have an asterisk? 

Who said anything about Barry Bonds?  What, does he have an asterisk too?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 04, 2007, 10:46:59 PM
Yeah, but the difference is that some guy bought the homerun ball and painted an asterisk on it.....so in other words unlike Belichek Bonds never purchased his own asterisk.....that's the distinction, if Mark Ecco had paid for CUTACHEK*'s fine, that would've been equally postmodern, but Cushioner Goodsell stepped in to save the virginity of the league like the hero that he is as long as it's not black guys, and prevented another act of art by Mark Ecco.  I don't think Ecco was allowed to speak on whether he could help the Photriots think about or do a painting of a player not to be named later, though that might be equally postmodern.  Perhaps Ecco should do a portrait of the player that the Photriots would have chosen if Cushioner hadn't saved the Justice League of the NFL with his MAGIC PEN and speed of FLASH who spirited the pen to CUTACHEK* to cut a check, and then sped away to destroy video evidence of corporate conspiracy to subvert league rules.  So, in summation, no, Mark Ecco did not pay for CUTACHEK*'s ASTERISK, he painted it all over himself and his own organization with the stroke of the MAGIC PEN THAT MAKES THINGS THAT HAPPENED GO AWAY.  It really should be appropriated into a children's story as an allegory about political expediency being utilized to save face, a kind of Machiavellian text for grammar schoolers.  GO PHOTRIOTS!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 05, 2007, 12:02:38 AM
Yeah, but the difference is that some guy bought the homerun ball and painted an asterisk on it.....so in other words unlike Belichek Bonds never purchased his own asterisk.....that's the distinction, if Mark Ecco had paid for CUTACHEK*'s fine, that would've been equally postmodern, but Cushioner Goodsell stepped in to save the virginity of the league like the hero that he is as long as it's not black guys, and prevented another act of art by Mark Ecco.  I don't think Ecco was allowed to speak on whether he could help the Photriots think about or do a painting of a player not to be named later, though that might be equally postmodern.  Perhaps Ecco should do a portrait of the player that the Photriots would have chosen if Cushioner hadn't saved the Justice League of the NFL with his MAGIC PEN and speed of FLASH who spirited the pen to CUTACHEK* to cut a check, and then sped away to destroy video evidence of corporate conspiracy to subvert league rules.  So, in summation, no, Mark Ecco did not pay for CUTACHEK*'s ASTERISK, he painted it all over himself and his own organization with the stroke of the MAGIC PEN THAT MAKES THINGS THAT HAPPENED GO AWAY.  It really should be appropriated into a children's story as an allegory about political expediency being utilized to save face, a kind of Machiavellian text for grammar schoolers.  GO PHOTRIOTS!!

If you carry this much bile in your soul for a football coach, you have to ask yourself if there isn't something really wrong.

Get a grip. Even U. S. Grant forgave Robert E. Lee.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 05, 2007, 12:13:26 AM
"If you carry this much bile in your soul for a football coach, you have to ask yourself if there isn't something really wrong."

No I don't.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 05, 2007, 08:33:16 AM
"If you carry this much bile in your soul for a football coach, you have to ask yourself if there isn't something really wrong."

No I don't.


Go ahead, embrace your insanity.

Riiiighhttt..


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 05, 2007, 11:46:20 AM
Go ahead, embrace your insanity.

Riiiighhttt..

What's that old saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" or something like that?  Who knows, maybe by writing about Belichek's asterisk, Jbottle expects to get "different results."  I'm not sure what those results would be, BHWDIK?   Or maybe he's happy with the results he is getting, in the form of eliciting your responses, who knows? 

We may never know, but in any event, it begs the question:   What results are you expecting when you post your rebuttals and "get a grip" admonitions?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 05, 2007, 01:48:24 PM
I saw some extremely poor officiating the other night, which is new information to add to the conspiracy, therefore the new post was not simply repeating the facts over and over, though I did have to fold questionable new information into well-established facts.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 05, 2007, 04:06:41 PM
I saw some extremely poor officiating the other night, which is new information to add to the conspiracy, therefore the new post was not simply repeating the facts over and over, though I did have to fold questionable new information into well-established facts.

not to mention having to invent completely new and original "turns of phrase"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 05, 2007, 04:16:09 PM
I saw some extremely poor officiating the other night, which is new information to add to the conspiracy, therefore the new post was not simply repeating the facts over and over, though I did have to fold questionable new information into well-established facts.

There was extremely poor officiating throughout the game.  The Patriots receivers were being held and interfered with the entire game - that the officials waited to call such penalties until the end was just awful.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 05, 2007, 09:52:25 PM
Go ahead, embrace your insanity.

Riiiighhttt..

What's that old saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" or something like that?  Who knows, maybe by writing about Belichek's asterisk, Jbottle expects to get "different results."  I'm not sure what those results would be, BHWDIK?   Or maybe he's happy with the results he is getting, in the form of eliciting your responses, who knows? 

We may never know, but in any event, it begs the question:   What results are you expecting when you post your rebuttals and "get a grip" admonitions?


Kind of reminds me of Dustin Hoffman perseverating to Tom Cruise, "I want to fly Quantas."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 05, 2007, 11:13:51 PM
Reminds me you can't keep your hand off the asterisk button in "College Football," and you ask me if I have a GOD COMPLEX, I AM GOD.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 05, 2007, 11:30:11 PM
Reminds me you can't keep your hand off the asterisk button in "College Football," and you ask me if I have a GOD COMPLEX, I AM GOD.

The above passes for critical analysis at the University of South Carolina's Uncle Ben Campus.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 06, 2007, 06:43:54 AM
Steelers' Smith provides the bulletin board material this week. He guarantees a Steeler win over the Pats.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4vVrXeKcfYxy4dHwQe-H1dTu8Zw


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 10:30:29 AM
Reminds me you can't keep your hand off the asterisk button in "College Football," and you ask me if I have a GOD COMPLEX, I AM GOD.

The above passes for critical analysis at the University of South Carolina's Uncle Ben Campus.

Actually, it's the Alec Baldwin School of Inspired Acting.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 10:45:34 AM

Kind of reminds me of Dustin Hoffman perseverating to Tom Cruise, "I want to fly Quantas."

Are you also an excellent driver?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 06, 2007, 10:51:48 AM
Methinks that headline writers can't read:

"We're going to win," Smith said. "Yeah, I can guarantee a win. As long as we come out and do what we got to do. Both sides of the ball are rolling, and if our special teams come through for us, we've got a good chance to win."

That hardly sounds like a guarantee to me.  It sounds like he's saying the same thing that every other player and coach says.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 11:32:23 AM
Maybe he meant it to be a guarantee*...

In any event, he might want to consult Broadway Joe on this one - http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40735 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40735)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 06, 2007, 11:38:12 AM
(http://www.suzykolber.net/suzy_kolber_pics/Suzy_Kolber_On-Field/thmnails/suzy_kolber_joe_namath1.jpg)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 06, 2007, 12:17:55 PM
Reminds me you can't keep your hand off the asterisk button in "College Football," and you ask me if I have a GOD COMPLEX, I AM GOD.

The above passes for critical analysis at the University of South Carolina's Uncle Ben Campus.

Actually, it's the Alec Baldwin School of Inspired Acting.

Now, THAT'S funny!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 06, 2007, 12:19:30 PM
(http://www.suzykolber.net/suzy_kolber_pics/Suzy_Kolber_On-Field/thmnails/suzy_kolber_joe_namath1.jpg)

I want to kiss you too...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 06, 2007, 12:26:21 PM

"We're going to win," Smith said. "Yeah, I can guarantee a win. As long as we come out and do what we got to do. Both sides of the ball are rolling, and if our special teams come through for us, we've got a good chance to win."

That hardly sounds like a guarantee to me.  It sounds like he's saying the same thing that every other player and coach says.
Except for the “yeah, I can guarantee a win” part

Maybe he meant it to be a guarantee*...
 
Ok.  That’s probably it.  The asterisk was implied through inflection but completely overlooked by the scribe that took down the quote…


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 06, 2007, 05:42:51 PM
All I heard on talk radio today was "SPYGATE, SPYGATE, SPYGATE...," I mean, I would guit mentioning it to except it's the story that will not go away.  I'm surprised that my term "CUTACHEK*" hasn't caught on more in the mainstream media, however, that was the thing I didn't expect.  If I had only patented the name and there were still Spencer's Gift shops at every mall all across America, I would be an instant millionaire, instead of suffering along on my monthly check from a chain of martinizing operations started by my grandfather.  I'm not complaining or anything, it's just a bad feeling I get when a brilliant idea goes unexploited commercially.  Even "Got Photriot?," might've worked, well, maybe not.  I expect the cheer of "PAT, PAT, FOTOMAT!!" (repeat) might reach critical mass this weekend against the Steel, but that's me from the cheap seats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 06, 2007, 05:54:53 PM
All I heard on talk radio today was "SPYGATE, SPYGATE, SPYGATE...," I mean, I would guit mentioning it to except it's the story that will not go away.  I'm surprised that my term "CUTACHEK*" hasn't caught on more in the mainstream media, however, that was the thing I didn't expect.  If I had only patented the name and there were still Spencer's Gift shops at every mall all across America, I would be an instant millionaire, instead of suffering along on my monthly check from a chain of martinizing operations started by my grandfather.  I'm not complaining or anything, it's just a bad feeling I get when a brilliant idea goes unexploited commercially.  Even "Got Photriot?," might've worked, well, maybe not.  I expect the cheer of "PAT, PAT, FOTOMAT!!" (repeat) might reach critical mass this weekend against the Steel, but that's me from the cheap seats.

Not sure what talk radio your listening to, but here in America most sports talk radio has centered around the winter baseball meetings, the BCS and the bowl games a-coming, the Heisman candidates and the Ravens' meltdown on Monday night, which most are saying was WHY they lost the game...


And that would be listening to stations across the USA that are available on the web..

So, once again the DEADHORSE AWARD is still yours by a mile for 2007, barring any bizarre changes in the remainder of the sports year.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 06, 2007, 07:03:29 PM
"DEADHORSE AWARD"

I'm not saying it's the headline story, hey Andruw Jones, overpaid?  Grobe stays Deacon?  Baseball something baseball.  Steeler guarantees wins.  I know it's not the lead story, but I swear I heard the term "spygate" used several times on ESPN radio, I think the Tirico show, and that's, no shit, so Tirico can get the DEADHORSEBEATITAWARD*, also, I'm guessing.  The fact that people think the season is tainted is not bullshit, you are IN DENIAL, you know, that river in EGYPT.  I know that it frustrates Photriotboys and NFL fans with Fatheads on their walls, "hey, this is a LEAGUE OF MEN," and great, rah, rah, but CUTACHEK* bought that ASTERISK and the sooner you face it you will be able to move on.  C'mon, you know "Pat, Pat, FOTOMAT..." has a NICE RING TO IT.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 06, 2007, 08:15:10 PM
All I heard on talk radio today was "SPYGATE, SPYGATE, SPYGATE...
An hour and a quarter later...
...I swear I heard the term "spygate" used several times on ESPN radio, I think the Tirico show

Jbottle, your power of hyperbole is impressive. It went from "All I heard on talk radio today" to "I swear I heard it several times on one show, but I am not certain which show that was."

Then again, you can't decide if you are surprised something didn't happen or if you expected it not to happen.
I'm surprised that my term "CUTACHEK*" hasn't caught on more in the mainstream media, however, that was the thing I didn't expect.

For what it's worth, I heard Spygate mentioned on talk radio, once. But compared to the tearing apart of the whiny Ravens and Billick's idiocy, it was not the topic of the day. They spent far more time discussing Bonds and if, perhaps, he should not be the poster boy for bad behavior in baseball and that perhaps fans (and sportswriters) are hypocritical. Rodney Harrison's suspension and illicit substance use got more air play than Spygate, by far.

And Harrison's situation didn't get all that much.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 06, 2007, 08:38:12 PM
I didn't listen to a lot of talk radio today so "all" was hype, but it was still there along with the other headlines, and my syntax wasn't so good in my suggestion that I was surprised or not that CUTACHEK* didn't catch on nationally, which I supposedly expected to, etc.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 08:55:33 PM
Trivia:

Name 2 former NFL players whose names are complete sentences.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 06, 2007, 09:15:55 PM
George Blanding?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 06, 2007, 09:17:00 PM
"He Hate Me."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 09:35:39 PM
"He Hate Me."

Nice - but I don't know if he played under that name in the NFL.  I think he went by Rod Smart, which would count, I guess, if "smart" is a verb.  I know it was used as a verb in "Miller's Crossing":

---

BERNIE

Don't smart me.  See, I wanna watch you squirm.  I wanna see you sweat a little.  And when you smart me... it ruins it.

---

Anyways, I think Rod Smart just used "HHM" as his official handle in the XtremeFL or whatever that was. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 06, 2007, 10:10:08 PM
"He Hate Me."

Nice - but I don't know if he played under that name in the NFL.  I think he went by Rod Smart, which would count, I guess, if "smart" is a verb.  I know it was used as a verb in "Miller's Crossing":

---

BERNIE

Don't smart me.  See, I wanna watch you squirm.  I wanna see you sweat a little.  And when you smart me... it ruins it.

---

Anyways, I think Rod Smart just used "HHM" as his official handle in the XtremeFL or whatever that was. 

Johnny Unitus = Johnny, Unite Us.

Is that what you're looking for?

Rod Peete, as in Rod Peete the bed?

Dick Butt-Kisser?

Okay, your turn.

I like this game.

Anything to stop Rainman from going on again.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 10:35:12 PM

Johnny Unitus = Johnny, Unite Us.

Is that what you're looking for?

That's imaginative, but no.

Here's two I came up with, one good, one a bit of a stretch:

Marion Butts
Everson Walls

"Wall" is a verb, as in "We walled in the so-and-so" or whatever, but still, "Everson Walls" is a weak one.  Marion Butts, however, is rock-solid.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 10:35:54 PM
Okay, your turn.

I like this game.

Anything to stop Rainman from going on again.

No, please, keep doing the Rain Man thing - it's funny.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 06, 2007, 10:56:08 PM
Trivia:

Name 2 former NFL players whose names are complete sentences.

Johnny counts!

I like Ricky watters (or Bob waters) and Bob hayes, though Robert brooks and so does Aaron. Tony banks and Chuck banks, too. Kantroy barber? Perhaps not, because Drew bledsoe, and Ed burns!

I only know all this because Jim finks and Chad may. Gary wood and so wood Dick.

Too many to guess which sentences you mean. Willie thrower? gets honorable mention.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 06, 2007, 11:12:08 PM
Several nice ones!! 

I thought of Mark May, but was wondering if it was a complete sentence, like, does "may" have to be followed by a verb, but now that you brought it up and I think about it some more, I think "____ May" is a winner.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 07, 2007, 01:48:06 AM
"She may."

Certainly a sentence, funny when you put a female voice or "she" in there.

"Mark may."

"Mark may not."

Same thing supposebly.

"James Mays," Clemson Forward, no, guess not, but pts.?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 07, 2007, 02:53:12 AM
Did I.M. Hipp or J.C. Penney ever make it on an NFL roster from college?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 03:21:47 AM
Did I.M. Hipp or J.C. Penney ever make it on an NFL roster from college?

Teamwork: Tim Crowder. Jacob Bender. Charlie Joiner. (Three imperative sentences in slang---“Tim, crowd’er! Jacob, bend ‘er! Charlie, join ‘er!”)

Two guys who treat money differently. Josh Betts and Alvin Banks.   

What if you want to be a better knight? Then you’ve got to practice and Lance Moore.

If you are a mineral thief, you might follow the command to Nick Cole.

 By writing the plays on his wristband, Josh Cribbs.


Meanwhile, in an emergency situation, Zac Diles (911?), while Na’al Diggs!

Ronald Fields and so does Brandon, while Yamon Figurs.

While some had, Rex Hadnot!

At least that’s what Michael Heard.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 07, 2007, 05:10:25 AM
Did I.M. Hipp or J.C. Penney ever make it on an NFL roster from college?

Teamwork: Tim Crowder. Jacob Bender. Charlie Joiner. (Three imperative sentences in slang---“Tim, crowd’er! Jacob, bend ‘er! Charlie, join ‘er!”)

etc.


Good stuff!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 07, 2007, 09:39:52 AM
Is "Aaron Brooks" still in the league?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 09:49:43 AM
Phillippi Sparks


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 07, 2007, 10:12:06 AM
sadly after his career:

Emerson Boozer


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 10:26:48 AM
sadly after his career:

Emerson Boozer


That's not a sentence, RML....please follow the rules.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 07, 2007, 10:49:11 AM

Johnny Unitus = Johnny, Unite Us.

Is that what you're looking for?

That's imaginative, but no.

Here's two I came up with, one good, one a bit of a stretch:

Marion Butts
Everson Walls

"Wall" is a verb, as in "We walled in the so-and-so" or whatever, but still, "Everson Walls" is a weak one.  Marion Butts, however, is rock-solid.

wouldn't he have to be butting something for it to be a "complete" sentence?  I don't know it's been a while since I was in the second grade...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 11:14:48 AM
David Irons. Kenny Irons, also.

No one likes to get into the showers with Chase Johnson, but everyone thinks that Win Justice is who you want representing you, when times are tough.

 Josh Lay.

Eric Moulds.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 11:16:24 AM
 

  
 I don't know it's been a while since I was in the second grade...


And yet, sometimes, it doesn't seem so.

 :D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 11:18:58 AM
Kenny Irons

Nice.  That's the best one I've seen - either that or Marion Butts.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 11:21:04 AM
wouldn't he have to be butting something for it to be a "complete" sentence?  I don't know it's been a while since I was in the second grade...

Actually no - for a complete sentence, I think you only have to have a subject and a verb.  For that reason, an imperative alone is a complete sentence, because the subject is "you".  Like "Jump!" or "Enter" or whatever - those are one-word sentences and also complete sentences. 

So if you wanted to play the game with band names, "Rush" would count. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 11:39:12 AM
Rush would count, where as "Panic at the Disco" is just a phrase.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 11:46:13 AM
Rush would count, where as "Panic at the Disco" is just a phrase.

Actually, "panic" is a verb as well as a noun (even if the band might have intended it as a noun here), so you could be telling someone to go to a disco and, once there, to panic.

In any event, for a clear-cut complete sentence, mark it "Frankie Goes To Hollywood".


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 01:12:00 PM
There was a player back in the ‘60’s name of Dick Felt.

Dick Flowers played in the ‘50’s. Tough time to come out of the closet.

I think Dick Folk in the ‘30’s only played 1 season for a reason.


Band names: Color Me Badd. Save Ferris. Urge Overkill, and Jersey’s own: 
 Yo La Tengo!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 01:14:23 PM
Mark it Hoboken, Dude.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 07, 2007, 01:16:58 PM
Band names: Color Me Badd. Save Ferris. Urge Overkill, and Jersey’s own: 
 Yo La Tengo!

Those are pretty good, but....  They Might Be Giants.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 01:30:54 PM
Band names: Color Me Badd. Save Ferris. Urge Overkill, and Jersey’s own: 
 Yo La Tengo!

Those are pretty good, but....  They Might Be Giants.

Well then Destroy All Monsters and Urge Overkill would be in order.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on December 07, 2007, 02:13:57 PM
Trivia:

Name 2 former NFL players whose names are complete sentences.

Current:

Shawn Springs
Ladell Betts


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 07, 2007, 02:46:46 PM
Rush would count, where as "Panic at the Disco" is just a phrase.

Actually, "panic" is a verb as well as a noun (even if the band might have intended it as a noun here), so you could be telling someone to go to a disco and, once there, to panic.

In any event, for a clear-cut complete sentence, mark it "Frankie Goes To Hollywood".

There is no "subject" in Panic at the Disco.  I have to hold my ground on that one...  I always thought for a sentence to be considered "complete"  it needed both a subject and a predicate.  Though I see your point about imperatives...

Maybe we could simplify and just ask which players names could stand alone as a headline.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 07, 2007, 02:48:28 PM
Isn't Disco the subject?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 07, 2007, 03:22:33 PM
no it is the object.  The subject would be whoever is doing the panicking


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 07, 2007, 03:26:37 PM
Grammar never my strong point.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 07, 2007, 03:49:36 PM
Quote
yankguy
Superhero Member

Posts: 1000

yank-congratulations on #1000 and your super-hero status

make room at the table boys


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on December 07, 2007, 03:54:17 PM
Quote
yankguy
Superhero Member

Posts: 1000

yank-congratulations on #1000 and your super-hero status

make room at the table boys

It's getting crowded here.  Time for a new level.  I'm thinking "Megalomember"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 07, 2007, 03:56:19 PM
I'd like to thank all my supporters out there...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 07, 2007, 03:59:25 PM
Quote
yankguy
Superhero Member

Posts: 1000

yank-congratulations on #1000 and your super-hero status

make room at the table boys

It's getting crowded here.  Time for a new level.  I'm thinking "Megalomember"

when liq started this thing up back in April a few suggestions were suggested: IIRC (and I don't)

5,000; Flash

10,000: Batman

15,000: Superman

20,000: Wilt Chamberlain


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 07, 2007, 04:03:14 PM
50,000: That guy I went to College With.

F that guy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 04:08:49 PM
Rush would count, where as "Panic at the Disco" is just a phrase.

Actually, "panic" is a verb as well as a noun (even if the band might have intended it as a noun here), so you could be telling someone to go to a disco and, once there, to panic.

In any event, for a clear-cut complete sentence, mark it "Frankie Goes To Hollywood".

There is no "subject" in Panic at the Disco.  I have to hold my ground on that one...  I always thought for a sentence to be considered "complete"  it needed both a subject and a predicate.  Though I see your point about imperatives...

Maybe we could simplify and just ask which players names could stand alone as a headline.

Well,  in the imperative sentence, ( "command sentence", as some of you may have been taught") "Panic at the Disco", the subject is the unspoken "you". "You" is the implied subject, so that instead of saying, "You, panic at the Disco", the sentence merely reads, "Panic at the Disco".

Think of it this way.

Instead of me saying to you, "You, think of this way", I just say, "Think of it this way."

Hope this all helps.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 07, 2007, 04:11:01 PM
Instead of me saying to you

That would be "Instead of my saying to you..."

Hope this helps.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 07, 2007, 05:54:07 PM
Yo La Tengo's recent album was a funny sentence:  "I am not afraid of you and I will kick your ass..." (I think that's it)

There was either a band or album title that I saw on Pitchfork.com that was:

"I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness," which kind of sums up the typical Pitchfork band/album title.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 07, 2007, 08:02:12 PM
Instead of me saying to you

That would be "Instead of my saying to you..."

Hope this helps.

Thank YOU!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 07, 2007, 09:41:36 PM
Instead of me saying to you

That would be "Instead of my saying to you..."

Hope this helps.

Thank YOU!

I have a button a friend got for me. It says:

Quote
I'm not pompous. I'm pedantic.

Let me explain...

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 08, 2007, 12:13:41 AM
I'm certain that I share that affliction.

I can tell you more about it with this short anecdote.

Have you ever seen the show "Frazier"? Well, one night I was watching...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on December 08, 2007, 12:43:58 AM

Johnny Unitus = Johnny, Unite Us.

Is that what you're looking for?

That's imaginative, but no.

Here's two I came up with, one good, one a bit of a stretch:

Marion Butts
Everson Walls

"Wall" is a verb, as in "We walled in the so-and-so" or whatever, but still, "Everson Walls" is a weak one.  Marion Butts, however, is rock-solid.
Did Roosevelt Leaks ever make it into the NFL?
There's also Angelo Fields, who should have played baseball.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 09, 2007, 01:57:57 AM
How about favorite playoff games besides a Superbowl.While the "tuck rule" was recent one for me was the 71 X-Mas day  playoff game between the Chiefs and Dolphins in KC won by Miami  27-24 in ot at the time the longest game.Ed Podolak for the Chiefs played a great great game in the loss.The best playoff game by one guy till the best playoff of all the 82 Chargers-Dolphins game won in ot 41-38 by the Chargers where they literally had to drag Kellen Winslow off the field at the end of the game.Honorable mention goes to the Bills_Oilers 93 playoff game where the Bills came  from way way back at the half and won in Buffalo with Frank Reich at the helm in the 2nd half if I recall it correctly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 09, 2007, 01:59:20 AM
TheDrive game would figure in there somewhere except I hate Denver so much I can't stand to think about that one.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 09, 2007, 02:01:50 AM
Most memorable line in a regular season game was the Monday night game between the Patriots and Colts in a pouring rain in Balt where Joe Washington took a return back and Howard Cosell exclaimed"Look at that little monkey go!"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 09, 2007, 10:01:44 AM
I kind of liked the "Immaculate Reception", though I am no Steeler fan, I always liked Franco Harris.

 


Title: Ass-terisks
Post by: josh on December 09, 2007, 12:34:29 PM
I stand corrected, Jbot.

Clearly, the number of people who assume there must be something fishy going on if their teams are being so soundly thrashed is far greater than I thought and (as the article says) "Pats’ quest another example of asterisk era."

On the other hand, as a later article notes, "Love 'em or hate 'em, people watch Patriots."

The first article was so little viewed, it was off the football article list in 12 hours.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 09, 2007, 01:48:06 PM
Not a problem*.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 09, 2007, 02:51:49 PM
favorite non-SB post-season game?

The Snow game.

I'd been shovelling for a better part of the day, was totally "beat" had a dinner with the family, then settled in to watch an amazing football game.

Reiis of the Globe reports (2:20P)   

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

A plane is flying around Gillette Stadium with a not-so subtle message directed at the Patriots.

The plane has a banner attached to it that reads "Bonds -- 756* Belichick -- 3 Super Bowl wins*. It continues to circle the stadium


jbottle if I did that with my year-end bonus , my wife would be pissed. You got balls.

Go Pats******






********* I can't believe I get to watch the Jets-Browns


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 09, 2007, 04:28:31 PM
"....jbottle if I did that with my year-end bonus , my wife would be pissed. You got balls..."

Yeah, I have a huge, read normal, set, and I put them on the table and slam-dunked it.   That's funny, my bonus wouldn't have purchased the fuel for the flight probably, but the steady stream of martinizing income thanks to the efforts of my grandfather keeps me in beer and shitty attitude. 

I've never understood the martinizing process, and do not like to enter the individual stores, but it's been quite lucrative.

I'm just pissed that the SD/Tenn game has pushed the Pats/Steel back, WTF?

I'm a steel fan, thanks for the info read "plane," at least I'm not the only paranoid schizophrenic out there.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 09, 2007, 04:48:48 PM
Wow, nice smack talk (seriously) at the Pitt guy who guaranteed a win, by Brady, after Moss TD.  Hilarious. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 04:58:44 PM
No class


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 09, 2007, 04:59:05 PM
I guess nobody took Kelly's smacktalk into consideration:  ouch.

He has played himself so badly so far, that I'm scared of what Jim Rome's Tuesday blast will be...it's frightening how hard he is going to take it unless this game changes for the Steel.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 09, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
Watching the Giants-Eagles game this afternoon was like watching dentistry and then suddently wishing to also be anesthetized.

Still, a win is a win is a win.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 09, 2007, 07:15:20 PM
The funniest thing I saw today was the quick highlights of Green Bay-Oakland on Fox.After Favre threw that second half bomb the Oakland CB walked by the camera.His last name"Routt".You got that right.Can't wait to see what the Ravens do tonight for entertainment.


Title: Man-gayboy fucks bettors
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 07:36:11 PM
Fucker just has to be smartest in his class.  In a game noone cares if he wins, a game that means ZERO for his franchise, the dickhead eschews a TD that would cover to go for the "I am a genius" move of kicking a FG on first down.

Jets bettors everywhere say,

FUCK OFF, RETARD!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 07:51:21 PM
Watching the Giants-Eagles game this afternoon was like watching dentistry and then suddently wishing to also be anesthetized.

Still, a win is a win is a win.

And so's a loss  :)



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 09, 2007, 08:02:36 PM
The Patriots - Steelers game was not as close as the score suggests.

Listening to the announcers talking about all the positives for the Steelers coming out of this afternoon should the teams meet again, I would swear they were watching a different game than I was.

"They showed they could move the ball against the Patriots." "If Polamalu was in the game, those two long touchdowns might not have happened." "The defense got to Brady and made him hurry up. (Pittsburgh's Defensive Coordinator) has a thousand different blitzes." "The Steeler's quarterback had a very good game."

Guys, the Patriots just scored 34 points against the number one rated defense in the NFL. They left points on the field, too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 08:10:44 PM
Pretty sure Steelers outyarded NE in the first half.  Not sure Polamalu makes too much of a difference.  I do know that it is better to have faced them prior to facing them again in January.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 09, 2007, 08:28:23 PM
Pretty sure Steelers outyarded NE in the first half. 

Nah, The Pats outyarded the Steelers in the first half 223 yards to 183 yards.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 08:29:53 PM
Thanks

Pitt certainly in the game at that point

Bellicheck of course the halftime master

Nice win


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 09, 2007, 08:32:55 PM
Pretty sure Steelers outyarded NE in the first half.  Not sure Polamalu makes too much of a difference.  I do know that it is better to have faced them prior to facing them again in January.

The Steelers outgained them for much of the first half. They had double the time of possession in the first half. They avoided giving up any points after the turnover, when Gostkowski's kick went wide. They were only losing after the first half by a point, 14 - 13. They got shut out in the second half. (Granted, in a tighter game, the Steelers get 3 points, but went for the TD because they were so far behind.)

For the game, the Steelers won time of possession by a solid margin:     34:43 to 25:17.

But they 'controlled the clock' because several of the Patriot drives were so quick to score, while only one of Pittsburgh's was.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 09, 2007, 08:37:07 PM
I was laughing at the jagoffs that said Willie wouldnt rush for s*it - saw he was 8-47 halfway thru second


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 09, 2007, 08:43:23 PM
I was laughing at the jagoffs that said Willie wouldnt rush for s*it - saw he was 8-47 halfway thru second

Yup. Willie had a good game.

At half-time, I loved the prediction that we would probably see more runs by the Patriots, as they only ran it 6 times in the first.

They only ran it 3 times in the second half. One was a broken play, on which Brady gained 5 or 6, I think. The other two came after the 3 TD lead, when they were primarily running the clock down.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 10, 2007, 12:40:22 AM
Most memorable line in a regular season game was the Monday night game between the Patriots and Colts in a pouring rain in Balt where Joe Washington took a return back and Howard Cosell exclaimed"Look at that little monkey go!"

His last game called as I recall...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 10, 2007, 01:36:40 AM
It may have been.I watched that game at our frat in Brookline so the memory of facts is hazy at best.All I recall is the field shining in the lights it was so freakin wet.You could see water kicking up all over the place and lots of guys just sliding when trying to stop.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 10, 2007, 02:11:42 AM
I looked it up and I have the game and player wrong so now I wonder what he said about Joe Washington.The game was in Sept 83 and it was the Redskins Alvin Garrett he made the remark about.Also since it was Howard it was not his last game.It was just Howard being Howard.I really don't think he meant it the way it came out.After all he took a lot of heat for supporting Ali in the whole draft thing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 10, 2007, 02:45:52 AM
Willie Parker, after the game:

Quote
"I still don't think -- if we don't beat ourselves -- a team in this league can beat us, and that's what happened today, we beat ourselves."

Ben Roethlisberger, after the game:

Quote
"It truly is an honor to watch such a great quarterback play the game."

James Farrior, after the game:

Quote
"It was a little weird. I thought they'd try to run a little bit when they got a good lead on us, but they kept trying to throw the ball.

"We try to make a team one-dimensional and they did it for us and we still didn't stop them.''

I get the feeling that James and Ben watched a different game unfold than Willie Parker.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 10, 2007, 03:06:36 AM
Well Willie had a 120 yards plus so maybe he thinks cause of that his team was in the game.Maybe for a half but Willie is a fool if he thinks they were ever in it during the 2nd half.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on December 10, 2007, 09:47:33 AM
How vindictive is Bill Belichick?

Its been speculated since week 1 when Eric The Rat" Mangini broke the NFL coaches code of Omerta, that BB would take his revenge on Mangini. It was said, that no point spread would be large enough, take the Pats and give the points. Pats -27? It could be Pats -72.

But as the Pats roll toward a potentially historic season, will BB try to embarass Mangini, on a very national stage, or will he show some goodwill and charity towards his former protege?

Will it be 63-0 in the 3Q, with the Pats D-blitizing, Air-Brady ripping into the Jets secondary as BB picks apart Mangini's defense?

Or will it be a more subdued game?

Will Darth holds back the power of the force and takes pity on a still learning Luke, yet still delivers a harsh rebuke. And instead of taking a hand, wil  BB extends one at game's end?

F that!

Darth 79

Luke 3


Title: Re: JETS-PATS A FOURTUNE TO BE HAD IN WEEK FOURTEEN?
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 10, 2007, 10:17:41 AM
 
Will Brady's Bunch cover???

