Date & Time Favorite Line Underdog
11/22 1:00 ET At Carolina -7 Washington
11/22 1:00 ET Oakland -1 At Detroit
11/22 1:00 ET At Miami PK Dallas
11/22 1:00 ET At Atlanta -5.5 Indianapolis
11/22 1:00 ET At Baltimore -2.5 St. Louis
11/22 1:00 ET NY Jets -2.5 At Houston
11/22 4:25 ET At Minnesota -1 Green Bay
11/22 1:00 ET At Philadelphia -5.5 Tampa Bay
11/22 1:00 ET At Chicago -1 Denver
11/22 8:30 ET At Arizona -5 Cincinnati
11/22 4:25 ET At Seattle -12.5 San Francisco
11/22 4:05 ET Kansas City -3 At San Diego
Monday Night Football Line
11/23 8:30 ET At New England -7 Buffalo
The Raiders as favourites? Hmm. This might be the first week in a long time where BAs two teams won't lose. :P
Da Bears are giving a point to Denver?? :blink:
So you're saying there's a chance! :lol:
Quote from: Liep on November 20, 2015, 07:34:14 AM
The Raiders as favourites? Hmm. This might be the first week in a long time where BAs two teams won't lose. :P
Are the Lions his other team?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2015, 07:02:31 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 20, 2015, 07:34:14 AM
The Raiders as favourites? Hmm. This might be the first week in a long time where BAs two teams won't lose. :P
Are the Lions his other team?
Iirc it's the Browns who are on a bye. :P
Is betting not a thing in America? All commercials on Danish tv when nfl is on is for betting companies, but I'm watching the nfl network now and it's trucks and beers.
Quote from: Liep on November 22, 2015, 01:28:09 PM
Is betting not a thing in America? All commercials on Danish tv when nfl is on is for betting companies, but I'm watching the nfl network now and it's trucks and beers.
American TV is flooded right now with ads for two new fantasy football betting sites.
As far as betting on which team wins (i.e. non-nerd betting) I'm pretty sure that's limited to Vegas (can't do it online) and your local mobbed-up bookie.
:(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2015, 01:47:51 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 22, 2015, 01:28:09 PM
Is betting not a thing in America? All commercials on Danish tv when nfl is on is for betting companies, but I'm watching the nfl network now and it's trucks and beers.
American TV is flooded right now with ads for two new fantasy football betting sites.
John Oliver did a thing about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq785nJ0FXQ
Quote from: Liep
Also, toughest Strength of Schedule: Language Barrier: 105.03 (if trend holds up it'll be an all time record)
Well, that's going
up this week... <_<
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 22, 2015, 07:32:37 PM
Quote from: Liep
Also, toughest Strength of Schedule: Language Barrier: 105.03 (if trend holds up it'll be an all time record)
Well, that's going up this week... <_<
It wouldn't have been so bad if hadn't picked up Rawls at last minute back on my team. ^_^
I hate Lynch so much right now. I also hate myself for not picking up Rawls. <_<
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on November 22, 2015, 07:44:12 PM
I hate Lynch so much right now. I also hate myself for not picking up Rawls. <_<
I had him, dropped him and then was reminded that had Spiller in starting lineup even with Aints on a bye. Was surprised he was available.
Turns out watching NFL is pretty good stoned.
Watching Cincy Phoenix. Like the new whiplash rule. Perfectly fair.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2015, 09:46:11 PM
Turns out watching NFL is pretty good stoned.
Watching Cincy Phoenix. Like the new whiplash rule. Perfectly fair.
How's it work?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 22, 2015, 10:33:08 PM
How's it work?
Linemen can still cut block, but once they're on the ground they can't try to roll over from their belly to their back.
Leg whip, that's the ticket, not whiplash.
Super enjoyable game.
No forehead sighting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2015, 11:50:32 PM
Super enjoyable game.
No forehead sighting.
Too busy at home celebrating Argentine elections.
Just saw the Cincy - Cards game, very entertaining. Gotta love that final drive.
:w00t:
Division 1
*2 Dirty Danes 8-3-0 7-2-0 1100.80 868.00 W-5
5 Alci 7-4-0 7-2-0 909.31 858.56 L-1
7 Frozen Wetbacks 6-5-0 6-4-0 972.72 924.17 W-1
9 PistolShapedPastries 5-6-0 4-5-0 818.95 918.95 L-2
10 Language Barrier 4-7-0 4-6-0 960.32 1170.35 L-1
11 Fricken Lasers 4-7-0 4-5-0 841.65 916.65 W-2
14 Penn State Day Care 2-9-0 1-9-0 732.46 940.94 L-7
Division 2
*1 NOLO Contenders 9-2-0 8-2-0 1082.76 929.04 W-7
*3 Puerto Rican Ninjas 8-3-0 6-3-0 992.98 805.95 L-1
*4 Fabretown Punks 8-3-0 6-3-0 991.23 867.23 W-1
6 Meatheads 6-5-0 5-4-0 1008.24 937.48 L-2
8 Chcks Dg Yng Nxn 5-6-0 3-6-0 845.86 938.69 W-1
12 Fighting Nixons 3-8-0 3-7-0 791.00 942.70 W-2
13 Cincy Jailbirdz 2-9-0 2-8-0 882.23 911.80 L-2
Man, the injuries just keep piling up. The Pats definitely have the best team this year, but there is a strong possibility that they won't even make it the Superbowl if this keeps up.
Also, what the fuck was up with those Refs? That was replacement ref bad, just a fucking shit show.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2015, 07:36:23 AM
Man, the injuries just keep piling up. The Pats definitely have the best team this year, but there is a strong possibility that they won't even make it the Superbowl if this keeps up.
Yeah, they've lost so many of their top offensive players now. Amendola was to step up for Edelman and now he's out. Plus losing Lewis was a big hit as he was having an excellent year. Then they've had many injuries on the offensive line on top of that.
It would've been an easier win for me if seedy had played Romo instead of IR Flacco. Ouch.
Wow, that was one of the most entertaining games I've seen in a long time (Bears-Packers).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2015, 09:32:31 AM
Wow, that was one of the most entertaining games I've seen in a long time (Bears-Packers).
:bleeding:
Gronk! :bleeding:
Thankfully, his injury doesn't seem to be serious.
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/11/29/9817114/rob-gronkowski-injury-broncos-patriots
hahaha holy shit
Well, they are named after the color of shit.
A factory of sadness indeed.
Just watched the monday night game. Both teams looked to compete in who could crush their own fans hope the most so it surprised me he didn't fumble or trip before the goal line.
Such a Browns way to lose. Ugh. :(
How it feels to be a browns fan:
https://twitter.com/Sobe_homie/status/671550624069230592
:lol:
Did the Brownies let go that QB who lost out the starting spot to Manziel, or was that the dude playing Monday?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 07:11:54 PM
Did the Brownies let go that QB who lost out the starting spot to Manziel, or was that the dude playing Monday?
He was one playing yesterday till he was knocked out with collarbone injury
Brock Landers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 08:15:15 PM
Brock Landers?
Josh McCown (former Buc, former Bear, former lots of other things), Austin Davis, Johnny Manziel.
McCown is now on IR.
Also, Brock Osweiler is the former backup QB for the Broncos, now starting after Manning's injury, and Brock Landers is from Boogie Nights.
https://streamable.com/g5dv
Nearly scraped the ceiling
Great finish. But wtf is going on with Green Bay? That Ditka curse must have really taken hold.
They've been absolutely terrible since the bye.
Receivers for some magical reason cannot get open. Ever. It's embarrassing. I also think Rodgers picked up an injury that is affecting his throwing accuracy. Going into week 8 at Denver he was averaging his highest percentage ever, believe it was 73%. Now it's atrocious, he took several huge hits early in that Denver game and there's been speculation of an undisclosed injury.
I'm sticking with my Ditka curse theory for now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2015, 07:36:23 AM
Man, the injuries just keep piling up. The Pats definitely have the best team this year, but there is a strong possibility that they won't even make it the Superbowl if this keeps up.
Agreed. Gronk should be back in a week or two, and Amendola back this week probably. But their offense isn't what it was and it's likely going to be a lot tougher for them to make it to the SB or win it, which is already very tough anyway with a mostly healthy team. If Gronk was out for the season, on top of all the other injuries on offense, I was thinking that they wouldn't even make it through the playoffs.
What's the deal with the Ditka curse?
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2015, 09:30:32 AM
I'm sticking with my Ditka curse theory for now.
Meh, it's bigger than that: the Lions and Vikings will never see The Promised Land ever again;
unlike the Packers and Bears, this is their punishment for abandoning the Norris Division for the unnatural environs of domed stafiums.
They offended the football gods, and havent won shit since.
Quote from: KRonn on December 04, 2015, 02:37:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2015, 07:36:23 AM
Man, the injuries just keep piling up. The Pats definitely have the best team this year, but there is a strong possibility that they won't even make it the Superbowl if this keeps up.
Agreed. Gronk should be back in a week or two, and Amendola back this week probably. But their offense isn't what it was and it's likely going to be a lot tougher for them to make it to the SB or win it, which is already very tough anyway with a mostly healthy team. If Gronk was out for the season, on top of all the other injuries on offense, I was thinking that they wouldn't even make it through the playoffs.
Edelman should be back for the playoffs as well. If all 3 are healthy the offense should be fine.
What's up with Collins though? He's missed the last four weeks.
Nice game in New York. A bitter loss for the Giants I'm sure, but hey, 6-10 might be enough to win the division.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2015, 02:43:14 PM
What's the deal with the Ditka curse?
Packers were undefeated until the week McDonald's ran the commercial with Ditka donning a Packers sweater. Then they lost three straight. They actually won the week McDonald's showed Ditka putting his Bears sweater back on, but still they are 2-4 since the first commercial. Which includes a loss against Da Bearss.
grazie
Also Bengals won a nice little layup game against the Brownies. AJ McCarran got some more playing time and Mario Alford caught his first NFL pass. WHO DEY
Seems like first season in a long, long time that not every single team is bunched up around 8-8.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2015, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2015, 09:30:32 AM
I'm sticking with my Ditka curse theory for now.
Meh, it's bigger than that: the Lions and Vikings will never see The Promised Land ever again;
unlike the Packers and Bears, this is their punishment for abandoning the Norris Division for the unnatural environs of domed stafiums.
They offended the football gods, and havent won shit since.
The Vikings, maybe. But the Lions haven't won anything since before I was born, and they were still playing outdoors for half that time. Their curse comes from trading away Bobby Layne.
We're stuck with Chiefs@Raiders. 3 missed EPs so far. :bleeding:
Missed FG and they vomit in disgust on the sideline.
Quote from: dps on December 06, 2015, 06:17:17 PM
The Vikings, maybe. But the Lions haven't won anything since before I was born, and they were still playing outdoors for half that time. Their curse comes from trading away Bobby Layne.
The Lions have never even been in a Super Bowl ever. So, yeah, they can't get
back to the Promised Land. :D
Oh, that's right, NFL championships prior to Super Bowl Eye don't count. #StopAutismNow
:lol:
Anyway, Patriots lose :punk:
I loved the Brady petulant look after the game. What a low energy loser.
Quote from: Liep on December 06, 2015, 04:49:47 PM
Nice game in New York. A bitter loss for the Giants I'm sure, but hey, 6-10 might be enough to win the division.
I don't think so. The Redskins are going to reach win 6 tomorrow night -_-
:lol: Antonio Brown bouncing off the goalpost was pretty great.
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2015, 07:53:00 PM
:lol:
Anyway, Patriots lose :punk:
Odd game. Pats scored 28 despite the receiving corp being Amendolla and a cast of nobodies and only allowed the Eagles to score 14. Terrible special teams play allowed two TDs and they returned an interception 99 yards for a score. <__<
Brady played well given what he had to deal with. Threw three TDs and ran in another. Did throw two picks.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2015, 05:59:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2015, 07:53:00 PM
:lol:
Anyway, Patriots lose :punk:
Odd game. Pats scored 28 despite the receiving corp being Amendolla and a cast of nobodies and only allowed the Eagles to score 14. Terrible special teams play allowed two TDs and they returned an interception 99 yards for a score. <__<
Brady played well given what he had to deal with. Threw three TDs and ran in another. Did throw two picks.
One of the picks was a pick 6 returned 100 yards. Ouch. Agree that the Patriots probably did as best as they could with the injuries they had. But everyone is giving them a pass because of the injuries. No other team in the league gets people to accept that excuse.
In the NFL it is entirely about wins and losses, nothing else matters at all, so how could the Pats be given a pass? Excuses do not allow you to flip losses into wins.
Quote from: Valmy on December 06, 2015, 11:20:53 PM
Quote from: Liep on December 06, 2015, 04:49:47 PM
Nice game in New York. A bitter loss for the Giants I'm sure, but hey, 6-10 might be enough to win the division.
I don't think so. The Redskins are going to reach win 6 tomorrow night -_-
They're leading in first downs by 1 after first quarter. With a total of 1.
Quote from: Liep on December 07, 2015, 09:10:51 PM
They're leading in first downs by 1 after first quarter. With a total of 1.
A great pitchers' duel!
LOL at that game. The Redskins worked their asses off to lose that one.
I realize the challenge of getting a first down and not a touchdown, but McFadden really jacked up by scoring a TD. If he gets a first down and goes down, the Cowboys win probability is probably well over 95% assuming they just take a knee and then kick a field goal with almost no time left and Washington out of timeouts.
Compounded with the foolish running of out bounds on the previous play, McFadden may have been the first running back to score on two carries from the 15 in a tie game, and have both runs hurt his teams chance to win.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 08, 2015, 12:26:12 AM
I realize the challenge of getting a first down and not a touchdown, but McFadden really jacked up by scoring a TD. If he gets a first down and goes down, the Cowboys win probability is probably well over 95% assuming they just take a knee and then kick a field goal with almost no time left and Washington out of timeouts.
Compounded with the foolish running of out bounds on the previous play, McFadden may have been the first running back to score on two carries from the 15 in a tie game, and have both runs hurt his teams chance to win.
I know. But the Redskins then scored too fast as well...and then played shitty on the kick off. Just bad bad shitty football from all involved.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 01:10:51 AM
I know. But the Redskins then scored too fast as well...and then played shitty on the kick off. Just bad bad shitty football from all involved.
Can't fault the redskins for their touchdown. They needed a touchdown to tie, and considering that they hadn't scored one all game, you take the touchdown when you can get it.
When they were kicking off, and the camera showed Cassel, I thought to myself, "if you tell me right now this game is going to end in regulation, I might put my money on the redskins", counting a Cassel turnover being more likely than a game winning drive with little time left. Of course that changed when the redskins failed to cover the kick.
What a collection of special teams plays in the last two minutes. The bizarre punt return / fumble for the redskins, followed by the cowboys giving up a big return and a facemask penalty away from the ball, followed by the big cowboy return. Plus, we came tantalizingly close to the redskins missing that PAT, which would decisively put the redskins in Cleveland Browns territory.
What a shitty division. I'm sure lots of fans leaving the stadium were asking, "why do we come to these games again?"
Quote from: alfred russel on December 08, 2015, 01:54:24 AM
What a shitty division. I'm sure lots of fans leaving the stadium were asking, "why do we come to these games again?"
I have been wondering that about the Skins fans for years.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 08:30:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 08, 2015, 01:54:24 AM
What a shitty division. I'm sure lots of fans leaving the stadium were asking, "why do we come to these games again?"
I have been wondering that about the Skins fans for years.
They're not the worst, the AFC South has the same amount of wins but 33 less points for and 45 more points against.
Quote from: Liep on December 08, 2015, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2015, 08:30:52 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 08, 2015, 01:54:24 AM
What a shitty division. I'm sure lots of fans leaving the stadium were asking, "why do we come to these games again?"
I have been wondering that about the Skins fans for years.
They're not the worst, the AFC South has the same amount of wins but 33 less points for and 45 more points against.
Yeah but the AFC south fans has not had to endure this for over 20 years like the Skins fans have :P
Final standings, next round is quarter finals.
Division 1
*2 Dirty Danes 9-4-0 8-3-0 1300.50 1085.95
*6 Alci 8-5-0 8-3-0 1094.26 1046.96
*7 Frozen Wetbacks 7-6-0 7-4-0 1147.91 1111.63
*8 Fricken Lasers 6-7-0 6-5-0 1067.21 1103.65
9 PistolShapedPastries 6-7-0 5-6-0 1034.38 1097.47
11 Language Barrier 4-9-0 4-8-0 1120.22 1374.47
14 Penn State Day Care 2-11-0 1-10-0 875.72
Division 2
*1 NOLO Contenders 11-2-0 9-2-0 1285.43 1047.73
*3 Fabretown Punks 9-4-0 7-4-0 1177.03 1048.91
*4 Meatheads 8-5-0 7-4-0 1220.80 1074.72
*5 Puerto Rican Ninjas 8-5-0 6-5-0 1136.65 986.12
10 Chcks Dg Yng Nxn 6-7-0 4-7-0 1022.56 1123.45
12 Fighting Nixons 4-9-0 3-8-0 971.08 1123.93
13 Cincy Jailbirdz 3-10-0 3-9-0 1046.31 1115.51
I'm amazed I snuck into the playoffs.
Yay, I set a new points against record of 105.73. Breaking the old record set by me. Last season. I look forward to breaking it again next season. <_<
No three-peat for me :(
My team suck can't believe I went 9-4.
It seems the Steelers just performed a late term abortion on Derspeiss's season.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2015, 10:27:30 PM
It seems the Steelers just performed a late term abortion on Derspeiss's season.
That's brutal.
Also, both Browns and Raiders won this week. Is BA on a binge?
Good game by the Pats :)
The Redskins and Eagles both held on to first place in this battle of champions. Your move Giants.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2015, 10:27:30 PM
It seems the Steelers just performed a late term abortion on Derspeiss's season.
Little too early to say that. Bengals still have the inside track on winning the AFC North.
The Dalton-haters around here have gotten their wish but suddenly they are all very quiet. I will say though that if McCarron steps up and wins a playoff game, it will be an interesting QB controversy for next season.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2015, 07:39:09 AM
Good game by the Pats :)
Yep, hope they can keep this up with their injuries, and they do have a couple players back and Edelman was practicing with the team last week, though he didn't play.
Gronk and Amendola are back. You can stop worrying about injuries :P
Quote from: alfred russel on December 13, 2015, 10:27:30 PM
It seems the Steelers just performed a late term abortion on Derspeiss's season.
Might be the Colts' season that got aborted. They may be down to their 3rd-string QB.
Or they may have Luck back. Or they may still have Hasselbeck
Nice 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty on Landry to hand the game to the Giants.
Bizarre that Suh is the highest paid player in the NFL.
Fuck you Liep <_<
A three way tie atop the division of glory! I know the whole nation is captivated by this playoff chase for the ages.
Star Wars football helmets:
http://www.nfl.com/photos/0ap2000000323761?campaign=Twitter_gallery_starwars
Poor Redskins. :D
Quote from: katmai on December 14, 2015, 11:58:22 PM
Fuck you Liep <_<
What a beating! Just to spell it out, that's 147.95 points for ME and just 75.79 points for you. :w00t:
Next round worries me though, my team lives and dies by the Eli and he's up against the Panthers next week. :weep:
I have an hard choice myself between Bortles vs piss poor Atlanta or Wilson against piss poor Cleveland.
Wilson has been putting up insane numbers for me in my other league the past few weeks....
Quote from: Liep on December 15, 2015, 06:55:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on December 14, 2015, 11:58:22 PM
Fuck you Liep <_<
What a beating! Just to spell it out, that's 147.95 points for ME and just 75.79 points for you. :w00t:
yeah losing Rawls in 1st quarter doomed any slight chance I had to put up decent numbers. Then the Eli and Odell show happened.
Quote from: Syt on December 15, 2015, 04:52:54 AM
Star Wars football helmets:
http://www.nfl.com/photos/0ap2000000323761?campaign=Twitter_gallery_starwars
Poor Redskins. :D
Well now that was just uncalled for.
Saturday games?! WTF NFL.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 15, 2015, 02:40:17 PM
Saturday games?! WTF NFL.
That is what they have done for awhile once the College season ends. Have to fill that vacuum.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2015, 03:03:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 15, 2015, 02:40:17 PM
Saturday games?! WTF NFL.
That is what they have done for awhile once the College season ends. Have to fill that vacuum.
Can't the NHL have a break? :(
NHL has th other nights. Saturday NFL games is just good business.
Quote from: Valmy on December 15, 2015, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Syt on December 15, 2015, 04:52:54 AM
Star Wars football helmets:
http://www.nfl.com/photos/0ap2000000323761?campaign=Twitter_gallery_starwars
Poor Redskins. :D
Well now that was just uncalled for.
:lol:
I think they confused the Dolphins with the Hurricanes when they made that.
I don't think Tatooine and Hoth can support two teams each. :nerd: San Antonio would still somehow show up as a potential relocation spot for one of those, only to be jumped by LA at the last minute. Road games would be a bitch anyway.
E: Dude because of this I've been clicking through the Wookiepedia for a few minutes now. Some people have WAY WAAAY too much time on their hands. Damn. But hey now I know an Imperial I Class Star Destroyer has 27,000 enlisted guys on board and carries enough consumables for a two year cruise, so....there's that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 15, 2015, 06:53:38 PM
I think they confused the Dolphins with the Hurricanes when they made that.
:huh:
Why?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on December 15, 2015, 11:30:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 15, 2015, 06:53:38 PM
I think they confused the Dolphins with the Hurricanes when they made that.
:huh:
Why?
Miami Hurricanes are notorious criminals, Dolphins not so much.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 15, 2015, 08:56:42 PM
I don't think Tatooine and Hoth can support two teams each. :nerd: San Antonio would still somehow show up as a potential relocation spot for one of those, only to be jumped by LA at the last minute. Road games would be a bitch anyway.
E: Dude because of this I've been clicking through the Wookiepedia for a few minutes now. Some people have WAY WAAAY too much time on their hands. Damn. But hey now I know an Imperial I Class Star Destroyer has 27,000 enlisted guys on board and carries enough consumables for a two year cruise, so....there's that.
Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha are the greatest shrines to Nerddom on the interwebs.
What the hell was that to end 1st half. Valmy your team sucks but is gonna end up in playoffs. :lol:
Peyton Manning linked to doping ring, HGH use.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peyton-manning-human-growth-hormone_567f16e4e4b0b958f6599440?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Quote from: katmai on December 26, 2015, 10:05:17 PM
What the hell was that to end 1st half. Valmy your team sucks but is gonna end up in playoffs. :lol:
I will take what I can get :lol:
The Redskins are champs! :yeah:
Mathieu also out for the season so my Arizona D will be worse too. I finally get to the final and then Ilose all the star players. :(
Quote from: Liep on December 27, 2015, 04:36:30 PM
Mathieu also out for the season so my Arizona D will be worse too. I finally get to the final and then Ilose all the star players. :(
Okay, they're still very good.
1 interception, 9 sacks, 3 fumble recoveries, 2 touchdowns. Approved.
Quote from: Liep on December 27, 2015, 07:30:00 PM
1 interception, 9 sacks, 3 fumble recoveries, 2 touchdowns. Approved.
I got double boned by this.
I'm in two workplace fantasy leagues--one with 10 people, the other with 12. I made it to the championship in both. :yeah:
In one my team was really good, but I went against the Arizona defense--I have no chance now.
My other team is kind of shaky--but I started Carson Palmer. I would have gotten a big bonus had he made it to 300 yards, but of course they pulled him early. I am up by 9, but my opponent has two WRs to go, and I have a TE. So I probably lose.
Are you still auto-drafting Liep?
Uggh...to lose in overtime is bad enough, to lose beacuse of a Brownsesque brain fart during the coin flip is disgusting.
It wasn't a brain fart, they wanted to kick there was just confusion on whether they got to pick the direction they kicked.
Yesterday afternoon was probably the most entertaining all year for the 1:00pm slot:
-Steelers upset by the Ravens in a close game and are suddenly on the outside looking in as far as playoff spots are concerned. They were considered one of the hotter, more dangerous teams in the NFL and everyone seemed to have them up way high in their power rankings. Thank you Ravens for giving the Bungles the AFC North title.
-The scrappy Jets pull off an upset of New England based on a hilarious fuckup on the OT coin toss. Anytime New England loses is a good day of football, and losing in such fashion just makes it that much better. Plus the loss gives the Bengals a fighting chance at a #1 seed. Technically I think they control their own destiny, or at least they would were they not so cursed on MNF :bleeding:
-Panthers finally lose. I like Cam Newton but I never quite thought Carolina was deserving of an undefeated season, playing a soft NFC schedule and all.
Obviously it didn't work out, but without crunching the numbers I suspect kicking was the right play. The way the game went, the odds either team would take the first drive and go down the field to score a TD was low--first crack at a FG to win is valuable, and had the Jets got a FG, I like the odds of Brady getting into FG range with 4 downs and Gostenkowski as the kicker.
It's Brady though. You put the ball in his hands and give him a chance to win it outright.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 11:22:45 AM
It's Brady though. You put the ball in his hands and give him a chance to win it outright.
The same Brady that led one TD drive the entire game, which was equal to the number of defensive touchdowns the team had?
The sentimental option would be that it is still Brady, and you want the ball in his hands. A more analytical might look at the offense vs. defense outcomes during the game and opt for another strategy. I think we know which option Belichick is inclined to choose, and to date it has worked out okay for him.
If the strategy is predicated on the Jet's not being able to score a FG whether they get the ball first or second, why not take the ball and score your FG first?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2015, 11:49:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 11:22:45 AM
It's Brady though. You put the ball in his hands and give him a chance to win it outright.
The same Brady that led one TD drive the entire game, which was equal to the number of defensive touchdowns the team had?
The sentimental option would be that it is still Brady, and you want the ball in his hands. A more analytical might look at the offense vs. defense outcomes during the game and opt for another strategy. I think we know which option Belichick is inclined to choose, and to date it has worked out okay for him.
Still Brady. I don't like him but he's clutch and can lead a game winning TD drive in his sleep.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 12:25:35 PM
If the strategy is predicated on the Jet's not being able to score a FG whether they get the ball first or second, why not take the ball and score your FG first?
Because if you get the ball first, you can only win the game with a touchdown. Starting with the second possession, a FG wins the game.
They changed the overtime format to this a year or two ago to diminish the advantage of winning the coin toss and taking the ball first.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2015, 12:34:50 PM
Because if you get the ball first, you can only win the game with a touchdown. Starting with the second possession, a FG wins the game.
You can win with a FG if the other team then fails to make a FG.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 12:50:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2015, 12:34:50 PM
Because if you get the ball first, you can only win the game with a touchdown. Starting with the second possession, a FG wins the game.
You can win with a FG if the other team then fails to make a FG.
Yes, but then until you get into FG range, the other team can play aggressively (less need to worry about turnovers) and with 4 downs. It is much harder to get a stop against a team in such a situation than it is in a normal situation.
It is why it is such an advantage to play defense first in the college overtime system even though both teams get the ball. That is mitigated in the NFL by giving the team with the ball first the chance to win outright with a TD, but the working assumption here is that the Jets were unlikely to do that.
You lost me Dorsey. What allows the other team to play 4 down ball?
They lose if they punt?
Until the Pats get into FG range, the Jets lose if they punt?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 01:00:47 PM
You lost me Dorsey. What allows the other team to play 4 down ball?
What MBM said. If the Jets got to 4th and 5 on their first possession in their own territory, they would punt.
If the Patriots knew they needed to score to keep the game going, obviously they wouldn't punt.
It is better to go second so you know what you need to do. Obviously assuming the team with the ball first doesn't score a TD and end the game. It is why almost 100% of the time, college teams that win the toss in overtime elect to play defense.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/112875/numbers-dont-back-up-patriots-ot-strategy
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 01:06:09 PM
Until the Pats get into FG range, the Jets lose if they punt?
What? :unsure: The...Patriots lose if they punt after the Jets make a FG, which is why they are playing 4 down ball in the scenario.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 01:08:37 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/112875/numbers-dont-back-up-patriots-ot-strategy
The problem with that post is that:
a) it doesn't run numbers beyond the generic case - ie the experience of who has won in overtime games.
b) it mentions that "nearly" the league average of points were scored in the game, ie, it wasn't 9-9, but the article fails to mention that the Patriots with 20 points got 7 of them on a defensive touchdown.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 01:08:37 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/112875/numbers-dont-back-up-patriots-ot-strategy
Wait, hrm?
QuoteOur latest win probability model estimates the recipient of the opening kickoff in overtime will win about 53.8 percent of the time, and setting aside ties, the kicking team will win about 46.2 percent of the time. Deliberately choosing to kick off without any overriding consideration would cost a team a 7.6 percent chance of winning.
The raw numbers since 2012 appear to support the advantage for the receiving team, although the sample size isn't big enough yet to be certain. Receiving teams have won 33 of the 65 overtime games that did not result in a tie, a 50.7 percent rate.
Can someone explain for me since I suck with this kind of stuff why they would ignore the 65 actual games and go with their probability model? 65 games over three years is not enough?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2015, 01:08:06 PM
What MBM said. If the Jets got to 4th and 5 on their first possession in their own territory, they would punt.
If the Patriots knew they needed to score to keep the game going, obviously they wouldn't punt.