What a ridiculous number!!!!


http://sports.wagerweb.com/NFL/team.aspx?TeamId=19

A 25.5 point spread???


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on December 10, 2007, 02:13:02 PM
An unbelievable spread, 25 1/2, but if I had to choose I would still give the points (my preference would be not to touch it though).

So what will it be with Miami, then? I mean, it figures to be even more, right?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 10, 2007, 04:40:59 PM
I thought that the time of possession battle the Steel was winning in the first half would lead to some NE fatigue and easier running in the second half.  They still moved the ball, but didn't get the key first-downs, you add in some quick Pat scores with blown coverage and a lot of the conventional wisdom goes out the window.  Polamalou (sp.?) might've been the difference on a couple of plays but it was the Pats D that did the Steel in...and the game plan was working offensively but with little result.  Fatigue that you would expect was a non-factor.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 10, 2007, 04:50:01 PM
I thought that the time of possession battle the Steel was winning in the first half would lead to some NE fatigue and easier running in the second half.  They still moved the ball, but didn't get the key first-downs, you add in some quick Pat scores with blown coverage and a lot of the conventional wisdom goes out the window.  Polamalou (sp.?) might've been the difference on a couple of plays but it was the Pats D that did the Steel in...and the game plan was working offensively but with little result.  Fatigue that you would expect was a non-factor.


Well, you see the "fatigue you would expect" means you haven't been paying attention. All year long Belichek has been keeping his regulars in, and taking heat for doing so (he's running up the score!). He had his team ready, and he schooled the Steeler coach.

It was the Pats as a team that did the Steelers as a team in, and exposed their weakness across the board, beginning with Ben Roethsoverratedberger.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 10, 2007, 05:01:07 PM
Wow, that's not quite as funny as "Bill Cutachek," but you get points for trying.


Title: Re: JETS-PATS A FOURTUNE TO BE HAD IN WEEK FOURTEEN?
Post by: whiskeypriest on December 10, 2007, 05:10:17 PM

Will Brady's Bunch cover???

What a ridiculous number!!!!


http://sports.wagerweb.com/NFL/team.aspx?TeamId=19

A 25.5 point spread???
One gets the impression that Belichick is unlikely to take his foot off the accelerator peddle for this one.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 10, 2007, 05:31:33 PM

One gets the impression that Belichick is unlikely to take his foot off the accelerator peddle for this one.
[/quote]


Really?
Would that be like "one gets the impression that the City of Cleveland has little regard for Jose UPHE Mesa"?

I mean, it's not like BB wouldn't have a reason to let Eric the Rat understand his coach's fraternity transgression.

And while we'rea at it, how long do we have to hear Ralph Branca and Vince Scully moan about Bobby Thompson and the Giants 'stealing" their signs? It's part of the game...and always has been. Just ask Leo Durocher---when you see him next.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 10, 2007, 05:41:42 PM
Heard on the radio.

Bill Parcels should coach the Eagles.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on December 11, 2007, 02:46:00 PM
Quote of the Day

Merriman, when asked when he'll return to the lineup:
 
"I'll be back to dominating in no time."
 
Gee, how are the Chargers gonna get along without the Dominator.

Strange quote, reminds me of Bush. If Bush were out of the lineup he would say, "I'll be back to deciding in no time." Of course, he can say that since he is the, uh, "commander guy."

 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on December 11, 2007, 11:43:32 PM
I've never heard Reggie Bush say anything like that...


Title: Jets caught taping during playoff game vs. Pats
Post by: liquidsilver on December 12, 2007, 08:39:48 PM
The spy games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots began last season.

The Jets were caught videotaping at Gillette Stadium last season and the Patriots had that New York employee removed from the area, according to published reports Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_jets_videotaping


Title: Re: Jets caught taping during playoff game vs. Pats
Post by: josh on December 12, 2007, 09:50:54 PM
The spy games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots began last season.

The Jets were caught videotaping at Gillette Stadium last season and the Patriots had that New York employee removed from the area, according to published reports Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_jets_videotaping

"Oh, but the Patriots gave us permission!"

I listened to some of an interview with Coach Mangini. (Paraphrases, but no meaning added or lost, I believe.)

Reporter: "Did you, personally, have anything to do with calling the League's attention to the videotaping?"

Coach: "That is a League matter, and I really have nothing else to say on the matter."

Reporter: "Do you regret how things went?"

Coach: "It's in the past now, and I really have nothing else to say on the matter."

Reporter: "I understand that the Patriots had a Jets employee removed from Gillette Stadium during a game last year for video-taping from a place they were not supposed to be video-taping."

Coach: "We had the Patriot's permission to video-tape from there."

Reporter: "You had permission and they still removed him?"

Coach: "Yes. We had permission from the Patriots."
*******

If they had permission, but the fellow was kicked out anyway, perhaps this was 'revenge' by the Jets. If it is league policy that was broken, then I am unclear how the Patriots could give permission.

Mangini knew that the video-taping was taking place. He was formerly a Patriots coach. He could have stopped it before the game started. He could have stopped it mid-game and told the videographer to give a cease and desist message to Bellichick.

Instead, he did it the way he did. And that has made all the difference.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 12, 2007, 10:17:23 PM
I wonder if the upcoming JetsPats game will be the first game ever to be played between two asterisked teams?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 12, 2007, 10:18:57 PM
After "Free Michael Vick" I would've felt that adressing the team was beneath me as well.  I'd have gotten back to planet Earth.  Fuck the Falcons and fuck finish the job if they are going to "dirty bird" up the DOGKILLER/ELECTROCUTER/DROWNER:  It is a broken team, culture, city, situation.  You slide out of the bed in the middle of the night because the breakup speech is obvious and too much of a pain in the ass.  Is it about the player, this NFL, with the "FREE MICHAEL VICK" show that Petrino doesn't want to be a part of??  I don't blame him one bit.

All the bitter Falcon Players crying today might want to take a look in the mirror:  He is you, NFL player thinking for himself.  Coaches sell lines:  Finish the job.  You write a line like "FREE MICHAEL VICK" and expect any coach to coach those players the next day with a flight out, hey, catch this, FUCK ALL THAT.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 13, 2007, 11:50:48 AM
The spy games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots began last season.

The Jets were caught videotaping at Gillette Stadium last season and the Patriots had that New York employee removed from the area, according to published reports Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_jets_videotaping

"Oh, but the Patriots gave us permission!"

I listened to some of an interview with Coach Mangini. (Paraphrases, but no meaning added or lost, I believe.)

Reporter: "Did you, personally, have anything to do with calling the League's attention to the videotaping?"

Coach: "That is a League matter, and I really have nothing else to say on the matter."

Reporter: "Do you regret how things went?"

Coach: "It's in the past now, and I really have nothing else to say on the matter."

Reporter: "I understand that the Patriots had a Jets employee removed from Gillette Stadium during a game last year for video-taping from a place they were not supposed to be video-taping."

Coach: "We had the Patriot's permission to video-tape from there."

Reporter: "You had permission and they still removed him?"

Coach: "Yes. We had permission from the Patriots."
*******

If they had permission, but the fellow was kicked out anyway, perhaps this was 'revenge' by the Jets. If it is league policy that was broken, then I am unclear how the Patriots could give permission.

Mangini knew that the video-taping was taking place. He was formerly a Patriots coach. He could have stopped it before the game started. He could have stopped it mid-game and told the videographer to give a cease and desist message to Bellichick.

Instead, he did it the way he did. And that has made all the difference.

Bingo.

I think Mangini, who was given countless breaks in the business from BB throughout his entire career, is what is known as a "Judas".

Nice rep.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 13, 2007, 03:32:36 PM
Sports Illustrated will soon be running a "Year of the Asterisk," possibly with the provocative cover of a black background and white asterisk, if "Time" doesn't beat them to it.

Just a guess.


Title: Re: Tonight's Game
Post by: peloux on December 13, 2007, 05:04:34 PM
Either a Denver win tonight against Houston or a Charger loss this Sunday against Detroit will give playoff significance to the Dec 24 MNF game between the Chargers-Broncos. Conversely, A Denver loss coupled with a Charger win this week would render it meaningless. My loyalty as a Charger fan is being severely tested as I find myself leaning more and more to significance. I want to be entertained.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 13, 2007, 05:05:55 PM
Shawn Merriman*?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on December 14, 2007, 02:58:57 AM
Shawn Merriman*?

Oui


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 14, 2007, 04:50:43 AM
The weather could tighten up that spread a whole bunch before Sunday.

Snow helps the Jets...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 14, 2007, 06:51:23 AM
Helps the Jets or the bettors?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 14, 2007, 07:53:46 AM
Helps the Jets or the bettors?

LOL, both!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 14, 2007, 10:39:08 AM
Freakin Jets should lose by 75 for what they did to the bettors last week!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 14, 2007, 07:14:37 PM
The line is pushed down to 21.5 now, that's an invitation to gamble the OVER, which makes me very suspect of what CUTACHEK* might do.  He could win by ten just to be an @sshole.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 14, 2007, 07:24:11 PM
The line is pushed down to 21.5 now, that's an invitation to gamble the OVER, which makes me very suspect of what CUTACHEK* might do.  He could win by ten just to be an @sshole.

Because everyone who coaches in the NFL should be concerning themselves with the oddsmakers in Vegas, right?

Wait. Isn't that what you think is going on in the first place---that there is a "corporate conspiracy" involving NFL Coaches, the Commissioner, and the bookmakers in Vegas?

So, explain to me then.

What's BB to do? If he covers the line, then he is in cahoots. But if he doesn't cover the line, he's only doing that to screw the poor underclass of  betting people like yourself?

Now, you mentioned you'd like people to be consistent in their views. Is that standard just for others, or does it apply to you as well?

And what will Judas do? Suppose his team is down by 25 and on the one with 4th and goal and two minutes left? Should he kick a field goal? or go for it? And what if he doesn't make it? Does he go into the conspiracy group, also?

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 14, 2007, 07:49:01 PM
This Jets-Pats game could set a single-game record for combined asterisks. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 15, 2007, 02:14:48 PM
I think it already has before the kickoff, but there will no doubt be matters of question during the proceeding that will require intense scrutiny and skepticism, and may well, I agree, warrant a series of new asterisks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 15, 2007, 02:30:07 PM
Also please note the suspicious inclement weather leading up to the game, it's very easy for the Department of National Weather to tweak light snow into debilititating heavy sleet.  I'm not saying there is political as well as corporate corruption, but you have to think that Dick Cheney admires CUTACHEK*'s penchant for cheating, lying, destroying evidence, using big-brotherisms like "the league has ruled," instead of "I admitted guilt and illegal conduct by paying a fine," but what's intriguing is that traditionally the team with a strong running game does better in bad weather, and the Pats have struggled with the run, and weather tends to level the playing field the way Pitt struggled against the Dolphins during SLOPGATE*.  The whole thing is a bit unseemly, but I'm going to assume that there is no weather manipulation going on but I will have to adjudge the conditions at the time of play to be sure.  Maybe Cheney is a closeted JETFAN, and has a "Let's see how CUTACHEK* likes playing in the sleet, [presses weather button] go fuck yourself Billy boy..."

So, yeah, if a splinter cell of the Department of weather or some disgruntled rogue meteorologist intervenes, all bets are on or off, tough science to decipher all around.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 15, 2007, 10:29:17 PM
We actually get the Jets-Pats in Los Angeles on sunday instead of Oakland and whomever they are losing to or the usual shitty game.All the more amazing cause CBS does not have the doublheader this week.Fox does so of course we get the Rams game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 16, 2007, 02:35:15 AM
So you are a conspiracy theorist or a reporter of the TV Guide?  I don't get it. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 16, 2007, 03:02:41 PM
So I just logged on and I'm watching the game out of the corner of my eye when I see what looks like Bill chasing a midget into the stands an then I realise it's an ad for something or other.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 16, 2007, 04:37:53 PM
Well, it's hard to know where to begin with the Vegas/CUTACHEK connection, pathetic, and obvious to anyone who has ever "played the ponies."

I'm unclear right now whether or not to place any specific conspiracy allegations against any FEDERAL WEATHER AGENCY, or whether PHOTRIOT GAMES involve the PUBLIC APPEARANCE of squabble, meanwhile, one courier later you agree not to cover the pts. 

It is all, the orchestration of the season, beginning to make perfect sense.  There was more money on the Jets this weekend in Vegas than on any team in all of sports-betting history.  Must be a coincidence.  Maybe there was a big convention of New Yorkers in town, but then, you know, MAYBE NOT*.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 16, 2007, 05:17:47 PM
Great win by the Pats. You have to win the ugly ones, too.

And how bad is Baltimore looking, now? They had a chance to win it, blew it, then gave the game away on what reminded one of the old Flipper Anderson play the Vikes pulled on the Giants in that play-off game years ago.

Already Dallas has gotten away with an illegal helmet-to-helmet shot as the refs seemingly look the other way.

If I was a conspiracy nut job like some, I'd be taking a hard, hard look at those Cowboys year in and year out.

Giants-Skins game will be a sloppy affair tonight.

Let's go, ELI!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 16, 2007, 06:20:27 PM
The Fins blew it, all they had to do was man down for a couple of more weeks, totally diheartening.  Dig shallow a couple more weeks, fellas, I mean, they had the chance to do something special, and what does Balti do but care even less, even when the Fins are trying to dump the last 3, what does Balti do but prove that they want to lose more than the Fins do.  I don't know which team to respect less, but somebody shoul've quit on the season harder, and it was obviously the most recent team to quit who really had their LAYDOWN ON today, to the point of, yeah, we don't care so much that the other team who doesn't care doesn't compare. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 16, 2007, 11:08:59 PM
Man, I knew I should have laid money down on the under


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 17, 2007, 02:56:49 AM
I wish I could have seen the Browns vs Bills game on Sunday.That's how the NFL used to be played in Dec till certain teams in the NFC central put in those pansy ass domes.Joe Kapp, Greg Landry or Bill Munson would spit on a dome.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 17, 2007, 03:44:43 AM
Giants' receivers catch like Roberto Duran---"Hands of Stone".



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 18, 2007, 11:55:50 PM
This year is a brand new low for the NFL, with the tomfoolery/corporate conspiracy quickly scuttled by Roger Goodsell, whose RESIGNATION I am calling for, for the destruction of evidence that may have pointed to a FEDERAL RACKETEERING SCANDAL.  When you have that many coaches obviously involved in a coordinated effort to subvert fair gameplay and established league policy, (A) You can retreat to the assertion that (1) they all do it or (2) "eh, no biggie..." or (B) You can realize that this is one of the most onerous examples of corporate/coach/league/commissioner collusion to snuff public examination of the precarious symbiotic relationship between the League and Vegas that is threatened whenever ordinary due process is observed in the examination of corporate misconduct.

It makes me sick.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 19, 2007, 11:47:18 PM
Absent SLOPGATE, I was almost ready to give SPYGATE a pass, that maybe CUSHIONER GOODSELL had PREMATURE IMPATUATION problems, was too quick to judge and destroy evidence, oh okay, no prob.

But see, he wasn't UNTESTED, he had already dealt with PACMAN and VICKGATE, so we knew he was A DECIDER.

What an asshole.  He is a kick 'em when their down as player and pick 'em when they're stuck corporate slayer.  Way to go CUSHIONER, take on the black guy accused of criminal conduct and rule in advance of any criminal court (PACMAN, still no convictions), and act like NBD when there is a CORPORATE CONSPIRACY TO SUBVERT LEAGUE POLICY.  Wait and see on Vick, how magnanimous, destroy evidence of corporate corruption, wow, how, uh, MAGNATE. 

CUSHIONER GOODSELL IS A WORTHLESS CORPORATE APOLOGIST AT BEST, possibly the bird in the mouth of the crocodile, NFL LAWYER, VEGAS SYMBIOT, doing the dentistry of making the carrion in the mouth of the reptile disappear, peck, peck, peck, peck, peck, peck, PECKER. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 20, 2007, 01:43:39 AM
http://it.stlawu.edu/~x0tsing/takeaway.htm


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 20, 2007, 03:28:55 AM
I *think* I get it...objective evidence to the contrary of ordinary logic, one is supposedly going mad, sure, but I'm not a buyer, nice try.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 20, 2007, 03:22:04 PM
Kind of funny that Jerry JOnes is banning Jessica Simpson from tExas Stadium. Maybe she should buy the team.

Fans of opposing teams. Show up with posters of Jessica whereever Tony Roam-os.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 20, 2007, 03:31:22 PM
Maybe she should buy the team.


Do you think she has enough money?  I know she's a singer or something, but they don't make that much money, I don't think.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 20, 2007, 04:06:36 PM
She's a renter.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 20, 2007, 04:11:01 PM
Not really, I guess she makes $5M a picture or so, not sure, really, and the TV ads have to pay well, and that residual rolling income from DirecTV or whatever, music sales, and DVD purchases has to be a pretty penny, not to mention showing up somewhere for $10K, or even $100K to do the national anthem I imagine, she's working it, I'm not a hater, but she can't really buy the Cowboys of course.  That takes OIL MONEY.

When Shannon Doherty was asked--"Isn't Molly Ringwald a neighbor of yours?"--she was like, "Yeah, I guess, but she's a 'renter,'" which gave her a whole new level of bitchcred in my book.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 20, 2007, 10:51:15 PM
MSNBC has a comparison of the 14-0 Dolphins and the 14-0 Patriots. In their section on 'playmakers,' they say the following:
Quote
Thanks to the impeccable Mr. Brady, everyone involved in the Patriots’ passing offense can be labeled playmakers because Tom the Bomb has given them all opportunities to make big plays.

A highlight DVD of the catches, runs and touchdowns of receivers Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney and even tight end Ben Coates would have to be a two-disc set. Running back Laurence Maroney is dangerous, too, because you can’t concentrate on him. Several hard-hitters on defense can turn around a game and kick returner Ellis Hobbs is one of the league’s best.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 20, 2007, 10:52:48 PM
But what do we do now that Professional Sports are OVER??


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 21, 2007, 12:35:14 AM
jbottle,I love reading your posts.It's just that those two combined last night popped that song into my head.Been years since I heard it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 21, 2007, 07:26:48 AM
MSNBC has a comparison of the 14-0 Dolphins and the 14-0 Patriots. In their section on 'playmakers,' they say the following:
Quote
Thanks to the impeccable Mr. Brady, everyone involved in the Patriots’ passing offense can be labeled playmakers because Tom the Bomb has given them all opportunities to make big plays.

A highlight DVD of the catches, runs and touchdowns of receivers Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney and even tight end Ben Coates would have to be a two-disc set. Running back Laurence Maroney is dangerous, too, because you can’t concentrate on him. Several hard-hitters on defense can turn around a game and kick returner Ellis Hobbs is one of the league’s best.


Well, I think the Dolphins were a running team first, Csonka, Kiick, Mercury Morris , and that shows you how much the game has changed since Don Shula was busy making enemies in the league.

So, their highlight reel would be on how to run block, and how to play solid defense behind the line. Best not to compare teams that 35 years apart, as it really doesn't mean much.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 21, 2007, 10:13:25 AM
MSNBC has a comparison of the 14-0 Dolphins and the 14-0 Patriots. In their section on 'playmakers,' they say the following:
Quote
Thanks to the impeccable Mr. Brady, everyone involved in the Patriots’ passing offense can be labeled playmakers because Tom the Bomb has given them all opportunities to make big plays.

A highlight DVD of the catches, runs and touchdowns of receivers Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney and even tight end Ben Coates would have to be a two-disc set. Running back Laurence Maroney is dangerous, too, because you can’t concentrate on him. Several hard-hitters on defense can turn around a game and kick returner Ellis Hobbs is one of the league’s best.


Well, I think the Dolphins were a running team first, Csonka, Kiick, Mercury Morris , and that shows you how much the game has changed since Don Shula was busy making enemies in the league.

So, their highlight reel would be on how to run block, and how to play solid defense behind the line. Best not to compare teams that 35 years apart, as it really doesn't mean much.

True, in  a sense, though the difference in eras is one of the point that they address. And folks in sports have been comparing earlier and later teams for as long as we have had earlier and later teams.

But that wasn't why I posted the quote!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on December 21, 2007, 10:20:11 AM
I agree that pro football in 1972 and pro football in 2007 are two different sports. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 21, 2007, 12:05:58 PM
A lot of people contend that the '31 A's were a better team than the '27 Yankees, but they didn't win the Series. Those teams are only 4 years apart.

I find it really difficult to compare the '70's Steroiders of Pittsburgh with the Pats of 21st century, just on rule changes alone.

If we could magically transport players through time,  I think we might say that the Steelers still win all those trophies if Tom Brady plays then, but can we say that Terry Bradshaw wins so many with the Pats?


It's kind of an endless topic, if you know what I mean.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 21, 2007, 12:08:10 PM
And let's not forget that Bradshaw had some talented receivers of his own---Lynn "I sold out to the GOP" Swann and another Stallworth, correct?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 21, 2007, 11:09:10 PM
And let's not forget that Bradshaw had some talented receivers of his own---Lynn "I sold out to the GOP" Swann and another Stallworth, correct?

Read the quote about Brady's weapons, folks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 22, 2007, 02:54:45 AM
How many guys played ONBLOW back then.  Sure you have the ring, but the night before the big game didn't you do a bunch of rails, then smooth it out with a breakfast beer of champions and hit the field?  I'll bet you'll find a lot of guys who were "on the snow" back then, hey, anybody here like to ski??, way to go feellas, nice job placing the asterisk on the mirror you jammed lines off of and now get high and mighty because of PHOTRIOT GAMES and ROID page, page one on any decent paper.  So you order hookers, jam the white, wake up underneath the matress, and then slam a beer on the way to the stadium?  That is RICH, HILARIOUS STUFF NFL GUY, DID YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE COKE NECKLACES, where you unscrew the cap and you have a COKESPOON to deliver the COCAINE??  Nice work, PRO.  How about that beer you jammed on the way to the stadium to get the nerves settled.  Performance ENHANCING??  Fucking guy puts a needle in his ass to get ready for Saturday and you've got Bud Selig morose OSTRICH that he is pretending that NOTHING HAPPENED ON HIS OSTRICH WATCH, and ROGER, GOODSELL, roger that, evidence destroyed, no PROB, nice legacy of you being ahead of the criminal curve on PacMan, no convictions, quick fine burn tape on corporate conspirator CUTACHEK*, and a Vick and a Pats Pick to be not named later.  Curious symbiosis between the way Goodsell plucks grenades out of the mouth of the VEGAS CROCODILE??  Sure.  Hey, what happened to my FOUR STAR SUPERLOCK during SLOPGATE, no Goodsell, we were still paying attention for that one too.  Wait, do you beat up the john or the hooker before you decide whether they fuck or not, or do you just let them fuck and beat one or the other up after, you FUCKING CROOK.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 22, 2007, 03:03:52 AM
The best was the McDonalds coke spoon.I still have a few unbroken.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 22, 2007, 05:32:07 AM
I remember that small spoon, but I never did coke with one.

Really, my primary question for the Cushioner is when did you decide as a lawyer to be the judge, jury, and executioner for *ni**ers* and let Bill CUTACHEK* slip a fart out in the middle of the night, when did it get to be that culture of "The structure and integrity of the NFL is at risk here and the stakes are high," but unconvicted negroes with no records and a presumption of innocence is a different matter, right, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE, counselor, right, but we also KNOW WHAT HAPPENED with the tapes that you destroyed.  It looks kind of WHITE and I'm a white guy.  OK:  OJ slayed a couple of people.  Pac-Man made it rain and hit a stripper with a champagne bottle but was neve charged wit assault.

William CUTACHEK* engaged actively in a coordinated conspiracy to subvert league policy involving multiple coaches and perhaps betting results.  That's, you know, pretty bad, so why the tape burn??  If "the league has ruled," and CUTACHEK* has nothing to hide, then why DESTROY EVIDENCE, because, hey, you're a smart guy, procedurally, you may not be the FINAL ARBITER.  You are a Crook, a Cushioner, a ni**er-whacker, and a corporate slut.  I don't like to use that language, but how is anbybody with ordinary common sense to reach a different conclusion??  You are an investigator and a commishioner, what do you care if the lid is blown off prior Pats wins, were the tapes really that bad, why is transparency so distasteful.  I think you are a league WHORE, and why wouldn't I think that, what have you done to be consistent, what due process have you engaged in, what evidence have you preserved, just in case you were wrong??  Out of an abundance of caution and the idea that you may have an error in judgement, you can seal the evidence, just in case you're not a corporate apologist and jerkoff, but then  you're protected, but burn baby burn disco inferno??, lousy, what, the league is more important than your own reputation and imminent firing could take. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on December 26, 2007, 10:48:54 AM
Quote
A highlight DVD of the catches, runs and touchdowns of receivers Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney and even tight end Ben Coates would have to be a two-disc set. Running back Laurence Maroney is dangerous, too, because you can’t concentrate on him. Several hard-hitters on defense can turn around a game and kick returner Ellis Hobbs is one of the league’s best.

Ben Coates?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 26, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
I just saw that the NFL is giving the Pats-Giants game to both CBS and NBC on sat night.Can't recall two networks showing the same game before.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 26, 2007, 11:47:53 PM
I just saw that the NFL is giving the Pats-Giants game to both CBS and NBC on sat night.Can't recall two networks showing the same game before.

1967.

Never three.

In a few places, it may be 4 this time, depending on review of some contracts signed before this agreement.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 26, 2007, 11:48:45 PM
Quote
A highlight DVD of the catches, runs and touchdowns of receivers Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Gaffney and even tight end Ben Coates would have to be a two-disc set. Running back Laurence Maroney is dangerous, too, because you can’t concentrate on him. Several hard-hitters on defense can turn around a game and kick returner Ellis Hobbs is one of the league’s best.

Ben Coates?

Yeah.

Who knew he had come out of retirement and was hooking up with Brady?!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 27, 2007, 02:23:24 AM
 Josh,From what I read New York City,Boston and Manchester,N.H. were going to get the game on local outlets for free in addition to the NFL network which no one gets but would make the NHL network coverage look huge by comparison.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 27, 2007, 02:27:16 AM
Josh,From what I read New York City,Boston and Manchester,N.H. were going to get the game for free in addition to the NFL network which no one gets but would make the NHL network coverage look huge by comparison.

Yup. Well, sort of. They paid the NFL for the right to air it free.

But one of those markets (NYC, I think) had the signal going on neither CBS or NBC, which makes for a potential 4th station. I suspect, though, that those contracts will either be honored or bought back by the NFL. WWOR's officials are less than happy with the new arrangement, feeling that they have already paid for exclusive broadcast rights. The Boston/Manchester locals have said nothing either way on the topic.

NHL? Isn't that that delivery service?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 27, 2007, 08:59:15 AM
I do know that Giants fans are making a killing selling their tickets to Pats fans who want to be there for the big historical moment.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 27, 2007, 02:08:10 PM
I do know that Giants fans are making a killing selling their tickets to Pats fans who want to be there for the big historical moment.

20 years from now, Giant Stadium will have held 700,000 people, not 70,000, based on the number of folks who will claim that they were there.

Why buy a ticket when you can claim, years later, that you were there  anyway?!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 27, 2007, 06:04:38 PM
I do know that Giants fans are making a killing selling their tickets to Pats fans who want to be there for the big historical moment.

20 years from now, Giant Stadium will have held 700,000 people, not 70,000, based on the number of folks who will claim that they were there.

Why buy a ticket when you can claim, years later, that you were there  anyway?!

Same reason you don't inject Andy Pettitte's special HG formula, josh.

Honesty applies to fans, too.

But I agree that the future holds many lies and liars.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 27, 2007, 08:35:21 PM
In a startling news announcement featured on the front page at MSNBC, Tom Brady has suggested that Coughlin rest his front line pass rushers.

In other news, brilliant analyst and former NFL coach John Madden, in a fine bit of examination, has observed that the Giants need to pressure Brady.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on December 28, 2007, 09:52:41 AM
In other news, brilliant analyst and former NFL coach John Madden, in a fine bit of examination, has observed that the Giants need to pressure Brady.

As Junior Soprano would say, "Yeah, and I need to f*** Angie Dickinson..."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on December 28, 2007, 12:03:01 PM
And let's not forget that Bradshaw had some talented receivers of his own---Lynn "I sold out to the GOP" Swann and another Stallworth, correct?

What the hell does that mean?   Because he's black, he's supposed to stay on your plantation?

Are you planning on sending out the slave hunters to bring him back?  P'raps chop off his foot to warn him against running again?

That'll teach his uppity ass.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on December 28, 2007, 12:10:37 PM
I just saw that the NFL is giving the Pats-Giants game to both CBS and NBC on sat night.Can't recall two networks showing the same game before.

According to my friends in Boston, it's also being shown on ABC, moving the game to the status of a "State of the Union" address.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 28, 2007, 12:14:13 PM
And let's not forget that Bradshaw had some talented receivers of his own---Lynn "I sold out to the GOP" Swann and another Stallworth, correct?

What the hell does that mean?   Because he's black, he's supposed to stay on your plantation?

Are you planning on sending out the slave hunters to bring him back?  P'raps chop off his foot to warn him against running again?

That'll teach his uppity ass.

 It means that he's another brother turning his back on his own...

You know it. I know it. We all know it.
 

The fact is that since at least when Nixon bought off George Wallace back in the day, the GOP has and does less for people of color than the Democratic party.


You can disagree, but leave your race-baiting at the door.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 28, 2007, 07:29:41 PM
This from a guy who can't admit Cutachek* cheated.  "Fine-baiting":  To dangle a fine out in front of a guy so he can admit culpability in lieu of appeal.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 29, 2007, 09:06:15 PM
That pre-game interview with the NFL President talking about the NFL Network, being interviewed by the NFL Network "reporter" has to be the biggest puff piece since the World Series "interview" with Taco Bell's president.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 29, 2007, 09:17:24 PM
This game is screaming for an asterisk in real time on every network, am I the only one who sees something suspect on nearly every play??  There's a very complicated chess-match going on right now, with Vegas involved and Coughlin and CUTACHEK* are trying to see the whites of each other's eyes, real primal, NFL/Vegas symbiology weirdness going on, I've had chills running up the back of my spine all game long, the extention of the game to other networks has nothing to do with anything but gaming, and each coach is ready for the other to go "all in" and see if the other guy will fold, but so far, mano a mano, I like the juice.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 29, 2007, 09:32:07 PM
This user is currently ignored.

I would bet almost anything that the word "asterisk" was featured in that post.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on December 29, 2007, 09:35:12 PM
Bite me, Wilfork!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on December 29, 2007, 11:47:16 PM
Nice consecutive calls on Toomer and a no-call on a clear PF OOB, makes perfect sense, i.e., "*."

Terrible refs, terrible time, terrible hogging of adspace by media giants, to shove dickhard drugs and the allure of the premium automobile in your face, in other words, way to get used like the cheap slut you are American Public.  "Hey, I thought it was admirable the way the Giants put up a decent fight...[cough]," well, me too, and I like how the PHOTRIOTS won just so there's no question about the question surrounding 16-0, "Is it real?," "Did they really accomplish anything?," especially after the Baltimore and Giant Debacles??  Or, should we FOLLOW THE MONEY??  Welcome to NFL 101 NEOPHYTE, or should I say, DISCIPLE OF THE GOODSELL ROGERING ERA.  NICE BEING ROGER OR BEING ROGERED??  Don't know??  You, are an NFL fan with a smile on your face.  Well spun and hope you had fun and the season is done??

Pro sports are over.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on December 29, 2007, 11:52:31 PM
Great game tonight.Brady was clutch as was Kevin Falk.Tonight was basically a playoff game for Pats and Giants. The AFC is going to be tough though.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on December 30, 2007, 05:16:59 AM
From: The entire New England Patriots Organization
To: Rex Ryan, Defensive Coordinator, The Baltimore Ravens

Thank you. We would never have done it without you.

xxx


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 30, 2007, 10:26:06 AM
Quote
Pressure Brady. Cover Moss. Get a big play on special teams. And don’t make a mistake — not one.

There’s the template, laid out for all to see Saturday night. Now all somebody has to do is follow it.

Celizic of MSNBC is being his usual idiotic self.

First of all, that is not a template. That is the game plan for every team and was at the outset of the season, or at least after week 1.

Secondly, if you don't have the players, all the 'template' in the world won't help.

Thirdly and finally, Belichick has him and pretty much every other scribe fooled, evidently. Celizic writes as if the game was as close as the final score. The Patriots fell behind by 12 points and then rattled off 22 straight points to take a 10 point lead. Just as it did in the other games that people like to point out as proof that the Patriot's defense can be had and the team can be beaten, the defense stiffened in the 4th quarter while the offense turned on. The last drive would not have happened the way it did had there not been a 10 point lead.

This was an exhibition game for the Patriots. With the exception of the Pittsburgh game, where they were playing a team there is a good chance for them to see in the playoffs, they have all been exhibition games since the Patriots clinched their division. The coach is trying different offensive strategies and different defensive schema. He went no huddle for an entire half. He went all passes, he went balanced offense. One game, the defense spent the entire first half in nickle and dime coverages, rather than ever really rushing. Oddly enough, that coverage was okay for a while, but late in the half, it got exposed.