It is better to go second so you know what you need to do. Obviously assuming the team with the ball first doesn't score a TD and end the game. It is why almost 100% of the time, college teams that win the toss in overtime elect to play defense.
Pro game is completely different than the college game. In college they just trade punches until someone gets hit in the nuts. What you seem to be overlooking is in the pros the team with the first possession also gets the third possession, and can win on that possession with a FG.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 28, 2015, 01:09:39 PM
What? :unsure: The...Patriots lose if they punt after the Jets make a FG, which is why they are playing 4 down ball in the scenario.
It wasn't clear from Dorsey's original post who had the range and who had 4 downs.
Yi, in the NFL each team gets
one possession unless there is a TD on the opening drive. If Team A doesn't make a FG or score a TD and punts on their opening possession, Team B can win it with a FG (like college).
E:
QuoteIt wasn't clear from Dorsey's original post who had the range and who had 4 downs.
He was responding to a post from you about winning with a FG if the other team fails to make it on the following possession. There'd be no reason to bother with 4 down football in risky situations if you could just punt it away and play D.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 01:17:48 PM
Pro game is completely different than the college game. In college they just trade punches until someone gets hit in the nuts. What you seem to be overlooking is the team with the first possession also gets the third possession, and can win on that possession with a FG.
Yep, the analysis can get complex. If you use the article that Derspeiss linked, ESPN estimates that the team with the ball first should win 53.8% of games in an average game, and in practice have won 50.7% of games won or lost in overtime under current rules.
In a defensive game, the numbers get weighted more to the kicking team. For example, if most possessions are resulting in a 3 and out, the kicking team should get good starting field position when they get the ball.
I'm sure some math nerds will crunch the numbers on this and it will probably come up to be very close to 50% whether the Patriots should have kicked or received. Not sure which side will be ahead, maybe different analysis will differ, but it probably wasn't the dumbest decision made on Sunday, if it was even dumb to begin with.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 28, 2015, 01:21:35 PM
Yi, in the NFL each team gets one possession unless there is a TD on the opening drive.
This is not true. I thought maybe I had been spacing out on the rule, so I googled.
"However, if the team that receives the opening kickoff only gets a field goal, the other team gets one possession of its own. If they score a touchdown, they win. If they don't score, they lose. If they also kick a field goal, the overtime continues in sudden-death format." From SB*Nation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 01:34:15 PM
This is not true. I thought maybe I had been spacing out on the rule, so I googled.
"However, if the team that receives the opening kickoff only gets a field goal, the other team gets one possession of its own. If they score a touchdown, they win. If they don't score, they lose. If they also kick a field goal, the overtime continues in sudden-death format." From SB*Nation.
Mer? I'm not sure how that says what you quoted from me is not true.
Here is a thing from NFL.com:
QuoteFollowing a three-minute intermission after the end of the regulation game, play will be continued in 15-minute periods until a winner is declared. Each team must possess or have the opportunity to possess the ball unless the team that has the ball first scores a touchdown on its initial possession. Play continues in sudden death until a winner is determined, and the game automatically ends upon any score (by safety, field goal, or touchdown) or when a score is awarded by the Referee for a palpably unfair act. Each team has three time-outs per half and all general timing provisions apply as during a regular game. The try is not attempted if a touchdown is scored. Disqualified players are not allowed to return.
Team A doesnt do anything but punt = possession (opportunity to possess = muffing the kickoff or something hilarious like that). Team B can now go kick a FG and get that sweet sweet W.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 28, 2015, 01:38:50 PM
Mer? I'm not sure how that says what you quoted from me is not true.
Because there are other cases besides the first team scoring a TD that they get more than one possession.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 01:40:53 PM
Because there are other cases besides the first team scoring a TD that they get more than one possession.
Well, there are punts and turnovers by Team B, but if A doesn't score with their possession and B does, the game is over. The thing from SB Nation says the same thing I did. They each get a possession unless there is a TD scored on the opening drive.
E: Safeties are instawins too, in case you were curious. As I said before a kickoff is also an opportunity to possess for the receiving team, so Team A can win with a FG on their opening possession with a muff or an onside kick on the following KO. Team B can elect to kick on the coin flip like the Patriots here, recover an onside kick, and make a FG to win it immediately too. That would take some balls of steel though, considering the field position they would be giving up if they aren't successful.
Look Burger, we're having a debate about whether "they get one possession" means they get at least one possession or they get only one possession. When I first read your post i thought you meant the second and I see now that you meant the first.
Ah, I see. Why didn't you mention sudden death then? :( I just didn't think that part of the rules, which is the same as always after the new stuff gets taken care of, needed to be spelled out since we're talking about kicking FGs to win it/why it isn't necessarily a bad thing to kick after the coin flip. vOv
E: Then again, it gave me something to do for the last 20 minutes I'm here at work, so woooooooooo Im outta here thanks for talking past each other with me Yi, and happy new year! :yeah:
Why didn't I mention sudden death when?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 02:07:13 PM
Why didn't I mention sudden death when?
When you quoted the post you thought was not true. ;) "That's not true, they still get sudden death" or some such. Then I would have gone "Oh derp, I meant GUARANTEED possessions" or some such and we would have been slightly more bored for the last few minutes.
I didn't want to make you look like a derplord. Or more of a derplord.
The Texans will make the playoffs unless the following occurs:
Broncos beat the Bengals
Colts beat the Titans
Steelers beat the Browns
Broncos beat the Chargers
Falcons beat the Saints
Bills beat the Jets
Jaguars beat the Texans
Dolphins beat the Patriots
Ravens beat the Bengals
Raiders beat the Chiefs
So what I'm saying is: The Colts are going to the playoffs because that's the kind of shit that happens to Houston football teams.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2015, 02:12:03 PM
I didn't want to make you look like a derplord. Or more of a derplord.
Alternatively, you could have figured out why a team would be playing 4 down ball in your own scenario and avoided the whole thing entirely. ;) It doesn't really matter either way.
The key part is that the patriots didn't necessarily want to kick off, they wanted to choose which goal they defended.
That almost always means they will end up kicking off, but that would have been by default.
Quote from: sbr on December 28, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
The key part is that the patriots didn't necessarily want to kick off, they wanted to choose which goal they defended.
That almost always means they will end up kicking off, but that would have been by default.
I think he might have even said something about wanting to go a certain way after he said they want to kick immediately after the coin flip and before the ref had the Jets pick where they want to receive, but welp he didn't choose to defer.
The key is that the Patriots wanted to play defense first, and got what they wanted. It didn't work out for them, but it was their choice.
Quote from: dps on December 28, 2015, 03:40:55 PM
The key is that the Patriots wanted to play defense first, and got what they wanted. It didn't work out for them, but it was their choice.
They supposedly tried this trick before and it worked.
Quote from: sbr on December 28, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
The key part is that the patriots didn't necessarily want to kick off, they wanted to choose which goal they defended.
That almost always means they will end up kicking off, but that would have been by default.
Actually, Belichick came out and said they didn't care which direction they went because there was almost no wind, they wanted to kick off. He told his captain to choose to kick off, and told the ref before the play he wanted to kick off. What he didn't want is to pick a goal to defend and then have the Jets choose to kick off because he didn't want to receive the football.
Now that the Slurs are sitting pretty going to the playoffs I am terrified they get the fucking Seahawks again. Thank goodness they lost to the Rams, it gives me some hope.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 09:52:11 AM
-Steelers upset by the Ravens in a close game and are suddenly on the outside looking in as far as playoff spots are concerned. They were considered one of the hotter, more dangerous teams in the NFL and everyone seemed to have them up way high in their power rankings. Thank you Ravens for giving the Bungles the AFC North title.
https://youtu.be/iFCjyKvz-dI
Packers are one and done. They look abysmal. :yucky:
Congratulations to the Funk.
I lived by the Eli and I died by the Eli.
:cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2015, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 09:52:11 AM
-Steelers upset by the Ravens in a close game and are suddenly on the outside looking in as far as playoff spots are concerned. They were considered one of the hotter, more dangerous teams in the NFL and everyone seemed to have them up way high in their power rankings. Thank you Ravens for giving the Bungles the AFC North title.
https://youtu.be/iFCjyKvz-dI
What a front running goof.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2015, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 09:52:11 AM
-Steelers upset by the Ravens in a close game and are suddenly on the outside looking in as far as playoff spots are concerned. They were considered one of the hotter, more dangerous teams in the NFL and everyone seemed to have them up way high in their power rankings. Thank you Ravens for giving the Bungles the AFC North title.
https://youtu.be/iFCjyKvz-dI
What a front running goof.
snoop has been a huge Steelers fan forever. :huh:
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 07:39:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2015, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2015, 09:52:11 AM
-Steelers upset by the Ravens in a close game and are suddenly on the outside looking in as far as playoff spots are concerned. They were considered one of the hotter, more dangerous teams in the NFL and everyone seemed to have them up way high in their power rankings. Thank you Ravens for giving the Bungles the AFC North title.
https://youtu.be/iFCjyKvz-dI
What a front running goof.
snoop has been a huge Steelers fan forever. :huh:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXRvxqEWEAAvkxf.jpg)
Maybe he wasn't expecting rain and had to borrow a hat. :bowler:
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
Pats are usually their strongest at the end of the year, even the teams that don't go that far in the playoffs.
We're really limping to the finish line this time though. If we get healthy we can go far, but I'm not really seeing much hope of that given how this season has gone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2015, 10:47:46 PM
Pats are usually their strongest at the end of the year, even the teams that don't go that far in the playoffs.
We're really limping to the finish line this time though. If we get healthy we can go far, but I'm not really seeing much hope of that given how this season has gone.
Which causes you more anguish?
The coming ebola apocalypse, the Trump takeover of America, or the inevitable annihilation of the Patriots in the playoffs?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
They have been interesting, but there is only one I would argue with.
Desean Jackson, while very talented and extremely fast is an absolute knucklehead and I would not want him on my team for the money it would take to get him on my team (currently $8 million a year)
Evan Mathis, despite being considered and graded as one of the best offensive guards in the league had trouble finding a new team and ended up taking a 1 year $3 million contract with the Broncos to sit on the bench. Last night in an almost must-win game he was on the field for 6 plays....
LeShon McCoy, while better than DeMarco Murray had a cap number of almost $12 million this year. DeMarco Murray's contract never has a cap number over $9 million a year. They also got a younger Defensive Rookie of the Year player in return. They traded a 27 year old RB with a bad contract for a 27 year old RB with a much better contract and a good young defensive player. Should the Eagles have realized that Murray wasn't a good fit? Probably, but that is not the first or last time that a team signed a "good" player who didn't fit the new system and turned into a not very good player.
I have an intense, almost inappropriate, man-crush on Jeremy Maclin and have no idea why they would have let him go anywhere.
75% will get you work a lot of places. :p
Shocked you are a Kelly apologist :yeahright:
Reports of Mike Holmgren gunning to be the 49er's coach. :P
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25429750/report-mike-holmgren-is-interested-in-coaching-the-49ers
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
They have been interesting, but there is only one I would argue with.
Desean Jackson, while very talented and extremely fast is an absolute knucklehead and I would not want him on my team for the money it would take to get him on my team (currently $8 million a year)
Evan Mathis, despite being considered and graded as one of the best offensive guards in the league had trouble finding a new team and ended up taking a 1 year $3 million contract with the Broncos to sit on the bench. Last night in an almost must-win game he was on the field for 6 plays....
LeShon McCoy, while better than DeMarco Murray had a cap number of almost $12 million this year. DeMarco Murray's contract never has a cap number over $9 million a year. They also got a younger Defensive Rookie of the Year player in return. They traded a 27 year old RB with a bad contract for a 27 year old RB with a much better contract and a good young defensive player. Should the Eagles have realized that Murray wasn't a good fit? Probably, but that is not the first or last time that a team signed a "good" player who didn't fit the new system and turned into a not very good player.
I have an intense, almost inappropriate, man-crush on Jeremy Maclin and have no idea why they would have let him go anywhere.
75% will get you work a lot of places. :p
The Nick Foles trade to the St. Louis Rams in exchange for Sam Bradford? :huh:
Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2015, 12:03:08 AM
Shocked you are a Kelly apologist :yeahright:
Fine, despite everything I have actually said I'm a Chip Kelly apologist. What is incorrect about what I said about those personnel moves?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2015, 12:25:47 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
They have been interesting, but there is only one I would argue with.
Desean Jackson, while very talented and extremely fast is an absolute knucklehead and I would not want him on my team for the money it would take to get him on my team (currently $8 million a year)
Evan Mathis, despite being considered and graded as one of the best offensive guards in the league had trouble finding a new team and ended up taking a 1 year $3 million contract with the Broncos to sit on the bench. Last night in an almost must-win game he was on the field for 6 plays....
LeShon McCoy, while better than DeMarco Murray had a cap number of almost $12 million this year. DeMarco Murray's contract never has a cap number over $9 million a year. They also got a younger Defensive Rookie of the Year player in return. They traded a 27 year old RB with a bad contract for a 27 year old RB with a much better contract and a good young defensive player. Should the Eagles have realized that Murray wasn't a good fit? Probably, but that is not the first or last time that a team signed a "good" player who didn't fit the new system and turned into a not very good player.
I have an intense, almost inappropriate, man-crush on Jeremy Maclin and have no idea why they would have let him go anywhere.
75% will get you work a lot of places. :p
The Nick Foles trade to the St. Louis Rams in exchange for Sam Bradford? :huh:
Oh gee I forgot about the trade of one mediocre quarterback for another mediocre quarterback. Ooops.
Bradford is a free agent after this season too, isn't he?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 30, 2015, 08:38:04 PM
Bradford is a free agent after this season too, isn't he?
:yes:
Sbr-
The Murray contract has more guaranteed money and less team friendly that McCoy's.
Alonso hasn't been anything near his Rookie season, and Kelly's draft picks have been underwhelming,
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 30, 2015, 08:38:04 PM
Bradford is a free agent after this season too, isn't he?
I'm not sure where you are going with this (if anywhere). Is this good or bad for either side?
Both were due to be free agents after this year, then the Rams signed Foles to an extension, while the Eagles tried but were unable to sign Bradford.
Quote from: sbr on December 30, 2015, 09:31:17 PM
I'm not sure where you are going with this (if anywhere). Is this good or bad for either side?
Both were due to be free agents after this year, then the Rams signed Foles to an extension, while the Eagles tried but were unable to sign Bradford.
It means it doesn't really matter either way. It's basically a tryout.
Quote from: katmai on December 30, 2015, 08:43:23 PM
Sbr-
The Murray contract has more guaranteed money and less team friendly that McCoy's.
I have read that McCoy's contract was a reason for the trade and that his cap number for this year was higher than any number in any year for Murray. You could be right, maybe McCoy had one bad contract year and the rest were better than Murray's cotnract.
Despite what you think I don't care enough to argue or research this point any more. :P
QuoteAlonso hasn't been anything near his Rookie season, and Kelly's draft picks have been underwhelming,
Alonso has played in only 10 games since his rookie year due to knee injuries but yes it appears he had a disappointing season. That said, at the time of the trade I didn't think it was a terrible trade. It hasn't worked out for the Eagles, but shit happens.
And I wasn't talking about draft choices (don't even know who they drafted) but about the trades and releases that everyone jumped up and down about when they happened.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 30, 2015, 09:33:06 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 30, 2015, 09:31:17 PM
I'm not sure where you are going with this (if anywhere). Is this good or bad for either side?
Both were due to be free agents after this year, then the Rams signed Foles to an extension, while the Eagles tried but were unable to sign Bradford.
It means it doesn't really matter either way. It's basically a tryout.
Ah yes.
So just to reset my thoughts on Kelly, that I know i have posted here multiple times since he was hired, I never thought he was going to be a big success in the NFL. But since all I had ever seen of him was being wildly successful and the smartest man in the room I wouldn't have bet against him.
It turns out that like a lot of college offensive gurus his system didn't work in the NFL with better coaching and better athletes, though I think some of the concepts he believes in will continue to trickle into the pro game (like faster but not as fast pace).
He is also a bit of an asshole with a huge ego, and those things are fine when you are bullying 18-20 year old kids around for a couple of year but won't fly when you are dealing with adult millionaires who have more power than NCAA "student" athletes.
The word is is he doesn't want to go back to the college game, hates a lot of what you need to do down there: glad-handing boosters, recruiting, etc. It will be interesting to see if he gets another immediate shot as an NFL head coach, and if not what he does. I can't imagine him taking an OC job somewhere in the NFL.
I wonder if Tennessee would give him a shot.
That's the obvious hot rumor and it would definitely be interesting.
Quote from: sbr on December 30, 2015, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2015, 12:25:47 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
They have been interesting, but there is only one I would argue with.
Desean Jackson, while very talented and extremely fast is an absolute knucklehead and I would not want him on my team for the money it would take to get him on my team (currently $8 million a year)
Evan Mathis, despite being considered and graded as one of the best offensive guards in the league had trouble finding a new team and ended up taking a 1 year $3 million contract with the Broncos to sit on the bench. Last night in an almost must-win game he was on the field for 6 plays....
LeShon McCoy, while better than DeMarco Murray had a cap number of almost $12 million this year. DeMarco Murray's contract never has a cap number over $9 million a year. They also got a younger Defensive Rookie of the Year player in return. They traded a 27 year old RB with a bad contract for a 27 year old RB with a much better contract and a good young defensive player. Should the Eagles have realized that Murray wasn't a good fit? Probably, but that is not the first or last time that a team signed a "good" player who didn't fit the new system and turned into a not very good player.
I have an intense, almost inappropriate, man-crush on Jeremy Maclin and have no idea why they would have let him go anywhere.
75% will get you work a lot of places. :p
The Nick Foles trade to the St. Louis Rams in exchange for Sam Bradford? :huh:
Oh gee I forgot about the trade of one mediocre quarterback for another mediocre quarterback. Ooops.
He had 27 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in 2013 with a completion rate of 64% and a rating of 119.2
Got injured the next year, but if you're worried about injuries, Sam Bradford is not the player you trade for to address those issues.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 31, 2015, 12:05:08 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 30, 2015, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 30, 2015, 12:25:47 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 11:04:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2015, 10:39:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 29, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Oh and Chip Kelly got fired, the timing of which I find really weird. I guess the players really hated him.
The personnel decisions the eagles made the past few years were interesting to say the least.
They have been interesting, but there is only one I would argue with.
Desean Jackson, while very talented and extremely fast is an absolute knucklehead and I would not want him on my team for the money it would take to get him on my team (currently $8 million a year)
Evan Mathis, despite being considered and graded as one of the best offensive guards in the league had trouble finding a new team and ended up taking a 1 year $3 million contract with the Broncos to sit on the bench. Last night in an almost must-win game he was on the field for 6 plays....
LeShon McCoy, while better than DeMarco Murray had a cap number of almost $12 million this year. DeMarco Murray's contract never has a cap number over $9 million a year. They also got a younger Defensive Rookie of the Year player in return. They traded a 27 year old RB with a bad contract for a 27 year old RB with a much better contract and a good young defensive player. Should the Eagles have realized that Murray wasn't a good fit? Probably, but that is not the first or last time that a team signed a "good" player who didn't fit the new system and turned into a not very good player.
I have an intense, almost inappropriate, man-crush on Jeremy Maclin and have no idea why they would have let him go anywhere.
75% will get you work a lot of places. :p
The Nick Foles trade to the St. Louis Rams in exchange for Sam Bradford? :huh:
Oh gee I forgot about the trade of one mediocre quarterback for another mediocre quarterback. Ooops.
He had 27 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in 2013 with a completion rate of 64% and a rating of 119.2
Got injured the next year, but if you're worried about injuries, Sam Bradford is not the player you trade for to address those issues.
And when he played he played the next year he played poorly. Then played even more poorly with the Rams.
Foles had a spectacular 13 game stretch before the league figured him and Kelly's offense out. Now teams have a book on both and neither one is very effective any more.
Shall we really discuss all of the mediocre QBs who have had nice 13 game runs only to fall back down to earth?
I will bet you $20 Nick Foles doesn't start 20 more games in the NFL.
The NFL though man. Kelly won 10 games two years in a row including a division title and was playing for another division title right at the end of the season...yes it is the NFC East but still. And now fired. Ah well. I bet all those colleges with coaching vacancies feel silly filling them so quickly now.
This is the first game since Kelly took over that the eagles are out of playoff contention.
Sounds like the biggest reason he was fired was not football related though.
Quote from: sbr on December 31, 2015, 12:39:26 AM
Foles had a spectacular 13 game stretch before the league figured him and Kelly's offense out. Now teams have a book on both and neither one is very effective any more.
I don't think that the league has particularly figured Kelly's offense out (not to any greater extent that NFL defenses have any other offensive system figured out). The Eagle's problems this year were the result of the team not having enough offensive personnel that could execute his offense at a consistently high level. Given that Kelly had complete control over personnel decisions this year, that's a pretty bad criticism of him as a judge of personnel, but not of his offensive system.
Perhaps many of the Eagle's personnel moves were justifiable on an economic basis, but they mostly weren't on an on-field basis.
Suh may have been a non-factor this year, but it looks like he may have just hurt Brady, so there's that.
http://dailysnark.com/ndamukong-suh-destroys-tom-brady-going-low-brady-limps-field/
Houston is going to win anyway (30-6 with 2:00 left and Sage Rosenfels nowhere in sight), but it looks like they already clinched the division and a home game with the Saints W over the Falcons. :)
Who qualifies with a 10-6 tie? Pittsburgh or NYJ?
Quote from: Liep on January 03, 2016, 04:04:04 PM
Who qualifies with a 10-6 tie? Pittsburgh or NYJ?
Steelers.
Steelers vs Bengals.
Browns Coach and GM let go already.
Talk that Johnny Football was spotted in Vegas last night and is done in Cleveland.
Niners are expected to let Tomsula go with Chip Kelly, Mike Shanahan and Sean Payton (if they can work a deal with Saints) as possible replacements.
And it isn't even black monday yet.
Tomsula is officially gone.
Quote from: sbr on January 03, 2016, 10:22:04 PM
Tomsula is officially gone.
Yep just saw that. Sadly whomever they bring in still has to deal with Baalke as GM
And Gabbert as QB.
QuoteNow that the Niners fired head coach Jim Tomsula, they are expected to look at pursuing Saints head coach Sean Payton, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen. Saints GM Mickey Loomis and Payton are supposed to meet this week, and teams believe Loomis will grant Payton permission to pursue another job.
Packers look like poop.
Quote from: katmai on January 03, 2016, 10:01:10 PM
Talk that Johnny Football was spotted in Vegas last night and is done in Cleveland.
Betcha he would be dy-no-mite in the CFL.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2016, 12:52:35 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 03, 2016, 10:01:10 PM
Talk that Johnny Football was spotted in Vegas last night and is done in Cleveland.
Betcha he would be dy-no-mite in the CFL.
Not every NFL failure is a CFL star.
For what it's worth TSN's Dave Naylor (who is a legit CFL insider) says his rights belong to the TiCats.
https://twitter.com/TSNDaveNaylor/status/364464644028502017
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2016, 02:09:03 AM
Not every NFL failure is a CFL star.
But he's a Heisman winner, can't be that bad.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2016, 02:20:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2016, 02:09:03 AM
Not every NFL failure is a CFL star.
But he's a Heisman winner, can't be that bad.
so was Troy Smith and he stunked it up.
So all three formerly Los Angeles teams eager to go back:
https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/NFL-Statement.aspx
QuoteThree teams – the Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, and San Diego Chargers – each submitted applications to our office today to relocate their franchises to the Los Angeles area beginning with the 2016 season. Each team submitted the appropriate documentation in support of its application as required by the NFL Policy and Procedures for Proposed Franchise Relocations.
The applications will be reviewed this week by league staff and three league committees that will meet in New York on Wednesday and Thursday -- the Los Angeles Opportunities, Stadium, and Finance committees. The applications will be presented for consideration at next week's league meeting in Houston on Tuesday and Wednesday. The relocation of a franchise requires the affirmative vote of three-quarters of the NFL clubs (24 of 32).
So who wins? Which prodigal franchise is welcomed back with open arms?
Didn't know the Chargers used to play in LA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2016, 03:47:22 PM
Didn't know the Chargers used to play in LA.
They were the AFL LA Team before moving out to San Diego in the 60s at some point.
Edit: 1961, they were only in LA for 1960. Still they were technically a formerly LA team :P
IMO, St. Louis deserves to keep its team, so I hope it's not the Rams.
From the league's POV, it probably would make the most sense for the Raiders to go to LA. No sense having another team compete with the 49er's for Bay area fans.
Remember to vote Morten Andersen for Hall of Fame!
Texans really could use a QB.
Looks like Derspicy is jinxing the Bengals again.
COME ON DERSPEISS!!! STOP GIVING YOUR TEAM SHITTY SUPPORT SO THEY CAN BEAT THE STEELERS!!! I KNOW IT IS RAINING BUT MAN UP THIS IS THE PLAYOFFS!!!
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2016, 04:43:07 PM
IMO, St. Louis deserves to keep its team, so I hope it's not the Rams.
From the league's POV, it probably would make the most sense for the Raiders to go to LA. No sense having another team compete with the 49er's for Bay area fans.
St. Louis deserves a team, though they deserve better then the Rams. I mean, St. Louis isn't that great a city, but they don't deserve that.
Ah Bungles being Bungles.
Pretty hard to self-destruct at the end of the 4Q more spectacularly than that (and with the feeling that they deserved the outcome).
The Bengals have actively avoided the humiliation of being destroyed by the Patriots. I guess.
I think they would have rather that then the 0 for last 25 years in playoffs.
Nicely gift wrapped by the officials as per usual. Every game I bother to watch makes me dislike the NFL more and more. When does Spring Training start? I need baseball. :glare:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 09, 2016, 11:59:21 PM
Nicely gift wrapped by the officials as per usual. Every game I bother to watch makes me dislike the NFL more and more. When does Spring Training start? I need baseball. :glare:
:huh:
I love to rag on bad officiating, but those last two clinching penalties were about as blatant and deserved as can be.
Burfict has been bad player since ASU days.
Quote from: katmai on January 10, 2016, 12:07:16 AM
Burfict has been bad player since ASU days.
He made what should have been a clinching interception before Hill fumbled the game away and also knocked Roethlisberger out of the game. Had Hill not fumbled, there would have been a good case to make him MVP, though I know that wouldn't have happened.
Oh i know he is talented as all heck, but he makes some of the most boneheaded plays causing him to inflict personal foul penalties on his teams. That is what i meant by bad.
The first penalty for head hunting was blatant but the 2nd one looked made up to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 12:15:27 AM
The first penalty for head hunting was blatant but the 2nd one looked made up to me.
I still haven't seen what happened in regards to Pacman Jones personal foul.
Quote from: katmai on January 10, 2016, 12:16:50 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 12:15:27 AM
The first penalty for head hunting was blatant but the 2nd one looked made up to me.
I still haven't seen what happened in regards to Pacman Jones personal foul.
I think he got flagged for patting/pushing someone on the Steeler's training staff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 12:15:27 AM
The first penalty for head hunting was blatant but the 2nd one looked made up to me.
This. He was grabbing a Steelers player who was grabbing a Benglas coach and might have made incidental contact with his back to a ref in the scrum. That's about all I could see.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 12:15:27 AM
The first penalty for head hunting was blatant but the 2nd one looked made up to me.
I disagree. On the first because the receiver lowered his head. In slow motion it looks like it was intentional, but two guys running that fast, I don't think so. Especially with the defender also lowering his head he couldn't even see what he was hitting at the end. The second? I don't know what happened, but it was called on Pacman Jones, and it is always a good bet to assume he did something stupid.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2016, 12:19:48 AM
I disagree. On the first because the receiver lowered his head. In slow motion it looks like it was intentional, but two guys running that fast, I don't think so. Especially with the defender also lowering his head he couldn't even see what he was hitting at the end. The second? I don't know what happened, but it was called on Pacman Jones, and it is always a good bet to assume he did something stupid.
You're a crackhead Dorsey. Brown was stretched out full and just rotated into the head shot. He didn't run anywhere.
True enough. That does make sense with the 1st one. Everything looks uglier in slow motion.
I just saw a replay, and it looked worse than I thought watching the game live.
Deion Sanders pontificating on NFL that it wasn't a shady hit.
Ok, finally saw the Jones foul, dumb of him to let Joey Porter get him riled up.
Cincy fans were a class act too.
Be curious to see what derspicy has to say from the sidelines.
Well guess Niners won't have to wait now to interview Jackson as all reports are saying he's the lead choice for new HC.
Lol, just watched the game. Can't get much more Bengals than that.
Quote from: katmai on January 10, 2016, 12:27:29 AM
Deion Sanders pontificating on NFL that it wasn't a shady hit.
Well, Deion Sanders made his living as a defensive back
blowing up receivers going over the middle.
Deion is from my home town. :)
Wow, lucky Hawks
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
Well, Deion Sanders made his living as a defensive back blowing up receivers going over the middle.
Deion is from my home town. :)
Corners don't punish receivers going over the middle. That's what safeties do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 04:06:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
Well, Deion Sanders made his living as a defensive back blowing up receivers going over the middle.
Deion is from my home town. :)
Corners don't punish receivers going over the middle. That's what safeties do.
Whoosh. :P
No coffee yet. :glare:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
Well, Deion Sanders made his living as a defensive back blowing up receivers going over the middle.