He's been toying with these teams, from a coaching perspective, doing just enough to win without injuries or losses. The games give hope to their opponents - but look at what he did to Pittsburgh and you will see what the team is capable of when they feel like it.

No, I am not saying the players were in on it - but the coach knows what he is doing.

I suppose that the Patriots might lose a playoff game, up to and including the Superbowl. But it won't be by following the "template" of the Ravens, the Eagles, or the Giants.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 30, 2007, 01:29:21 PM
The Patriots fell behind by 12 points and then rattled off 22 straight points to take a 10 point lead. Just as it did in the other games that people like to point out as proof that the Patriot's defense can be had and the team can be beaten, the defense stiffened in the 4th quarter while the offense turned on. The last drive would not have happened the way it did had there not been a 10 point lead.



With some help from their Zebra friends, don't forget, th game isn't that close... the Pats are even further behind.

But go ahead and enjoy it, josh.


That aside, I know one thing for sure. If I showed BB this post he would shake his head and then chuckle, and then pause and say, "Yeah, right. Like it's that easy."



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 30, 2007, 02:03:59 PM
The Patriots fell behind by 12 points and then rattled off 22 straight points to take a 10 point lead. Just as it did in the other games that people like to point out as proof that the Patriot's defense can be had and the team can be beaten, the defense stiffened in the 4th quarter while the offense turned on. The last drive would not have happened the way it did had there not been a 10 point lead.



With some help from their Zebra friends, don't forget, th game isn't that close... the Pats are even further behind.

But go ahead and enjoy it, josh.


That aside, I know one thing for sure. If I showed BB this post he would shake his head and then chuckle, and then pause and say, "Yeah, right. Like it's that easy."

The same zebra friends who penalized the Patriots for "excessive celebration" - including that elegant explanation to Moss by the Ref of what had been done?

Oh, the refs made some bizarre calls, no argument - but they went both ways, as far as I could tell.

And yes, Belichick would say that, in public. I have no idea what he would say in private.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 30, 2007, 06:39:23 PM
He was excessively celebatring having gotten away with pushing off the defender to make the catch.

And you're whining about the refs?
Too funny.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 30, 2007, 10:49:07 PM
He was excessively celebatring having gotten away with pushing off the defender to make the catch.

And you're whining about the refs?
Too funny.

None of the neutrals I've read who watched the game thought that call made sense. "Eh" said the columnist for the Washington Post.

But you missed my point. I'm not whining about the Refs. I think they screwed up less than many weeks and about evenly. And, in general, that tends to be the way it is. For all Baltimore complained about having to play against both the Patriots and the Refs, it just wasn't particularly the case.

I thought Baltimore played a helluva game today.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on December 31, 2007, 02:39:56 PM
You can disagree, but leave your race-baiting at the door.

 


!!

You're the one jerking the race baiting chain!

The freaking gall of liberals NEVER ceases to amaze me.   It's like you were all brought up in a glass bottle filled with sunshine and told everything you've ever done is just great, no problem.

Reality intrusion -- if you make prejudgement about how certain persons of a particular skin color should act in given situation, and that action is wholly determined by the person's skin color, then you're acting like a racist.  Time to start dealing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on December 31, 2007, 03:09:15 PM
The Patriots fell behind by 12 points and then rattled off 22 straight points to take a 10 point lead. Just as it did in the other games that people like to point out as proof that the Patriot's defense can be had and the team can be beaten, the defense stiffened in the 4th quarter while the offense turned on. The last drive would not have happened the way it did had there not been a 10 point lead.



With some help from their Zebra friends, don't forget, th game isn't that close... the Pats are even further behind.

But go ahead and enjoy it, josh.


That aside, I know one thing for sure. If I showed BB this post he would shake his head and then chuckle, and then pause and say, "Yeah, right. Like it's that easy."

The same zebra friends who penalized the Patriots for "excessive celebration" - including that elegant explanation to Moss by the Ref of what had been done?

Oh, the refs made some bizarre calls, no argument - but they went both ways, as far as I could tell.

And yes, Belichick would say that, in public. I have no idea what he would say in private.

The calls went both ways?  You mean like the horseshit "defensive holding" call that saved the Pats after a 3rd and 18 mauling of Brady?   Or the phantom unsportsmanlike call on Amani Toomer, who was standing minding his own business on the sidelines after a Pat had hit a man out of bounds and then tripped on his way back to the huddle?

Howabout all those holding calls on Strahan and Osi that somehow went unnoticed?   And let's not forget Wilfork's sticking his fat nasty finger in Jake's eye right in front of the zebra.

Yeah, I saw a lot of bizarre calls going both ways... both toward the Pat's favor. ::)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on December 31, 2007, 04:21:00 PM
Ravens fire Billick as head coach.

Gee, wasn't it just a little while ago that we were assured that he would be back?

Quote
According to a source with knowledge of the Baltimore Ravens' decision-making, team owner Steve Bisciotti has told coach Brian Billick he will return next season, The Baltimore Sun reported.

Brian Billick

Billick
The Ravens (4-9) have lost seven straight games, plummeting out of playoff contention and raising questions about Billick's job security. But the source said Billick was told he will return in a meeting with Bisciotti, team president Dick Cass and general manager Ozzie Newsome, the source said, according to the report.

What's more, Bisciotti does not blame Billick for the team's poor play, according to the report.

"The Ravens are not naive," the source said, according to The Sun. "Everyone has seen the injuries and the quarterback play."

I am shocked, shocked that an owner would say one thing and do another. I wonder if we will see articles from reporters excoriating him the way they did the former Falcon's coach who told the owner he would stay and then left.


Title: In Other News
Post by: josh on December 31, 2007, 04:26:13 PM
A busy day...

Marv Levy stepped down as the Buffalo Bills general manager Monday, confident he has the team headed in the right direction despite a second consecutive 7-9 finish.

"It has been an experience that I have enjoyed immensely," Levy said in a statement released by the Bills. "Despite an unprecedented number of season-ending injuries, Dick Jauron, his coaching staff and an admirable core of high-character players are heading in the right direction."

***************
Bill Parcells' shakeup of the Miami Dolphins began Monday with the firing of general manager Randy Mueller.

Assistant director of player personnel Mike Baugh and college scouting coordinator Rick Thompson also departed.

Also at risk of being fired was coach Cam Cameron, who said he would discuss his future with Parcells this week.
***************

 Jacksonville Jaguars offensive tackle Stockar McDougle was charged with battery after he pushed a store owner and his employee, authorities said Monday.

McDougle was arrested Friday and charged with battery on a person 65 and older, a felony, and touch-strike battery, a misdemeanor, after he went to a landscaping company to pay off a debt, according to a Broward Sheriff's Office report.

McDougle became angry when owner Quilone Mitchell said he owed $2,229.48 and not $1,200 because of interest, the report said.


Title: Belichick voted coach of year for 2nd time in 4 years: jbottle demands recount
Post by: bankshot1 on January 03, 2008, 02:48:14 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3179438

NEW YORK -- New England's undefeated season now includes yet another achievement: Bill Belichick is The Associated Press 2007 NFL Coach of the Year.

The first coach since Don Shula in 1972 to lead his team through a spotless regular season, Belichick won the award Thursday for the second time in four years. In 2003, the Patriots went 14-2 and won their final 12 games. This time, Belichick's team rampaged through the first part of the schedule, then won a handful of close games on their way to 16-0.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 03, 2008, 04:34:42 PM
Make sure to send that to Eric Mangini, will ya, bank?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on January 03, 2008, 08:48:07 PM
Interesting that a coach who admitted to a conspiracy to subvert rule policy and was fined half a million dollars is voted "Coach of the Year," it's almost like putting Pete Rose in the hall of fame the same year he admitted to betting on baseball.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 03, 2008, 09:35:05 PM
Actually, it would be NOTHING like that, but keep trying.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 04, 2008, 11:00:23 PM
Seattle






Pittsburgh





Giants








Chargers


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on January 05, 2008, 03:39:01 AM
So, is Cushioner Goodsell on the HOTSEAT for DOUBLE-DEALING, HOAX, and SCAM, MONEY IN THE N$GHT, etc.?, ONE WOULD SO THINK, were this not the hand that washes the hand that wipes the arshole of VEGAS, nice job, CUSHIONER, nice work making CUTACHEK* a household INSULT, nice work with the lousies that seem to have your hands tied to the corporate, to the CITY [VEGAS], chained to THE GAME of "the league has ruled."  Where were you to answer questions when people said "Wasn't there an appeals process available to CUTACHEK*, and couldn't he have availed himself of such if he hadn't chosen to admit guilt?, or is it really true that "the league has ruled" and CUTACHEK* had no appeals process available to him and why would that be so in this unusual case?

[crickets]

The NFL sux.

Good luck Jags, the rest of you "NFL fans" I hate to be the one to tell you, are delusional at best, and the best of you should be calling for ROGERTHAT GOODSELL, YOUR ARDENT CUSHIONER OF FOOTBALL's RESIGNATION out of the disgust that seems in the NFL reserved for decent men rather than WHORES.

UPSIDE?  DOWN.  Now you have it right.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 05, 2008, 04:11:56 PM
Seattle






Pittsburgh





Giants








Chargers


Skins



Jags




Jints



Chargers


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on January 05, 2008, 04:27:53 PM
The emotional factor regarding the Skins is overblown. SHawks are the better team and will prevail.

Pitt can't beat Jags w/o Parker.

E Manning won't do well against tough TB defence. The Giants will lose.

Chargers won't be impressive but they will win.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 05, 2008, 05:39:45 PM
The emotional factor regarding the Skins is overblown. SHawks are the better team and will prevail.

Pitt can't beat Jags w/o Parker.

E Manning won't do well against tough TB defence. The Giants will lose.

Chargers won't be impressive but they will win.

Re: Skins. I'm not betting on their emotion. I'm betting on them being able to run the ball and play defense.
Not sure who the Seahawks beat to merit so much respect.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 05, 2008, 05:49:44 PM


Pitt can't beat Jags w/o Parker.



Parker doesnt play defense

Parker doesnt block for Parker


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 05, 2008, 05:58:16 PM
The emotional factor regarding the Skins is overblown. SHawks are the better team and will prevail.

Pitt can't beat Jags w/o Parker.

E Manning won't do well against tough TB defence. The Giants will lose.

Chargers won't be impressive but they will win.

Re: Skins. I'm not betting on their emotion. I'm betting on them being able to run the ball and play defense.
Not sure who the Seahawks beat to merit so much respect.

Hawks perennial home monsters


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 05, 2008, 07:54:24 PM
That game turned on a dime,eh?

Guess Sean Taylor is officially dead, now.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 05, 2008, 08:28:18 PM
Eli rules!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 06, 2008, 08:51:14 AM
Big Ben came up small in the end.

Gerrard on 4th and 2 with the designed QB draw---watch the blocking up front again---was a terrific call on the worst field conditions in the NFL.

That's a HUGE win for that team and that franchise.

Congrats JAck Del Rio.

Give Rothseberger his props, though.

He waited patiently for Gerrard to do his NBC interview eo that he could congratulate the opposing QB.

Class not usually seen by so many players...like TO, for example.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 06, 2008, 10:32:40 AM
Big Ben came up small in the end.

Gerrard on 4th and 2 with the designed QB draw---watch the blocking up front again---was a terrific call on the worst field conditions in the NFL.

That's a HUGE win for that team and that franchise.

Congrats JAck Del Rio.

Give Rothseberger his props, though.

He waited patiently for Gerrard to do his NBC interview eo that he could congratulate the opposing QB.

Class not usually seen by so many players...like TO, for example.

It was a wild game. And a lot of games end about like that - with the quarterback who is trying to lead a desperation march down the field throwing a last second interception. If I recall correctly, Mr. Brady had one of those, himself, though I will grant that it is not his norm.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 06, 2008, 01:58:33 PM
Big Ben came up small in the end.



Ben was not given the CHANCE by Tomlin

3rd and 6 and he calls a run.

Oy.

Congrats to Jacksonville (who did not cover, BTW, putting me at 1-1, 2-0 spread, vs Fat Mike's 0-2 spread mark)


Title: Just cannot stomach Aikman
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 06, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Anti-Giants tact getting quite old

"Great job by Monte Kiffin's defense keeping the Giants out of the end zone" - this after NY shoots itself in the foot with a false start and a delay.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 06, 2008, 04:56:49 PM
Where are the Eli Bashers now?

Nice win, Jints.

I'm 2-1, so far, kid. Same as you.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 06, 2008, 06:09:39 PM
3-0 spread


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 06, 2008, 06:36:56 PM
And all the Barbers can shut up.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 07, 2008, 09:04:02 PM
With Vick in drug treatment for testing positive for weed, I wonder if the NFL will punish him further with a suspension were he to attempt a comeback in '09


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on January 07, 2008, 09:17:23 PM
Vick is in FEDERAL PRISON, not "drug treatment."

He will never take another snap in the NFL, he is a DOG KILLER.  As a 32-yr. old with two years of non-pro food and workout, he will be worthless as an athelete, overweight or at least poorly-conditioned, slow, still an ineffective passer, with PETA driving management nuts, he went from $120M to the good to being $30M in debt upon release, which will be written off in bankruptcy proceedings.  He will be broken in spirit as well.  I agree that America loves a comeback story, this is not that, because, even though he was alleged to have executed dogs, he never admitted to it and so his plea deal went south, the dirty south with the judge not even following prosecutorial expectations/intent.

He's fucked.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 07, 2008, 11:34:17 PM
Where are the Eli Bashers now?

Present.   

The young paralytic had a great game, and more important, was not asked to do too much by that schmuck Gilbride.   Could the light really have finally come on for Captain Kangaroo?

I guess looking down the barrel of the firing gun gives one pause.

The other mystery is -- where the flick did the Git's pump-fake come from?   I've been hoping against hope that he'd figure out to do that one of these days... like his bro.  You think they had a talk?

Or was it Mom?
Nice win, Jints.


Very nice, and may they win next week too, if only to humiliate the Crackboys and keep Spags on the sideline for one more season.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 07, 2008, 11:36:41 PM
Vick is in FEDERAL PRISON, not "drug treatment."

He will never take another snap in the NFL, he is a DOG KILLER.  As a 32-yr. old with two years of non-pro food and workout, he will be worthless as an athelete, overweight or at least poorly-conditioned, slow, still an ineffective passer, with PETA driving management nuts, he went from $120M to the good to being $30M in debt upon release, which will be written off in bankruptcy proceedings.  He will be broken in spirit as well.  I agree that America loves a comeback story, this is not that, because, even though he was alleged to have executed dogs, he never admitted to it and so his plea deal went south, the dirty south with the judge not even following prosecutorial expectations/intent.

He's fucked.

His current sexual activity aside, he will play again in the NFL, and start.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 08, 2008, 12:00:28 AM
Quote
I'm betting on them being able to run the ball and play defense.
Well, so much for that ...
Quote
Not sure who the Seahawks beat to merit so much respect.
Respect?  What's that? 
And, it's not necessarily WHO you beat, but WHEN you beat 'em  ;)

Tough one comin' up Hawks go from one sentimental favorite opponent to another. 
Defense needs to show they can step it up on the road and Matt has to be at his very best ... and THIS time ~ after they get the ball, they really need to score  ;D

If the Hawks can squeak out a W on the frozen tundra ... count on me being a HUGE Giants fan on Sunday!



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 08, 2008, 11:52:01 AM
Joe Gibbs retired again today.  In my opinion he's the greatest NFL coach of all-time and the last 4 years of relative mediocrity didn't change my opinion.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 08, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
Joe Gibbs retires:

http://www6.comcast.net/sports/articles/general/2008/01/08/FBN.Redskins.Gibbs/


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 09, 2008, 01:01:20 PM
Has it been 4 years since he came out of retirement?  Wow it doesn't really seem that long. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on January 11, 2008, 01:22:35 AM
"His current sexual activity aside, he will play again in the NFL, and start."

He will never wear an NFL uniform again and be paid to do it, just another jagoff at the Taco Bell with a #7.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 11, 2008, 06:01:26 AM
Joe Gibbs retired again today.  In my opinion he's the greatest NFL coach of all-time and the last 4 years of relative mediocrity didn't change my opinion.

not the greatest in my opinion , but one of the better ones.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 08:58:23 AM
Joe Gibbs won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks none of whom are close to Hall of Famers.
Except for John Riggins, Art Monk (who should be in now and likely will get there eventually) and Darrell Green I don't think there were any Hall of Famers on his teams.

I don't think you can be much better than that.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 11:19:40 AM
While Gibbs is a very good coach, I'm pretty sure if you check, there were a few more pretty mediocre QBs taking the snap for the winning SB team.

Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson

Theisman wasn't exactly chopped liver

fwiw, very good/great defense (or the better defensive team) usually wins in the SB

that may hold for this year too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 11:24:58 AM
Jim McMahon was NOT a mediocre QB in 1985


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 11:33:01 AM
Warner was ALL PRO the year the Rams won it - ALL PRO again 2 years later when they lost to NE.  Far exceeded 100 in passer rating both seasons - and is 93+ for his career.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 11:35:06 AM
Jim McMahon was NOT a mediocre QB in 1985

He couldn't throw for shit. Just about any QB could have won with the Bears D that year.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 11:37:01 AM
Warner was ALL PRO the year the Rams won it - ALL PRO again 2 years later when they lost to NE.  Far exceeded 100 in passer rating both seasons - and is 93+ for his career.

Warner had a great offense to work with and he was a good QB for a couple of years, BUT Yank used the qualifier "hall of fame QBs" and Warner ain't going to Canton anytime soon.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 11:48:21 AM
Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 DIFFERENTnon-Hall of Fame qbs, which was my point in the first place.

Every other coach who has won more than 1 SB has done it with QBs who made or will make the Hall of Fame-save Parcells, and I guess Sims will eventually wind up in the Hall, too.

And, as I added, nobody, save Darrell Green from those 'Skins defenses is Hall-bound either.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 12:27:06 PM
I thought your point was Joe Gibbs is the greatest NFL coach.

I don't know if he is or not. But he is among the best which probably include: Brown, Lombardi, Shula, Landry, Noll, Walsh, Parcells and Belichick.

And my point was history has shown that several mediocre QB have led teams to SB wins.

and fwiw, besides Brady, I'm not sure how many HoF guys Belichick has had in his 3 SB wins with the Pats. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 12:34:18 PM
Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 DIFFERENTnon-Hall of Fame qbs, which was my point in the first place.

Every other coach who has won more than 1 SB has done it with QBs who made or will make the Hall of Fame-save Parcells, and I guess Sims will eventually wind up in the Hall, too.

And, as I added, nobody, save Darrell Green from those 'Skins defenses is Hall-bound either.



Made the HOF BECAUSE they won more than one SB

That Gibbs had 3 different was part the reason that each did not make the Hall


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 12:35:44 PM
Warner was ALL PRO the year the Rams won it - ALL PRO again 2 years later when they lost to NE.  Far exceeded 100 in passer rating both seasons - and is 93+ for his career.

Warner had a great offense to work with and he was a good QB for a couple of years, BUT Yank used the qualifier "hall of fame QBs" and Warner ain't going to Canton anytime soon.

 I was responding to YOU, not him


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 12:37:46 PM
My point was that Gibbs is the greatest coach because he won the Super Bowl 3 times with 3 DIFFERENT mediocre to average QBs-and made a conference final with another colossal mediocrity in Jay Schroeder.  And all those guys you mention, save, as I said Parcells, had Hall of Fame Qbs.

...and I agree that except for Brady none of the first 3 Patriots teams had any HOF guys except maybe Seymour.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 12:43:06 PM
Made the HOF BECAUSE they won more than one SB

With the pssible exception of Bob Griese, I think all of the QBs who won more than 1 Super Bowl were really great QBs.  Kind of hard to say that any of those guys WOULD NOT have made the Hall if not for their multiple wins.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 12:43:49 PM
Bradshaw


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 12:49:20 PM
I disagree there.  But like I said, it's hard to figure.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 12:51:05 PM
You'd put a one title Bradshaw in and keep Warner out?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 12:51:18 PM
Made the HOF BECAUSE they won more than one SB

With the pssible exception of Bob Griese, I think all of the QBs who won more than 1 Super Bowl were really great QBs.  Kind of hard to say that any of those guys WOULD NOT have made the Hall if not for their multiple wins.

agree on Griese.

IMO Plunkett's a tough call. He was good, not sure if he was great. Is he in Canton?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 12:52:36 PM
You're right.  Flores won 2 without a Hall of Fame QB.  Plunkett is not in Canton, but arguably better than anybody that Redskins put behind center.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 12:52:49 PM
Bradshaw

I kind of agree. He had some great support on offense, (Swann, Stallworth, Franco) but that team really won on its D.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 12:58:39 PM
I think Bradshaw was (and remains) kind of a dolt, but he was a great athlete, ultra-competitive, and really poised when coming from behind. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 11, 2008, 01:27:56 PM
I kind of agree. He had some great support on offense, (Swann, Stallworth, Franco)...

Franco Harris is one of those mysteries, like "Why is Isaiah Thomas still coach of the Knicks?" or "How does Paul Byrd get anyone out?"

I read Jack Tatum's book many years ago, and I remember he talked about running backs a lot.  He said he respected the heck out of Walter Payton, that when you hit Walter Payton it was like hitting a truck, your teeth got knocked loose, etc. 

He said it was fun to play against the Bears, because even though hitting Payton was painful, at least you knew you were playing football at the highest level and going up against one of the toughest guys in the world and so forth.   

Franco Harris, on the other hand, just made Tatum want to puke.  He said hitting Franco Harris was like hitting a big stick of warm butter - like a blob or something. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 01:41:54 PM
Quote
Franco Harris, on the other hand, just made Tatum want to puke.  He said hitting Franco Harris was like hitting a big stick of warm butter - like a blob or something. 


Tatum was probably pissed about that Immaculate Reception tm game against the Raiders.

And in keeping in theme,

F Jack Tatum


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 02:03:13 PM
Tatum was a football player, back in the day, when they played real football.

Think pansy-ass Randy Moss would make that many catches if he was going up against a player like Tatum or a Mike Haines, and under the old glory day rules?

Crikey you can't touch a guy with your eyeballs playing as a DB or a safety these days!

And under the new rules of instant replay, Franco's play is called back and the Raiders advance to another Super Bowl, win, and we talk about that dynasty instead of "Lucky Chucky" Noll and the boys.

 

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 11, 2008, 02:04:48 PM
F Jack Tatum

He was a football player, not a basketball player.  He was an S, I think.  Maybe played some CB, too.

Anyways, I didn't gather that he was referring to the Immaculate Reception in particular, but rather to Harris generally.  Like, generally, tackling Franco Harris was like tackling a stick of warm butter.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 02:07:24 PM
Despite his rep (most of which he cultivated), I never thought Tatum was a dirty player (the Stingley shot was something you see all the time).  George Atkinson was the real, real cheap shot artist on that team and, of course, Ben Davidson a few years before that.   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 02:07:34 PM
Tatum has ZERO on Bob Sanders and Troy Polamalu.  Except of course that he's a criminal.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 02:13:05 PM
Despite his rep (most of which he cultivated), I never thought Tatum was a dirty player (the Stingley shot was something you see all the time).  George Atkinson was the real, real cheap shot artist on that team and, of course, Ben Davidson a few years before that.   

Good points.

Davidson was a very dirty player, took pride in it and built his reputation on it.

And don't forget "The Mad Stork".



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 02:14:11 PM
I don't think Hendricks was dirty at all.  He was just plain great.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 02:18:06 PM
F Jack Tatum

He was a football player, not a basketball player.  He was an S, I think.  Maybe played some CB, too.

Anyways, I didn't gather that he was referring to the Immaculate Reception in particular, but rather to Harris generally.  Like, generally, tackling Franco Harris was like tackling a stick of warm butter.  

Let me be clear about F Jack Tatum, that should be read as:

Fuck Jack Tatum

He was a dirty player.A scum bag.

And I was being facetious about Harris and the IR.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 11, 2008, 02:22:07 PM
I kind of agree. He had some great support on offense, (Swann, Stallworth, Franco)...

Franco Harris is one of those mysteries, like "Why is Isaiah Thomas still coach of the Knicks?" or "How does Paul Byrd get anyone out?"

I read Jack Tatum's book many years ago, and I remember he talked about running backs a lot.  He said he respected the heck out of Walter Payton, that when you hit Walter Payton it was like hitting a truck, your teeth got knocked loose, etc. 

He said it was fun to play against the Bears, because even though hitting Payton was painful, at least you knew you were playing football at the highest level and going up against one of the toughest guys in the world and so forth.   

Franco Harris, on the other hand, just made Tatum want to puke.  He said hitting Franco Harris was like hitting a big stick of warm butter - like a blob or something. 

Tatum was a hitter no doubt. Lots of guys like him back in the day when football was a mean-ass game.

I still remember Fisher and his cast. Then there was Conrad Dobler...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 02:30:54 PM
F Jack Tatum

He was a football player, not a basketball player.  He was an S, I think.  Maybe played some CB, too.

Anyways, I didn't gather that he was referring to the Immaculate Reception in particular, but rather to Harris generally.  Like, generally, tackling Franco Harris was like tackling a stick of warm butter.  

Let me be clear about F Jack Tatum, that should be read as:

Fuck Jack Tatum

He was a dirty player.A scum bag.

And I was being facetious about Harris and the IR.

(http://www.photofile.info/images/web/AA/DZ/AADZ023.jpg)

This was in the Super Bowl against the Vikings.

Guy belongs in the Pro Hall of Fame.

Is in the College HOF.

You just don't like him because he laid out your little receiver.

He had a job to do, which included punishing and intimidating the opposition. He did his job well. 

I wish there were more players like him.

And the Flyers used to beat the Bruins up the same way.

Terry O'REilly was a pussy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 02:39:06 PM
You're being a class A dolt, Ut.

Reform!!!!!!!  Reform!!!!!

(God still loves ya)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 02:47:29 PM
Quote
Terry O'REilly was a pussy.

speaking of boxes, penalty boxes

Dave Schultz never got out of training skates.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 03:31:14 PM
Quote
Terry O'REilly was a pussy.

speaking of boxes, penalty boxes

Dave Schultz never got out of training skates.

We beat you then: 

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/00/180px-Parenttime.jpg)




We beat you now:

(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z236/sillyhockey/blogpics/pbmbjoneshit.jpg)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 11, 2008, 03:34:09 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/00/180px-Parenttime.jpg)

I didn't know Hannibal Lechter played the Flyers


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 03:37:22 PM
Quote
Terry O'REilly was a pussy.

speaking of boxes, penalty boxes

Dave Schultz never got out of training skates.

Shultz was a great training bag for Garry Howatt


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 03:44:08 PM
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/00/180px-Parenttime.jpg)

I didn't know Hannibal Lechter played the Flyers

That, sir, is one of the greatest goal tenders of all time! Bernie Parent!!!

Lechter? Wasn't tough enough to be on those Flyers teams!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 11, 2008, 03:45:30 PM
All those so-called tough-guys take a back seat to Clark Gillies.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 03:47:16 PM
All those so-called tough-guys take a back seat to Clark Gillies.

Gillies was a bad dude.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 11, 2008, 05:18:21 PM
Mark it "The Rat" - Ken Linesman.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 11, 2008, 05:20:53 PM
Mark it "The Rat" - Ken Linesman.

Uh--no.


Title: NFL picks
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 11, 2008, 06:43:14 PM
Geen Bay will win but SEATTLE will cover 7 1/2

NEW ENGLAND will win and cover 13 1/2

Indianapolis will win but SAN DIEGO covers with 9 points

Upset special is NEW YORK winning outright and covering 7 1/2

Records:  3-1 winners, 4-0 spread.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 11, 2008, 07:08:45 PM
There are more posts on Hockey here than the Hockey Forum.Tatum and Atkinson scared prison inmates let alone normal folks.


Title: Re: NFL picks
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 12, 2008, 06:23:19 PM
Geen Bay will win but SEATTLE will cover 7 1/2

NEW ENGLAND will win and cover 13 1/2

Indianapolis will win but SAN DIEGO covers with 9 points

Upset special is NEW YORK winning outright and covering 7 1/2

Records:  3-1 winners, 4-0 spread.




Way to spoil it, kid.

Now I won't need to watch the games!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 12, 2008, 09:44:58 PM
I don't understand.

I must have been watching a different last half season than the broadcasters. I see nothing to be concerned about. Patriots win in the second half, just as they have been doing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 12, 2008, 10:01:57 PM
I don't have cable and though I have a nice picture on CBS the sound is hissy so I'm listening on radio.Dick Enberg and Dennis Green.After listening to Green for a bit he starts to sound like Redd Fox.I keep waiting for him to yell "It's the big one Elizabeth" on a long pass play.Plus Dick Enberg hasn't said"Oh My" once.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 12, 2008, 11:07:31 PM
A good game.

Jacksonville is going to be scary for most of the rest of the league for a while to come. Their quarterback has a great sense of just how long he has before he goes totally down.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 12, 2008, 11:51:45 PM
Well, at least the first 4 minutes were good  :P

Seriously, I hope the Seahawks figure out how to play D on the road (not that the offense was any great shakes today either)

Brett is unbelievable and ...
wow - way to redeem yourself, Ryan! (and way to get atop the draft boards for FF 2008  ;))

Rooting for Green Bay from here on out ... GO PACK!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 12, 2008, 11:58:14 PM
Well, at least the first 4 minutes were good  :P

Seriously, I hope the Seahawks figure out how to play D on the road (not that the offense was any great shakes today either)

Brett is unbelievable and ...
wow - way to redeem yourself, Ryan! (and way to get atop the draft boards for FF 2008  ;))

Rooting for Green Bay from here on out ... GO PACK!!!

The road is pitiless - and all the more so for Seattle, I fear.

Matt Hasselback is a decent quarterback. Unfortunately, I think he is not a great quarterback - and that is what it is going to take.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 12:43:01 AM
"His current sexual activity aside, he will play again in the NFL, and start."

He will never wear an NFL uniform again and be paid to do it, just another jagoff at the Taco Bell with a #7.

Idiocy. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 12:54:05 AM
All those so-called tough-guys take a back seat to Clark Gillies.


Holy shit, Clark Gillies... there's a name I haven't heard since I was in third grade, twenty five years ago... or more.

Are you a Lawn Guylander too?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 12:56:51 AM
Tatum has ZERO on Bob Sanders and Troy Polamalu.  Except of course that he's a criminal.

Ah, Lord do I covet Bob Sanders.  I remember what a mean mofo he was in college, and I rue the day the Giants passed him by in the second round.

Can you imagine the joy of it?


Title: Re: NFL picks
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 01:00:42 AM
Geen Bay will win but SEATTLE will cover 7 1/2

NEW ENGLAND will win and cover 13 1/2

Indianapolis will win but SAN DIEGO covers with 9 points

Upset special is NEW YORK winning outright and covering 7 1/2

Records:  3-1 winners, 4-0 spread.



Holy crap are my G-men in trouble.

Is this some sort of Philadelphia Eagle vengeance you have wrought??

Quick, turn back to the Crackboys as your team of choice!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 13, 2008, 02:06:02 AM
Quote
“It was a dump-down game,” Jaguar safety Reggie Nelson said. “Anybody can go 26-of-28 in a dump-down game.”

That must be why it happens so often, Reggie.

And if it is that easy, that explains why every other team in the league a) plays a dump-down game, and b) gets 400+ yards in offense.

Reggie Nelson should shut up.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 13, 2008, 01:36:23 PM
So I guess his pass-completion-percentage will have an asterisk now.  That's pretty much standard for a dump-down game, isn't it?


Title: Re: NFL picks
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 13, 2008, 01:43:42 PM
Geen Bay will win but SEATTLE will cover 7 1/2

NEW ENGLAND will win and cover 13 1/2

Indianapolis will win but SAN DIEGO covers with 9 points

Upset special is NEW YORK winning outright and covering 7 1/2

Records:  3-1 winners, 4-0 spread.




Quick, turn back to the Crackboys as your team of choice!

Impossible, as I have NEVER been on them


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 13, 2008, 01:45:10 PM
Well, at least the first 4 minutes were good  :P

Seriously, I hope the Seahawks figure out how to play D on the road (not that the offense was any great shakes today either)

Brett is unbelievable and ...
wow - way to redeem yourself, Ryan! (and way to get atop the draft boards for FF 2008  ;))

Rooting for Green Bay from here on out ... GO PACK!!!

Grant's one of those slowfooted Irish that Jajejokiet hates.

Sure would have liked G-men to have kept him - and said so at the time.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on January 13, 2008, 04:50:04 PM
Well, as a Charger fan, I have to congratulate my team although I said beforehand that a win over Indy was not possible. If Rivers and LT don't get healthy by next week it could get beyond ugly against the Pats. It could get ugly anyway. The Chargers played tenfold better than any other game this year and it's certainly not likely that they can do that two weeks in a row. I am still somewhat in shock. However they do next week, they are heros today.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 13, 2008, 05:26:51 PM
Not sure why there is such shock

D is playing great.  11-2 last 13.........