Deion is from my home town. :)
:lol: Yeah Deion you pimp, what the fuck you know about hitting anyone?
May be time to reignite my support for the Skins. :)
Rogers is playing like Betty White.
How much you figure the Gatorade bitch gets paid to carry that tray around?
Quote from: katmai on January 10, 2016, 02:33:02 AM
Be curious to see what derspicy has to say from the sidelines.
It was wet.
At least they can stop blaming Andy Dalton.
The Redskins lost their playoff game because they were clearly an inferior team. That makes it easier to take. Well that and they didn't lost to the Seahawks again.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2016, 06:05:32 PM
Rogers is playing like Betty White.
How much you figure the Gatorade bitch gets paid to carry that tray around?
It's the NFL, they pay for the privilege.
Man, that FG shank at the end of the Vikings-Seahawks game. :blush:
I saw a vid of that on YouTube a fan shot from within the stadium... from where they were sitting they couldn't see that it didn't go in and they were celebrating for like 30 seconds till someone went "Uhhhhh.... it missed dudes" :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on January 11, 2016, 10:02:47 AM
Man, that FG shank at the end of the Vikings-Seahawks game. :blush:
I saw a vid of that on YouTube a fan shot from within the stadium... from where they were sitting they couldn't see that it didn't go in and they were celebrating for like 30 seconds till someone went "Uhhhhh.... it missed dudes" :lol:
I had that exact same experience in September at the Texas-Cal game. Texas scored a touchdown down 45-38 with seconds left in the game and I was all high fiving and celebrating and then the guy beside me was all 'you know they just missed the extra point right?' :blush:
Whoops. :D :hug:
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2016, 09:31:20 AM
It's the NFL, they pay for the privilege.
I was talking about the dude who walks around with a tray full of Gatorade to all the players.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2016, 03:07:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 11, 2016, 09:31:20 AM
It's the NFL, they pay for the privilege.
I was talking about the dude who walks around with a tray full of Gatorade to all the players.
Yes, I was making a joke.
My guess 30k has a part time.
Long live the LA Rams?!? :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on January 12, 2016, 09:34:46 PM
Long live the LA Rams?!? :unsure:
Good news. St. Louis sucks. San Diego deserves its own team.
Also I heard Oakland may move soon in another year. :hmm:
St. Louis is certainly big and wealthy enough to deserve their own team.
If I was the owner of the Jaguars I'd start packing the moving van immediately.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2016, 11:38:00 PM
St. Louis is certainly big and wealthy enough to deserve their own team.
If I was the owner of the Jaguars I'd start packing the moving van immediately.
Well Tim, just keep saving up a portion of your ESL teaching stipend, and when your piggy bank accumulates ~$1 billion, you can buy the team and pack that moving van.
I like Saint Louis, but Jacksonville is way better.
It doesn't really have enough people to support a pro team, but then St Louis doesn't have enough to support 3.
If San Diego "deserves" to have the Chargers and Padres as its teams, I wonder what they did wrong. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2016, 01:01:06 AM
It doesn't really have enough people to support a pro team, but then St Louis doesn't have enough to support 3.
If San Diego "deserves" to have the Chargers and Padres as its teams, I wonder what they did wrong. :hmm:
I'm sure the Rams draw a lot more fans to their stadium and have much better TV ratings than the Jaguars.
QuoteFormer NFL running back Lawrence Phillips found dead in prison
By Frank Schwab
23 minutes ago
Shutdown Corner
Lawrence Phillips was the sixth overall pick in the 1996 NFL draft.
Lawrence Phillips' sad tale came to a tragic end on Wednesday. The troubled former NFL running back was found dead in prison, according to a press release from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Phillips was 40.
The death is being investigated as a suspected suicide. According to the press release, Phillips was found unresponsive at 12:05 a.m. on Wednesday when the staff at Kern Valley State Prison was conducting security checks. He was transported to an outside hospital where he was pronounced dead at 1:27 a.m.
Phillips had been serving 31 years for two separate incidents. In 2005 he twice choked his girlfriend. Later that year he attacked three teens with his car after a pickup football game. He was in prison for inflicting great bodily injury involving domestic violence, corporal injury to a spouse, false imprisonment and vehicle theft.
Phillips was also facing murder charges for killing his cellmate, 37-year-old Damion Soward, who was strangled to death at Kern Valley State Prison last April. Phillips was charged with first-degree murder in September. The CDCR release said Phillips was in the first stages of his trial in Soward's death.
Phillips had a rocky life, and that included his NFL career. He found himself in trouble at the University of Nebraska, including a suspension for an incident in which he allegedly dragged his ex-girlfriend by her hair down a flight of stairs. Phillips was still drafted sixth overall by the St. Louis Rams in 1996. After unproductive play on the field and more trouble off it, the Rams cut him. He played briefly with the San Francisco 49ers and Miami Dolphins before he was out of the NFL for good after the 1999 season. He averaged just 3.4 yards in the NFL. He tried playing in the Arena Football League, NFL Europe, the Canadian Football League, but never caught on for very long in any of those leagues.
I am sure Tom Osborne feels great at being such a great mentor and father-figure to him.
Yahoo has clickbait to its own article, "Ex-NFL Bust Lawrence Phillips Found Dead". Man yahoo sucks. The dude had a troubled life, but if you want to focus on his football, he was a lot more than an NFL bust.
He played in Montreal in 2002.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 13, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Yahoo has clickbait to its own article, "Ex-NFL Bust Lawrence Phillips Found Dead". Man yahoo sucks. The dude had a troubled life, but if you want to focus on his football, he was a lot more than an NFL bust.
"Ex-NFL Bust" isn't accurate anyway, because it implies that at some point he ceased to be a bust.
Hue Jackson gets (stuck with) the HC job in Cleveland. Wish him the best as he is a great guy but he'll be back with Cincy in a couple years. Vance Joseph (future HC somewhere) gets a well-deserved DC job and unfortunately takes Matt Burke with him. But that clears the way for Duffner and Coyle to make their glorious return.
Also a couple guys got fired. May offer my services as QC coach if they let me do it part time.
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2016, 07:27:51 PM
Also a couple guys got fired. May offer my services as QC coach if they let me do it part time.
You guys don't need another quality control coach; you need an emotional control coach. Definitely needs to be full time though. :P
I can do that if it pays enough.
Ask them if they need a guy to tell Pac Man Jones to calm the fuck down on a full time basis. I'll do that for 50K/year.
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2016, 07:27:51 PM
But that clears the way for ... Coyle to make [his] glorious return.
You can have him. :yucky:
Niners are trying to turn way way back machine to 1994 apparently as Mike Shanahan is looking like next coach.
Your 2016 San Francisco 49ers (2-14).
Chip Kelly to the 9ers: http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2/San-Francisco-49ers-Hire-Chip-Kelly-as-Head-Coach/d8b16b93-b0b5-468b-aaac-32822af5bbab?sf18864203=1
At least they will suck quicker now Katmai.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2016, 01:43:51 PM
At least they will suck quicker now Katmai.
oh god no...
Mean Kap will probably given another chance, but surprised Kelly would go there as he won't be given the control he had in Philly.
Yeah, who would want a coach who had been in playoff contention in 46 of the 47 games he has coached in his career?
Only with help from shitty NFC east :P
Quote from: katmai on January 14, 2016, 02:27:55 PM
Only with help from shitty NFC east :P
I know Jay Gruden appreciated it.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 14, 2016, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2016, 07:27:51 PM
But that clears the way for ... Coyle to make [his] glorious return.
You can have him. :yucky:
He wasn't given the right players for his system. Suh was way out of place.
Red McCombs is trying to get the Raiders to move here: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14572902/red-mccombs-trying-lure-oakland-raiders-san-antonio
They have also supposedly (Bleacher Report, so possibly lies) bought property between SA and Austin (San Marcos??): http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/oakland-raiders-texas-san-antonio-austin-relocation-stadium-alamodome-011316
Heh. This is not going to happen.
But...but...UTSA's vast fanbase :weep:
UTSA needs a ~35k seat stadium on/near campus. The dome is nice for a mid major and all, but they pull like 25-30k per game right now, so the place is half empty.
Maybe after Bowl Cut stays in California, Red can build that instead.
My brother texted me in his full Packer regalia, he and his wife are in Phoenix for game after traveling to D.C. for the win last week.
Gronk's got the cougars working the bar all hot and bothered. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 06:35:07 PM
Gronk's got the cougars working the bar all hot and bothered. :)
Native cougars, or ex-pat cougars? :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 06:40:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 06:35:07 PM
Gronk's got the cougars working the bar all hot and bothered. :)
Native cougars, or ex-pat cougars? :P
I'm back in the US for winter vacation.
Zona GB was not terribly impressive from an offensive stand point.
If that stupid play costs the Cards the game I will puke on my couch.
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:24:54 PM
If that stupid play costs the Cards the game I will puke on my couch.
Well, it'll still be OT. :P
Fuck that that was not a catch
Hell of a hail Mary.
Uh yes it was.
Fuck you
Quote from: katmai on January 16, 2016, 11:30:04 PM
Uh yes it was.
I hope Chip Kelly signs Kapernick to a 100 year contract
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 16, 2016, 11:30:04 PM
Uh yes it was.
I hope Chip Kelly signs Kapernick to a 100 year contract
Thankfully he won't have any Front office control. :P
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:24:54 PM
If that stupid play costs the Cards the game I will puke on my couch.
How is it you root for both the St Louis Cardinals and the Arizona Cardinals? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 16, 2016, 11:34:20 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:24:54 PM
If that stupid play costs the Cards the game I will puke on my couch.
How is it you root for both the St Louis Cardinals and the Arizona Cardinals? :huh:
I was born in St Louis (moved to Portland when I was 1) and spent most summers there and went to lots of baseball Cardinals games; then I moved to Phoenix in '88, the same year as the football Cardinals.
I am a rare breed. :cool:
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
I don't know what play you mean but the previous fuck you was meant for you.
Cardinals win!
Great game...now the Cards can lose to the Seahawks for the NFC championship. :)
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:38:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
I don't know what play you mean but the previous fuck you was meant for you.
Fitzgerald. What other play could I have meant?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:38:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
I don't know what play you mean but the previous fuck you was meant for you.
Fitzgerald. What other play could I have meant?
You're timing is off...his last FU was after you referred to GB's hail Mary.
The Packers should have gone for 2. Not just saying that in hindsight. The way the Cards defense collapsed from the 4th and 20 to the TD, they were on tilt. I think the odds were better than 50-50.
I just realized I was watching OT about 2 minutes behind real time since I had rewound some parts.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 11:40:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:38:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
I don't know what play you mean but the previous fuck you was meant for you.
Fitzgerald. What other play could I have meant?
You're timing is off...his last FU was after you referred to GB's hail Mary.
I was answering the bolded question
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 16, 2016, 11:38:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I just yelled woah three times as that play went on. Amazing!
I don't know what play you mean but the previous fuck you was meant for you.
Fitzgerald. What other play could I have meant?
It looked like you posted too quickly but I was behind the live feed.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 11:39:04 PM
Great game...now the Cards can lose to the Seahawks for the NFC championship. :)
I hope you get run over by a bus next time you cross a street. :)
Ya know, kinda like the Cards looked like last time vs Seahawks.
Quote from: katmai on January 16, 2016, 11:55:13 PM
Ya know, kinda like the Cards looked like last time vs Seahawks.
:XD:
Just watched the games, what a finish to the Packers - Cards game. Fitzgerald. :wub:
QuoteSportsCenter @SportsCenter 18m18 minutes ago
12 of the 13 last Super Bowls will have either featured Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Ben Roethlisberger.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY9y6bMWwAAiG_z.jpg)
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 11:39:04 PM
Great game...now the Cards can lose to the Seahawks for the NFC championship. :)
Guess not. :)
I'm glad Superman is not done yet, but I don't see the Broncos having a chance against the Pats.
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2016, 08:47:29 PM
QuoteSportsCenter @SportsCenter 18m18 minutes ago
12 of the 13 last Super Bowls will have either featured Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Ben Roethlisberger.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY9y6bMWwAAiG_z.jpg)
Those dates are all one year off (I know they refer to seasons, but the game is in the year following the season). Would have been better to use the Roman numerals.
And the stat becomes better, i think, to note that it was 14 of the last 16 (Brady was in XXXVI in 2002).
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2016, 08:48:18 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 11:39:04 PM
Great game...now the Cards can lose to the Seahawks for the NFC championship. :)
Guess not. :)
That's ok, the Panthers will obliterate the Cards. :)
Did Arizona have a soft schedule this year? They didn't look like a 1 seed.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 17, 2016, 11:57:19 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2016, 08:48:18 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 16, 2016, 11:39:04 PM
Great game...now the Cards can lose to the Seahawks for the NFC championship. :)
Guess not. :)
That's ok, the Panthers will obliterate the Cards. :)
Obliterate? I have a hard time seeing that but we'll see. At least the Seachickens are back home where they belong. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
Did Arizona have a soft schedule this year? They didn't look like a 1 seed.
They were #2 :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 12:00:04 AM
Did Arizona have a soft schedule this year? They didn't look like a 1 seed.
It wasn't the hardest schedule in the world but I don't think it was overly soft:
REGULAR
1 SEP 13 WIN SAINTS 19 CARDINALS 31
2 SEP 20 WIN AT CARDINALS 48 BEARS 23
3 SEP 27 WIN 49ERS 7 CARDINALS 47
4 OCT 4 LOSS RAMS 24 CARDINALS 22
5 OCT 11 WIN AT CARDINALS 42 LIONS 17
6 OCT 18 LOSS AT CARDINALS 13 STEELERS 25
7 OCT 26 WIN RAVENS 18 CARDINALS 26
8 NOV 1 WIN AT CARDINALS 34 BROWNS 20
9 BYE
10 NOV 15 WIN AT CARDINALS 39 SEAHAWKS 32
11 NOV 22 WIN BENGALS 31 CARDINALS 34
12 NOV 29 WIN AT CARDINALS 19 49ERS 13
13 DEC 6 WIN AT CARDINALS 27 RAMS 3
14 DEC 10 WIN VIKINGS 20 CARDINALS 23
15 DEC 20 WIN AT CARDINALS 40 EAGLES 17
16 DEC 27 WIN PACKERS 8 CARDINALS 38
17 JAN 3 LOSS SEAHAWKS 36 CARDINALS 6
Also they were the #2 seed in the NFC.
Quote from: sbr on January 18, 2016, 12:00:39 AM
Obliterate? I have a hard time seeing that but we'll see.
If Palmer plays like he did last night...
If the Panthers play like they did in the 2nd half today...