Next week?  Heck - it's like with all the other Pats opponents - almost house money.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 05:43:12 PM


Grant's one of those slowfooted Irish that Jajejokiet hates.

Sure would have liked G-men to have kept him - and said so at the time.

You really are terribly retarded.

Some Irishman.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7635


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 13, 2008, 06:55:51 PM
Congratulations to San Diego. There are lots of unhappy Network executives today.

Rivers vs. Brady is going to be a lot harder to sell than Manning vs. Brady would have been.

Volek vs. Brady is... nearly impossible.

If they end up with Eli Manning vs. Brady in the Super Bowl, there will be misery.

If they end up with Eli vs. Volek, there are not words for the distress that will be felt.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 08:39:50 PM
Congratulations to San Diego. There are lots of unhappy Network executives today.

Rivers vs. Brady is going to be a lot harder to sell than Manning vs. Brady would have been.

Volek vs. Brady is... nearly impossible.

If they end up with Eli Manning vs. Brady in the Super Bowl, there will be misery.

If they end up with Eli vs. Volek, there are not words for the distress that will be felt.

No worries about SD against NE w/ Volek at the helm.

Not sure why you think a Superbowl featuring the best team in history vs. one of the most storied in NFL history would cause "misery" among network execs?

Do you think maybe New York is a small MSA?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 13, 2008, 09:10:10 PM


Grant's one of those slowfooted Irish that Jajejokiet hates.

Sure would have liked G-men to have kept him - and said so at the time.

You really are terribly retarded.

Some Irishman.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7635

He went to Notre Dame. Learn to read.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 13, 2008, 09:31:36 PM
Well the Giants were the lesser of two evils so good win.Nice to see T.O. prance around when the Cowboys win but slink off the field right away when he loses.A class act.As for Wade Phillips he just sucks.He hasn't won a playoff game cause he's an idiot.His best chance in Buffalo he benches Doug Flutie for Rob Johnson who looks like a deer caught in the headlights the first half and the Bills only lose on an illegal lateral to the titans.Phillips thought Johnson was a good QB when he just sucked his whole but brief NFL career.As for the Bolts gutsy win.New England should win easily but don't discount the Chargers.I recall the Rams being like a 3 touchdown favorite against the Pats in the Superbowl.But Brady vs Favre would be great to watch.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 10:12:33 PM


Grant's one of those slowfooted Irish that Jajejokiet hates.

Sure would have liked G-men to have kept him - and said so at the time.

You really are terribly retarded.

Some Irishman.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7635

He went to Notre Dame. Learn to read.

No one ever made any comment to the Beagle about Grant being from Notre Dame.   We have one jackass on the other forum who hates Irish people.  This is what I had assumed he was talking about.

If Beagle meant he was from Notre Dame, than I apologize to him.   

To you, I say "mind your own business, asshat."

I'm pretty certain Beagle can take care of himself in the insult department.   And now you've robbed him of a rare legitimate retort.

Some friend.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 13, 2008, 10:22:19 PM


Grant's one of those slowfooted Irish that Jajejokiet hates.

Sure would have liked G-men to have kept him - and said so at the time.

You really are terribly retarded.

Some Irishman.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7635

He went to Notre Dame. Learn to read.

No one ever made any comment to the Beagle about Grant being from Notre Dame.   We have one jackass on the other forum who hates Irish people.  This is what I had assumed he was talking about.

If Beagle meant he was from Notre Dame, than I apologize to him.   

To you, I say "mind your own business, asshat."

I'm pretty certain Beagle can take care of himself in the insult department.   And now you've robbed him of a rare legitimate retort.

Some friend.


Then you don't know kid.

And you certainly don't grasp the concept of a message board if you think you are having a singular conversation at any given time, and anyone commenting on your posts is "minding" your business.


If there's a jackass who hates Irish people, that means the jackass is making a generalization that is unfair to all Irish people. So, by extension, your applying the jackass's posting ways to kid's post on Grant is equally unfair and equally jackassian.

And when I said, "Learn to read", I meant learn to read your own posts, and the links you post, too, which included the information that Grant played for Notre Dame. Hence, the Irish reference was strictly football in nature to most readers, I'm sure.

Time to eat your own hat, ass.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 13, 2008, 10:31:40 PM
Heh


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 13, 2008, 11:12:06 PM
And you certainly don't grasp the concept of a message board if you think you are having a singular conversation at any given time, and anyone commenting on your posts is "minding" your business.

Yeah, that's probably what I meant, rather than "don't stick your nose in when you've no idea of the context."


If there's a jackass who hates Irish people, that means the jackass is making a generalization that is unfair to all Irish people. So, by extension, your applying the jackass's posting ways to kid's post on Grant is equally unfair and equally jackassian.

That's a faulty analysis.   If Beags is just commenting on someone else's comment, he does not necessarily incorporate that jackass's jackasserie.  He merely illustrates his own point using the other poster's characterization as a touchstone.  In this case, if Ryan was a true ethnic Irish kid, his comment would have been completely legitimate vis a vis said jackass's prior jackasserie.

And when I said, "Learn to read", I meant learn to read your own posts, and the links you post, too, which included the information that Grant played for Notre Dame. Hence, the Irish reference was strictly football in nature to most readers, I'm sure.

I had no question of what you meant.   My comment was in reference to your butting in, not in anything disparaging you had to say.   The mention of "the Irish" in almost any football forum would be taken in the way you intimate save for in the one football forum which he is speaking about.

Odd, no?
Quote


Time to eat your own hat, ass.

Um... no.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 14, 2008, 05:27:49 AM
Uh, jake...keep talking. You're like the T.O. of this forum.
 

And you use so many words to say..."um"---

nothing.

Meanwhile, wonder if Jerry Jones gets all his money back from the tickets he bought to the Super Bowl.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 14, 2008, 08:25:42 AM
Great week-end of football

is T.O on suicide watch again?

congrats to Chargers and Giants on big upset road wins

to the Packers and old-man Favre for a fun game to wtach

and to Brady for being Brady.

this coming week-end has old school- early 60s feel to it

Giants-Packers harkens back to Starr, Hornung, Taylor vs Tittle, Gifford Huff

&

Chargers-Pats 

I'm still scarred by the memories of the last time those teams met for the league championship and of Lincoln & Lowe & Lance romping around over and through the Pats.

Go Pats

and whoever had Eli playing at least 1 more game than Peyton, great call.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 14, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
Pats 14 1/2 point favorites to open. If Rivers and Tomlinson don't play, it's 17 1/2.

Green Bay 7 point favorites.

Long range forecast at Lambeau: 40% chance of snow and 11 degrees will be your "high".



Title: Rivers
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 14, 2008, 10:32:55 AM
Boomer and Carton pointing out this morninghow TOMLINSON was incensed at RIVERS for not going back int hegame.

As in, "Are you kidding me?"

Kudos to Volek, who makes another statement for the backup QB fraternity. Ready and able.



Title: Re: Rivers
Post by: josh on January 14, 2008, 10:58:12 AM
Boomer and Carton pointing out this morninghow TOMLINSON was incensed at RIVERS for not going back int hegame.

As in, "Are you kidding me?"

Kudos to Volek, who makes another statement for the backup QB fraternity. Ready and able.

At this point, I could imagine his being incensed if Rivers DID go into the next game...


Title: Re: Rivers
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 14, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
Boomer and Carton pointing out this morninghow TOMLINSON was incensed at RIVERS for not going back int hegame.

As in, "Are you kidding me?"

Kudos to Volek, who makes another statement for the backup QB fraternity. Ready and able.

At this point, I could imagine his being incensed if Rivers DID go into the next game...


Rivers is a schmuck. His teammates hate him, he jaws with the fans from other teams, and in general shows the kind of personality disorder associated with crack addicts.



Title: Re: Rivers
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 14, 2008, 12:03:44 PM
Rivers is a schmuck. His teammates hate him, he jaws with the fans from other teams, and in general shows the kind of personality disorder associated with crack addicts.

Word.  His demeanor reminds me of Ryan Leaf's.  In terms of leadership qualities, he makes Eli Manning look like Joe Montana.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 14, 2008, 05:06:11 PM
Uh, jake...keep talking. You're like the T.O. of this forum.
 

And you use so many words to say..."um"---

nothing.

 

Your crabwalking capitulation is duly noted.    I hope you've taken this lesson to heart, and perhaps expanded your limited vocabulary along the way. ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 14, 2008, 05:16:13 PM
Ignore is your friend.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 14, 2008, 09:26:55 PM
From Mark Kriegel at Fox"If only Terrell Owen's crying jag had come a week ago, he could have won New Hampshire" ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 14, 2008, 10:22:10 PM
After some thought, I really think that Owens' crying has to do with painkiller drugs he was on. They do play havoc1 with emotions.












1. Sorry, shakeyjake, for using words beyond your ken2..

2. Oops! I did it again.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 15, 2008, 02:24:54 AM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not asume they are just going to win.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 15, 2008, 05:10:48 AM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not assume they are just going to win.

As has been pointed out more than a couple times in a bunch of places, the coach of the Patriots is about as likely to assume they are just going to win as he is to assume they are just going to lose.

He will have watched exactly how they beat the Colts, to do his best to make sure that his players know better than to presume they will steam-roller the Chargers.

A side comment though about the age of the Patriot's defense...

Everybody keeps talking about how, because of their age, one can expect them to get worn out and tired in the second half, especially as the game winds down.

They averaged 3 points given up per 4th quarter over the last half of the season - it was their best quarter. Even including the 21 points that they gave up to the Dolphins when it didn't matter, over the entire season, they gave up just under 5 points per 4th quarter. Young men? Are there any young men who had better 4th quarters than these old men?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 15, 2008, 08:13:09 AM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not assume they are just going to win.

As has been pointed out more than a couple times in a bunch of places, the coach of the Patriots is about as likely to assume they are just going to win as he is to assume they are just going to lose.

He will have watched exactly how they beat the Colts, to do his best to make sure that his players know better than to presume they will steam-roller the Chargers.

A side comment though about the age of the Patriot's defense...

Everybody keeps talking about how, because of their age, one can expect them to get worn out and tired in the second half, especially as the game winds down.

They averaged 3 points given up per 4th quarter over the last half of the season - it was their best quarter. Even including the 21 points that they gave up to the Dolphins when it didn't matter, over the entire season, they gave up just under 5 points per 4th quarter. Young men? Are there any young men who had better 4th quarters than these old men?

I have to agree. From what I've seen of the Patriots they play their best defense in the fourth quarter. Something thats sometimes forgotten is that "old" also equates into experience as well. When the pressure is on and the game is on the line I'd rather have those "old" guys.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 08:27:19 AM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not assume they are just going to win.

As has been pointed out more than a couple times in a bunch of places, the coach of the Patriots is about as likely to assume they are just going to win as he is to assume they are just going to lose.

He will have watched exactly how they beat the Colts, to do his best to make sure that his players know better than to presume they will steam-roller the Chargers.

A side comment though about the age of the Patriot's defense...

Everybody keeps talking about how, because of their age, one can expect them to get worn out and tired in the second half, especially as the game winds down.

They averaged 3 points given up per 4th quarter over the last half of the season - it was their best quarter. Even including the 21 points that they gave up to the Dolphins when it didn't matter, over the entire season, they gave up just under 5 points per 4th quarter. Young men? Are there any young men who had better 4th quarters than these old men?

good points Josh

the pats seem to have a "bend but doesn't break D" that comes up with enough stops (and over the last few games it seems to be a second half phenomena) to win.

and given a Pats offense that seems to score on most possessions, a couple/few stops  is realy all the team needs. 

As an aside coach BB's over-riding strategy on D is to take away (or neutralize) an opponent's 1st and preferred option and make them beat you in another way. The bet being they probably can't.

Against the Jags the conventional wisdom was the Jags physical O-line and 2 punishing running backs would dominate the Pats D, keep Brady off the field and be the key to a Jags upset win.

Didn't happen, IIRC those Jag backs were largely neutralized (combined for ~65 rushing yds-the Pats front 3 is pretty good) and while Garrard had a good game (particularly in the 1st half) he made enough mistakes to lose.

The Chargers appear to be coming in banged-up. But a healthy LT & Gates could be a problem.

To me the most challenging area are screen passes to a quick LD along with a short passing game (both challenging the Pats slower LB to react quickly). I don't think Rivers is good enough to beat the Pats w/ a deep game. So my guess is that somehow a short-game option will neutralized (not sure you can neutralize both LT and Gates,) and give Rivers the option of trying and beat them in a longer passing game.

a very cold day will also refresh the Pats old men, as opposed to the over-heated RCA Dome they played in last year.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 12:24:24 PM
Chargers' Offense-Schmargers Schmoffense!

Which one of you is willing to bet against Tom Brady, who just last week showed you that he can adjust the game plan and do whatever needs to be done to control the football and score using a page from the Malcom X playbook..."by whatever means necessary".

Do you think the Chargers can stop Brady?

Really?

Can't see it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 15, 2008, 12:27:52 PM
The 14 1/2 is tempting.

If healthy, the upset for SD might have some appeal.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 15, 2008, 12:35:45 PM
I'll take the Chargers and the points and then hope for snow.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 02:42:03 PM
I'll take the Chargers and the points and then hope for snow.


take the points and hope for snow & wind. Lots of wind.

The Pats might win a snow game by 17+ points. I'm not sure if Brady can successfully pass through a 25+ MPH breezes.  (see- the Jets game).


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 15, 2008, 02:46:51 PM
You're right.

I like the Chargers' running game, assuming a reasonably healthy Tomlinson, more than I do the Patriots'. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 02:56:59 PM
You're right.

I like the Chargers' running game, assuming a reasonably healthy Tomlinson, more than I do the Patriots'. 

on a snowy/windy field or in any playing condition?

or did you mean that you like the Bolts running game better than the Pat's running game?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 15, 2008, 03:24:22 PM
I think the Chargers have better running backs than the Patriots.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 03:29:28 PM
I think the Chargers have better running backs than the Patriots.

Who has the better offensive line, IYO?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 03:30:54 PM
I think the Chargers have better running backs than the Patriots.

I do too. Good thing the pats have the GQ guy @ QB. Although Maroney, who was largely forgotten amidst Air-Brady this year, has had some very good (several 120+ yard games) recently. And Faulk is a pretty decent all-purpose type of guy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 15, 2008, 03:33:16 PM
I think the lines are equal.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 15, 2008, 03:46:42 PM
Everybody keeps talking about how, because of their age, one can expect them to get worn out and tired in the second half, especially as the game winds down.

They averaged 3 points given up per 4th quarter over the last half of the season - it was their best quarter. Even including the 21 points that they gave up to the Dolphins when it didn't matter, over the entire season, they gave up just under 5 points per 4th quarter. Young men? Are there any young men who had better 4th quarters than these old men?

So, I asked the question - it only seems fair that I should answer it.

There are, in fact, teams that had better 4th quarters than these guys did, and better 2nd halves of games during the 2nd half of the season.

Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Philly all allowed fewer 4th quarter points during their last 8 games than the Patriots did, and GB the same number. 24 = Patriots and Packers, 23 = Eagles, 21 = Chargers, and 20 = Steelers.

For the 2nd half of games for the last 8 games, only 2 teams allowed fewer points. Green Bay allowed 46 and the 49ers allowed 49 (only 7 in the 3rd quarter!) to the Patriots' 51. So, yes, there are teams that did better. I think my general point still stands.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 15, 2008, 03:59:58 PM
I think the Chargers have better running backs than the Patriots.

So did the Jags, theoretically.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 15, 2008, 04:05:40 PM
I think the Pats will handle the Chargers the same way as they did the Jags - defend the run and let the qb try to beat them.    Garrard was surprisingly effective imho.  It should be interesting to see how Rivers fairs


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 04:26:24 PM
I think the Pats will handle the Chargers the same way as they did the Jags - defend the run and let the qb try to beat them.    Garrard was surprisingly effective imho.  It should be interesting to see how Rivers fairs

Well, the problem was that the Jags tried to run a defense that took away Moss and the deep threat in order to limit the Pats and force to dink and dunk down the field. And you saw how effective that was.

What D will the Chargers throw at the Pats?

Hardly one that will be effective.

And there in lies the problem.

So, while it may make you Pats fans seem more humble to "worry" about what the Chargers will do offensively, the issue in terms of analyzing the game is what can the Chargers do to stop the Pats vaunted and vicious offense?

It does not appear to be much, IMO.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 04:46:09 PM
Quote
So, while it may make you Pats fans seem more humble to "worry" about what the Chargers will do offensively, the issue in terms of analyzing the game is what can the Chargers do to stop the Pats vaunted and vicious offense?

It does not appear to be much, IMO.

This is probably correct. Brady has too many high quality options he can go to, making it highly unlikely that even a strong defensive team like SD can effectively defend them all.

as noted above, the best field leveler on Sunday may be the wind.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 15, 2008, 05:59:07 PM
Why do you think Brady needs to be shut down for SD to win?

Manning had 400 yards.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 06:55:15 PM
For one, I think that Brady is playing at a level that is unprecedented in NFL history,. I think the reason that Manning's team lost to SD last week was because of a defense that did not play particularly well, and when they needed to.

I don't see that happening in New England.

That's not Tony Dungy, the black Marv Levy, over there on the sidelines for the Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 06:56:59 PM
Why do you think Brady needs to be shut down for SD to win?

Manning had 400 yards.

If Brady (the passing game) is not shut down or contained  the Pats could score around 35+ points. And if the Pats score 35 points they should win, because I don't think that the Chargers can score 35 points with 3 key guys playing hurt.

So the Chargers will try to shut down Brady and make this a defensive battle

But IMO containing Brady is complicating by at least 3 factors

1-he's a f'ing talented QB, he's smart, can read defensives, and he's got an arm

2-he's working behind a very talented O-line,  3 guys are probowlers, and as we've seen when he has time he can rip defenses.

3-Moss-Welker-Stallworth-Gaffney-Watson is a very good and deep receiving corp. which give Brady a lot of nice options.

my guess is that shutting down Moss w/Cromartie along with pressuring Brady is one way to game plan. Both the Ravens and Eagles had some limited success with that. But if he sees the blitz, he adjusts pretty well.

And one of the reasons Manning had 400 yards is the running game only netted about 45 yards.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 15, 2008, 07:09:45 PM


1. Sorry, shakeyjake, for using words beyond your ken2..

2. Oops! I did it again.


Don't sprain yourself, Delaware U.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 15, 2008, 07:12:06 PM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not asume they are just going to win.

Agreed.  If the Bolts can eat up clock and keep Brady and "Go Long" Randy on the bench, they can squeak one out.  What's more, the Charger defense is superior to that of the Pats, imho.

Ball control, which use to be Bellychicken's specialty, is the key to this game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 07:17:44 PM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not asume they are just going to win.

Agreed.  If the Bolts can eat up clock and keep Brady and "Go Long" Randy on the bench, they can squeak one out.  What's more, the Charger defense is superior to that of the Pats, imho.

Ball control, which use to be Bellychicken's specialty, is the key to this game.


The sun rises in the east. Snow falls on Eskimos.

And the world is round.

Your analysis indicates that you are the Brent Mussberger of the Football Forums.

Congrats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 15, 2008, 07:57:57 PM
I'm a Pats fan after the Bills but the Globe seems to be writing the Bolts off.Even without Rivers the Chargers could  go with a running eat the clock game with Tomlinson,Turner and Lorenzo Neal who should be back this week.I'm not saying it's going to happen but if the Bolts run a lot the Pats linebackers aren't young men.If they can win in the RCA dome with the refs calling the game like it was a Denver home game the Pats better not asume they are just going to win.

Agreed.  If the Bolts can eat up clock and keep Brady and "Go Long" Randy on the bench, they can squeak one out.  What's more, the Charger defense is superior to that of the Pats, imho.

Ball control, which use to be Bellychicken's specialty, is the key to this game.


The sun rises in the east. Snow falls on Eskimos.

And the world is round.

Your analysis indicates that you are the Brent Mussberger (sic) of the Football Forums.

Congrats.

Aside: I've always liked Brent Musberger (try to spell his name correctly next time Delaware), ever since I was a little kid and he had the "MC" roll on CBS, when they owned rights to the NFC.

As for your hilariously sententious post... it's really not a very difficult game to "analyze," Delaware, and if you believe you're in the running for a Nobel here -- be it even for "Peace," or some other illegitimate, non-academic versions of the Prize --  I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Again, sorry if I summarized the kernal a bit faster than you were able.   I'm pretty sure it'll be "ever thus," though.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 15, 2008, 08:52:47 PM
Quote
If the Bolts can eat up clock and keep Brady and "Go Long" Randy on the bench, they can squeak one out.
 

They might but that would be a BIG IF reflecting that Rivers, Gates and LT may be playing at less than 100%. and game conditions may be a little different than they are in SD.

Quote
What's more, the Charger defense is superior to that of the Pats, imho.

They might be But the Pats were 3rd in the AFC (4th in the NFL) in points allowed 274 (Colts-262, Pitt-269). Most other defensive metrics also favor the Pats.

And while the AFC East was pretty easy this year, as was the AFC West, IMO the Pats played a tougher schedule than the Bolts, with superior results.

Quote
Ball control, which use to be Bellychicken's specialty, is the key to this game.

IIRC the Pats were 2nd in the league in ball control, the Jags were 3rd, and last week in a game many thought would hinge on the Jags (the NFL leader in rushing) establishing its ground game and controlling the clock, the Pats held the Jags backs to ~65 yards.

And time of possession: Pats ~33 minutes, Jags 27 minutes.

and fwiw, ball control is important, but if you score quickly and often, while only giving up 30 yards or so and no points but give up some clock,  it ain't that important.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 15, 2008, 09:25:35 PM
Quote
Agreed.  If the Bolts can eat up clock and keep Brady and "Go Long" Randy on the bench, they can squeak one out.  What's more, the Charger defense is superior to that of the Pats, imho.

Personally, I think the explosiveness of the offense has given the Pats' defense a much larger margin of error than other teams.  When it comes down to it though - look at how hard teams have to work to put points up against them.  Teams have to abandon the run because of the Pats offense scores quickly and effectively whenever they get the ball.  Once teams like the Jags are forced to go one-dimensional, the Pats defense becomes far more effective.

I think Belichick is showing the league how a great offense can actually be the best defense. 





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 15, 2008, 09:44:42 PM
I think that a team has to be able to score 40 points to beat the Patriots.  They can pretty much score at will against any defense out there.  They just present too many mismatches for team defenses.  Their depth in terms of their receiving corps is absolutely incredible - consider that six players had 36 or more receptions in the regular season.  They can put so many receivers on the field that a defense can't possibly cover them all.  And if you commit too much to the pass - well then that opens up the running game as evidenced by Maroney's performance last week.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 10:41:58 PM
Brent Muffdiver was jim Grey before Jim Grey...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 16, 2008, 01:34:43 AM
Well like I said in my post last night I'm not saying it's going to happen but the Bolts only chance is to play a ball control game.Some good stuff today but I think anyone trying to outscore the Pats are doomed.Not much talk on the Giants-Packers here  but I don't read the Giants site.I will say though I think they are playing better as a TEAM without Jeremy S. at tight end.He's a talent but he's also a needy player and the way the Giants are put together needy players don't fit in.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 16, 2008, 07:45:41 AM
Brent Muffdiver was jim Grey before Jim Grey...

There was a time, when there was no hiding from the ubiquitous, Burnt Furberger


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 16, 2008, 08:27:12 AM
I think that a team has to be able to score 40 points to beat the Patriots.  They can pretty much score at will against any defense out there.  They just present too many mismatches for team defenses.  Their depth in terms of their receiving corps is absolutely incredible - consider that six players had 36 or more receptions in the regular season.  They can put so many receivers on the field that a defense can't possibly cover them all.  And if you commit too much to the pass - well then that opens up the running game as evidenced by Maroney's performance last week.



They really do present tons of bad matchups for opposing defenses Liq. If you want to beat them you'll need to do it by getting consistant and early pressure from a four man rush, and not just off of the end or they'll set you up and beat you there. Not many teams seem to be able to get consistant pressure up the middle these days.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 16, 2008, 08:34:26 AM
Well like I said in my post last night I'm not saying it's going to happen but the Bolts only chance is to play a ball control game.Some good stuff today but I think anyone trying to outscore the Pats are doomed.Not much talk on the Giants-Packers here  but I don't read the Giants site.I will say though I think they are playing better as a TEAM without Jeremy S. at tight end.He's a talent but he's also a needy player and the way the Giants are put together needy players don't fit in.

Even the talking heads have agreed with you about the absence of Shockey actually helping the team a lot. The observation I liked was "Maybe the reason Manning looked so confused earlier in the season compared to now is that his receivers are actually running the routes that the plays call for, and Shockey, for example, wasn't."

It's hard to bet against Favre and company, given the way they have been playing lately. Then again, the Giants have shown a fair chunk of resiliency. It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet. Eli hasn't yet shown the ability to lead the team down the field to win a game on the very last possession the way that Favre and Brady have - and the way that Romo and Peyton had in so many previous situations, if not this time around in either case.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 16, 2008, 09:00:47 AM
I don't know how long it will stay up, but the MSNBC comparison between the Patriots and the Chargers has at least one very funny one. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22655356/ is the URL - and then click on 'intangibles.' Their intangibles are about the least likely for each team that I have ever seen!

Here's the image:
(available on request: picture of Peyton Manning as member of Patriots - no longer on the MSNBC site)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 16, 2008, 09:36:10 AM
Quote
It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet. Eli hasn't yet shown the ability to lead the team down the field to win a game on the very last possession the way that Favre and Brady have - and the way that Romo and Peyton had in so many previous situations, if not this time around in either case.

I agree with this assessment of Manning the Younger, 3 good games by Eli, or whatever its been is hardly enough to stamp "Pressure Tested Leader on his forehead. But he has looked a lot better over the past month or so.

To me the one of the big keys to this game, other than Eli remaining cool (that shouldn't be hard in a toasty Lambeau at nite) is the level of pressure the Giants D-line can consistently apply to Favre. If he can be pressured he can make some dumb mistakes.

IMO the Giants can pull off this upset, but its going to be harder than the Cowboys game.

and re upsets:I would think that if realistic probablities were assigned to the Chargers, Giants or Packers, mathematically the Chargers have the best chance of upsetting the Pats.
   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 16, 2008, 09:56:22 AM
If the Packer's receivers drop the ball like Romo's guys did then Farve is in trouble.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 10:53:58 AM
Well like I said in my post last night I'm not saying it's going to happen but the Bolts only chance is to play a ball control game.Some good stuff today but I think anyone trying to outscore the Pats are doomed.Not much talk on the Giants-Packers here  but I don't read the Giants site.I will say though I think they are playing better as a TEAM without Jeremy S. at tight end.He's a talent but he's also a needy player and the way the Giants are put together needy players don't fit in.

Even the talking heads have agreed with you about the absence of Shockey actually helping the team a lot.



Wsa in Vegas over the hildays, week of the Bills game.  Shockey was out.  I was all over NY over Buffalo, when I heard a bettor musing how with Shockey out and on the road it would be a tough cover.

I of course had to get in this conversation, reminding him, as we all checked for the weather in Buffalo and Chicago, that a)  the Giants were a very solid road club and b)  KEVIN BOSS CAN PLAY. 

Of course the guy knew nothing of Boss - and seemingly dismissed my points, as I stated that if there was no snow in Buffalo I was doubling my Giants wager.  Of course thgere was no snow initially (though it cvame second half), Giants covered and I scored. 

Didn't see the guy after, but a funny aside (I had mentiioned snow in Chitown) is that about 30 minutes before kickoff some yahoo yelled to a friend in line, "NO SNOW IN CHICAGO, looking to influence the wager friend was about to make, likely on GB.

Of course it snowed aplenty that day in the Windy City.

Another bettor in our midst was saddened that he had heard Favre would not play, a silly notion to us all, since Brett has that connsecutive games streak.  Dude bet big on Chicago off that info.  Of course he cashed big as well.  Funny how info we thought was right could be wrong and we catch a break.

Anyway - picks later this week.  Sitting at 6-2 winnners and 6-2 vs spread.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 16, 2008, 10:59:18 AM
I like the Giants to win outright and the Chargers to cover the spread.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 11:15:49 AM
If the Packer's receivers drop the ball like Romo's guys did then Farve is in trouble.

Biggest WR mistake of the day was Crayton cutting off his end zone route as Romo overthrew him.  Seemed to have the Giants corner well beaten on the play.

Of course if it gets to 24-21 Dallas there is no guarantee Cowboys win (some of us Eli backers would certainly have even preferred a 27 or 28 or 31-24 Giants win as the final, as much as we love how our defense rose to the occasion).


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 16, 2008, 01:02:31 PM
If the Packer's receivers drop the ball like Romo's guys did then Farve is in trouble.

Biggest WR mistake of the day was Crayton cutting off his end zone route as Romo overthrew him.  Seemed to have the Giants corner well beaten on the play.



That and Crayton dropping a pass right in his hands with miles of space to run in, and only one guy with a shot to stop him from scoring a TD. Play woulda gained 30 yards or more and been in the red zone even if Crayton couldn't shake him for the outright score.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 16, 2008, 02:04:50 PM
That and Crayton dropping a pass right in his hands with miles of space to run in, and only one guy with a shot to stop him from scoring a TD. Play woulda gained 30 yards or more and been in the red zone even if Crayton couldn't shake him for the outright score.

Sounds like Crayton might have been in on a fix.  Asterisk time?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 16, 2008, 03:04:11 PM
LOL, maybe he needed new gloves. Or maybe he needed to be "distracted" like Romo was supposed to have been.

And speaking of that WTF?? I hear all of the media yakkin about how Romo boffin Jessica Simpson is a distraction to his football.

Are they nutz? If I'm nailin Jessica, "football" is the fluckin distraction!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 03:48:53 PM
If the Packer's receivers drop the ball like Romo's guys did then Farve is in trouble.

Biggest WR mistake of the day was Crayton cutting off his end zone route as Romo overthrew him.  Seemed to have the Giants corner well beaten on the play.



That and Crayton dropping a pass right in his hands with miles of space to run in, and only one guy with a shot to stop him from scoring a TD.

Heh

Nah - I'd say the extrapolation by the media that that particular Crayton drop leads to a score - hell, some said VICTORY - is asinine.  Which is why I brought up the OTHER, which most of them missed entirely.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 03:50:28 PM
"It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet."

Well, I think it is true, however, that his teammates "believe in him", and that is all that matters, quite frankly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 03:53:11 PM
Quite well said


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 03:55:17 PM
Quite well said

Come on, kid, remember coyote's going to come in here and see we're not dissing each other. Then what will happen to his myth-making?






MOKE.

 ;)




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 16, 2008, 03:58:07 PM
If I'm nailin Jessica, "football" is the fluckin distraction!

If you're nailin Jessica, football is the least of your problems.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 03:59:28 PM
The moderator of that fine forum (someone I have had no beef with) actually posted their bylaws today, stating that she had a three strikes and out policy

If you recalll, when I was tossed I was at a loss to tell you why, let alone being told by THEM why or having had THREE chances.

I'll still read that forum.  And I am sure some of them read here.  Joined NYFS last week, so spending some time on the Mets over there.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 04:03:45 PM
If I'm nailin Jessica, "football" is the fluckin distraction!

If you're nailin Jessica, football is the least of your problems.

Wear your "Got pennicillen?" t-shirt to bed.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 04:05:08 PM
The moderator of that fine forum (someone I have had no beef with) actually posted their bylaws today, stating that she had a three strikes and out policy

If you recalll, when I was tossed I was at a loss to tell you why, let alone being told by THEM why or having had THREE chances.

I'll still read that forum.  And I am sure some of them read here.  Joined NYFS last week, so spending some time on the Mets over there.

Oh, I'm sure they just ruled that you were arguing the strike zone, so that's why you didn't get three strikes...they "had" to toss you, kid.

What's NYFS, btw?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 04:05:37 PM
If I'm nailin Jessica, "football" is the fluckin distraction!

If you're nailin Jessica, football is the least of your problems.

NFL.  As in (take it, Glanville) NOT FOR LONG


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 04:07:34 PM
The moderator of that fine forum (someone I have had no beef with) actually posted their bylaws today, stating that she had a three strikes and out policy

If you recalll, when I was tossed I was at a loss to tell you why, let alone being told by THEM why or having had THREE chances.

I'll still read that forum.  And I am sure some of them read here.  Joined NYFS last week, so spending some time on the Mets over there.

Oh, I'm sure they just ruled that you were arguing the strike zone, so that's why you didn't get three strikes...they "had" to toss you, kid.

What's NYFS, btw?

New York Future Stars.   Pretty good forum.