Tom Brady's 10 conference title appearances is more than 27 franchises! :punk:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2016, 11:12:37 AM
Tom Brady's 10 conference title appearances is more than 27 franchises! :punk:
He couldn't have done it without you. :cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 11:13:21 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2016, 11:12:37 AM
Tom Brady's 10 conference title appearances is more than 27 franchises! :punk:
He couldn't have done it without you. :cheers:
Tim's fanboy skills are very powerful. Heck, he probably deflates balls with his mind. :yes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2016, 11:18:32 AM
Tim's fanboy skills are very powerful. Heck, he probably deflates balls with his mind. :yes:
Nobody produces as much synergy.
Based on what I saw last weekend, I am predicting a Panthers-Patriots Super Bowl.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 18, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Based on what I saw last weekend, I am predicting a Panthers-Patriots Super Bowl.
Vegas agrees with you
http://247sports.com/Bolt/Updated-Super-Bowl-odds-conference-championship-lines-42922390
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 18, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Based on what I saw last weekend, I am predicting a Panthers-Patriots Super Bowl.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Kleves on January 18, 2016, 02:00:31 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 18, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Based on what I saw last weekend, I am predicting a Panthers-Patriots Super Bowl.
:bleeding:
What have you got against the Panthers?
Quote from: Kleves on January 18, 2016, 02:00:31 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 18, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Based on what I saw last weekend, I am predicting a Panthers-Patriots Super Bowl.
:bleeding:
:huh: The last time they played in the Super Bowl it was the best one of the modern era; maybe the best ever.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
What have you got against the Panthers?
I can't stand Cam Newton.
Quote from: Kleves on January 19, 2016, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
What have you got against the Panthers?
I can't stand Cam Newton.
Of course not, he's exactly like your boy, Tom Brady.
I thought Kleves was a Seahawks fan.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2016, 01:15:23 PM
I thought Kleves was a Seahawks fan.
:yes: Tom Brady can go DIAF.
Kleves is alright, then.
Russel Wilson will be our President someday.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 20, 2016, 10:18:12 AM
Russel Wilson will be our President someday.
We had a president with alzheimer's, why not one with CTE?
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2016, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 19, 2016, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 19, 2016, 10:01:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
What have you got against the Panthers?
I can't stand Cam Newton.
Of course not, he's exactly like your boy, Tom Brady.
...with less cheating.
:yeahright:
He took a $100,000 to play at Auburn.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2016, 10:30:53 AM
:yeahright:
He took a $100,000 to play at Auburn.
Now now nobody can prove anything. But that is pretty lame cheating. I prefer John McGraw style old fashioned cheating to NCAA shenanigans.
He also stole a computer from a fellow Gator, and had to leave Florida (for a promising football player to be pushed out of UF for ethical issues is a sign of a serious problem).
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2016, 11:45:54 AM
He also stole a computer from a fellow Gator, and had to leave Florida (for a promising football player to be pushed out of UF for ethical issues is a sign of a serious problem).
Meanwhile, this is the quality of individual that plays for the Patriots. :worthy:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/20/patriots-darius-fleming-played-through-injury-suffered-saving-a-woman-from-a-burning-car/
QuotePatriots' Darius Fleming played through injury suffered saving a woman from a burning car
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 20, 2016, 12:25 PM EST
FOXBORO, MA
Patriots linebacker Darius Fleming played in Saturday's win over the Chiefs with stitches in his leg, thanks to an injury he suffered kicking in a window to pull a woman out of a burning car.
Although Fleming said nothing about it publicly, his agent confirmed the story after his alma mater, St. Rita High School in Chicago, posted about the incident on Facebook. According to the high school, Fleming needed 22 stitches in his leg on Thursday as a result of the accident.
Patriots defensive captain Devin McCourty said that when the team heard about the story, Fleming gave a full account.
"Darius was really quiet about it, but once the team got a hold of it, the guys on the team, we forced him to give a speech and everything," McCourty said. "He explained it was very simple: He saw a woman's car that looked like it was smoking, and he just jumped out of his car. He'll admit there was probably an easier solution, but I think it was nice and dramatic — kicked the window in and pulled her out."
McCourty said the Patriots cheered Fleming for his actions.
"We got the hero's speech. He gave us his account of what happened and a lot of cheers went out," McCourty said.
That makes Fleming an easy player to cheer for.
Even though the organization is notorious for its videotaping, I'm sure there is a good reason the Patriots didn't video tape this. No reason to doubt the story at all...
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2016, 12:59:38 PM
Even though the organization is notorious for its videotaping, I'm sure there is a good reason the Patriots didn't video tape this. No reason to doubt the story at all...
Easy to check with the police.
I just realized this was Darius Fleming. I shouldn't be so quick to flame the Patriots. He is a stand up guy. Patriots: thanks for fielding a team that isn't 100% asshole. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on January 20, 2016, 01:10:47 PM
I just realized this was Darius Fleming. I shouldn't be so quick to flame the Patriots. He is a stand up guy. Patriots: thanks for fielding a team that isn't 100% asshole. :)
You're saying something nice about a Notre Dame guy? :hmm:
Pats defenders have saved two lives in the last couple of years, one more and we'll be absolved for employing Aaron Hernandez. :yes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
Pats defenders have saved two lives in the last couple of years, one more and we'll be absolved for employing Aaron Hernandez. :yes:
And then only 500 more to go for Bill Belichick. You know the stuff that is going down in his basement.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2016, 01:20:41 PM
Pats defenders have saved two lives in the last couple of years, one more and we'll be absolved for employing Aaron Hernandez. :yes:
I'm pretty sure God expects at least a 2:1 ratio on saves/kills.
First signing by Niners is some CFL player...ugh :x
Quote from: katmai on January 21, 2016, 10:22:32 PM
First signing by Niners is some CFL player...ugh :x
Hey now, could be the next Warren Moon!
Or Joe Theisman!
Highly doubtful on both accounts, being as you know a wide receiver not a QB :P
Brady is an anti-science loon. :weep:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2016, 12:23:29 AM
Brady is an anti-science loon. :weep:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
Wow. What a weird guy.
I don't think I could like Tom Brady more. He is completely off his rocker and in the best most compelling way. Too bad I only found out about his fantastic insanity so late in his career. I will definitely miss him when he is retired. I hope he wins one more this year.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 01:49:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2016, 12:23:29 AM
Brady is an anti-science loon. :weep:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
Wow. What a weird guy.
I don't think I could like Tom Brady more. He is completely off his rocker and in the best most compelling way. Too bad I only found out about his fantastic insanity so late in his career. I will definitely miss him when he is retired. I hope he wins one more this year.
How is his specific insanity more compelling than other forms of insanity?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2016, 09:30:41 AM
How is his specific insanity more compelling than other forms of insanity?
It is crazy super competitive insanity. He thinks this crazy shit helps him win so he eats 80% vegetables and does all this other crazy shit. He really has a pathological need to win football games and if being entertained by people's mental illness is wrong...well it probably is but he is paid millions to entertain me so...
:worthy:
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/01/bill_belichick_likes_to_talk_so_long_as_you_ask_him_these_five_questions.html
QuoteHow to Talk to Bill Belichick
Do: Ask about the kicking game. Don't: Ask him if he cares to elaborate on that.
By Andrew Kahn and Josh Levin
At a press conference on Friday, a reporter asked New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick how his team looked heading into Sunday's AFC title game. Belichick's response, in full: "We'll see." Later, someone asked if protecting the football is "even more of a point of emphasis" for his team at playoff time. "Yeah, sure," Belichick growled, shaking his head from side to side. "I don't know how anything could be more important than ball security in any game, so let's just start with that."
This terse coach-speak fits the popular image of Belichick as a gruff stonewaller, resistant to all efforts to unearth his inner thoughts. But there's little truth to the widespread belief that Belichick hates gabbing with reporters. If you ask the right question, the supposedly laconic Patriots mastermind will talk and talk and talk some more, going on at such great length that he'll feel compelled to apologize for giving such a thorough answer.
To understand which topics incite the coaching legend's logorrheic tendencies, we created a script to crawl Patriots.com's storehouse of Belichick transcripts. We found 969 events dating back to May 2007—press conferences, conference calls, etc.—in which Belichick took questions from the media. After sifting through that vast corpus of questions and answers, we uncovered the coach's 100 longest soliloquies, all of which run past 500 words.
On the other end, we found 49 instances in which Belichick refused to dignify a reporter's question with more than a single word. They are a joy to behold.
So, what is the secret to drawing out Bill Belichick? If you want the coach to open up, you should follow one of these six plans of attack.
1. Ask Him About Football History
In November 2014, a reporter asked for Belichick's thoughts about an old-timey kicker: "What was it like for [former Boston Patriot] Gino Cappelletti kicking field goals back in the '60s?" If Belichick could ask himself a question, this would surely be the one. The coach's response—the second longest in our data set—went on for more than 1,000 words, and covered the following territory: the evolution of the long snapper position; the importance of the kicker-snapper-holder relationship; the precise time at which, during a practice, the snapper and kicker convene to practice their timing; the conditions of NFL fields circa the 1960s; and how Dallas' Steve DeOssie revolutionized "the whole punting game." He then concluded with an explanation of the birth of the spread punt formation: "That was really the result of the snapping situation, in my opinion."
Belichick is also happy to gab about his place in history. In response to a query about passing legendary Steelers coach Chuck Noll on the all-time wins list, the coach said 644 words about his admiration for Noll, an answer that made reference to former Pittsburgh assistant coaches Rollie Dotsch, Bud Carson, George Perles, and Dick Hoak. He also once spent 850 words talking about former Patriots head coach Chuck Fairbanks, describing a conversation they'd had about "60 protection" vs. "80 protection."
2. Ask Him About Football Minutiae
It's not just the 60 protection that gets Belichick revved up. Back in October, after a raging one-day controversy over the league's "illegal bat" rule, the coach offered an 819-word overview of how he teaches players the NFL rulebook. "I talk to the team on a regular basis on situational plays, which involve officiating, timing, utilization of timeouts and so forth and so on," he said. "And of course once you get into the kicking game, you can multiply everything that happens on offense and defense exponentially"—I'm going to cut off the quote there, because he spent a very long time describing various scenarios that can happen in the kicking game.
3. Ask Him About the Kicking Game.
Belichick loves the kicking game. Can't get enough of it. A former special teams coach, his eyes light up with any mention of old-timey kickers (e.g. Gino Cappelletti), or snappers, or punting techniques. We would not be surprised if, after he retires, Belichick wrote a series of children's books about punters, or perhaps even anthropomorphic punts. "Tumbling balls tend to be shorter," he said in 2009. "There are balls that tail. There're balls that are tight."
4. Quiz Him on Roster Management
Back in October, the Patriots had to replace offensive lineman Marcus Cannon, who injured his toe in a game against the Colts. Asked about how the Patriots decided to go about replacing Cannon, Belichick spoke for nearly 5½ minutes, explicating in great detail how the Patriots plan for roster emergencies. (You will not be surprised to learn that it's particularly difficult to replace players "in the kicking game because now you're talking about ... that's 66 players on special teams.")
Belichick got even more excited when asked this November about a hypothetical expansion of NFL rosters, a query that elicited his third-longest press conference answer ever: 926 words. "I think one of the issues with the extra players, if you will—like going from 46 to some higher number on game day—it gets into the over-specialization," Belichick said, conveniently steering the conversation toward the kicking game. "Do you have a long field goal kicker, a short field goal kicker, a kickoff guy, a field goal kicker, extra specialty-type players that therefore just require other extra specialty-type players?" This time, he didn't mention Gino Cappelletti.
5. Stand There, Turn Your Tape Recorder On, and Don't Say Anything
This one is a bit of a special case. Sometimes, on a few special days out of the year, Belichick is so enthused that he'll talk without any prodding. His opening remarks on April 26, 2009, the weekend of the NFL draft, ran on for 776 words. "We had an interesting day today," Belichick began, before launching into the process whereby the Patriots selected a whole slew of players, including future stars Sebastian Vollmer and Julian Edelman. ("A very good runner. We see him as a player who has some versatility, probably as a receiver, maybe a running back. We'll see how that goes," Belichick said, describing Edelman. It went very well.) "Sorry for the long-winded recap," he concluded, "but I think that's most of it."
6. Accuse His Team of Perpetrating a Devious, Scientifically Confusing Conspiracy
A year ago, the Patriots stood accused of the crime of deflating footballs. On Jan. 24, 2015, Belichick defended his team's honor in a wide-ranging 14-minute speech that began, "I want to take the time to share some information." Belichick explained the team's ball-preparation techniques in so much detail that you'd have thought someone asked him about Gino Cappelletti. ("I've handled dozens of footballs over the past week," he said.) He also discussed how "air pressure is a function of the atmospheric conditions," though he did acknowledge that he is not the "Mona Lisa Vito of the football world." Although it's possible to make certain inferences from that remark, as of publication time it is not clear how Belichick would respond to a direct question about the film My Cousin Vinny.
Just as there are ways to get Belichick to blab, there are topics you must avoid. Here are three things that you should not ask the Patriots coach if you want him to keep his lips moving.
1. Do Not Ask Him to Elaborate On That
"I know you talked in a conference call about utilizing players at this time of the year when the division is already wrapped up. Could you elaborate on that?" a reporter asked in December. "No," Belichick said.
2. Do Not Ask Him About the Status of Injured Players
A partial transcript of Belichick's press conference from Aug. 9, 2011:
Question: Where is Shaun [Ellis] in terms of his readiness?
Belichick: Day-to-day.
Question: Is it about the same as Albert Haynesworth?
Belichick: Well, no. They're two different people. They are both day-to-day along with all of the other people that aren't there. ...
Question: Albert has had knee issues and Shaun has had hip issues. Do you care to illuminate us on if that's what they're dealing with?
Belichick: Day-to-day.
3. Do Not Ask About His Black Eye
Last week, Belichick showed up to his press availability looking like he'd just lost an amateur boxing match. "Coach, how is your eye feeling, and how did you hurt it?" a brave soul inquired. Belichick's reply: "Great."
Thanks to Lakshmi Varanasi for research assistance.
You copied the same part twice.
It was worth a second read.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 01:49:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2016, 12:23:29 AM
Brady is an anti-science loon. :weep:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14615476/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-big-reveal
Wow. What a weird guy.
I don't think I could like Tom Brady more. He is completely off his rocker and in the best most compelling way. Too bad I only found out about his fantastic insanity so late in his career. I will definitely miss him when he is retired. I hope he wins one more this year.
The part about prevention isn't loony,
per se, nor is it anything radical or a new idea. If fact there's an old saying about it: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". The insane is in the details.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 09:34:12 AM
It is crazy super competitive insanity. He thinks this crazy shit helps him win so he eats 80% vegetables and does all this other crazy shit. He really has a pathological need to win football games and if being entertained by people's mental illness is wrong...well it probably is but he is paid millions to entertain me so...
I think that's exactly what his diet is: a means by which he can feel in control of his health, like he is his game preps. To get to his level, I think you have to be monomaniacal.