Don't tell em I sent ya.  :)

http://nyfuturestars.com/community/viewforum.php?f=1



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 04:36:00 PM
Thanks, kid.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: TrojanHorse on January 16, 2008, 05:44:18 PM
What happened to JBottle?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 16, 2008, 06:12:03 PM
"It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet."

Well, I think it is true, however, that his teammates "believe in him", and that is all that matters, quite frankly.

Actually, I think belief in him only gets them so far.

He still has to keep delivering the passes and not fumbling himself. Those matter at least as much.

And... his teammates SAY that they believe in him. The number who would ever say otherwise in the NFL is pretty small - and they look idiotic, usually, when they do.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 16, 2008, 06:34:42 PM
lol


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 16, 2008, 08:49:37 PM
 Just when you think you've heard it all.The local ABC station just had a story that a Green Bay Television station has canceled a Seinfeld rerun Sat.Night because it is one of Eli Mannings favorite shows.They don't want him to relax sat night and enjoy a re-run.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 16, 2008, 10:07:30 PM
"It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet."

Well, I think it is true, however, that his teammates "believe in him", and that is all that matters, quite frankly.

Actually, I think belief in him only gets them so far.

He still has to keep delivering the passes and not fumbling himself. Those matter at least as much.

And... his teammates SAY that they believe in him. The number who would ever say otherwise in the NFL is pretty small - and they look idiotic, usually, when they do.


 This comes from a fan of the team who flipped a coin in order to determine whether to draft Tom Brady in the first place.

Apparently, no one in the NFL has ever misjudged a player's inate ability to play the game, until recently.

While Brady benefitted from being overlooked, Eli is punished for being overexamined.

Now that he is making gains in many's eyes (and I would say that this remarkable change in POV comes from the sudden ability of his receivers, like Smith, to hold on to the balls that are delivered perfectly to them), there is a second wave of doubters who wish to chortle, "Hold on! That's Eli, you know!"

Well, in the same amount of time, without Tomlinson, too, Rivers has made it to the same round of the play-offs as Eli.

The NFL is a results business.

Eli knows it and understands it, and never complains. Never.

He has handled the crap shipped his way with grace and aplomb, and for that alone he wins my praise.

Now, imagine the team wins again this weekend.

It's not at all impossible to think, if you put aside your biases.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 16, 2008, 10:30:00 PM
"It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet."

Well, I think it is true, however, that his teammates "believe in him", and that is all that matters, quite frankly.

Actually, I think belief in him only gets them so far.

He still has to keep delivering the passes and not fumbling himself. Those matter at least as much.

And... his teammates SAY that they believe in him. The number who would ever say otherwise in the NFL is pretty small - and they look idiotic, usually, when they do.

 This comes from a fan of the team who flipped a coin in order to determine whether to draft Tom Brady in the first place.

Apparently, no one in the NFL has ever misjudged a player's inate ability to play the game, until recently.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I already posited that perhaps the reason Eli looked confused earlier was because his tight end was not running the routes he was supposed to.

And part of Manning's problem with scrutiny was his name - but part of it was how his drafting and trading was handled by his family/agent. It put him under even more scrutiny than he would have been otherwise.

I said that belief in a player is not enough. Frankly, Drew Bledsoe was proof of that for many years. A lack of belief may be enough to sink a player, but belief, without requisite skill, is not going to do it.

I also said that one does not know what the players think behind their words. Are you suggesting to me that every player who sings the praises of his quarterback believes what he says? I don't think so.

It's not at all impossible to think, if you put aside your biases.

I have no dog in this hunt. I have no bias about Manning. I have a track record that says that his performance varies and a recent pattern of less variance. I have no information on how this will translate to Lambeau Field in mid-January. I have more information about Rivers, but again, things change. We just watched two quarterbacks violate expectations: Romo and P. Manning.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 09:36:59 AM
Parcels got his new head coach. Sparano is a good one, now all he needs is a QB and an OL.

It'll be interesting how Bill handles the first pick of the draft. Dorsey? Possibly trade down a spot pick up an extra draft pick and grab Jake Long?(I know I'd be sorely tempted) Brohm/Ryan?(Shoulda picked Brady Quinn last year when they had the chance?)

And I wouldn't be surprised if Calais Campbell, Chris Long or Harvey are in the back of Bill's mind, as I know how he loves picking those come off the edge pass rushing types.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 10:06:18 AM
Parcels got his new head coach. Sparano is a good one, now all he needs is a QB and an OL.

It'll be interesting how Bill handles the first pick of the draft. Dorsey? Possibly trade down a spot pick up an extra draft pick and grab Jake Long?(I know I'd be sorely tempted) Brohm/Ryan?(Shoulda picked Brady Quinn last year when they had the chance?)

And I wouldn't be surprised if Calais Campbell, Chris Long or Harvey are in the back of Bill's mind, as I know how he loves picking those come off the edge pass rushing types.





Not for nothing, but with the NFL Championship games being played this weekend, who gioves a flying fluck about Bill Parcells' QB problem?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 10:24:54 AM
"It's not that Manning cannot lead them to where they need to go so much as that he has not yet been consistent enough long enough for people to believe in him, yet."

Well, I think it is true, however, that his teammates "believe in him", and that is all that matters, quite frankly.

Actually, I think belief in him only gets them so far.

He still has to keep delivering the passes and not fumbling himself. Those matter at least as much.

And... his teammates SAY that they believe in him. The number who would ever say otherwise in the NFL is pretty small - and they look idiotic, usually, when they do.

 This comes from a fan of the team who flipped a coin in order to determine whether to draft Tom Brady in the first place.

Apparently, no one in the NFL has ever misjudged a player's inate ability to play the game, until recently.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I already posited that perhaps the reason Eli looked confused earlier was because his tight end was not running the routes he was supposed to.

And part of Manning's problem with scrutiny was his name - but part of it was how his drafting and trading was handled by his family/agent. It put him under even more scrutiny than he would have been otherwise.

I said that belief in a player is not enough. Frankly, Drew Bledsoe was proof of that for many years. A lack of belief may be enough to sink a player, but belief, without requisite skill, is not going to do it.

I also said that one does not know what the players think behind their words. Are you suggesting to me that every player who sings the praises of his quarterback believes what he says? I don't think so.

It's not at all impossible to think, if you put aside your biases.

I have no dog in this hunt. I have no bias about Manning. I have a track record that says that his performance varies and a recent pattern of less variance. I have no information on how this will translate to Lambeau Field in mid-January. I have more information about Rivers, but again, things change. We just watched two quarterbacks violate expectations: Romo and P. Manning.


Why did you have positive expectation on Romo, who sucked this December, as he did LAST December, who CHOKED away a playoff game LAST year?

The guy obviously has some issues with pressure when the chips are most on the line.

Manning had the SAME type performance in last year's playoff as Romo, except of course that he did not gag on the game tying XP.  And Manning had been BETTER of late leading into last week's game.

But of course noone would have put them on even footing heading into the contest.  Noone except those who can evaluate properly.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 10:41:55 AM
Parcels got his new head coach. Sparano is a good one, now all he needs is a QB and an OL.

It'll be interesting how Bill handles the first pick of the draft. Dorsey? Possibly trade down a spot pick up an extra draft pick and grab Jake Long?(I know I'd be sorely tempted) Brohm/Ryan?(Shoulda picked Brady Quinn last year when they had the chance?)

And I wouldn't be surprised if Calais Campbell, Chris Long or Harvey are in the back of Bill's mind, as I know how he loves picking those come off the edge pass rushing types.





Not for nothing, but with the NFL Championship games being played this weekend, who gioves a flying fluck about Bill Parcells' QB problem?

I thought I was on ignore Hamurbi. In fact didn't you made a big deal over it? Ja miss me? LOL

But okay, have it your way.

Personally I can handle multiple subject matter discussions at the same time, Playoffs/Parcells/Pastavasu you name it. But if "you" don't want to discuss this then I guess you'll have to try and ignore it as best you can. Sorry to inconvenience you.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 10:43:37 AM
Parcels got his new head coach. Sparano is a good one, now all he needs is a QB and an OL.

It'll be interesting how Bill handles the first pick of the draft. Dorsey? Possibly trade down a spot pick up an extra draft pick and grab Jake Long?(I know I'd be sorely tempted) Brohm/Ryan?(Shoulda picked Brady Quinn last year when they had the chance?)

And I wouldn't be surprised if Calais Campbell, Chris Long or Harvey are in the back of Bill's mind, as I know how he loves picking those come off the edge pass rushing types.





HENNE is clearly the answer


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 11:03:52 AM
Funny.











































Don't quit your day job.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 11:07:08 AM
Why did you have positive expectation on Romo, who sucked this December, as he did LAST December, who CHOKED away a playoff game LAST year?

The guy obviously has some issues with pressure when the chips are most on the line.

Manning has not done the last minute thing. Romo has - though he has also screwed it up. But I agree, when most chips are on the line, Romo has not shown the ability to make things work. Playoffs are not his friend, so far.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 11:25:35 AM
Eli certainly HAS had last minute, 4th quarter in general comebacks.

What is Eli's record since coming out of camp as the starter in 2005?

Probably the best ever for a QB so maligned.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 17, 2008, 11:48:39 AM
Who's maligning Eli?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 11:54:36 AM
You got that right Kid. He's done a pretty decent job.

And although his rating is down slightly from last year this season's stats have pretty much mirrored last year. I think he stepped his game up against Dallas and Green Bay I think would see more of the same if the weather factors were the same as in Dallas.

Anyone who watched the weather for GB/Sea game knows thats not a lock though. Fortunately for the Giants they can and will run the bean against the Packers.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 12:11:37 PM
Eli certainly HAS had last minute, 4th quarter in general comebacks.

What is Eli's record since coming out of camp as the starter in 2005?

Probably the best ever for a QB so maligned.

Ok. Then I missed them. Not the first nor the last bit of NFL I have missed, and I apologize for my insufficiently informed opinions.

Unlike the politics stuff, I was relying on what I was reading from the analysts, rather than direct evidence. Are there particular games you would recommend for his last minute stuff? A casual search told me that asking would be easier than looking.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 12:24:13 PM
NY at Chicag 12/1

Ny at Washington 9/23


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 12:29:17 PM
Eli's catching a lot of love for a 2-game winning streak.







Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 12:33:34 PM
What type attention was he gettting at 0-2?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 12:41:57 PM
LOL


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 12:42:50 PM
What type attention was he gettting at 0-2?

Personally, I can't remember, because everyone was talking so much about the 1-game cheating streak of the Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 12:45:15 PM
What type attention was he gettting at 0-2?

probably the attention that: a highly-touted #1 draft pick, with all the right genes, that made a stink about where he wanted to play, who to date has been markedly mediocre, and who cost the team a ton to acquire, deserves.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 12:52:33 PM
Not really.  Team fell apart down the stretch - physically - a year ago.  And got off slowly this year.  But the QB - as usual - was unflappable.

But I am sure you knew that.

29-19 says a hell of a lot.  But maybe you think the Giants are a legendary team, thus the QB should not reallly get much credit for this winning.

Heh


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 12:59:11 PM
After all Eli was the only high first round pick to date that made outrageous demands and didn't shine quite as highly as expected.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 01:02:52 PM
After all Eli was the only high first round pick to date that made outrageous demands and didn't shine quite as highly as expected.

I remember a struggling Elway.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:11:05 PM
Not really.  Team fell apart down the stretch - physically - a year ago.  And got off slowly this year.  But the QB - as usual - was unflappable.

But I am sure you knew that.

29-19 says a hell of a lot.  But maybe you think the Giants are a legendary team, thus the QB should not reallly get much credit for this winning.

Heh

kid He's played 3 good games in a row, and is on a 2 game wining streak. For that he deserves credit.

I'll credit the team and the coaches for 29-19 record.

That his team-mates and the now Giant fans have his back is great

I'd characterize his career so far as "mediocre". And I would not yet reserve his parking space in Canton just yet.

btw, I'm sure the weather will be just as fair in Green Bay as it currently is in NYC.

HEH


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:12:44 PM
I guess you think Tiki was the leader.

Heh.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:13:56 PM


I'd characterize his career so far as "mediocre". And I would not yet reserve his parking space in Canton just yet.





Attaboy


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:19:51 PM
I guess you think Tiki was the leader.

Heh.

no

IMO Tiki was a very good ego-centic runnng back, who's seems to enjoy knifing almost every member of the NY Football Giants.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:24:22 PM


I'd characterize his career so far as "mediocre". And I would not yet reserve his parking space in Canton just yet.





Attaboy

Kid-You should really watch the guy play before you post.  His stats are clearly mediocre.

And if you're going to credit Eli for the wins, prior to his rousing wins over TB and Dallas did this year's Giants beat any teams with records over .500?.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:25:25 PM
I guess you think Tiki was the leader.

Heh.

no

IMO Tiki was a very good ego-centic runnng back, who's seems to enjoy knifing almost every member of the NY Football Giants.

Right

ELI is the leader of the offensive unit that has won 29 of 48 regular season games behind a much maligned OL and a much maligned coaching staff.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:26:38 PM


Kid-You should really watch the guy play before you post.  His stats are clearly mediocre.



Yes.  They are.

I still put him on even footing with Romo going into last week,  And that is BECAUSE I watch the games.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:30:00 PM


Kid-You should really watch the guy play before you post.  His stats are clearly mediocre.



Yes.  They are.

I still put him on even footing with Romo going into last week,  And that is BECAUSE I watch the games.

with all due respect WTF does Romo's bad game have to do with how good a QB Eli is?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:30:50 PM
Don't live in the past

Project.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:35:39 PM
Don't live in the past

Project.

Ok.

My projections for Eli are probably not as high as yours.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:40:29 PM
I am looking for a leader.

You?  Pro Bowls?  Passing records?  I don't know.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 17, 2008, 01:41:09 PM
I'd say that when all is said and done, Eli will recognized as the superior quarterback to Romo.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:43:10 PM
I am looking for a leader.

You?  Pro Bowls?  Passing records?  I don't know.

post-season wins


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 01:45:27 PM
I'm projecting a pretty damn good team leader

And yeah, Giants should be in the postseason pretty much evry year as we progress.

I hope you're not thinking Brady, Montana etc when judging this guy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 01:49:32 PM
Quote
I hope you're not thinking Brady, Montana etc when judging this guy.

You're on safe ground there. I'm not thinking Brady or Montana when I watch Eli.

Honestly I haven't seen the pretty good leader role yet.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 17, 2008, 01:53:12 PM
I just feel sorry for the poor kid.  I mean, if they had let him hold a clipboard for a few years, he might be a league-average NFL quarterback right now, instead of the trembling and confused kid that he is.  I mean, he's the 2nd-best quarterback on the team right now, and that's after 3 years of regular playing time.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 17, 2008, 01:55:05 PM
He won his first post-season game at an earlier point in his career (and a younger age) than did his brother.

...and he's already got 2 more than his Dad.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 02:00:26 PM
Quote
I hope you're not thinking Brady, Montana etc when judging this guy.

You're on safe ground there. I'm not thinking Brady or Montana when I watch Eli.

Honestly I haven't seen the pretty good leader role yet.

I am not so sure then that I'd trust how you define LEADER


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 02:06:35 PM
NY at Chicag 12/1

Ny at Washington 9/23

Thanks - I will check them out.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 02:15:22 PM
Quote
I hope you're not thinking Brady, Montana etc when judging this guy.

You're on safe ground there. I'm not thinking Brady or Montana when I watch Eli.

Honestly I haven't seen the pretty good leader role yet.

I am not so sure then that I'd trust how you define LEADER

that Eli led his team to the playoffs and got wins over TB and Dallas is nice, but I detect little evidence from his 4 year body of work which suggest that Eli posseses a greater degree of leadership qualities than the average NFL QB.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 02:17:35 PM
Yeah - whatever

Next


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 02:18:31 PM
Yeah - whatever

Next

attaboy



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 02:22:55 PM
Someone's goota stop your air-filled analysis

I figure another subject may get that done.

Line's over there    -------------------------> for the Giant detractors, the "we'll be 6-10" group from the old Times board.  Jake Jokiet's got the cocoa.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 02:27:02 PM
Someone's goota stop your air-filled analysis

I figure another subject may get that done.

Line's over there    -------------------------> for the Giant detractors, the "we'll be 6-10" group from the old Times board.  Jake Jokiet's got the cocoa.

kid I'm not a Giant detractor I'm just putting Eli's year into some perspective other than yours. Your fellating of Eli seems to be getting in the way of rationlity.

but carry on.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 17, 2008, 02:36:05 PM
I admit I thought the Giants would be 6-10 because of concerns about Jacobs, the o-line and the secondary.  Yankguy, Sr.  who was the biggest Cassandra in the world when it came to the Yankees and Giants' hopes predicted 11-5.  Somewhere he's smiling. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 02:40:51 PM
Your fellating of Eli seems to be getting in the way of rationlity.



Please.  No need for that.

I was right about the guy.  Defended him as a pick, no more.   I reeserve the right to say so.

Do I have him in Canton?  Not that youy've ever read.

Do I even have him winning a Super Bowl?  Not that you've ever read.

I don't know where the above statement comes from.

So have a Coke and a smile.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 02:47:26 PM
Your fellating of Eli seems to be getting in the way of rationlity.



Please.  No need for that.

I was right about the guy.  Defended him as a pick, no more.   I reeserve the right to say so.

Do I have him in Canton?  Not that youy've ever read.

Do I even have him winning a Super Bowl?  Not that you've ever read.

I don't know where the above statement comes from.

So have a Coke and a smile.



The above statemement comes (heh) from exasperation.

I made several comments and asked several questions about Eli and IIRC none were refuted. Yet I was accused of air-filled analysis while you staunchly defended Eli's intangible leadership qualities based on exactly what, i'm not sure.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 02:55:15 PM
SAFE FOR WORK

TURN DOWN VOLUME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8guMii5Uuw

kid-a peace offering

btw, if you can do for Eli what this guy did for Brady. I'll give ya Eli is a LEADER!!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 02:57:42 PM
NY at Chicag 12/1

Ny at Washington 9/23

Thanks - I will check them out.

The two Chicago drives look pretty impressive, reading about it.

The Washington game wasn't even close to the same kind of thing - a 4th quarter drive, but with more than 5.5 minutes left after his last scoring drive - The 'Skins had two complete possessions left after that.


Title: GIANTS, NEW ENGLAND the picks v the #
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 03:02:37 PM
GREEN BAY will win a heartbreaker for NY.  Late TD or FG the dfifference after G-men play their butts off all day.  This guy out to lunch:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=txfantasyclm&prov=st&type=lgns

GB to win, Giants to cover the 7.

NEW ENGLAND willl play a near perfect game but the number will be tough til late.

NE to win, NE to cover the 14


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 17, 2008, 03:05:30 PM
NY at Chicag 12/1

Ny at Washington 9/23

Thanks - I will check them out.

The two Chicago drives look pretty impressive, reading about it.

The Washington game wasn't even close to the same kind of thing - a 4th quarter drive, but with more than 5.5 minutes left after his last scoring drive - The 'Skins had two complete possessions left after that.

Second gameof season, vs Philly 2006


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 03:06:20 PM
Wow.

So now quarterbacks are to be judged by:

1) number of play-off wins

2) number of last minute comeback wins

3) number of times they played for the Patriots.

Got it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 03:07:46 PM
And keep in mind, this judgement of the QB's should be done regardless of coaching and other player personnel.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 17, 2008, 03:18:05 PM
I think its cute that Giant fans, (generlization) after routinely diising Eli over the past couple of years, now are rushing to his promote his leadership, and clutchness after a 2-game winning streak.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 03:20:39 PM
Wow.

So now quarterbacks are to be judged by:

1) number of play-off wins

2) number of last minute comeback wins

3) number of times they played for the Patriots.

Now you're just being silly.

It's play-off winning percentage, last minute comeback wins versus failures (see for example Tony Romo), and number of pictures in the tabloids for the attractiveness of their significant other (regardless of gender) divided by times in the paper for negatives involving said significant other. (Brady is penalized for having had the immediate ex having a baby early in the relationship with the current one.)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 03:21:37 PM
I think its cute that Giant fans, (generlization) after routinely diising Eli over the past couple of years, now are rushing to his promote his leadership, and clutchness after a 2-game winning streak.

You must admit it is a timely 2-game winning streak. If he extends it to 4, it will be better than most other QB's longer streaks.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 03:24:38 PM
Wow.

So now quarterbacks are to be judged by:

And RBIs in late-inning, close contests, too. Don't forget that!

Clutch is how QBs are judged, in large measure - not totally independent of the other factors, but a quarterback who has a strong arm and a good eye whose team never wins late and doesn't win in the play-offs is unlikely to be called great no matter what else he does.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 17, 2008, 03:45:30 PM
Its all nitpicking really as to how great Eli is, or isn't. Has been or will be for that matter too.

The guy has done well in his last two playoff games. Of course he can't be compared to the demigod that will remain Tom Brady. Hasn't earned that yet by a longshot. Doesn't matter that I hate the Patriots with a passion. Brady is friggin good.

The guy is doing a pretty good job in the playoffs this year. But even if he wins the super bowl this year he's still irrationally going to get little love from some.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 03:49:23 PM
Its all nitpicking really as to how great Eli is, or isn't. Has been or will be for that matter too.

The guy has done well in his last two playoff games. Of course he can't be compared to the demigod that will remain Tom Brady. Hasn't earned that yet by a longshot. Doesn't matter that I hate the Patriots with a passion. Brady is friggin good.

The guy is doing a pretty good job in the playoffs this year. But even if he wins the super bowl this year he's still irrationally going to get little love from some.

If he wins the Super Bowl this year, he won't be getting love from me! (Respect? Sure.)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 17, 2008, 05:53:29 PM
I see Jason Garrett has turned down two head coaching jobs to stay with the Cowboys.If I were Wade Phillips I'd be sleeping with one eye open ;)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 17, 2008, 06:33:03 PM
NY at Chicag 12/1

Ny at Washington 9/23

Thanks - I will check them out.

The two Chicago drives look pretty impressive, reading about it.

The Washington game wasn't even close to the same kind of thing - a 4th quarter drive, but with more than 5.5 minutes left after his last scoring drive - The 'Skins had two complete possessions left after that.

Second gameof season, vs Philly 2006

And several games in 2005 as well... which would be the real YEAR 1.  The prior year Eli only started, what 10 games?  And lost like 9 in a row before winning 1.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 17, 2008, 06:34:12 PM
This received wisdom that Eli isn't clutch is hilarious.  That its coming from the NE contingent is to be expected.  Consistency has been Eli's achilles heel.  Coming up big in big spots hasn't been.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 17, 2008, 06:56:07 PM
This received wisdom that Eli isn't clutch is hilarious.  That its coming from the NE contingent is to be expected.  Consistency has been Eli's achilles heel.  Coming up big in big spots hasn't been.

Like I said already, I fully accept that I was ignorant and am looking at what I've been shown.

Fair enough, Kam?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 17, 2008, 11:53:10 PM
This received wisdom that Eli isn't clutch is hilarious.  That its coming from the NE contingent is to be expected.  Consistency has been Eli's achilles heel.  Coming up big in big spots hasn't been.

Like I said already, I fully accept that I was ignorant and am looking at what I've been shown.

Fair enough, Kam?

A gentleman and a scholar.   Fair all around.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 17, 2008, 11:53:43 PM
Just reading at Fox.Com about Dungy maybe stepping down and Jim Irsay plans on talking to him this weekend.Irsay said this at a party celebrating an exhibition of  the "On the Road" manuscript by Jack Kerouac that he owns at the New York Public Library.You can't make that kind of stuff up.The family that snuck the Colts out of Baltimore in the middle of the night and hit the road.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 18, 2008, 09:43:42 AM
Its all nitpicking really as to how great Eli is, or isn't. Has been or will be for that matter too.

The guy has done well in his last two playoff games. Of course he can't be compared to the demigod that will remain Tom Brady. Hasn't earned that yet by a longshot. Doesn't matter that I hate the Patriots with a passion. Brady is friggin good.

The guy is doing a pretty good job in the playoffs this year. But even if he wins the super bowl this year he's still irrationally going to get little love from some.

If he wins the Super Bowl this year, he won't be getting love from me! (Respect? Sure.)

LOL, okay Josh.  :D

But you know what I mean.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 18, 2008, 01:42:30 PM
Out of curiousity, who's rooting for whom?

While I don't really care who wins the NFC conference, I am a Pats fan, and I would like to see a Pats-Packers SB.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 18, 2008, 01:44:14 PM
I'm rooting for the Giants.

I THINK we'll see a Giants-Patriots Super Bowl.  I think the Giants are better than Green Bay.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 18, 2008, 02:24:01 PM
I'd like to see Packers-Patriots Super Bowl as well. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 18, 2008, 03:27:19 PM


Go Pack!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 18, 2008, 03:34:40 PM
Seahawks fan rooting for the Packers seems wrong


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 18, 2008, 04:33:05 PM
Who else are you going to root for?  The Seahawks?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kitinkaboodle on January 18, 2008, 04:53:32 PM
Out of curiousity, who's rooting for whom?

While I don't really care who wins the NFC conference, I am a Pats fan, and I would like to see a Pats-Packers SB.

 

             ditto  ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 18, 2008, 05:01:59 PM
Out of curiousity, who's rooting for whom?

While I don't really care who wins the NFC conference, I am a Pats fan, and I would like to see a Pats-Packers SB.

 

             ditto  ;D


The NFL would like to see a Pats-Packers match-up. They can have the Favre stories and the Undefeated Pats stories to talk about for 2 weeks.

But what America wants is a competitive Super Bowl. That said, a Packers-Chargers Bowl might be the most competitive.

Therefore, in order to maintain a contrarian status I will root for a Giants-Chargers Super Bowl, but I will accept any outcome without wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 18, 2008, 07:05:09 PM
Patriots vs Packers.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 18, 2008, 07:45:50 PM
I'm rooting for the Giants.

I THINK we'll see a Giants-Patriots Super Bowl.  I think the Giants are better than Green Bay.

I don't know if they are better or not. From what I have seen and read, I like the GB running game better and their defensive backfield better. I am too ignorant to be able to name any of the GB receivers, while I know one or two of NY's. It seems to me that all year long, each team has had moments in which they suddenly went totally flat. At their best, it's a toss-up to me. But one never knows when they will hit a flat spot and have a hard time starting.

I would like to see GB in the Super Bowl for two reasons that are not all that important, even to me. Revenge is one of them. The other is that the Patriots have already beaten the Giants once this season - and beaten them in a game in which Manning was playing well, at that! (As opposed to SD's play in our game against them.) GB is the only remaining team in the top 6 that we have not played. It would be nice to have played 9 of the 12 other teams with winning records.

All this presumes the Patriots win against SD. If SD wins, I don't really care who the NFC team. I suppose I will know before the NFC game starts.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 18, 2008, 07:58:13 PM
You don't care

How nice

Did you SLEEP through the game at the Meadowlands the Saturday after Christmas?

Heh


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 18, 2008, 08:37:40 PM
You don't care

How nice

Did you SLEEP through the game at the Meadowlands the Saturday after Christmas?

Heh

attaboy

yup, that's the way it is kid-I don't have a strong rooting favorite, just looking for a good NFC game.

my reasons for wanting a Pat-Pack SB are much like Josh's

The Pats have already played the Giants. And this season they have played just about every team that one could say was a SB contending team, except for the Packers.

and "payback" for SB XXXI would be a small consideration.

So if the Pats beat SD, I'd like a Pats-Pack match-up.

and fwiw, I believe poll on ESPN.com indicates about 61% of football fans want that match-up. 

And I watched most of the Pats-Giants game.

The Giants probably played their best game of the year,  and it was a very good/entertaining game.

Yet when the game and the streak were on the line, and the Pats down by 12, Brady led the Pats offense to rally and put up (IIRC) 22 unanswered points to win a come from behind game.

But if the Pats and Giants both win Sunday that would be fine and fun too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 18, 2008, 08:48:42 PM
You don't care

How nice

Did you SLEEP through the game at the Meadowlands the Saturday after Christmas?

There was a game that day?

jk

No, I watched it. It was an entertaining game. I was never really nervous, having watched the other 4th quarters earlier in the season. I'd have been surprised, even down 12, if we had lost that game. Call me complacent, but there is a reason for my focus on late-game feats.

I watched the Giants beat Dallas. I watched GB in the snow. I enjoyed both games a lot. I look forward to seeing these games, too. I have a preference, but that's all - and only then if the Patriots are playing.

Otherwise, I don't care who wins - I care that it be an exciting game. Given how both teams have been playing, I suspect I have a pretty safe bet going on that one!

Oh, yes... one more thing...

I would love, over his career, for Eli to outshine Peyton. That would tickle me. I'd even record a personalized message for Peyton to help him to deal with it!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 18, 2008, 09:18:28 PM
Heh

Don't hold your breath on that one.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 18, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
I'm rooting for the Giants.

I THINK we'll see a Giants-Patriots Super Bowl.  I think the Giants are better than Green Bay.

I don't know if they are better or not. From what I have seen and read, I like the GB running game better and their defensive backfield better. I am too ignorant to be able to name any of the GB receivers, while I know one or two of NY's. It seems to me that all year long, each team has had moments in which they suddenly went totally flat. At their best, it's a toss-up to me. But one never knows when they will hit a flat spot and have a hard time starting.

I would like to see GB in the Super Bowl for two reasons that are not all that important, even to me. Revenge is one of them. The other is that the Patriots have already beaten the Giants once this season - and beaten them in a game in which Manning was playing well, at that! (As opposed to SD's play in our game against them.) GB is the only remaining team in the top 6 that we have not played. It would be nice to have played 9 of the 12 other teams with winning records.

All this presumes the Patriots win against SD. If SD wins, I don't really care who the NFC team. I suppose I will know before the NFC game starts.

You don't care?

Starting to sound like those Y-fans of the late 90's, josh.

A-r-r-o-g-a-n-t.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 18, 2008, 10:32:25 PM
Quote
All this presumes the Patriots win against SD. If SD wins, I don't really care who the NFC team. I suppose I will know before the NFC game starts.

You don't care?

Starting to sound like those Y-fans of the late 90's, josh.

Nah.

Sounding like pretty much anybody who is not particularly a fan of the sport as a whole, but has a home town team. Root for my guys, but have no investment in tother games.

I'm a baseball fan and a Red Sox fan. I am a mild Patriots fan, but not really a football fan. I follow it some. I follow the NBA some but mostly the Celtics. (I was a Bill Walton fan, too.)  I used to follow College Basketball a lot, but not currently.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 19, 2008, 12:55:19 AM
Just shows that the NFL union is the weakest. Allowing a game to be played in the open in Green Bay in January at night to heighten the effect. They had a Kenny Anderson interview. He played in a -50 game and said the game shortened his career. Permanent nerve damage on his throwing hand. Most of the players involved were not heard from again. The NFL version of a Siberian labor camp.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 01:31:58 AM
They should all play in domed stadiums and make it flag instead of tackle. :-*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 01:37:57 AM
Kenny Anderson doesn't have a good memory.It was the Bengals-Chargers title game and the wind chill not the temp was minus 20 to 30 something.Most of the players were heard from again.A friend of mine was a running back for the Chargers and they did not do well in those temps.The Bengals won the game though the Chargers on a normal field would have kicked their butt.But he never made excuses about it before or after.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: whiskeypriest on January 19, 2008, 11:06:07 AM
Let me be the first to say it: Herschell Walker, in his prime, was two of the best football players I have ever seen.

Or is that in poor taste?

http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 11:20:07 AM
Kenny Anderson doesn't have a good memory.It was the Bengals-Chargers title game and the wind chill not the temp was minus 20 to 30 something.Most of the players were heard from again.A friend of mine was a running back for the Chargers and they did not do well in those temps.The Bengals won the game though the Chargers on a normal field would have kicked their butt.But he never made excuses about it before or after.

You could, as they say, look it up.
http://www.forbes.com/sportsbusiness/2007/12/14/nfl-packers-bears-biz-sports-cx_tvr_1214frozen_slide_3.html?thisSpeed=15000

Best recollection of the game.  Anthony Munoz leading the Bengals onto the field for the first time, bare-armed.
The Chargers were done at that moment, good riddance to a bunch of whiners led by hall-of-fame complainer Kellen Winslow.  Kenny Anderson never had a year like 1981 after this season and had said, several times, that the "Freezer Bowl" helped shorten his careet.

It is stupid for the NFL to permit its showcase games to be played in such horrible conditions for the fans.   These games might be memorable, but not for the caliber of play,  and they are never comfortable for the people who pay to watch.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 19, 2008, 11:41:36 AM
Let me be the first to say it: Herschell Walker, in his prime, was two of the best football players I have ever seen.

Or is that in poor taste?

http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

When did "taste" ever enter the discussion here?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 19, 2008, 12:07:22 PM
Let me be the first to say it: Herschell Walker, in his prime, was two of the best football players I have ever seen.

Or is that in poor taste?

http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 (http://sports.aol.com/nfl/story/_a/ex-nfl-star-reveals-multiple/20080118202409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

IIRC the Vikes traded 6 guys and 3-4 draft picks for Walker. While at the time many thought the Vikes over-paid, it seems they paid half-price.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 19, 2008, 12:10:26 PM
They should all play in domed stadiums and make it flag instead of tackle. :-*

I believe that will be Colt's propsosal to the owners..

btw, there was a great line in an Indy paper comping the Colts to the  Atlanta Braves.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 19, 2008, 02:49:25 PM
The Pats have tuned the entire NFC into hotlanta. No reason to play games in open roof stadii in 2008. The risk of injury is too great and it turns the game into something it is not the rest of the year. Something like going to an auto race looking for a life threatening wreck. Both QBs in that 1982 game state they suffered nerve damage to their fingers which still remains. This is going to be one of the two or three coldest football games ever played. Minus five, lord that is cold. Crazy bastids are going sleeveless. No this is not flag football or any other type of football seen. Where is the players union and their MDs? Giants are building their own new 1.5 billion open air dump so they can someday have a spectacle like this in January. Little market Indiana is already working on their second generation retracto. stadium.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 04:50:40 PM
Yeah lets all play in domes and give em pink purses to hit each other with.At halftime they can all get their nails done.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 19, 2008, 06:00:15 PM
Yeah lets all play in domes and give em pink purses to hit each other with.At halftime they can all get their nails done.

heh

IMO the Ice Bowl ('67  Pack v Boys) and the Snow Bowl ('02 Pats v Raiders) are among the more memorable games in NFL history.

Snow Bowl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpEbWb8bXyQ


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 19, 2008, 07:29:39 PM
I remember a better game than either of them. Miami vs Kansas City, Christmas Day---early 70's...

One of the best games I ever saw...I'll check the weather on that one, since suddenly weather makes a game "great".


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 07:56:28 PM
That was a Great game.I recall it being cold but not really bad.Weather has always been a part of football.If you were to tell fans in Buffalo the only team that plays in New York they were going to build a dome they'd run the bozos out of town.As the McKenzie Brothers said about Lawyers in  Strange Brew"Domes are for Sucks"


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 19, 2008, 08:35:15 PM
Quote
I remember a better game than either of them. Miami vs Kansas City, Christmas Day---early 70's...

was that the 41-38 game?

Quote
since suddenly weather makes a game "great".

nope, I don't think that was the point. IMO the point was the sanitization of football, a game that has typically been played  out of doors in all sorts of sloppy conditions: wind, rain, snow, fog.

great football makes a game great, weather and the elements can make those games even more memorable.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 08:41:45 PM
Quote
I remember a better game than either of them. Miami vs Kansas City, Christmas Day---early 70's...

was that the 41-38 game?

Quote
since suddenly weather makes a game "great".

nope, I don't think that was the point. IMO the point was the sanitization of football, a game that has typically been played  out of doors in all sorts of sloppy conditions: wind, rain, snow, fog.

great football makes a game great, weather and the elements can make those games even more memorable.

But not great.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 08:42:53 PM
That was a Great game.I recall it being cold but not really bad.

Oh, you were  there?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 19, 2008, 08:48:44 PM
Quote
I remember a better game than either of them. Miami vs Kansas City, Christmas Day---early 70's...

was that the 41-38 game?

Quote
since suddenly weather makes a game "great".

nope, I don't think that was the point. IMO the point was the sanitization of football, a game that has typically been played  out of doors in all sorts of sloppy conditions: wind, rain, snow, fog.

great football makes a game great, weather and the elements can make those games even more memorable.

But not great.

right, two shitty teams playing in a nor'easter will not usually play great football.

but two good teams playing in the post-season in bad weather can create a historic game.

and has, which is the point.

Of course we can just move all January games to domes or to southern cites to sanitize the experience.

But we usually save that game for February, and call it the Superbowl.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 08:48:59 PM
I think it was 27-24 in two overtimes.The 41-38 was the Dolphins- Chargers,no? Yes I was there.I was the hat on top of Hank Strams head that day.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 09:14:06 PM
Quote
I remember a better game than either of them. Miami vs Kansas City, Christmas Day---early 70's...

was that the 41-38 game?

Quote
since suddenly weather makes a game "great".

nope, I don't think that was the point. IMO the point was the sanitization of football, a game that has typically been played  out of doors in all sorts of sloppy conditions: wind, rain, snow, fog.

great football makes a game great, weather and the elements can make those games even more memorable.

But not great.

right, two shitty teams playing in a nor'easter will not usually play great football.

but two good teams playing in the post-season in bad weather can create a historic game.

and has, which is the point.

Of course we can just move all January games to domes or to southern cites to sanitize the experience.

But we usually save that game for February, and call it the Superbowl.


No two teams playing in bad weather have ever produced a good game.  If it was memorable it was only because of bad conditions and the ability of one team to survive.  It will be the same in Green Bay tomorrow.

This makes college football  much more fun, not to mention a reason to buy a ticket and follow the team.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 09:16:08 PM
I think it was 27-24 in two overtimes.The 41-38 was the Dolphins- Chargers,no? Yes I was there.I was the hat on top of Hank Strams head that day.

No, pal, I am talking about the Chargers/Bengals in 1981.
Were you there?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 09:33:36 PM
No I wasn't.I had a ticket but sold it.But I've been at Bills games when the temp was zero or below and growing up played hours of pond hockey in cold cold weather where we had to defrost after coming inside.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 10:13:08 PM
No I wasn't.I had a ticket but sold it.But I've been at Bills games when the temp was zero or below and growing up played hours of pond hockey in cold cold weather where we had to defrost after coming inside.

Not only are you a fucking moron, you are a worthless fucking idiot, to boot.
(http://forums.escapefromelba.com/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) Attacks other posters, profane language


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 19, 2008, 10:14:34 PM
Whatever turns you on sport.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 19, 2008, 10:29:49 PM
Whatever turns you on sport.

Not to mention a fucking liar.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 19, 2008, 11:41:53 PM
No I wasn't.I had a ticket but sold it.But I've been at Bills games when the temp was zero or below and growing up played hours of pond hockey in cold cold weather where we had to defrost after coming inside.

Not only are you a fucking moron, you are a worthless fucking idiot, to boot.

Oh, are you vying for my title?

What a useful post.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 20, 2008, 01:39:08 AM
Quote
Seahawks fan rooting for the Packers seems wrong

I rooted for da Bears last season - figure may as well get behind the team that beat mine, that way I can say we lost to the champs ...
(only time that tact doesn't apply, is if it's baseball and the team is the Yanks  ;))

Anyway, our teams have a future HoF coach in common ... and, it's sorta tough not to like #4 ...

oh - and I have a good friend from San Diego ...

GO BOLTS !!!

 :)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 20, 2008, 03:40:24 AM
Quote
Seahawks fan rooting for the Packers seems wrong

I rooted for da Bears last season - figure may as well get behind the team that beat mine, that way I can say we lost to the champs ...
(only time that tact doesn't apply, is if it's baseball and the team is the Yanks  ;))

Anyway, our teams have a future HoF coach in common ... and, it's sorta tough not to like #4 ...

oh - and I have a good friend from San Diego ...

GO BOLTS !!!

 :)

In the land of mostly irrelevant questions...

Do you mean tactic as in strategy or plan, or

Do you mean tack as in approach?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 20, 2008, 08:15:26 AM
just got off the weather.com website which informs me that the current temperature in GB is -12 with a wind chill of -32. at game time it's anticipated to be -2/-13 and will drop off as the game proceeds...

this is insane by any measure. if the league and the player's union want to be this irresponsible with the guys on the field, perhaps the municipality ought to at least look after the interests of the fans. lambeau is actually owned by the citizens of green bay and, surely, someone has to have the common sense and concern with the common weal to have this "game" either re-scheduled or (better) re-venued...

there are two climate controlled stadia within a reasonable commute of GB: minneapolis and detroit. i don't know if either venue is booked and the logistics of moving the teams at this late juncture would be a nightmare but certainly preferable to the strong possibility of serious health issues provided by the conditions this evening...

i hope somebody out there has the mature judgement to, at least, postpone this contest...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 20, 2008, 08:38:47 AM
just got off the weather.com website which informs me that the current temperature in GB is -12 with a wind chill of -32. at game time it's anticipated to be -2/-13 and will drop off as the game proceeds...

this is insane by any measure. if the league and the player's union want to be this irresponsible with the guys on the field, perhaps the municipality ought to at least look after the interests of the fans. (snip)

i hope somebody out there has the mature judgement to, at least, postpone this contest...

Brr.

Best interests of the which fans where? The fans who would rather go see the game, regardless of temperature, and therefore will brave the temperatures? Should the government override their desires (idiocies) and force them to be healthy?

Caveat Emptor!

The fans at home who are more than happy to watch a game of frostbite get played? (There is a great study/article on how aggression works in ways similar to sex, drugs, and food - and why football, for example, is so attractive.) How is forcing these guys to play indoors going to serve those fans?

And lastly... mature judgment... pro sports... mature judgment... pro sports...

Seems unlikely. "And now, each fan cannot buy more than 4 beers at a time, to cut down on drunkenness at the games."

I don't disagree with your desire. I merely think expecting somebody to step in on a public health platform or a rationality platform is a bit much to hope for. The body count will be half of what the fans at home are watching for - and the cold is part of what the network will be promoting.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 20, 2008, 09:00:47 AM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 20, 2008, 09:26:25 AM


"And now, each fan cannot buy more than 4 beers at a time, to cut down on drunkenness at the games."

I don't disagree with your desire. I merely think expecting somebody to step in on a public health platform or a rationality platform is a bit much to hope for.

ordinarily, i would be the last person to want government interference in anything but this simply seems to me like the superdome trying to eek out one last event before katrina makes landfall...

How is forcing these guys to play indoors going to serve those fans?

i'm also not of fan of domed stadia. when i actually attend a game, i like to be outdoors. watching a game in a dome is like stepping into your TV without the benefits of home viewing. while i rarely have cold issues living in so. carolina, i've sat (and played) in plenty of rain. so i'll agree with you in principle about the venue change...

on the other hand, the projected temperature for, say, thursday coming in GB is expected to be +28. so postponing the game (actually both would have to be in fairness) until then doesn't seem too unreasonable. granted some fans would be wringing their hands and shaking their fingers but, at least, they'd still have them...

i also checked both major GB newspapers and not a peep from anyone other than an article about the positive economic impact of the game on the municipality. i guess the politicians and the press agree about the perceived stupidity of their constituents... 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 20, 2008, 09:47:36 AM
i also checked both major GB newspapers and not a peep from anyone other than an article about the positive economic impact of the game on the municipality. i guess the politicians and the press agree about the perceived stupidity of their constituents... 

No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
H. L. Mencken


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 20, 2008, 09:57:31 AM
They postpone games for lightening. This has all the makings of a major disaster unheard of in US Sports history. How many purists/sadists have waited for a title game in Green Bay in minus 5 for decades. Those magnificent bastids going sleeveless have no idea what is in store.

Hypothermia is a condition in which an organism's temperature drops below that required for normal metabolism and bodily functions. In warm-blooded animals, core body temperature is maintained near a constant level through biologic homeostasis. But when the body is exposed to cold its internal mechanisms may be unable to replenish the heat that is being lost to the organism's surroundings.

Normal body temperature in humans is 37°C (98.6°F). Hypothermia can be divided in three stages of severity.

In stage 1, body temperature drops by 1-2°C below normal temperature (1.8-3.6°F). Mild to strong shivering occurs. The victim is unable to perform complex tasks with the hands; the hands become numb. Blood vessels in the outer extremities constrict, lessening heat loss to the outside air. Breathing becomes quick and shallow. Goose bumps form, raising body hair on end in an attempt to create an insulating layer of air around the body (limited use in humans due to lack of sufficient hair, but useful in other species). Often, a person will experience a warm sensation, as if they have recovered, but they are in fact heading into Stage 2. Another test to see if the person is entering stage 2 is if they are unable to touch their thumb with their little finger; this is the first stage of muscles not working.

In stage 2, body temperature drops by 2-4°C (3.6-7.2°F). Shivering becomes more violent. Muscle mis-coordination becomes apparent. Movements are slow and labored, accompanied by a stumbling pace and mild confusion, although the victim may appear alert. Surface blood vessels contract further as the body focuses its remaining resources on keeping the vital organs warm. The victim becomes pale. Lips, ears, fingers and toes may become blue.

In stage 3, body temperature drops below approximately 32°C (90°F). Shivering usually stops. Difficulty speaking, sluggish thinking, and amnesia start to appear; inability to use hands and stumbling are also usually present. Cellular metabolic processes shut down. Below 30°C (86°F) the exposed skin becomes blue and puffy, muscle coordination very poor, walking nearly impossible, and the victim exhibits incoherent/irrational behavior including terminal burrowing or even a stupor. Pulse and respiration rates decrease significantly but fast heart rates (ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation) can occur. Major organs fail. Clinical death occurs. Because of decreased cellular activity in stage 3 hypothermia, the body will actually take longer to undergo brain death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia#Paradoxical_undressing


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 20, 2008, 09:58:07 AM
Quote
No two teams playing in bad weather have ever produced a good game.


There really is no good way to respond to a statement that just flat out ignores facts, other than to say, you are wrong.

Quote
If it was memorable it was only because of bad conditions and the ability of one team to survive.  It will be the same in Green Bay tomorrow.

This makes college football  much more fun, not to mention a reason to buy a ticket and follow the team.

If you enjoy college footbal more than the pro game that's fine by me, but these statements linked together is one of the better non-sequitars I've seen in awhle.

Did the NCAA ban bad weather on Saturdays?

thanks for the laugh.

Go Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 20, 2008, 11:32:07 AM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!

The NFL has been playing these types of games forever, even when there was no TV to speak of.
It simply does not want to gamble on moving playoff games to neutral sites because fans may not travel in huge numbers before the Super Bowl. 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 20, 2008, 11:35:06 AM
Quote
No two teams playing in bad weather have ever produced a good game.


There really is no good way to respond to a statement that just flat out ignores facts, other than to say, you are wrong.

Quote
If it was memorable it was only because of bad conditions and the ability of one team to survive.  It will be the same in Green Bay tomorrow.

This makes college football  much more fun, not to mention a reason to buy a ticket and follow the team.



If you enjoy college footbal more than the pro game that's fine by me, but these statements linked together is one of the better non-sequitars I've seen in awhle.

Did the NCAA ban bad weather on Saturdays?

thanks for the laugh.

Go Pats.

College football does not stage post season games in Wisconsin in December.
Bowls games provide hundreds of thousands of fans a chance for a tan, not frostbite.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 20, 2008, 11:57:36 AM
Quote
College football does not stage post season games in Wisconsin in December.

this is getting funnier by each post.

You're right. College football stages paegents in Pasadena that usually has little to do championships or great football. but the weather is usually pretty good.

in pro ball in the post-season the team with the best record gets something called the homefield advantage. Crowd, weather etc. can come into play.

That is until the biggest paegent of the year arrives, when football gives way to corporate sponsors who only want to see ice if its in a cocktail glass chillling a single-malt scotch.

Quote
Bowls games provide hundreds of thousands of fans a chance for a tan, not frostbite.

and your non-sequitars are getting better too.

if you want a tan-go to Florida, but if you want to see the best football in the world, today you gotta go to Green Bay or Foxboro

and you gotta dress warmly.

and keep up the good work.

and Go Pats.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 20, 2008, 12:02:11 PM
Quote
College football does not stage post season games in Wisconsin in December.



You're right. College football stages paegents in Pasadena that usually has little to do championships or great football. but the weather is usually pretty good.






Yep.  A lot more fun than sitting in a chair in the den watching bumbling wide bodies try to stand up.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 20, 2008, 12:45:38 PM
Quote
In the land of mostly irrelevant questions...

Do you mean tactic as in strategy or plan, or

Do you mean tack as in approach?

I meant tact as in consideration, solicitude, concern.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 20, 2008, 12:50:50 PM
i hope somebody out there has the mature judgement to, at least, postpone this contest...

This is the NFL.  They play in any weather conditions.  You're thinking of professional  golf or something.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 20, 2008, 12:55:21 PM
College football does not stage post season games in Wisconsin in December.
Bowls games provide hundreds of thousands of fans a chance for a tan, not frostbite.

They staged one in Boise in December.  That blue field was white when Clemson beat LaTech in the Humanitarian Bowl a few years ago.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 20, 2008, 01:02:42 PM
just got off the weather.com website which informs me that the current temperature in GB is -12 with a wind chill of -32. at game time it's anticipated to be -2/-13 and will drop off as the game proceeds...

this is insane by any measure. if the league and the player's union want to be this irresponsible with the guys on the field, perhaps the municipality ought to at least look after the interests of the fans. lambeau is actually owned by the citizens of green bay and, surely, someone has to have the common sense and concern with the common weal to have this "game" either re-scheduled or (better) re-venued...

there are two climate controlled stadia within a reasonable commute of GB: minneapolis and detroit. i don't know if either venue is booked and the logistics of moving the teams at this late juncture would be a nightmare but certainly preferable to the strong possibility of serious health issues provided by the conditions this evening...

i hope somebody out there has the mature judgement to, at least, postpone this contest...

The field is heated

The fans you have to be concerened with


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 20, 2008, 01:10:17 PM
The fans you have to be concerened with

What for?  They're all adults.  Anyone who tries to bring a child into that stadium should be booked for child abuse (or neglect or endangerment or whatever) and carted off to prison, but that doesn't mean they should cancel or reschedule the game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 20, 2008, 01:43:47 PM
The fans you have to be concerened with

What for?  They're all adults.  Anyone who tries to bring a child into that stadium should be booked for child abuse (or neglect or endangerment or whatever) and carted off to prison, but that doesn't mean they should cancel or reschedule the game.

Where are your seats?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 20, 2008, 02:15:05 PM
Quote
A lot more fun than sitting in a chair in the den watching bumbling wide bodies try to stand up.

that sounds like my SB party last year.

Damn Colts fans couldn't hold their booze.

Go Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 20, 2008, 02:50:28 PM
Pats 31

Bolts 14


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 20, 2008, 03:08:31 PM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!

The NFL has been playing these types of games forever, even when there was no TV to speak of.
It simply does not want to gamble on moving playoff games to neutral sites because fans may not travel in huge numbers before the Super Bowl. 




No. It's simply about RATINGS, because RATINGS = revenue, and that is what the NFL loves most...M-O-N-E-Y.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 21, 2008, 09:38:08 AM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!

The NFL has been playing these types of games forever, even when there was no TV to speak of.
It simply does not want to gamble on moving playoff games to neutral sites because fans may not travel in huge numbers before the Super Bowl. 




No. It's simply about RATINGS, because RATINGS = revenue, and that is what the NFL loves most...M-O-N-E-Y.

So, the NFL should what, go non profit for the love of sport?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 21, 2008, 09:39:51 AM
Well, NE fans got what they "wanted".

Cannot fathom why Turner punts with 9 minutes remaining.  Allso how he could not mix in a defensive set to disallow the Pats from grinding out that final 9 (spit, even letting them run/pass for a long TD was better than what occurrred)

Kudos to Rivers for playing hobbled.

For the Giants, I am just happy we did not get the royal screwing that it appeared was taking place (missed offsides call, etc).  And I was thrilled to hear Aikman trip over his tongue all day.

I actually thought Coughlin might call for a punt rather than the 47 yarder... Tough wqay foir Brett to finish.  Would rather have seen a punt and a long Giants drive finish them off.

So my 70-1 shot lives.  Just a little more juice for the SB.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 21, 2008, 10:06:34 AM
Congrats to the boards Giants fans, G-Men played a great game

let the trash talk/smack begin


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 21, 2008, 10:16:13 AM
As I was saying, it's just unclear that Favre has the steadiness he needs at the ends of important games to get it done, compared to Eli Manning.

Congratulations to the Giants fans and to my fellow Patriots fans on a pair of hard-fought wins.

The look of the Giants after the missed field goal and then the coin flip was almost haunting. The look on Brett Favre's face, more than once, was beyond haunted.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 21, 2008, 10:18:06 AM
The N.Y. Post on Saturday used an image of Patriots WR Donte Stallworth to accompany a story on a restraining order being filed against Patriots WR Randy Moss.

Good thing the Post has two weeks to doublecheck the rosters.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: peloux on January 21, 2008, 11:45:31 AM
...

Cannot fathom why Turner punts with 9 minutes remaining.  Allso how he could not mix in a defensive set to disallow the Pats from grinding out that final 9 (spit, even letting them run/pass for a long TD was better than what occurrred)

Kudos to Rivers for playing hobbled.

...

It was more like 6 minutes, wasn't it? All the more reason to go for it in a two-score game. The best (and obvious) explanation for the failure in the red zone is the absence of LT and Gates. The end zone is a magnet for LT in the red zone. Even if you don't throw to Gates, he operates as a diversion. Picking Brady three times and holding the Pats to just 21 points are no mean feats, though for naught. Too bad. This was a winnable game for the Chargers.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 21, 2008, 11:55:41 AM
Quote
It was more like 6 minutes, wasn't it?

nope it was about 9 minutes and 13 seconds

and given the way Rivers was throwing, the Chargers lack of success in 3rd and longs, and the way that the SD defense played, (they played a very good game) punting and hoping for a 3 and out and then good field position was not totally indfensible. The only thing that seemed indefensible after that was the Pats O-line which owned the field from late in the 3rd quarter on. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 21, 2008, 12:13:18 PM
Were the Chargers stacking the line?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 21, 2008, 02:16:01 PM
Josh ~
In case you missed my reply during the little forum hiccup ...

Quote
In the land of mostly irrelevant questions...

Do you mean tactic as in strategy or plan, or

Do you mean tack as in approach?

I meant tact as in consideration, solicitude, concern.

_________________________________

Congrats to the Patriots and the Giants.

I'll be in Las Vegas for Super Bowl weekend and I never bet on the favorite.  What fun is that?

Go Giants !!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 21, 2008, 02:46:25 PM

Bowls games provide hundreds of thousands of fans a chance for a tan, not frostbite.

And skin cancer.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: ponderosa on January 21, 2008, 02:59:55 PM
It's Jessica Simpson's fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJHb9m4ccmQ


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 21, 2008, 03:24:29 PM
That sure was some shitty game in Green Bay yesterday.And those poor suffering fans.They were so cold they hardly made any noise at all.I listened to the first game on Radio with my TV picture and listening to Bob Trumpy is like listening to some of the experts here.Painful :-*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 21, 2008, 03:45:27 PM
That sure was some shitty game in Green Bay yesterday.And those poor suffering fans.They were so cold they hardly made any noise at all.I listened to the first game on Radio with my TV picture and listening to Bob Trumpy is like listening to some of the experts here.Painful :-*

Well, it sure was nothing to showcase a league over.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 21, 2008, 03:54:11 PM
Josh ~
In case you missed my reply during the little forum hiccup ...

Quote
In the land of mostly irrelevant questions...

Do you mean tactic as in strategy or plan, or

Do you mean tack as in approach?

I meant tact as in consideration, solicitude, concern.

I got it, but still don't understand it in the context in which it was used - but, changing tacks, it really isn't that important, and I probably shouldn't have bothered asking, as it wasn't tactful.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 21, 2008, 03:56:22 PM
Anyone think a Manning-Bowl is possible in the next couple seasons?  Damn Mannings shouldn'ta spaced out their kids so much.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 21, 2008, 05:59:01 PM
The best line of the day came from the play by play guy working with Trumpy.He said Rivers looked like Walter Brennan from the Real McCoys out there.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 21, 2008, 06:34:12 PM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!

The NFL has been playing these types of games forever, even when there was no TV to speak of.
It simply does not want to gamble on moving playoff games to neutral sites because fans may not travel in huge numbers before the Super Bowl. 




No. It's simply about RATINGS, because RATINGS = revenue, and that is what the NFL loves most...M-O-N-E-Y.

So, the NFL should what, go non profit for the love of sport?

Did I say that, jm-moke?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 21, 2008, 07:36:39 PM
....the cold is part of what the network will be promoting."

Remember. This isn't about football. This isn't about sport. This is about RATINGS, PEOPLE!

GOTIT?????!!!!

The NFL has been playing these types of games forever, even when there was no TV to speak of.
It simply does not want to gamble on moving playoff games to neutral sites because fans may not travel in huge numbers before the Super Bowl. 




No. It's simply about RATINGS, because RATINGS = revenue, and that is what the NFL loves most...M-O-N-E-Y.

So, the NFL should what, go non profit for the love of sport?

Did I say that, jm-moke?



Hard to follow you, most of the time.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 21, 2008, 08:32:52 PM
Quote
but still don't understand it in the context in which it was used

Quote
(only time that tact doesn't apply, is if it's baseball and the team is the Yanks  )
as in "only time that consideration (taking into account rooting for a team I would normally root against) is if it's baseball ...."

Quote
but, changing tacks, it really isn't that important, and I probably shouldn't have bothered asking, as it wasn't tactful.
:)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 21, 2008, 10:14:58 PM
Tom Brady is in a walking cast.

I look forward to the spin.

And it might be a game, after all!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 21, 2008, 10:25:20 PM
Looked like he played in a walking cast.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 21, 2008, 10:38:07 PM
Looked like he played in a walking cast.

It would certainly explain a lot.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 21, 2008, 10:47:06 PM
Seems to have had that cast on 4 of the last 7 games


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 21, 2008, 10:57:52 PM
Randy Moss must be wearing two the last few games.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:05:19 AM
Tom Brady is in a walking cast.

I look forward to the spin.

And it might be a game, after all!


I think his supporting cast is more important. The spread may reduce to 11.5, and outside of that, I don't see the Giants getting too worked up about this potential "playing possum" move of Brady and the Patriots.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:14:55 AM
 "Hard to follow you, most of the time."

Not if you're paying attention.

Simply put: If the NFL's basic goal is to make as much money as possible, and they perceive that they can sell more interest in the game by playing in the cold weather of Green Bay, then that is what they are going to do.


If you have trouble understanding this, then you must think that they invited Tom Petty to play at halftime of the Super Bowl because they just like his music.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:35:06 AM
From the AP:

The New York Giants' 23-20 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers Sunday night got a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for an NFL conference championship game since 1996.

The Giants' win, which set up a Super Bowl matchup with the New England Patriots, got a 46 share, Fox said yesterday. The rating was up 21 percent from the 26.2/46 for the Chicago Bears' 39-14 win over the New Orleans Saints in last year's NFC championship, which was in the early time slot.

Sunday's Giants game received the highest rating for any television broadcast since the Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 win over the Bears in last year's Super Bowl.

New England's 21-12 victory over the San Diego Chargers in the AFC championship received a 27.4/48, down 2 percent from the 28.1/40 for Patriots' 38-34 loss to Indianapolis in the late time slot last year.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the nation viewing a telecast, and the share is the percentage among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Overnights measure the largest markets in the nation. National ratings will be released later this week.


Cold weather Lambeau SELLS.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:36:04 AM
Why the Giants can win the Super Bowl. A Philadelphia perspective:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20080122_Phil_Sheridan__Instant_Replay.html


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 07:40:34 AM
Tom Brady is in a walking cast.

I look forward to the spin.

And it might be a game, after all!


I think his supporting cast is more important. The spread may reduce to 11.5, and outside of that, I don't see the Giants getting too worked up about this potential "playing possum" move of Brady and the Patriots.

Belichick asked Brady to wear the boot, he's got one last shot to win back that $500K. Line dropped 2 points (12 1/2) after the photo came out.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 08:05:54 AM
Why the Giants can win the Super Bowl. A Philadelphia perspective:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20080122_Phil_Sheridan__Instant_Replay.html


Silly article. One of the first of many, I expect to come out over the next 2 weeks. Of course the Giants can win, we've all seen bigger upsets in the SB, or other sporting events.

What's more important, though, is that the Giants may well be the team most qualified to make the New England Patriots earn that perfect 19-0 record in Super Bowl XLII.
Here's why.


Most qualified?  I suppose. But I'd phrase it as the "only team" qualified  because everyone else has lost.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 08:41:40 AM
Why the Giants can win the Super Bowl. A Philadelphia perspective:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20080122_Phil_Sheridan__Instant_Replay.html


Silly article. One of the first of many, I expect to come out over the next 2 weeks. Of course the Giants can win, we've all seen bigger upsets in the SB, or other sporting events.

What's more important, though, is that the Giants may well be the team most qualified to make the New England Patriots earn that perfect 19-0 record in Super Bowl XLII.
Here's why.


Most qualified?  I suppose. But I'd phrase it as the "only team" qualified  because everyone else has lost.



That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 08:56:00 AM
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 09:16:15 AM
and other than Brady's health, the one vulnerability I'm a little concerned with is the Pats older LBers in a hot Arizona dome.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 22, 2008, 10:29:01 AM
"Hard to follow you, most of the time."

Not if you're paying attention.

Simply put: If the NFL's basic goal is to make as much money as possible, and they perceive that they can sell more interest in the game by playing in the cold weather of Green Bay, then that is what they are going to do.


If you have trouble understanding this, then you must think that they invited Tom Petty to play at halftime of the Super Bowl because they just like his music.


The NFL belongs to the TV audience and the bettors.
If there is something to wager on during the halftime then the TV audience will be even larger.

But settling for one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time helps attract non football fans to the TV audience.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 11:27:49 AM
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".

Adopt the Rod Serling voice as you read further:

 What bankshot doesn't realize is that he has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone". It is a place almost without form, but it has been known to chew up and spit out fans of all teams in almost every sport. When a fan of a certain team begins to think that his team not only can't lose, but is "entitled" to win simply because they are "the----------(insert team's name here)", then that fan has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".

Some may stay here for some time, but eventually all will be shattered when their team eventually loses, especially, to an "Undeserving Opponent". When this happens, victims of "The Entitlement Zone" wander for days on end, blaming referees, umpires, weather conditions, the coach, management, the league, Vegas, a particular player or play, or any thing or person they can imagine in order to deflect the pain of losing. They then start each sentence with either "If only..." or with "Well at least we still won..."., or the dreaded "Yeah, but,..."

Recently, several fans of several teams have been victimized by "The Entitlement Zone".

Dallas Cowboys fans.

Indianapolis Colts fans.

Pittsburgh Steelers fans.

And now, of course, Green Bay Packers fans.

Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there. He will make statements like, "We'll see what happens on Sunday!" or "We have too many weapons to lose!" or the belicose "There's no way we can be stopped!"

Thus, eventually the crushing disappointment of a loss will come when he least expects it. And when that loss comes, and when it was "guaranteed", it is almost more than a "Zoner" can take.

It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 11:40:24 AM
Quote
What bankshot doesn't realize is that he has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone". It is a place almost without form, but it has been known to chew up and spit out fans of all teams in almost every sport. When a fan of a certain team begins to think that his team not only can't lose, but is "entitled" to win simply because they are "the----------(insert team's name here)", then that fan has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


Sorry hammy, but right now I'm in the Reasonable Expectation Zone TM. I have the outmost respect fot the Giants. I think they are a very good team, peaking at the right time. But I just happen think the Pats are the better team based on my observations and observable facts.

and yes I'm Rezzing you. 

Quote
Recently, several fans of several teams have been victimized by "The Entitlement Zone".

True. But

Quote
Dallas Cowboys fans.

Victimized by the Pats 48-27

Quote
Indianapolis Colts fans.

Victimized by the Pats 24-20

Quote
Pittsburgh Steelers fans.

Victimized by the Pats 34-7


And now, of course, the NY Giants fans.

Victimized by the Pats 38-35.

Like I said I fully respect the G-Men, and I exoect them to paly a good SB, but IMO history and the facts seem, at least for the moment to support my entry into Reasonable Expectation Zone TM .

Quote
Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there. He will make statements like, "We'll see what happens on Sunday!" or "We have too many weapons to lose!" or the belicose "There's no way we can be stopped!"

heh

Hammy you have been Rezzed.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 22, 2008, 12:06:01 PM
From the AP:

The New York Giants' 23-20 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers Sunday night got a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for an NFL conference championship game since 1996.

The Giants' win, which set up a Super Bowl matchup with the New England Patriots, got a 46 share, Fox said yesterday. The rating was up 21 percent from the 26.2/46 for the Chicago Bears' 39-14 win over the New Orleans Saints in last year's NFC championship, which was in the early time slot.

Sunday's Giants game received the highest rating for any television broadcast since the Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 win over the Bears in last year's Super Bowl.

New England's 21-12 victory over the San Diego Chargers in the AFC championship received a 27.4/48, down 2 percent from the 28.1/40 for Patriots' 38-34 loss to Indianapolis in the late time slot last year.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the nation viewing a telecast, and the share is the percentage among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Overnights measure the largest markets in the nation. National ratings will be released later this week.


Cold weather Lambeau SELLS.

No one said it didn't.
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 12:09:56 PM
Quote
And now, of course, the NY Giants fans.

Victimized by the Pats 38-35.