Anyone who bets on Patriots over Broncos is either crazy or doesn't know football.
Quote from: Jaron on January 23, 2016, 06:28:07 PM
Anyone who bets on Patriots over Broncos is either crazy or doesn't know football.
They just said on the news that 85% of the money was bet on the Pats.
Heard on NPR that some team, think it was the Bengals, named a chick as Quality Control Secondary coach.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2016, 06:58:06 PM
Heard on NPR that some team, think it was the Bengals, named a chick as Quality Control Secondary coach.
It was the Bills
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2016, 06:58:06 PM
Heard on NPR that some team, think it was the Bengals, named a chick as Quality Control Secondary coach.
The Bills, and Quality Control-Special teams, but yeah. She's worked with Rex Ryan for years previous, but this will be the first time she is an actual coach. Apparently Quality Control Coaches don't really do much in the way of real hands on coaching, they're more like assistants to the coaches but there are some big time coaches that started their way up the ranks as QC coaches.
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2016, 07:12:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2016, 06:58:06 PM
Heard on NPR that some team, think it was the Bengals, named a chick as Quality Control Secondary coach.
The Bills, and Quality Control-Special teams, but yeah. She's worked with Rex Ryan for years previous, but this will be the first time she is an actual coach. Apparently Quality Control Coaches don't really do much in the way of real hands on coaching, they're more like assistants to the coaches but there are some big time coaches that started their way up the ranks as QC coaches.
Was wondering what the QC does, friends husband was just named Offensive QC for Dolphins.
Quote from: katmai on January 23, 2016, 07:50:49 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2016, 07:12:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2016, 06:58:06 PM
Heard on NPR that some team, think it was the Bengals, named a chick as Quality Control Secondary coach.
The Bills, and Quality Control-Special teams, but yeah. She's worked with Rex Ryan for years previous, but this will be the first time she is an actual coach. Apparently Quality Control Coaches don't really do much in the way of real hands on coaching, they're more like assistants to the coaches but there are some big time coaches that started their way up the ranks as QC coaches.
Was wondering what the QC does, friends husband was just named Offensive QC for Dolphins.
From what I understand, they mostly breakdown film and other forms of scouting reports, and use that information for analysis and planning. The analysis and planning bit is what sets them apart from administrative assistants, who might breakdown, file, and collate the reports, but wouldn't normally go beyond that into the analysis and stuff. That's how I've heard it explained, anyway; I'm not sure that it's 100% accurate.
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 09:34:12 AM
It is crazy super competitive insanity. He thinks this crazy shit helps him win so he eats 80% vegetables and does all this other crazy shit. He really has a pathological need to win football games and if being entertained by people's mental illness is wrong...well it probably is but he is paid millions to entertain me so...
We eat massive amounts of simple sugars and salts...his assistant seems to be a quack, and the article makes his diet sound extreme, but cutting out (or way down) white flour, most meat, added sugars, and fruits isn't revolutionary. If you look at hardcore diet and fitness programs for athletes--I think there are two controversial points: whether you should cut out/down lean meats like chicken, and whether fruit is good. The case for lean meats is you need the protein and calories to build muscle--Brady promotes supplemental protein, so I assume he uses quite a bit of that, and in any event he is obviously getting adequate fitness results. The case against fruit is that the juice is typically so high in sugar. I've personally cut out fruit drinks--but still eat fruit--but if I had the money and time and sense of purpose to really control my diet and a personal chef to help, I'd definitely go to a much much better diet.
So far, it's looking like Brady didn't eat his veggies or something today.
Ugh... Manning is throwing duck after duck and yet it's all going his way. :bleeding:
Entertaining game so far.
Brady playing like ass, Manning only marginally better, neither team can run the ball. :yucky:
Always fun watching the Pats get beat. :)
Teach if you jinx it.....
That might be an odd challenge...it could almost be ruled a reception and then down by contact. Could a challenge blow up in their face like that?
It sure could.
Gronk whining like little bitch.
Quote from: katmai on January 24, 2016, 06:17:24 PM
Gronk whining like little bitch.
He had three dudes on him too...definitely not the best target there.
Fucking Teach
One of the best game endings I've ever seen.
Jim Nantz needs to learn how to high-five like a guy.
Quote from: katmai on January 24, 2016, 06:29:53 PM
Fucking Teach
Good thing for him the Pats didn't convert that 2 to send it to OT or we'd have to hunt him down and kill him.
Or at least give him a wedgie.
Quote from: katmai on January 24, 2016, 06:29:53 PM
Fucking Teach
:lol:
So can the kicker just tap the ball and pick it up in NFL? Cause that ball didn't even make 5 yards...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZhckvmWYAADqjV.jpg)
Well, boo fucking hoo.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZhjaagWEAEG9_X.jpg)
This game putting me to sleep.
Well, that wasn't very fun.
well okay then
That's some kick
If the Cardinals lose today, who am I going to root against in the Super Bowl? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2016, 08:22:51 PM
If the Cardinals lose today, who am I going to root against in the Super Bowl? :hmm:
Courtland Finnegan plays for the Panthers. Root against them.
Nah. He went to my dad's high school. Much later, obviously.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2016, 09:12:52 PM
Nah. He went to my dad's high school. Much later, obviously.
Your dad's high school got shitty.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2016, 08:22:51 PM
If the Cardinals lose today, who am I going to root against in the Super Bowl? :hmm:
Look at it as a UGA fan...
Manning played for Tennessee, which gets him one negative point, but Newton went to both Florida and Auburn, so he gets two.
But not so fast....Newton got into trouble in college for stealing. That was stupid. Lots of UGA players do stupid things to get suspended. A kindred UGA spirit? Take away one of those negative points from Newton. (Sort of like how he took the laptop from his classmate, or cash from a booster)
I can't help you. This seems to be a push. :hmm: :P
The DLs are going to wreck shit in this Super Bowl.
I don't root against SEC teams playing nonconference games, why would I root against former SEC players in the NFL?
@MBM- I'm sure it was shitty in the 60s too, but I have no idea who the guy is beyond his wiki page.
Finnegan? He's a fake Irish fuckhead. If that isn't on his wiki page, it probably should be.
Oh hey X-Files is on next.
E: This Malibu commercial sucks.
Game kept my attention because I made a buck bar bet giving 20 when it was 17-0.
Sure hope the Superior Bowl is not a similar blowout.
Heh. I like the "sad" interview with Arians. Whats her name trying to be all quiet, answers are quiet, etc, camera shifts to the guys upstairs with music playing and people still celebrating.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 24, 2016, 10:04:34 PM
Finnegan? He's a fake Irish fuckhead. If that isn't on his wiki page, it probably should be.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2016, 02:28:46 AM
:hmm:
It's from several years ago when he got slapped around on the field by Andre Johnson. Try not to over analyze.
Manning has been owned by Brady his whole career. Nice to see him go out with a win.
That's not really a fair descriptor. Brady has more wins, but it's a team game. Manning has thrown for more yardage and slightly more tds in those games.
Either way it was a heck of a game. Nice way for a great QB rivalry to end.
If only the early PAT hadn't been missed, then the Pats could have tied it up with a PAT at the end and sent the game to overtime. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 25, 2016, 10:27:47 AM
If only the early PAT hadn't been missed, then the Pats could have tied it up with a PAT at the end and sent the game to overtime. :(
Told that new PAT rule was bad news man!
Patriots and their scheming ways got what they deserved. They pushed for the new PAT rule, because they had a kicker that never (or so they thought) missed PATs, they got what they wanted, and now they aren't going to the super bowl.
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 24, 2016, 09:07:31 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 24, 2016, 08:22:51 PM
If the Cardinals lose today, who am I going to root against in the Super Bowl? :hmm:
Courtland Finnegan plays for the Panthers. Root against them.
:yes:
Quote from: PRC on January 25, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
And together with that, the live ball after a missed field goal. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 25, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
And together with that, the live ball after a missed field goal. :cool:
:unsure:
I'll bite. What's the indictment on Courtland Finnegan?
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 25, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
And together with that, the live ball after a missed field goal. :cool:
:unsure:
If a FG is missed, the ball is live - the other team can pick it up and run it out of the end zone, or take a knee and give up the single point (the "rouge"). Usually the safer play is to give up the single since even if you run it out you'll have crappy field position, but occasionally it can make for an exciting play.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
I'll bite. What's the indictment on Courtland Finnegan?
http://ten.247sports.com/Article/Cortland-Finnegan-voted-dirtest-in-poll-4970
Achieving "his goal" was also well before more or less attacking Andre Johnson on the field a few years ago.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 25, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
And together with that, the live ball after a missed field goal. :cool:
:unsure:
If a FG is missed, the ball is live - the other team can pick it up and run it out of the end zone, or take a knee and give up the single point (the "rouge"). Usually the safer play is to give up the single since even if you run it out you'll have crappy field position, but occasionally it can make for an exciting play.
Ah interesting, I thought you meant that, for instance, they couldn't return a missed field goal in the NFL, which they can. Wasn't aware of those types of rules. :)
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:30:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on January 25, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:23:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on January 25, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 25, 2016, 12:41:52 PM
The new PAT rule is a great rule.
Now if the NFL would only adapt the "rouge".
And together with that, the live ball after a missed field goal. :cool:
:unsure:
If a FG is missed, the ball is live - the other team can pick it up and run it out of the end zone, or take a knee and give up the single point (the "rouge"). Usually the safer play is to give up the single since even if you run it out you'll have crappy field position, but occasionally it can make for an exciting play.
Ah interesting, I thought you meant that, for instance, they couldn't return a missed field goal in the NFL, which they can. Wasn't aware of those types of rules. :)
I didn't know that. Thanks.
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:46:15 PM
I didn't know that. Thanks.
Just, you know, usually the ball goes out of bounds on a missed FG
But other times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdWsp8WAzgM
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2016, 04:48:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:46:15 PM
I didn't know that. Thanks.
Just, you know, usually the ball goes out of bounds on a missed FG
But other times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdWsp8WAzgM
Was just going to post that video. :P
Football topic to help kill time until the Super Duper Bowl:
Which rules changes in the last, say, 10 years are you happy with and which don't you like?
A while back I mentioned how good I thought the new leg whip rule is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 25, 2016, 04:52:06 PM
Football topic to help kill time until the Super Duper Bowl:
Which rules changes in the last, say, 10 years are you happy with and which don't you like?
A while back I mentioned how good I thought the new leg whip rule is.
Getting rid of the Tuck Rule :P
I understand the need to protect players' safety, especially in light of what we now know about concussions, but I hate it when a defender gets penalized for hitting someone in the head, when the only reason the offensive player got hit in the head was that he himself lowered it half a second before the contact.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2016, 04:48:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 25, 2016, 04:46:15 PM
I didn't know that. Thanks.
Just, you know, usually the ball goes out of bounds on a missed FG
But other times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdWsp8WAzgM
Ah. I guess that in the CFL with the goalposts at the front of the endzone, plus the endzone being 20 yards deep, means missed fieldgoals are live a lot more often than in the NFL.
And you have pansy ass kickers.
Quote from: katmai on January 25, 2016, 06:11:42 PM
And you have pansy ass kickers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FivsWEHk.gif&hash=afd525076774e54aacd3b7f2d959f065c32b0dd9)
Heh. That new spring football league is apparently having their draft right now. http://www.mlfbmedia.com/
They don't seem to have teams in any cities yet, but are planning to start their first season this year.
The Laramie Icicles!
:lol: Solid name.
They should make a team in St Louis.
The Pro Bowl is on btw. I remembered and turned it on with 20 seconds left in the half.
Does the Pro Bowl still make sense? I mean it's an additional game in a physically demanding, injury prone sport, so the athletes are likely to take it VERY easy to avoid exhaustion/injury which in turn probably makes for a really crap game.
I guess it's the same as the other all-star games, just a chance to see all the top players in the same place. The NBA All-Star Game is notorious for no defense being played.
It's painfully pointless.
It was a little better when if was after the Super Bowl. But being that it is so easy to get very injured in football, it will never be taken as seriously as it could be.
Baseball is the only sport with a decent all star game, even after they tried to ruin it with the home field advantage thing. The NHL, NBA, and NFL all require a level of physical commitment that people just will not show in games that do not count. You can play baseball just fine without going 100% ready to kill somebody so the all star format works fine.
And hey if you are Pete Rose you might go 100% ready to kill somebody anyway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.makeagif.com%2Fmedia%2F9-24-2015%2F_CR6ln.gif&hash=1ab503113ee6ff789b9c2dc0402fd2deddbc5f67)
The best all star game is the NBA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 03:54:08 PM
The best all star game is the NBA.
Is it? I only recall watching the 1992 one and my take away was: nobody plays defense. That and I am sure going to miss Magic Johnson.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2016, 03:46:45 AM
It's painfully pointless.
It is indeed. Even my football-obsessed wife couldn't stomach more than a few minutes of it.
Oy vey.
Quote
If Johnny Manziel doesn't receive help, he won't make it to his next birthday, his father told The Dallas Morning News on Friday.
Manziel's father, Paul, told the newspaper that the Cleveland Browns quarterback has refused to enter area rehab facilities twice in the past week. He said the family tried to get Manziel, 23, to enter a local addiction facility on Saturday, but Manziel refused to stay. Paul Manziel said he tried to have his son admitted to a psychiatric and chemical dependency hospital on Tuesday, but Manziel was allowed to leave even though his father told officers that he believed Manziel was suicidal.
Agent drops Manziel in wake of latest incident
Johnny Manziel's agent released a statement Friday saying he is cutting ties with the Browns quarterback after his latest incident.
"I truly believe if they can't get him help, he won't live to see his 24th birthday," Paul Manziel told the paper.
Manziel turns 24 in December.
A source close to Manziel, who spoke to the quarterback Friday, told ESPN's Jeremy Fowler that Manziel "is concerned" about all of the stories about him and said he is doing "all right." The source declined to comment on the family's push to get Manziel in rehab, or Manziel's father's comments on his son not making it to his 24th birthday.
The first attempt to get Manziel to enter rehab, his father told the newspaper, was Saturday afternoon after news surfaced of a police investigation into an alleged incident between Manziel and his ex-girlfriend the night before. According to the police report, Manziel and his ex-girlfriend were at a hotel in downtown Dallas and left together after he struck her. The ex-girlfriend told officers that she and Manziel shouted angrily at each other and that he struck her several more times on the drive to her apartment in Fort Worth, Texas.
ABC affiliate WFAA, citing unnamed sources, reported that Manziel told the ex-girlfriend to "shut up or I'll kill us both" after he forced her into the car. The woman alleged that Manziel was acting "as if he were on some kind of drugs" but maintained he was not intoxicated.