Would not use the word 'victimized' to refer to a close game where the Giants were playing for pride and the Patriots were playing for everything.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 12:11:15 PM
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 12:14:40 PM
Quote
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

So you want to take 2 cold weather teams put them in front of a corporate/somewhat dsinterested fans, in a warm weather city, (out of their element as it were) and you think you'll get a better game than the one you saw in Green Bay?

That's a very doubtful proposition.

Football has always been about teams overcoming obstacles, including the elements, to win.
 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 12:18:04 PM
Quote
And now, of course, the NY Giants fans.

Victimized by the Pats 38-35.

Would not use the word 'victimized' to refer to a close game where the Giants were playing for pride and the Patriots were playing for everything.

I was using ham's terminology for effect and fun.

And I basically agree with your post. It can be said both teams achieved their goals in that game. But IIRC the Pats did win that game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 12:50:07 PM
Quote
What bankshot doesn't realize is that he has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone". It is a place almost without form, but it has been known to chew up and spit out fans of all teams in almost every sport. When a fan of a certain team begins to think that his team not only can't lose, but is "entitled" to win simply because they are "the----------(insert team's name here)", then that fan has crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


Sorry hammy, but right now I'm in the Reasonable Expectation Zone TM. I have the outmost respect fot the Giants. I think they are a very good team, peaking at the right time. But I just happen think the Pats are the better team based on my observations and observable facts.

and yes I'm Rezzing you. 

Quote
Recently, several fans of several teams have been victimized by "The Entitlement Zone".

True. But

Quote
Dallas Cowboys fans.

Victimized by the Pats 48-27

Quote
Indianapolis Colts fans.

Victimized by the Pats 24-20

Quote
Pittsburgh Steelers fans.

Victimized by the Pats 34-7


And now, of course, the NY Giants fans.

Victimized by the Pats 38-35.

Like I said I fully respect the G-Men, and I exoect them to paly a good SB, but IMO history and the facts seem, at least for the moment to support my entry into Reasonable Expectation Zone TM .

Quote
Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there. He will make statements like, "We'll see what happens on Sunday!" or "We have too many weapons to lose!" or the belicose "There's no way we can be stopped!"

heh

Hammy you have been Rezzed.


Another aspect of the "The Entitlement Zone" is the very high propensity of the afflicted "fan" to merely copy any criticism launched his team's way, and repackage it as his own.


Don't TEZ me, bro'.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 12:52:33 PM
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.


boy, are YOU lost.

You gotta go back and read the post more carefully, kamster.

I am  a GIANT fan ranking on a Pats fan.

Wake up and read the coffee beans.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 12:54:27 PM
Quote
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

So you want to take 2 cold weather teams put them in front of a corporate/somewhat dsinterested fans, in a warm weather city, (out of their element as it were) and you think you'll get a better game than the one you saw in Green Bay?

That's a very doubtful proposition.

Football has always been about teams overcoming obstacles, including the elements, to win.
 

Best of all, the theorist can offer no proof for his statement, and the reality is that the strategy of tapping into NFL history in order to sell the game, combined with modern methods of helping players play in those conditions, led to ONE OF THE GREATEST GAMES OF ALL TIME!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 01:05:12 PM
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.

You gotta go back and read the post more carefully, I am  a GIANT fan ranking on a Pats fan.


Utley I know you're a Giant fan razzing a Pats fan, i didn't need to re-read your post to tell that much. However

A) that shouldn't mean i automatically co-sign what you write and B) you're talking about Yankee fans and that includes me. 

When you take a shot at these fans of winning teams, you are allowed to think what you wish of us, but it is what it is.  If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.  If the Phillies win 4 out of 5 WS titles you would hopefully rethink your position on entitlement and at the very least, know the distaste at being lumped in a group you have no control over.  Winning is not something you should have to apologize for.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 01:09:32 PM
 
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.

You gotta go back and read the post more carefully, I am  a GIANT fan ranking on a Pats fan.


Utley I know you're a Giant fan razzing a Pats fan, i didn't need to re-read your post to tell that much. However

A) that shouldn't mean i automatically co-sign what you write and B) you're talking about Yankee fans and that includes me. 

When you take a shot at these fans of winning teams, you are allowed to think what you wish of us, but it is what it is.  If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.  If the Phillies win 4 out of 5 WS titles you would hopefully rethink your position on entitlement and at the very least, know the distaste at being lumped in a group you have no control over.  Winning is not something you should have to apologize for.



Thanks for proving my point, kam.

TEZer.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 01:20:00 PM
Quote
Don't TEZ me, bro'.

I wont TEZ you

I willl SEZ (Superbowl Entertainment Zone) 2U

I will FEZ (Football Enlightenment Zone) 2U

and I will PEZ (Patriots Entitlement Zone) U

dont take the Under or the U -dog

or you will likely be 2nd GEZzed (Giants Educational Zone) in 2 weeks   


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 22, 2008, 01:23:18 PM
Quote
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

So you want to take 2 cold weather teams put them in front of a corporate/somewhat dsinterested fans, in a warm weather city, (out of their element as it were) and you think you'll get a better game than the one you saw in Green Bay?

That's a very doubtful proposition.

Football has always been about teams overcoming obstacles, including the elements, to win.
 

Best of all, the theorist can offer no proof for his statement, and the reality is that the strategy of tapping into NFL history in order to sell the game, combined with modern methods of helping players play in those conditions, led to ONE OF THE GREATEST GAMES OF ALL TIME!!!

LOL, why stop at that? greatest game of all time in any sport in the universe!
Now had the  Giants lost, ..........


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 01:26:20 PM
Quote
If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.

I'm not sure how I really feel about the game yet, other than to say the only outcome I do not see is the Giants blowing out the Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 01:27:23 PM
 
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.

You gotta go back and read the post more carefully, I am  a GIANT fan ranking on a Pats fan.


Utley I know you're a Giant fan razzing a Pats fan, i didn't need to re-read your post to tell that much. However

A) that shouldn't mean i automatically co-sign what you write and B) you're talking about Yankee fans and that includes me. 

When you take a shot at these fans of winning teams, you are allowed to think what you wish of us, but it is what it is.  If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.  If the Phillies win 4 out of 5 WS titles you would hopefully rethink your position on entitlement and at the very least, know the distaste at being lumped in a group you have no control over.  Winning is not something you should have to apologize for.



Thanks for proving my point, kam.

TEZer.


You've failed to convey the point.  You really don't understand do you.  I'm trying to help you here.  When the Phillies win a bunch of WS and people start talking about all the entitled Philly fans you'll know what i'm talking about. Until then... you;ll have to take my word for it.  Its not entitlement.  Its a feeling of confidence that 'we' will win.  Nothing wrong with that.  It only becomes 'ugly entitlement' when the person makes it ugly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 22, 2008, 01:29:22 PM
Quote
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

So you want to take 2 cold weather teams put them in front of a corporate/somewhat dsinterested fans, in a warm weather city, (out of their element as it were) and you think you'll get a better game than the one you saw in Green Bay?

That's a very doubtful proposition.

Football has always been about teams overcoming obstacles, including the elements, to win.
 

Let's see.  New England and New York are two cold weather teams and they play in Arizona in less than two weeks in the biggest game in the NFL before an annual TV audience approaching half the country with corporate/somewht disinterested fans in the seats.

Pray tell what "obstacles" are being put before them there?

I


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 01:29:31 PM
Quote
If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.

I'm not sure how I really feel about the game yet, other than to say the only outcome I do not see is the Giants blowing out the Pats.

Yet you posted this to which Utley took great umbrage and lumped you in with - horrors - Yankee fans:

Quote
No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included.  The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.


Title: Just in case you wanted to know
Post by: yankguy on January 22, 2008, 01:34:24 PM
It's a little-known fact, but when the Dolphins were undefeated they were UNDERDOGS in the Super Bowl against the Redskins.

That game remains one of the few 14-7 blow-outs in NFL history.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 01:37:14 PM
Quote
Pray tell what "obstacles" are being put before them there?

other than desert heat, all the BS that accompanies the SB.

as noted a few days ago, the SB is the NFL's paegent:its part football, part pay-off to sponsors, part party, but all about ratings and advertising and money.

IMO last week-end was the best one for pro football fans.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 01:44:57 PM
Quote
If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.

I'm not sure how I really feel about the game yet, other than to say the only outcome I do not see is the Giants blowing out the Pats.

Yet you posted this to which Utley took great umbrage and lumped you in with - horrors - Yankee fans:

Quote
No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included.  The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.


Most Y-fans in the late 90's had reason to have high expectations for the Ys. In addition to being pumped up on illegal drugs they had the best teams, and they won 4 of 5 WS.

and as some here can tell you, Y-fans weren't the only ones to hold those teams in hgh (heh) regard. I did too.

And likewise Pat fans have real resaons to have high expectations for the pats.

And as posted, the real bottom line on the Pats is just that, they are probably a better team than the G-men are, but as also posted, upsets happen and a bigger upsets have happened. 

And the Pats do have vulnerablities, I'm just not at all sure they can be fully exploited by the Giants.

but they'll play the game and we'll find out.

 


Title: Re: Just in case you wanted to know
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 01:50:33 PM
It's a little-known fact, but when the Dolphins were undefeated they were UNDERDOGS in the Super Bowl against the Redskins.

That game remains one of the few 14-7 blow-outs in NFL history.


Garo gave them  the 7. Dolphins totally outplayed the Skins that day.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 22, 2008, 01:53:40 PM
George Allen was the exact same guy as Richard Nixon.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 02:17:38 PM
IMO Rich Little did a very good Richard Nixon.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 22, 2008, 02:23:54 PM
Agreed, but not as good as David Frye's though.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 02:28:26 PM
Good call-I forgot about him, his facial expressions captured the Nixonian paranoia really well.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 22, 2008, 03:04:20 PM
From the AP:

The New York Giants' 23-20 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers Sunday night got a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for an NFL conference championship game since 1996.

The Giants' win, which set up a Super Bowl matchup with the New England Patriots, got a 46 share, Fox said yesterday. The rating was up 21 percent from the 26.2/46 for the Chicago Bears' 39-14 win over the New Orleans Saints in last year's NFC championship, which was in the early time slot.

Sunday's Giants game received the highest rating for any television broadcast since the Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 win over the Bears in last year's Super Bowl.

New England's 21-12 victory over the San Diego Chargers in the AFC championship received a 27.4/48, down 2 percent from the 28.1/40 for Patriots' 38-34 loss to Indianapolis in the late time slot last year.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the nation viewing a telecast, and the share is the percentage among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Overnights measure the largest markets in the nation. National ratings will be released later this week.


Cold weather Lambeau SELLS.

No one said it didn't.
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

Maybe the ratings would stay the same. But the game I don't think would be nearly as emotional from a player standpoint. And to me that "makes" the game.

Football is a game of emotion as well, and that goes for the viewer too. And there's nothing like a ravening pack(no pun intended)of Green Bay fans to get either team excited.

I mean does Ahmad Bradshaw(I think it was Bradshaw) run through the endzone after that TD to taunt the rabid fans of Lamb.....errrr....Alltel Stadium driving them wild with a booing frenzy??

In the words of the Aflack wanebe goat, Naaaah.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 03:43:02 PM
 
Quote
That's a bit dismissive, barrister. Something I guess we can expect from Pats fans in the next two weeks.

Damn right. When a sportswriter reachs into the cliche bag to fill a column, I'll be dismissive of them professor.

And i'm not a barrister.

Quote
From that piece:

The bottom line is, the Patriots have been exposed as vulnerable from a strictly football perspective. The offense that was scoring in the 40s and 50s every week has been in the 20s and 30s. Defensive coordinators clearly are picking up on their predecessors' strategies and improving on them.

No team is without vulnerabilites, the Pats included. Most recently we've seen Moss targeted for "shutdown", which means other more time consuming methods have been needed to score.

The real bottom line has been, the Pats have too many offensive weapons/options for most teams to adequately defend.

But as Phil Sheridan has accurately noted, the Giants will get another shot to improve.

What Sheridan may not have noted, is that so do the Pats.


And with that last post I can see no difference between you and the average Y-fan of the 1990's.

You have crossed into "The Entitlement Zone".


It really is quite sad to see another victim of "THE ENTITLEMENT ZONE".

Like it would be any different with Philadelphia fans?  What you call sad is the end result of being very joyful for a long time.  Its natural.

You gotta go back and read the post more carefully, I am  a GIANT fan ranking on a Pats fan.


Utley I know you're a Giant fan razzing a Pats fan, i didn't need to re-read your post to tell that much. However

A) that shouldn't mean i automatically co-sign what you write and B) you're talking about Yankee fans and that includes me. 

When you take a shot at these fans of winning teams, you are allowed to think what you wish of us, but it is what it is.  If i was Bank, i'd feel the same way about the game.  If the Phillies win 4 out of 5 WS titles you would hopefully rethink your position on entitlement and at the very least, know the distaste at being lumped in a group you have no control over.  Winning is not something you should have to apologize for.



Thanks for proving my point, kam.

TEZer.


You've failed to convey the point.  You really don't understand do you.  I'm trying to help you here.  When the Phillies win a bunch of WS and people start talking about all the entitled Philly fans you'll know what i'm talking about. Until then... you;ll have to take my word for it.  Its not entitlement.  Its a feeling of confidence that 'we' will win.  Nothing wrong with that.  It only becomes 'ugly entitlement' when the person makes it ugly.

I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win...You have every right to try to spin that as confidence and then claim that I somehow "don't understand" the situation because I couldn't possibly have been in any life situations which would afford me the opportunity to "get it".

Sorry, but I "understand" and I "get" exactly where you and mr. shot are coming from and have come from in the past.

Take a look at definition #3, below:

1 a: the state or condition of being entitled : right b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Entitlement


But thanks for making an appearance, kameo.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: lisa mariner on January 22, 2008, 04:02:12 PM


Holmgren's staying ... (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3208709)

YAY!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 04:06:39 PM
Quote
I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win

hammy would you please refer me to my post(s)  where I exhibited either:

-a sense of entitlement or anything but respect for the G-men

My belief that the Pats are better than the Giants is reflective of observable facts gathered since September of 2007, and is hardly a  belief that the Pats are entitled to win anything on February 3rd.

However I do believe that the better team generally does carry the day.

Yours in truth, justice and the American way

bankshot



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 04:29:11 PM
Quote
I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win

hammy would you please refer me to my post(s)  where I exhibited either:

-a sense of entitlement or anything but respect for the G-men

My belief that the Pats are better than the Giants is reflective of observable facts gathered since September of 2007, and is hardly a  belief that the Pats are entitled to win anything on February 3rd.

However I do believe that the better team generally does carry the day.

Yours in truth, justice and the American way

bankshot






"Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there."


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 22, 2008, 04:31:01 PM
From the AP:

The New York Giants' 23-20 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers Sunday night got a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for an NFL conference championship game since 1996.

The Giants' win, which set up a Super Bowl matchup with the New England Patriots, got a 46 share, Fox said yesterday. The rating was up 21 percent from the 26.2/46 for the Chicago Bears' 39-14 win over the New Orleans Saints in last year's NFC championship, which was in the early time slot.

Sunday's Giants game received the highest rating for any television broadcast since the Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 win over the Bears in last year's Super Bowl.

New England's 21-12 victory over the San Diego Chargers in the AFC championship received a 27.4/48, down 2 percent from the 28.1/40 for Patriots' 38-34 loss to Indianapolis in the late time slot last year.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the nation viewing a telecast, and the share is the percentage among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Overnights measure the largest markets in the nation. National ratings will be released later this week.


Cold weather Lambeau SELLS.

No one said it didn't.
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

Maybe the ratings would stay the same. But the game I don't think would be nearly as emotional from a player standpoint. And to me that "makes" the game.

Football is a game of emotion as well, and that goes for the viewer too. And there's nothing like a ravening pack(no pun intended)of Green Bay fans to get either team excited.

I mean does Ahmad Bradshaw(I think it was Bradshaw) run through the endzone after that TD to taunt the rabid fans of Lamb.....errrr....Alltel Stadium driving them wild with a booing frenzy??

In the words of the Aflack wanebe goat, Naaaah.

I should prepare myself, then, for a wake at the Super Bowl?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 04:35:10 PM
Quote
I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win

hammy would you please refer me to my post(s)  where I exhibited either:

-a sense of entitlement or anything but respect for the G-men

My belief that the Pats are better than the Giants is reflective of observable facts gathered since September of 2007, and is hardly a  belief that the Pats are entitled to win anything on February 3rd.

However I do believe that the better team generally does carry the day.

Yours in truth, justice and the American way

bankshot






"Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there."

Hammy you appear to be at a loss for words. Which is seldom the case.

heh

I'm neither a victim nor in denial. I'm merely asking you for some proof of your claim of my "entitlement".

may PEZ be with you,

bankshot



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 22, 2008, 04:57:32 PM
I voted for None of the Above.

Are we making SB predictions yet? Pats 46-10.

It's nice to see the Boston team win (especially over NY), but I'm not a Pats fan. Came close when they drafted Plunkett, though.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: wpsaukee on January 22, 2008, 05:05:54 PM
You got nothing here, Ham. Nothing whatsoever.

There is an enormous body of evidence supporting the proposition that the Patriots are the best team. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable and rational to expect them to win. If you don't admit this, you are firmly in the Denial Zone, or some other zone with a really nasty name.

Believing that the Patriots will win has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement, by any of your definitions. It has to do with looking at the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion. Some Pats fans may reach this conclusion arrogantly, obnoxiously, annoyingly, whatever. But that is by no means the same thing as exhibiting a sense of entitlement.

Sure, the Pats might get beaten. If they do, it will not mean that those who expected them to win--the great majority of observers, regardless of their fan loyalties--were out of line for having had that expectation. It will, of course, mean that the minority who expected the Giants to win are entitled to gloat.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 22, 2008, 05:12:05 PM
From the AP:

The New York Giants' 23-20 overtime victory over the Green Bay Packers Sunday night got a 31.7 overnight rating on Fox, the highest for an NFL conference championship game since 1996.

The Giants' win, which set up a Super Bowl matchup with the New England Patriots, got a 46 share, Fox said yesterday. The rating was up 21 percent from the 26.2/46 for the Chicago Bears' 39-14 win over the New Orleans Saints in last year's NFC championship, which was in the early time slot.

Sunday's Giants game received the highest rating for any television broadcast since the Indianapolis Colts' 29-17 win over the Bears in last year's Super Bowl.

New England's 21-12 victory over the San Diego Chargers in the AFC championship received a 27.4/48, down 2 percent from the 28.1/40 for Patriots' 38-34 loss to Indianapolis in the late time slot last year.

The rating is the percentage of television households in the nation viewing a telecast, and the share is the percentage among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Overnights measure the largest markets in the nation. National ratings will be released later this week.


Cold weather Lambeau SELLS.

No one said it didn't.
But a neutral site game would have done just as well in the TV ratings and given the players a much better opportunity to perform at a level equal to their skills.

Maybe the ratings would stay the same. But the game I don't think would be nearly as emotional from a player standpoint. And to me that "makes" the game.

Football is a game of emotion as well, and that goes for the viewer too. And there's nothing like a ravening pack(no pun intended)of Green Bay fans to get either team excited.

I mean does Ahmad Bradshaw(I think it was Bradshaw) run through the endzone after that TD to taunt the rabid fans of Lamb.....errrr....Alltel Stadium driving them wild with a booing frenzy??

In the words of the Aflack wanebe goat, Naaaah.

Jacobs taunted the fans

Bradshaw knelt and thanked his maker.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 05:14:32 PM
Quote
I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win

hammy would you please refer me to my post(s)  where I exhibited either:

-a sense of entitlement or anything but respect for the G-men

My belief that the Pats are better than the Giants is reflective of observable facts gathered since September of 2007, and is hardly a  belief that the Pats are entitled to win anything on February 3rd.

However I do believe that the better team generally does carry the day.

Yours in truth, justice and the American way

bankshot






"Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there."

Truly unfair.  He thinks his team will win.  But merely because he roots for a team that has won before, he is accused of having a sense of entitlement.  Sheesh...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 22, 2008, 05:16:33 PM
We'll decide pregame whether he has analyzed this tilt fairly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 05:21:42 PM
Quote
I'm afraid  that I have clearly stated my belief that bankshot and 90's Y-fans act and acted as though they are deserving and therefore "entitled" to win

hammy would you please refer me to my post(s)  where I exhibited either:

-a sense of entitlement or anything but respect for the G-men

My belief that the Pats are better than the Giants is reflective of observable facts gathered since September of 2007, and is hardly a  belief that the Pats are entitled to win anything on February 3rd.

However I do believe that the better team generally does carry the day.

Yours in truth, justice and the American way

bankshot






"Once into "The Entitlement Zone", the victim will deny that he is truly there."

Truly unfair.  He thinks his team will win.  But merely because he roots for a team that has won before, he is accused of having a sense of entitlement.  Sheesh...

kam-I'm not sure Hammy even believes what he's posting.

We're just in the early days of week 1 smack. No pads, quick throw away lines. IMO we're just building up to Super Smack XLII.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 22, 2008, 05:25:17 PM
I'll be honest.  The Giants are entitled to this Super Bowl.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 05:27:33 PM
I understand that Tom Coughlin is really pushing for Tiki to be honorary captain.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 22, 2008, 06:12:58 PM
I'll be honest.  The Giants are entitled to this Super Bowl.

Good one.  I like that.  Yup... all dem smug entitled Giant fans...  might just get their comeuppance...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 22, 2008, 06:20:37 PM
The G-Men have kind of grown on me over the season.  Plex and Eli may be a poor man's version of Brady and Moss, but this is going to be an epic battle in Arizona.  NY seems to have more momentum at the moment.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:41:16 PM
this is going to be an epic battle in Arizona.  NY seems to have more momentum at the moment.


Epic battle.

The more momentarily momentum holders of the moment...

Where else can you get this kind of detailed analysis this early before the big game?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 06:42:11 PM
I understand that Tom Coughlin is really pushing for Tiki to be honorary captain.

Did Irving Fryar get up yet?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 22, 2008, 06:49:28 PM
Well he's right, ham. The Giants have won three games in a row. Do you know how hard it is to win 3 in a row in this league?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 22, 2008, 06:51:44 PM
this is going to be an epic battle in Arizona.  NY seems to have more momentum at the moment.


Epic battle.

The more momentarily momentum holders of the moment...

Where else can you get this kind of detailed analysis this early before the big game?





You'll eat those words, you dried-up loser.



Tell us why you were dismissed from teaching, Buttley.   Getting too friendly with the little boys perhaps?
(http://forums.escapefromelba.com/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) Insults/attacks on poster


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 22, 2008, 06:52:36 PM
I understand that Tom Coughlin is really pushing for Tiki to be honorary captain.

Did Irving Fryar get up yet?

I'm pretty sure Irving did, but Darryl Stingley didn't.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 22, 2008, 06:58:11 PM
Well he's right, ham. The Giants have won three games in a row. Do you know how hard it is to win 3 in a row in this league?



Or 10 in a row on the road?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 22, 2008, 07:31:34 PM
Um, kid. How about 18 in a row?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 22, 2008, 07:34:02 PM
NE didn't beat the Ravens.  Ref's bailed them out.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 08:31:10 PM
this is going to be an epic battle in Arizona.  NY seems to have more momentum at the moment.


Epic battle.

The more momentarily momentum holders of the moment...

Where else can you get this kind of detailed analysis this early before the big game?





You'll eat those words, you dried-up loser.



Tell us why you were dismissed from teaching, Buttley.   Getting too friendly with the little boys perhaps?

At some point, Urine, you'll understand that I don't give a shit about what names you want to call me, what lies you wish to make up, and all the other usual, and boring childish tricks that generally work for you.

There is no "momentum" going into a game that is played two weeks after your last one.

Experienced football observers know this.

You're still learning.

I understand. These things take time for one such as yourself.

NE didn't beat the Ravens.  Ref's bailed them out.

Actually, that's another one wrong on your part, too, Budweiser Swiller.  The Ravens beat themselves, as they were, like you, too immature to handle the moment, and they let it get away from them...and the Patriots took full advantage, as great, great winning teams are wont to do.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 22, 2008, 09:27:29 PM
Utley,I see the ignore number for this LOSER is quickly approaching that of Det. Winslow who seems to have stopped posting.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 22, 2008, 10:40:49 PM
Utley,I see the ignore number for this LOSER is quickly approaching that of Det. Winslow who seems to have stopped posting.

It's the same person, IMO.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 22, 2008, 11:08:37 PM
I thought maybe they were twin assholes instead of one giant one. ;)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 23, 2008, 12:48:47 AM
Um, kid. How about 18 in a row?

18 is great.  Though not the same as 10 in a row on the road.  8 in a row is pretty close though i'll give you that.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: luee on January 23, 2008, 06:18:20 AM
Eli, Put On Your Superman Cape

catchy tune;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wn-MIuAfmE&%20%20eurl=http://www.ryanparkersongs.com/


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sweet_tata on January 23, 2008, 08:03:28 AM
Mr. Utley is a teacher? Cool. What subjects and level do you teach?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 23, 2008, 10:31:52 AM
Mr. Utley is a teacher? Cool. What subjects and level do you teach?

IIRC Ham once said he taught Civics, or maybe it was Home Ec.

or maybe that was stan




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 23, 2008, 11:44:41 AM
Utley,I see the ignore number for this LOSER is quickly approaching that of Det. Winslow who seems to have stopped posting.

It's the same person, IMO.

nope


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 23, 2008, 12:04:47 PM
Um, kid. How about 18 in a row?

18 is great.  Though not the same as 10 in a row on the road.  8 in a row is pretty close though i'll give you that.

As I said, I'm no Patriots fan. But when you're seeing history being made (like the Yankee 1998 season), it's impressive.

I think the whole momentum thing is ridiculous in sports. In baseball, it's all about pitching. In football, it's about the line play, although I suspect very few people actually watch the OL/DL. I sure don't. On TV, I watch the QB and at a game (which is rare), I like to watch the receiver routes.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 23, 2008, 12:55:04 PM
Utley,I see the ignore number for this LOSER is quickly approaching that of Det. Winslow who seems to have stopped posting.


Nice picture.  Is that you behind our former defense secretary?


I bet you'd absolutely love to pitch to Josh Beckett.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 23, 2008, 02:20:34 PM
Mr. Utley is a teacher? Cool. What subjects and level do you teach?

Shoot me a message, and I'll be happy to discuss it off-line with ya, mate.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 23, 2008, 02:24:11 PM
Um, kid. How about 18 in a row?

18 is great.  Though not the same as 10 in a row on the road.  8 in a row is pretty close though i'll give you that.

As I said, I'm no Patriots fan. But when you're seeing history being made (like the Yankee 1998 season), it's impressive.

I think the whole momentum thing is ridiculous in sports. In baseball, it's all about pitching. In football, it's about the line play, although I suspect very few people actually watch the OL/DL. I sure don't. On TV, I watch the QB and at a game (which is rare), I like to watch the receiver routes.

When you watch the linesmen, you always know where the play is intended to go, and you pick up a lot more as to which team is winning the battle for supremacy in the game.

The ball becomes a peripheral item, of which somehow you never lose track.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sweet_tata on January 23, 2008, 02:32:39 PM
So have you Pats fans, or Giant fans for that matter seen this?

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c392179bd29c01179cb408ac0003

I guess there will be more to come.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 23, 2008, 02:38:53 PM
Very classy


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 23, 2008, 03:30:32 PM
So have you Pats fans, or Giant fans for that matter seen this?

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c392179bd29c01179cb408ac0003

I guess there will be more to come.



#1 in da hood G!

Carl is hands down the best character on ATHF


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 11:36:07 AM
(http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/figures/david-head-goliath.jpg)

This year's Super Bowl.

Eli on the left. Brady in the foreground.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sweet_tata on January 24, 2008, 11:51:12 AM
 :D  :D  :D

Here's hoping.


Title: Super Bowl Preview
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 12:09:10 PM
(http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/figures/david-head-goliath.jpg)

This year's Super Bowl.

Eli on the left. Brady in the foreground.

Eli will have a deer-in-the-headlights look after coach BB designs some just for Eli defense

for a SB preview

Safe for Work-Turn Down Volume

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 12:15:28 PM
Tom Brady, with his new tight end, feeling the pressure:

http://www.tmz.com/2007/01/26/bradys-new-tight-end-gisele-bundchen



Title: Re: Super Bowl Preview
Post by: Kam on January 24, 2008, 12:20:37 PM

Eli will have a deer-in-the-headlights look after coach BB designs some just for Eli defense

for a SB preview

Safe for Work-Turn Down Volume

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ

So you think BB is going to try and take away the Giant passing game?  Interesting because the last few coaches have elected to let Eli beat them.  And he did.  Though he didn't beat the PATS, he did hang 4 TD on em in the biggest beatdown the PATS d had received all year.  So it might be wise to try and stop Eli.  But if you try and stop the pass, you've got to contend with potentially giving up a lot of yards to Jacobs and Bradshaw.  Pick your poison.  But if it gets into a ball-control running game, the PATS offense might only get 19 minutes on the field like the Bills in 1991.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PM
(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/pete_mcentegart/03/22/ten.spot/tx_eli.jpg)

Eli with his wholesome fiancé.



(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2375/1700136687_1ed8007dc8_o.jpg)



Brady, who has at least one child out of wedlock to date, and his anti-Semitic foreign spy girlfriend, eating sausages, naturally.


Title: Re: Super Bowl Preview
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 12:33:13 PM

Eli will have a deer-in-the-headlights look after coach BB designs some just for Eli defense

for a SB preview

Safe for Work-Turn Down Volume

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ

So you think BB is going to try and take away the Giant passing game?  Interesting because the last few coaches have elected to let Eli beat them.  And he did.  Though he didn't beat the PATS, he did hang 4 TD on em in the biggest beatdown the PATS d had received all year.  So it might be wise to try and stop Eli.  But if you try and stop the pass, you've got to contend with potentially giving up a lot of yards to Jacobs and Bradshaw.  Pick your poison.  But if it gets into a ball-control running game, the PATS offense might only get 19 minutes on the field like the Bills in 1991.

Kam grow a sense of humor.

Just having a little fun with ham's David & Goliath bit.

But there's no question Eli's put together a historic 3 game winning streak against a real juggernaught in Tampa Bay, and 2 very over-rated teams in the Cowboys and Packers.

IMO Super Sunday will most likely be very different than the Giants last 3 wins.

I think that BB will focus more on stopping the Giants running game and challenge Eli to match Brady's passing game and the Pats offense.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/writers/pete_mcentegart/03/22/ten.spot/tx_eli.jpg)

Eli with his wholesome fiancé.


Eli has yet to discover his wholesome fiancee Lola works Tranny bars in old SoHo.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 12:54:44 PM
(http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/images/2209.jpg)

The residue of Tom Brady's career.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 01:06:15 PM
(http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/dailydish/2007/05/01/dd_dshbundchen131200x255.jpg)

Pats are studying the single wing offense this week.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 01:12:50 PM
(http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/images/2209.jpg)

The residue of Tom Brady's career.

IMO it may be more reflective of: Brady can't be denied when he's got more than one receiver to go to.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 24, 2008, 01:21:53 PM
One of the things that I liked about the WS was the way that the Sox kept praising Colorado's team as they beat them game after game. I expect NE (and their fans) to take the high road as well. This season for NE has been about winning every week. The Giants are just the team that happens to be the opponent this time.


Title: Re: Super Bowl Preview
Post by: Kam on January 24, 2008, 01:34:22 PM

Eli will have a deer-in-the-headlights look after coach BB designs some just for Eli defense

for a SB preview

Safe for Work-Turn Down Volume

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCUBVS4kfQ

So you think BB is going to try and take away the Giant passing game?  Interesting because the last few coaches have elected to let Eli beat them.  And he did.  Though he didn't beat the PATS, he did hang 4 TD on em in the biggest beatdown the PATS d had received all year.  So it might be wise to try and stop Eli.  But if you try and stop the pass, you've got to contend with potentially giving up a lot of yards to Jacobs and Bradshaw.  Pick your poison.  But if it gets into a ball-control running game, the PATS offense might only get 19 minutes on the field like the Bills in 1991.

Kam grow a sense of humor.



I had no problem with your post.  I'm trying to talk Football.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 01:54:35 PM
(http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/images/2209.jpg)

The residue of Tom Brady's career.

IMO it may be more reflective of: Brady can't be denied when he's got more than one receiver to go to.

Surely sounds like Kam has a sense of humor.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 01:55:26 PM
One of the things that I liked about the WS was the way that the Sox kept praising Colorado's team as they beat them game after game. I expect NE (and their fans) to take the high road as well. This season for NE has been about winning every week. The Giants are just the team that happens to be the opponent this time.

Attaboy. That's arrogant.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 02:08:47 PM
Pat’s Dirty player responds to accusations:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7710804


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 02:11:55 PM
And speaking of dirty players…Hating Rodney Harrison:




Rodney: (http://www.sportsofboston.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/harrison.jpg)

 
Cannibal:   (http://www.heathcliff.com.au/images/cannibal.jpg)


“I hate Rodney Harrison more than any player in the league. There's not even a close second. How much? I'd rather every team in the AFC was quarterbacked by a Philip Rivers clone than Harrison play for a single team. Why? Harrison's incredibly dirty but he's the kind of guy who's dirty and then pretends he's not. Or acts surprised when he gets caught. I can't stomach the dichotomy.   

If you were stranded on an island and were hungry, Harrison is the first guy who would kill someone else and eat them. And he'd do it after like eight hours. Then he'd act surprised when people accused him of killing someone. Then he'd kill you and eat you. Basically you can't win with Rodney Harrison.”



http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/10592229


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 24, 2008, 02:12:21 PM
One of the things that I liked about the WS was the way that the Sox kept praising Colorado's team as they beat them game after game. I expect NE (and their fans) to take the high road as well. This season for NE has been about winning every week. The Giants are just the team that happens to be the opponent this time.
Attaboy. That's arrogant.

I'm not a Patriots fan. How can it be arrogant? To me, this game looks like as big a mismatch as the WS.

One team (Giants) is trying to convince their fans that they are a contender. The other team (Patriots) is making a case that they are the best football team ever.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 02:36:22 PM
And speaking of dirty players…Hating Rodney Harrison:

“I hate Rodney Harrison more than any player in the league. There's not even a close second. How much? I'd rather every team in the AFC was quarterbacked by a Philip Rivers clone than Harrison play for a single team. Why? Harrison's incredibly dirty but he's the kind of guy who's dirty and then pretends he's not. Or acts surprised when he gets caught. I can't stomach the dichotomy.   

If you were stranded on an island and were hungry, Harrison is the first guy who would kill someone else and eat them. And he'd do it after like eight hours. Then he'd act surprised when people accused him of killing someone. Then he'd kill you and eat you. Basically you can't win with Rodney Harrison.”



http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/10592229


IMO the guy's wrong. You can definitely win with Rodney Harrison, as his performances in the SB and his SB rings attest. But what I guess you shouldn't do with Rodney is have dinner with him on a deserted island.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 24, 2008, 03:04:01 PM
That Rodney Harrison is a dirty player is, I think, a settled issue, though I suppose one could twist the definition so that it doesn't include him.  But he's a winner, a fantastic blitzer and a great player in the Patriots scheme.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 03:23:22 PM
That Rodney Harrison is a dirty player is, I think, a settled issue, though I suppose one could twist the definition so that it doesn't include him.  But he's a winner, a fantastic blitzer and a great player in the Patriots scheme.

Rodney certainly has the "rep" and he gets what to me seems like a lot of dumb penalties due to his aggression, but  he was missed in the last year's AFC title game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 03:24:29 PM
That Rodney Harrison is a dirty player is, I think, a settled issue, though I suppose one could twist the definition so that it doesn't include him.  But he's a winner, a fantastic blitzer and a great player in the Patriots scheme.

Rodney certainly has the "rep" and he gets what to me seems like a lot of dumb penalties due to his aggression, but  he was missed in the last year's AFC title game.

Jack Tatum was better. And a cleaner player.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: liquidsilver on January 24, 2008, 03:27:24 PM
Rodney Harrison is certainly deserving of the reputation but honestly I think for the position he plays - you pretty much have to be overly aggressive.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 24, 2008, 03:27:46 PM
As I said several weeks ago, I never thought Jack Tatum was terribly dirty-George Atkinson was-but I don't think he was ever that great a pro player.  He had great nickname.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 03:37:11 PM
That Rodney Harrison is a dirty player is, I think, a settled issue, though I suppose one could twist the definition so that it doesn't include him.  But he's a winner, a fantastic blitzer and a great player in the Patriots scheme.

Rodney certainly has the "rep" and he gets what to me seems like a lot of dumb penalties due to his aggression, but  he was missed in the last year's AFC title game.

Jack Tatum was better. And a cleaner player.

Was Tatum avaialble to play in the last year's AFC title game?

how did Pioli and BB miss that?




Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 03:41:25 PM
As I said several weeks ago, I never thought Jack Tatum was terribly dirty-George Atkinson was-but I don't think he was ever that great a pro player.  He had great nickname.  

Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.

Fred "The Hammer" Williamson also had the nickname, a mouth and rep as a dirty player. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 24, 2008, 03:47:02 PM
While it might be due to changing standards, I don't believe Tatum was ever fined and suspended by the NFL.  I also don't think that guys like Kenny Houston and Larry Wilson, far better players than Rodney Harrison ever dreamed of being, ever went after a QBs knees like Harrison does.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 03:47:17 PM
 "The Hammer" got knocked out in the Super Bowl.

The same could happen to "The Cannibal".

 



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 24, 2008, 03:48:26 PM
Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.


You're not entitle to your own version of the facts, bankshot.

Tatum enjoyed the respect of his peers for his hard and legal hits.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 03:50:25 PM
Quote
"The Hammer" got knocked out in the Super Bowl

I always thought that was pretty funny.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 24, 2008, 03:51:17 PM

"There is nothing to hide," Seymour said, according to the Globe. "Whatever I did, it was between the whistles. Of course there is some pushing and shoving; it's a physical game. That's the way I play the game. There was nothing after the whistle, but it's a violent game and I play the game violently."


TRANSLATION: "Yeah I played dirty, but it was in between the whistles. Cool huh? That way I don't get flagged for anything. "

Oh and FTR, "pushing me over the pile"? LMAO Seymour. That isn't dirty in the way that footstomping and headslapping are not by a long shot.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: yankguy on January 24, 2008, 03:52:24 PM
The Hammer also lasted about 2 weeks as the "third man in the booth" for Monday Night Football.  I think he was in-between Dandy Don's first stint on MNF and ALex Karras' time there.  


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 03:55:12 PM
Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.


You're not entitle to your own version of the facts, bankshot.

Tatum enjoyed the respect of his peers for his hard and legal hits.

The facts are: Jack Tatum was considered a hard-hiiting dirty player.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 24, 2008, 04:07:31 PM

"There is nothing to hide," Seymour said, according to the Globe. "Whatever I did, it was between the whistles. Of course there is some pushing and shoving; it's a physical game. That's the way I play the game. There was nothing after the whistle, but it's a violent game and I play the game violently."


TRANSLATION: "Yeah I played dirty, but it was in between the whistles. Cool huh? That way I don't get flagged for anything. "

Oh and FTR, "pushing me over the pile"? LMAO Seymour. That isn't dirty in the way that footstomping and headslapping are not by a long shot.

Come on Cap. You know the answer to this problem.

Have the Giants sign Tanyon Sturtze. He can easily thrash 3 Seymours.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 04:16:54 PM
Rodney Harrison = dirty player

Richard Seymour (according to SD's Hardwick) = dirty player

Matt Light (according to Osi Umenyiora) = dirty player

BB illegally spied on the Jets

Brady cheated on Brigitte

there's the story line going into SB XLII


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 24, 2008, 05:00:59 PM
Why does the NFL still use Roman numerals?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 24, 2008, 05:23:06 PM
Why does Dana Jacobson hate Notre Dame?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 24, 2008, 05:32:57 PM
Why does Dana Jacobson hate Notre Dame?

IIRC her long term relationship with Father Hesburgh ended badly.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 24, 2008, 10:41:55 PM
(http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/blogs/images/2209.jpg)

The residue of Tom Brady's career.

(In his best D L Hughley)

That's one pointy m--herfuc--n baby.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: kidcarter8 on January 24, 2008, 10:42:44 PM
The Jacobsen news cracked me up.  Would love to see that roast hit Youtube.

GO BLUE!!!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 06:46:36 AM
Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.


You're not entitle to your own version of the facts, bankshot.

Tatum enjoyed the respect of his peers for his hard and legal hits.

The facts are: Jack Tatum was considered a hard-hiiting dirty player.




And we just take your word for it, right, bank?



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 07:44:41 AM
Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.


You're not entitle to your own version of the facts, bankshot.

Tatum enjoyed the respect of his peers for his hard and legal hits.

The facts are: Jack Tatum was considered a hard-hiiting dirty player.




And we just take your word for it, right, bank?



ham you may view the past however you like.

I understand that 30+ years may obscure some data and fog the mind, and that my impression of the Tatum is no doubt influenced by the Stingley (not Fryar) tragedy, but this is how I remember the guy.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 25, 2008, 09:36:47 AM

"There is nothing to hide," Seymour said, according to the Globe. "Whatever I did, it was between the whistles. Of course there is some pushing and shoving; it's a physical game. That's the way I play the game. There was nothing after the whistle, but it's a violent game and I play the game violently."


TRANSLATION: "Yeah I played dirty, but it was in between the whistles. Cool huh? That way I don't get flagged for anything. "

Oh and FTR, "pushing me over the pile"? LMAO Seymour. That isn't dirty in the way that footstomping and headslapping are not by a long shot.

Come on Cap. You know the answer to this problem.

Have the Giants sign Tanyon Sturtze. He can easily thrash 3 Seymours.

LOL, Good point.

But you gotta admit, "they pushed me over the pile" ????? C'mon PK! LMAO


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 10:14:19 AM
The Jacobsen news cracked me up.  Would love to see that roast hit Youtube.

When do they announce the "Mike & Mike - Just Shut Up" nominees?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 11:42:49 AM
Tatum was also considered a "dirty player (as is Harrison) by his peers.


You're not entitle to your own version of the facts, bankshot.

Tatum enjoyed the respect of his peers for his hard and legal hits.

The facts are: Jack Tatum was considered a hard-hiiting dirty player.




And we just take your word for it, right, bank?



ham you may view the past however you like.



I prefer to look at it as accurately as possible.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jbottle on January 25, 2008, 12:05:35 PM
Then I advise the used of advanced photoelectronic surveillance equipment, it worked for THE NFL COACH OF THE YEAR who PAID THE LARGEST FINE BY A COACH IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL.*


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 12:13:24 PM
Quote
I prefer to look at it as accurately as possible.

Then you should appreciate this accurate description of Tatum: he was a headhunting-dirty yet hard hitter who was largely indifferent to the players he injured over the years, who's style of play has largely been "rules commiteed" out of existence.

in any case, I fear we are just going to have to disagree on the Tatum's style of play.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 12:18:46 PM
Quote
I prefer to look at it as accurately as possible.

Then you should appreciate this accurate description of Tatum: he was a headhunting-dirty yet hard hitter who was largely indifferent to the players he injured over the years, who's style of play has largely been "rules commiteed" out of existence.

in any case, I fear we are just going to have to disagree on the Tatum's style of play.

 

So, he was a "dirty player" who played within the rules.

Got it.


Here's some history-making stuff for you, banks:

Rodney the Cannibal and part-time “intellectual” speaksThe back-and-forth started when Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, who was once voted the league's dirtiest player in a player poll, accused the Giants' line and wide receiver Plaxico Burress of taking liberties during New England's regular-season meeting with the Giants on Dec.29.

"Their offensive line is a big, physical group, but sometimes I feel they go overboard, all that extra pushing and Plaxico trying to cut guys and trying to take my knees out, there's no call for that," Harrison said. "It's disappointing, but that type of intensity, you're going to have that."

Yesterday, Harrison said, "Yeah, that's football. You're going to have some late hits, some penalties. You're going to have guys on the offensive side of the ball trying to blow your knees out. That's part of football. We sign up for a dirty sport, a tough sport, a very physical sport, and when you're on the field, anything can happen.

"We go out and play the game hard. If someone wants to think that we're a certain way, that's on them. Our game is really to be physical and to play whatever game you want to play whether it's finesse or physical. If you want to match up with us intellectually, we can do that as well."


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/01/25/2008-01-25_patriots_hit_back_cleanly-1.html



Rodney should go talk to Al Harris about Plaxico.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 12:24:18 PM
Quote
So, he was a "dirty player" who played within the rules.

Yes he was a dirty player and rules were changed over the years to lessen the possibility of dirty-players and headhunters like Tatum from delivering life threatening hits to very vulnerable receivers.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 12:29:28 PM
Quote
Rodney should go talk to Al Harris about Plaxico.

Whatever GB coach that maintained/didn't change that single-coverage should be canned.Burriss killed Harris. I'm pretty sure the Pats don't switch defenders to receivers, its depends how the receivers are lined up. On the December 17the game IIRC Hobbs had Burriss most of the night.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 12:36:26 PM
Quote
So, he was a "dirty player" who played within the rules.

Yes he was a dirty player and rules were changed over the years to lessen the possibility of dirty-players and headhunters like Tatum from delivering life threatening hits to very vulnerable receivers.

You can't be dirty, if you're playing within the rules, as Tatum did. The rules have now changed too much in favor of the receivers. It's killed defensive play, promoted the pass over the run, and lengthened the game.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 12:45:35 PM
Quote
So, he was a "dirty player" who played within the rules.

Yes he was a dirty player and rules were changed over the years to lessen the possibility of dirty-players and headhunters like Tatum from delivering life threatening hits to very vulnerable receivers.

You can't be dirty, if you're playing within the rules, as Tatum did. The rules have now changed too much in favor of the receivers. It's killed defensive play, promoted the pass over the run, and lengthened the game.

Now I believe we've crossed into the land of semantics.

If there are no rules per se, then you are then guided by a moral compass. And unfortunately Tatum had none. And rules or no rules he was a amoral SOB and a dirty player.

as to your point about the advantage swinging to QB/receivers, that is true.

and fwiw I thank the cry-baby Bill Polian for helping swing those rules changes that BB and Brady and Moss have recently taken advantage of.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 12:47:29 PM
If there are no rules per se, then you are then guided by a moral compass.

In football?  We are discussing football, right, banks? Football--not chess. 

Oh, wait! What's that over your shoulder?

Hah!

Made you look!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 12:56:11 PM
Quote
In football?  We are discussing football, right, banks? Football--not chess.

did you ever play tackle football? Or any organized sport?

If you have then you will know that there are both written and unwriiten rules that most players play by. The players that don't are looked upon and are called "dirty".

And pro football in the 70's and pro football today are governed by different written rules, that were in part instituted and aimed at reducing the severe injuries to players.

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 01:01:29 PM
Quote
In football?  We are discussing football, right, banks? Football--not chess.

did you ever play tackle football? Or any organized sport?

If you have then you will know that there are both written and unwriiten rules that most players play by. The players that don't are looked upon and are called "dirty".

And pro football in the 70's and pro football today are governed by different written rules, that were in part instituted and aimed at reducing the severe injuries to players.

 

Yes..Yes..and I miss the old days, when men were men, and women were the only ones who whined. Unlike the above post of yours.

  Tatum played by the rules of the game during the time he played, But he didn't play for your team, and he laid out Stingley, and  that's why you don't like him.

Just admit it.

And then...

Get over it.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 01:04:17 PM

Yes..Yes..and I miss the old days, when men were men, and women were the only ones who whined. 

Try delivering a child some time - it might change your thinking on the "women whine" thing.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 25, 2008, 01:13:02 PM
Quote
But he didn't play for your team, and he laid out Stingley, and  that's why you don't like him.

Just admit it.

I admitted that a bias long ago.

But that is beyond what is really central to the issue.

Tatum was a dirty player that was indifferent to the damage he caused and most people understood it.

And I'm over it and

done.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: CaptainCargo on January 25, 2008, 02:12:16 PM
Tatum was one of my favorite players. So was Atkinson for that matter.

Now if you wanted a "real" dirty player look at Conrad Dobler or Pat Fisher they were "dirty players". Johnny Sample was a dirtier player than Tatum for sure. Steve Wisniewski was another dirty player, a total jerkoff that guy.

Then there's Marty McSorley...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 03:09:42 PM

Yes..Yes..and I miss the old days, when men were men, and women were the only ones who whined. 

Try delivering a child some time - it might change your thinking on the "women whine" thing.

  Suck it up. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 25, 2008, 03:30:59 PM

Yes..Yes..and I miss the old days, when men were men, and women were the only ones who whined. 

Try delivering a child some time - it might change your thinking on the "women whine" thing.

  Suck it up. 

I have to disagree with you here, hamster.

I delivered the newspaper as a lad, and frankly I can't imagine delivering a child. I doubt they would fit in the newspaper chute, for one thing.


Title: Brady a "no-show"
Post by: Urethra_Franklin on January 25, 2008, 03:41:57 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/news/story?id=3214310


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 03:44:26 PM
I delivered the newspaper as a lad, and frankly I can't imagine delivering a child. I doubt they would fit in the newspaper chute, for one thing.

Word.  And as a male, I cannot speak from experience, but I can only imagine the level of pain involved.  I would guess, however, that it would exceed the combined pain-endurance threshhold of you, me, Mr. Utley and every other male poster in here times 100. 

"Suck it up," indeed.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 03:48:37 PM


Everyone processes pain differently.

But there's no question that whining among people who call themselves "men" has increased in this modern era.

Frankly, it's time to man up and put Jack Tatum in the Hall of Fame, where he belongs.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 05:16:57 PM
Really.  I mean, Ronnie Lott is in the HOF, so why not Tatum?   Lott, like Rodney Harrison, thrived on the the "come in and hit 'em hard after someone else already has 'em wrapped up" technique. 

I remember always wanting to puke when Madden or whoever would ooh and aah over what a great hitter Lott was.   I think of a great hitter as someone who can crush a runner in the open field when the runner is looking right at him.  Anyone can hit someone hard if the guy is looking the other way, or he's already going down after getting hit by another defender, or if another defender has a grip on his shirt or whatever.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 25, 2008, 06:25:09 PM
Really.  I mean, Ronnie Lott is in the HOF, so why not Tatum?   Lott, like Rodney Harrison, thrived on the the "come in and hit 'em hard after someone else already has 'em wrapped up" technique. 

I remember always wanting to puke when Madden or whoever would ooh and aah over what a great hitter Lott was.   I think of a great hitter as someone who can crush a runner in the open field when the runner is looking right at him.  Anyone can hit someone hard if the guy is looking the other way, or he's already going down after getting hit by another defender, or if another defender has a grip on his shirt or whatever.

I think of Pete Rose as a "great hitter". And he should be in the HOF, too.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 07:01:57 PM
All he ever did was catch touchdowns - I mean, hit singles.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 25, 2008, 07:08:51 PM
From the Trade newspapers on the SuperBowl:

A-B Exec VP/Global Industry Development & Chief Creative Officer Bob Lachky, whose company is the exclusive beer advertiser on the Super Bowl, said on Fox Business today, “It’s really an efficient buy because if you think of this era of media fragmentation we live, this is the one live event ... that everybody is watching the television, and ad watching has become as big as the game.
======


Wow, as big as the game?
Factor in the people who are watching who have bet money on the game and you wonder how many are left who are just football fans?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on January 25, 2008, 07:09:47 PM
Really.  I mean, Ronnie Lott is in the HOF, so why not Tatum?   Lott, like Rodney Harrison, thrived on the the "come in and hit 'em hard after someone else already has 'em wrapped up" technique. 

I remember always wanting to puke when Madden or whoever would ooh and aah over what a great hitter Lott was.   I think of a great hitter as someone who can crush a runner in the open field when the runner is looking right at him.  Anyone can hit someone hard if the guy is looking the other way, or he's already going down after getting hit by another defender, or if another defender has a grip on his shirt or whatever.

I think of Pete Rose as a "great hitter". And he should be in the HOF, too.

Rose should be in the HoF based on his play. But as a manager he not only bet on baseball, but bet on his own team. He accepted a lifetime ban from the sport.

If somehow the ban is lifted, he's in. Until that, it's a sad situation that was entirely of his own making.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 25, 2008, 07:15:01 PM
Rose should be in the HoF based on his play.

Career OPS of .784?  That's not awful or anything, but it's not too good, either.  I mean, it's not even as good as the likes of Ryan Church, a part-time player.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: Kam on January 25, 2008, 07:31:57 PM

Wow, as big as the game?
Factor in the people who are watching who have bet money on the game and you wonder how many are left who are just football fans?

The SuperBowl doesn't have to be solely about entertaining current fans. Like any sales organization, the NFL is in the business of making new fans and the SuperBowl is their biggest fan-making day of the year. 

The first time I ever watched the NFL on TV was SuperBowl 19. 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 25, 2008, 08:34:51 PM
Wasn't it the left ankle Tom Brady sprained in the 2002 AFC title game.As I recall it did not have much effect on him in the Superbowl against the Rams. ;D


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 25, 2008, 08:49:20 PM

Wow, as big as the game?
Factor in the people who are watching who have bet money on the game and you wonder how many are left who are just football fans?

The SuperBowl doesn't have to be solely about entertaining current fans. Like any sales organization, the NFL is in the business of making new fans and the SuperBowl is their biggest fan-making day of the year. 

The first time I ever watched the NFL on TV was SuperBowl 19. 

The question posed, though, was what are they fans of?   Ads?  Bets?  Football?  take away the first two and what are the TV ratings then? 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 26, 2008, 08:21:25 AM
"...this is the one live event ... that everybody is watching the television, and ad watching has become as big as the game..."

Wow, as big as the game?
Factor in the people who are watching who have bet money on the game and you wonder how many are left who are just football fans?

The question posed, though, was what are they fans of?   Ads?  Bets?  Football?  take away the first two and what are the TV ratings then?

jim, i really think you overstate the gambling factor vis a vis the viewership motivation for ANY game regardless of the sport. while i'm sure you believe this, being a self admitted non-bettor sort of puts your credibility at issue at least as far as this subject is concerned...

a lot depends on how you define sports betting. the guy who puts down $5 or $10 bucks on a square at his local bar is certainly gaming but is hardly a compelling reason to be riveted to the screen. he's probably in the bar more for social than economic enrichment and, surely, the overwhelming majority of whom i believe you are referring...

then you have the guy who really does like to juice up the entertainment value of a sports event with some personal investment. this is the $50 to $250 a game bettor and, yes, he's your guy. he will moan or cheer as the game progresses play by play and he will be the one to curse luck or extol his own genius dependent on the outcome...

then, located at the top of the food chain or bottom of the sliding scale depending on you moral compass, you have the true gambler. this is the $1000+ guy who generally couldn't care less about the individual teams other than how they match up statistically for odds purposes. he'll play seven or eight games on a sunday by points, over/under and even such arcane prospects as money line and halve or quarters...

obviously he can neither attend nor view all his events and really has little interest in doing so. sure, he'll watch the superbowl (maybe) since it is the only event on that evening but he's just as likely to be doing it while playing hold 'em with some others of his ilk. he is few and far between and as relative to the $50 and up guy as that guy is to the vast majority of nickel and dimers...

the point of all this is that your assertion that a bet on the game is necessarily a compelling reason to watch it over and above its enterainment value as sport can't be supported. the social element of gathering for a house party or at a bar is certainly more important than gambling as a factor in non-affiliated viewing of the superbowl...

now take that away, leaving only team and overall football fans, and i might see your point...

 


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 26, 2008, 08:57:38 AM
Rose should be in the HoF based on his play.

Career OPS of .784?  That's not awful or anything, but it's not too good, either.  I mean, it's not even as good as the likes of Ryan Church, a part-time player.

I take it you never actually saw Peter Edward Rose play.

Needless to say, he made his own bed and must lie in it.





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 26, 2008, 09:09:52 AM
I take it you never actually saw Peter Edward Rose play.

Yeah, he would just slap singles to the opposite field all the time.  And when he caught the last out of an inning at first base, he would spike the ball before running to the dugout.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 26, 2008, 09:12:07 AM
Quote
he made his own bed and must lie in it.


I thought he made his own bet and then lied about it for years.

IIRC he got bet sores, and remained angry for years.

Go Pats.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 26, 2008, 11:40:30 AM
"...this is the one live event ... that everybody is watching the television, and ad watching has become as big as the game..."

Wow, as big as the game?
Factor in the people who are watching who have bet money on the game and you wonder how many are left who are just football fans?

The question posed, though, was what are they fans of?   Ads?  Bets?  Football?  take away the first two and what are the TV ratings then?


the point of all this is that your assertion that a bet on the game is necessarily a compelling reason to watch it over and above its enterainment value as sport can't be supported. the social element of gathering for a house party or at a bar is certainly more important than gambling as a factor in non-affiliated viewing of the superbowl...

now take that away, leaving only team and overall football fans, and i might see your point...

 

The numbers tell another story.  $600  billion a year wagered on sports in America by 55 million people, a large growth since the inception of internet gambling.  And the NFL gets a large share.  And betting on a game has a tie to watching the game:

“Moral judgments aside, it’s about entertainment,” said Robert Walker, the president of the Mirage Sports Book in Las Vegas. “You make a bet on a game and you’re into that game like nothing else. When you have action, the game is more exciting (Espn.com).”
“When the NFL says they oppose gambling on their games, they’re being extremely hypocritical,” Todd Schmidt said. A former all conference nose tackle for Colorado State, Schmidt argues that sports gambling has been around for a long time. “The NFL would probably fold if people stopped betting on the games. Who would care who wins?”
========

Well, I doubt the NFL would fold, but TV ratings would fall.

I don't have anything against gambling but it is naive to think that there is no cause and effect.
Watching the playoffs two weeks ago in a sports bar I sat next to a guy who had made a $100 bet on the over/under-51.
He had no rooting interest in either Jacksonville or New England and when the total score hit 51 he was rooting for both teams to score.  I was rooting for him.  When the game ended at 51 he was unsure what that meant to his bet.( he later found out that it was a push and he lost nothing-he just didn't win, either)

I spent time in Las Vegas with the family for Christmas. Talked to many gamblers in the TV room, all of whom had left the tables and the slots to watch the games they bet on.

99 per cent of gambling in America is done outside of Las Vegas


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 26, 2008, 03:15:10 PM

The numbers tell another story.  $600  billion a year wagered on sports in America by 55 million people, a large growth since the inception of internet gambling.  And the NFL gets a large share.  And betting on a game has a tie to watching the game:

“Moral judgments aside, it’s about entertainment,” said Robert Walker, the president of the Mirage Sports Book in Las Vegas. “You make a bet on a game and you’re into that game like nothing else. When you have action, the game is more exciting (Espn.com).”
“When the NFL says they oppose gambling on their games, they’re being extremely hypocritical,” Todd Schmidt said. A former all conference nose tackle for Colorado State, Schmidt argues that sports gambling has been around for a long time. “The NFL would probably fold if people stopped betting on the games. Who would care who wins?”
========

Well, I doubt the NFL would fold, but TV ratings would fall.

I don't have anything against gambling but it is naive to think that there is no cause and effect.
Watching the playoffs two weeks ago in a sports bar I sat next to a guy who had made a $100 bet on the over/under-51.
He had no rooting interest in either Jacksonville or New England and when the total score hit 51 he was rooting for both teams to score.  I was rooting for him.  When the game ended at 51 he was unsure what that meant to his bet.( he later found out that it was a push and he lost nothing-he just didn't win, either)

I spent time in Las Vegas with the family for Christmas. Talked to many gamblers in the TV room, all of whom had left the tables and the slots to watch the games they bet on.

99 per cent of gambling in America is done outside of Las Vegas

jim, i really don't want to get into a protracted argument about this because i have a problem discussing the issue with someone who both sits with a guy who doesn't understand that a tie is a push or couldn't explain it to him at the time...

this is nothing against you per se. you have already admitted you're not a betting man. but this speaks more to your lack of familiarity with both the mechanics and, more importantly, motivation of the gambling persuasion as a whole...

The numbers tell another story.  $600  billion a year wagered on sports in America by 55 million people, a large growth since the inception of internet gambling.  And the NFL gets a large share.  And betting on a game has a tie to watching the game...99 per cent of gambling in America is done outside of Las Vegas

i'm curious as to who established these figures. i'm pretty sure my local book wasn't polled about their handle and the off shore internet sites are unlikely to wish to provide such information. the part about vegas action is 100% true...

“Moral judgments aside, it’s about entertainment,” said Robert Walker, the president of the Mirage Sports Book in Las Vegas. “You make a bet on a game and you’re into that game like nothing else. When you have action, the game is more exciting (Espn.com).”

gee, i wonder who HE might be selling to or pitching for. besides i've already characterised that type of player in my original post. there is no question that he exists as a viable albeit miniscule minority and is negligible support...

A former all conference nose tackle for Colorado State, Schmidt argues that sports gambling has been around for a long time. “The NFL would probably fold if people stopped betting on the games. Who would care who wins?”

if you're going to play the petitio principii game, you're going to have to cite a little bit more credible authority. hell, even you think he's wrong...

Talked to many gamblers in the TV room, all of whom had left the tables and the slots to watch the games they bet on.

you must have been sitting in a room full of losers. i MIGHT check some scores during a dealer change out but i'll be damned if i'm going to leave a hot seat to see how my couple of hundred is doing on akron vs. marshall and i sure as shit don't go to a casino to watch a football game...

at least you're probably right about the 99% outside of casino gambling and the fact that the NFL is not likely to fold. but i'll stick to my premise that viewership is only marginally tied to gaming...





Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 26, 2008, 04:07:46 PM
Gambling is legal in lots of places.

States run lotteries, horse racing, dog tracks, etcetera.

The bigger problem with the NFL betting is the organized crime that accompanies it.

But don't lay that at the feet of the NFL.

That's up to each individual state to do something about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get busy on my Super Bowl bets.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 26, 2008, 04:12:08 PM
I only root for the Patriots in the summertime. Here's why. Make sure to watch the video:

http://www.somersetpatriots.com/


Go Somerset Pats!!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 26, 2008, 05:19:43 PM
Code:
Go Somerset Pats!!!

I couldn't agree with this part of your post more.

Good bang for the buck and fun for the entire family.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 26, 2008, 08:51:44 PM
Plaxico Burress says Giants receivers better than Patriots receivers.This is why the NFL has drug testing.I want to know what he's on. ::)


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 26, 2008, 08:53:53 PM
Of course nobody is better at pushing off and getting away with it than Plaxico with those long arms of his.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 26, 2008, 11:32:35 PM

I have nothing against those who gamble on anything,especially sports, either legally, illegally, in office pools or over a beer.
I saw firsthand what legalized gambllng has built in Las Vegas, the cranes are everywhere and the opulence of the hotels and casinos is awesome.  And I am constantly amazed at the rejection by voters to legalized gambling elsewhere, especially where gambling could provide economic stimulus to blighted areas.

But don't try and argue that gambling on pro football has little affect on TV viewership.

That is a dog that simply won't hunt.



Title: Re: NFL
Post by: JakeJoliet on January 26, 2008, 11:49:13 PM
Plaxico Burress says Giants receivers better than Patriots receivers.This is why the NFL has drug testing.I want to know what he's on. ::)

If you actually watch the interview, that's not what he says.  But the idiots from the Daily News were looking for a story, so...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bosox18d on January 27, 2008, 01:09:57 AM
Well I did see the interview and though the AP story is a bit off he basically did say that.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 27, 2008, 07:27:26 AM
But don't try and argue that gambling on pro football has little affect on TV viewership.

That is a dog that simply won't hunt.

well, all righty then. you've certainly put that discussion to bed...

at least you got that i said it had little affect as opposed to the largely deterministic role you assign it...


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: oilcanboyd23 on January 27, 2008, 09:20:10 AM
Ah, yes, the "that dog won't hunt" technique - there's nothing quite like it if you don't want to have to make a case in support of your position.  Very effective!!


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 27, 2008, 02:40:39 PM
Ah, yes, the "that dog won't hunt" technique - there's nothing quite like it if you don't want to have to make a case in support of your position.  Very effective!!


Nicely put.

Apparently, jmmengal beleives that the best evidence is the opinion that must be taken at face value.

Work in the White House, jmm???


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: jmmengel on January 27, 2008, 10:25:19 PM
But don't try and argue that gambling on pro football has little affect on TV viewership.

That is a dog that simply won't hunt.

well, all righty then. you've certainly put that discussion to bed...

at least you got that i said it had little affect as opposed to the largely deterministic role you assign it...
Nice twist on meaning by you.
Gambling is the largest effect on TV ratings of pro football.
That fact is indisputable.
Not that that is a bad effect.
It is just the way it is.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: josh on January 27, 2008, 10:36:55 PM
But don't try and argue that gambling on pro football has little affect on TV viewership.

That is a dog that simply won't hunt.

well, all righty then. you've certainly put that discussion to bed...

at least you got that i said it had little affect as opposed to the largely deterministic role you assign it...
Gambling is the largest effect on TV ratings of pro football.
That fact is indisputable.

I'm neither disputing it nor granting it.

Do you have some numbers to back that up, rather than opinions of other people who have no numbers to back it up?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bocce on January 28, 2008, 05:59:44 AM
new bumper sticker from the united mengelists...

JMM SAID IT
HE BELIEVES IT
END OF STORY


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 28, 2008, 06:48:03 AM
I just got back from hunting with my dog.

Did the Pats win the Super Bowl, yet?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: bankshot1 on January 28, 2008, 07:54:19 AM
Not yet.

But they will.


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: sweet_tata on January 28, 2008, 08:49:12 AM
I just got back from hunting with my dog.

Did the Pats win the Super Bowl, yet?

Dog's best friend.....

Did you bag one of those deer in the deer thinning hunt?


Title: Re: NFL
Post by: PK on