In its initial statement Saturday, Fort Worth police said the woman "advised our officers of concerns that she had regarding the well-being of her ex-boyfriend," prompting police to search for Manziel, including by helicopter. Officers said they later determined Manziel was safe and in no danger. Manziel wasn't charged by the Fort Worth or Dallas police departments, which said Thursday they consider their investigations closed.
Manziel, in an interview with TMZ Sports posted on its website Thursday, said of the allegations that he struck his ex-girlfriend: "It didn't happen." He also said, "I'm completely stable. I'm safe and secure."
Asked about Manziel on Friday, Browns owner Jimmy Haslam told reporters the team had reached out to Manziel but he had not responded.
"We've reached out several times since all this came out last Saturday, just like we would any player," Haslam said. "I think it's enough said on the issue. I think it's a personal issue now. It's not a football issue."
Manziel's agent, Erik Burkhardt, cut ties with Manziel earlier Friday, saying in a statement that "it has become painfully obvious" that Manziel's future "rests solely in his own hands."
"His family and I have gone to great lengths to outline the steps we feel he must take to get his life in order. Accountability is the foundation of any relationship, and without it, the function of my work is counterproductive," Burkhardt said.
The Browns released a statement earlier in the week saying they would address Manziel's status "when permitted by league rules." A source told ESPN's Pat McManamon earlier this week that the Browns plan to release Manziel in March.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was asked about Manziel during Friday's news conference, but used the question to talk in generalities about the league's efforts to prevent off-the-field issues among the players.
"Our personal conduct policy is to try to prevent these incidents from happening," Goodell said. "So we've invested in education. We've gone through a tremendous education with everybody in the NFL, that includes the commissioner -- everybody has gone through extensive education -- to understand the issues, what to look for, including bi-standard awareness, so that you can prevent these issues from happening, and that's what we all want to see.
"We have other services including counseling, other matters available to players, if they're struggling with any one issue. And this happens. We have 3,000 players a year. We have probably one-half maybe two-thirds, that turnover in any given year. So we have young people that may have issues that need to be addressed.
"We want a program and we will always look to see how we can do that to try to help them make those adjustments, deal with any issues they may have, for their long-term safety."
Does the GM who drafted Amy Winehouse in the first round still have a job?
He doesn't, but the owner is responsible for drafting Manziel. He overruled everyone in the org (who wanted Bridgewater IIRC) because some homeless dude said he should draft Johnny Trainwreck.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24555689/jimmy-haslam-says-homeless-man-convinced-him-to-draft-manziel
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 05, 2016, 09:23:39 PM
He doesn't, but the owner is responsible for drafting Manziel. He overruled everyone in the org (who wanted Bridgewater IIRC) because some homeless dude said he should draft Johnny Trainwreck.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24555689/jimmy-haslam-says-homeless-man-convinced-him-to-draft-manziel
This is what happens when you take advice from A&M grads.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2016/02/super-bowl-50-san-francisco-poor-cost-taxpayer/460077/?utm_source=atlfb
QuoteThe Host City Always Loses the Super Bowl
Historically the event has hurt local taxpayers and the poor, and Super Bowl 50 in San Francisco is shaping up to be no different.
In Sunday's Super Bowl at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, one team is going to win and the other will lose. But what's clear is that, as with Super Bowls past, the host city's poor and middle-income residents will certainly not come out on top.
San Francisco taxpayer dollars are paying for the party
Even though the stadium is in Santa Clara, it's San Francisco taxpayers who are footing the bill for Super Bowl-related festivities. The city is shelling out almost $5 million for hosting, according to the latest report by the city budget analyst Harvey Rose. The NFL—a multi-billion dollar organization—is doing nothing to ease the city's cost burden. Santa Clara, meanwhile, is having its hosting expenses covered as per a deal with the NFL Host Committee (although the cost of constructing the stadium was borne by taxpayers).
This new budget committee report was issued upon the request of John Avalos, who is on the city's board of supervisors. Avalos originally supported bringing the Super Bowl to the Bay Area but is now among those who are asking for a review of the deal between the city and the NFL. Here's Avalos's colleague, Supervisor Aaron Peskin demanding a reimbursement for what the city has spent, via the San Francisco Chronicle:
"It is not too late for the NFL, which is a $9 billion a year organization, to throw down a little bit of money to San Francisco," Peskin said. He also noted that The City is facing a $100 million budget deficit for the fiscal year beginning July 1.
As did taxpayers in other host cities
But while San Francisco, in particular, has had several missteps in how it approached the deal and preparation for Super Bowl 50, it's not the only city that's been saddled with the cost of the event. The average NFL stadium costs "about $250 million in public funding," MarketWatch reports. Hosting is extra: Super Bowl events in Glendale, for example, cost Phoenix taxpayers around $2 million last year. In fact, the NFL has a long, well-known history of siphoning off taxpayer money, as Gregg Easterbrook wrote in The Atlantic in 2013:
Taxpayers fund the stadiums, antitrust law doesn't apply to broadcast deals, the league enjoys nonprofit status, and Commissioner Roger Goodell makes $30 million a year. It's time to stop the public giveaways to America's richest sports league—and to the feudal lords who own its teams.
Those in favor of cities hosting a Super Bowl tout its economic benefits for locals. But a large amount of evidence suggests that these benefits are overstated and not worth the cost of hosting. Here's a video by Reason summarizing why it's not wise for cities to host the Super Bowl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBgpbTcpDEo
The average worker may face inconveniences
This one is obvious. Roads and transit lines are jammed during any mega-event. To account for the 1 million-plus extra commuters taking Bay Area transit in the days before the Super Bowl, transit agencies, such as Caltrain, are swallowing the costs of expanded service, ABC7 reports. But still city transit officials predict hiccups in the lead-up to this week:
"We're going to see issues on 101, on 280, on the bridge, on BART coming from the East Bay," said Chuck Harvey. "So I think a lot of employers and employees are probably going to have to make some choices. And if they have an ability to be flexible, they might want to think about that."
That "flexibility" may not really be a choice for San Francisco's many working poor, who are shuffling from one minimum wage job to another to support their families.
The homeless are always swept aside
In downtown San Francisco, protesters have been camping out in tents in the last week, decrying the city's decision to spend money on the event rather than on fixing its poverty problem. In particular, they're protesting the mayor's push to sweep aside the city's homeless population before the big event. These sweeps, activists told Fortune magazine, were conducted to give "an image of the city that does not include poverty." As a result of displacement, some homeless people have lost their jobs.
John Reddeer Pearce, a 56-year-old man was among those asked to leave the area near the stadium; via Yahoo News:
"What kinds of feelings do we have when someone asks you to leave, when we're told ... that you're just some piece of garbage sitting around," he said. "Most of us are veterans. We're the reason why you're free."
To be fair, the government has provided up to 500 beds for the homeless in shelters, but that's not very much given that 6,700 individuals in the city had no roof over their head in 2015, Bryce Covert over at ThinkProgress points out. Such treatment of the homeless isn't unique in a Super Bowl city. Dallas, Detroit, Jacksonville, Glendale, New Orleans are all among the cities that have tried to keep the homeless away from the stadiums, Covert goes on to say:
The Super Bowl puts football and poverty on a collision course almost every year.
In a city as unequal as San Francisco, that collision is even more forceful. Here's how Tommi Avicolli Mecca, the director of counseling for the Housing Rights Committee, puts it, again via Yahoo News:
"The administration doesn't care about the poor and working class people and is only concerned about giving the rich somewhere to have a party," Avicolli Mecca said, noting that San Francisco rents have become unaffordable for many middle class people and that homelessness is rampant.
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2016, 04:32:39 AM
To account for the 1 million-plus extra commuters taking Bay Area transit in the days before the Super Bowl,
How is that, when the stadium only seats a hundred thousand or so? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2016, 04:50:30 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2016, 04:32:39 AM
To account for the 1 million-plus extra commuters taking Bay Area transit in the days before the Super Bowl,
How is that, when the stadium only seats a hundred thousand or so? :hmm:
Well, most of the visitors probably don't take the transit just once.
So the guy who rides to work every day is ten commuters? Odd way of phrasing it.
Quote from: katmai on January 25, 2016, 06:11:42 PM
And you have pansy ass kickers.
Lui Passaglia is the all-time leading points getter in professional football. :nelson:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 05, 2016, 09:23:39 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24555689/jimmy-haslam-says-homeless-man-convinced-him-to-draft-manziel
Do all those guys who called it an A pick still have a job? :lol:
Quote from: PRC on February 06, 2016, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 25, 2016, 06:11:42 PM
And you have pansy ass kickers.
Lui Passaglia is the all-time leading points getter in professional football. :nelson:
Who?
Nobody cares about minor league stats.
Quote from: katmai on February 06, 2016, 09:03:31 PM
Quote from: PRC on February 06, 2016, 05:55:32 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 25, 2016, 06:11:42 PM
And you have pansy ass kickers.
Lui Passaglia is the all-time leading points getter in professional football. :nelson:
Who?
The greatest football player (any position) of all time:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.vancouverisawesome.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Flui-passaglia-hs-in-jersey.jpg&hash=6ff418656650475c5a7d2503b70e69e3fb225851)
Who?
Panthers are giving 5.5.
Ted Hendricks is Guatemalan?
Just read that the opening line was 3.5 and only moved after a bunch of Carolina money came in. I'm afraid of a blowout, but maybe Vegas knows something I don't.
I fully expect a blowout. I hope I am wrong. But let the record show 5 out of 6 Broncos Super Bowls have been blowouts.
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 05:57:55 PM
I fully expect a blowout. I hope I am wrong. But let the record show 5 out of 6 Broncos Super Bowls have been blowouts.
At least I hope that the Broncos hold out for a little longer than they did the last time.
I'm already sick of the Lynch/Pepsi commercial.
I refer to my thread title here. That was a goddamn catch.
The Broncos defensive line looks overpowering once again.
Good first half.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2016, 08:22:43 PM
Good first half.
Meh, some good defense but there's no offense at all. However, Bey has hot sauce in her pants.
Quote from: Liep on February 07, 2016, 08:39:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2016, 08:22:43 PM
Good first half.
Meh, some good defense but there's no offense at all. However, Bey has hot sauce in her pants.
Yeah, it's fun to watch the defenses win sometimes.
Well I clearly did not give the Denver defense enough respect. They have completely dominated Cam and company so far like nobody has. It is a thing of beauty.
Even the defense is playing horrible offense. :P
And the hot dog dogs take the prize this year.
Quote from: Liep on February 07, 2016, 09:17:34 PM
Even the defense is playing horrible offense. :P
Or maybe the defense is just good?
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 09:25:24 PM
Quote from: Liep on February 07, 2016, 09:17:34 PM
Even the defense is playing horrible offense. :P
Or maybe the defense is just good?
I was talking about Ward's decision to get up and the fumble, so that would've been the offense playing good defense.
But yes, the defense is great tonight.
Peyton has not exactly solidified his position as the Greatest of all Time(tm) tonight.
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Peyton has not exactly solidified his position as the Greatest of all Time(tm) tonight.
He's being held together with duct tape, paper clips and rubber bands.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Peyton has not exactly solidified his position as the Greatest of all Time(tm) tonight.
He's being held together with duct tape, paper clips and rubber bands.
Kinda like the Ravens a couple years ago, and Ray Ray's swan song; just so happened to be in the neighborhood for the final ride. The Broncos' year has been all about defense.
Michael Oher still can't play left tackle at the professional level. Imagine that.
I wish Christopher Walken would throttle Phil Simms with a sock one day.
Can Cam lead em back for GW score?
SB records? Longest punt return and most failed 3rd downs in a row.
Denver just broke their own record for most consecutive fails on 3rd down. Hey but they might be the first team to ever win the Super Bowl without scoring an offensive Touchdown.
Well congrats to Von Miller, Super Bowl 50 MVP.
Probably.
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2016, 09:57:45 PM
Can Cam lead em back for GW score?
I don't think he took enough qualifying snaps as a Gator during his time there to be Manning-proof.
Game over man, Game over.
That's it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 10:00:19 PM
Hey but they might be the first team to ever win the Super Bowl without scoring an offensive Touchdown.
That would've been fun.
Somewhere, Ricky Watters is smiling.
Quote from: Liep on February 07, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 10:00:19 PM
Hey but they might be the first team to ever win the Super Bowl without scoring an offensive Touchdown.
That would've been fun.
Fucking Valmy with the Jinx again...
And there is your offensive TD Denver.
Well this is why they play the games. I thought no way Carolina did not assert itself tonight.
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2016, 10:07:26 PM
Quote from: Liep on February 07, 2016, 10:06:53 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 10:00:19 PM
Hey but they might be the first team to ever win the Super Bowl without scoring an offensive Touchdown.
That would've been fun.
Fucking Valmy with the Jinx again...
Blame Cam for not jumping in the pile :P
Happy for Vernon Davis.
And i now blame Lusti for the nightmares that PMB mountain dew ad will be causing me.
After seeing Amy Schumer in that beer commercial, I hope they drag her manatee ass back out to sea. And taken Rogen with her. Sacrifice him to an angry sea god.
I bet Jim Nantz is Phil Simms' bottom.
https://www.facebook.com/ihatephilsimms/
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2016, 10:12:01 PM
And i now blame Lusti for the nightmares that PMB mountain dew ad will be causing me.
Puppy Monkey Baby!
Unmemorable game, outstanding outcome, worst commercials I can remember ever.
The movie ads where all pretty good imo.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 07, 2016, 10:24:07 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2016, 10:12:01 PM
And i now blame Lusti for the nightmares that PMB mountain dew ad will be causing me.
Puppy Monkey Baby!
What are three things you don't want to clean up after?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2016, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Peyton has not exactly solidified his position as the Greatest of all Time(tm) tonight.
He's being held together with duct tape, paper clips and rubber bands.
Also HGH.
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2016, 09:09:11 PM
Well I clearly did not give the Denver defense enough respect. They have completely dominated Cam and company so far like nobody has. It is a thing of beauty.
They dominated the Carolina O Line, plus it seemed like they blitzed almost every play while staying in their lanes to keep Cam in the pocket. Add in that the Denver DBs are better than the Carolina WRs, and Carolina just didn't have an answer.
I'm happy that Manning is going out on a high note, forever putting himself over the top on Tom Brady (even though he was carried by that D). It's also nice to see a guy like Ware get his ring.
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2016, 10:53:10 PM
I'm happy that Manning is going out on a high note, forever putting himself over the top on Tom Brady (even though he was carried by that D). It's also nice to see a guy like Ware get his ring.
2 Super Bowl wins > 4 Super Bowl wins now?
Manning has 5 MVP wins to Brady's 2, so if you combine the two numbers he just went ahead 7-6.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2016, 10:25:07 PM
Unmemorable game, outstanding outcome, worst commercials I can remember ever.
pretty good summary.
Always with the class Cam. :lmfao:
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2016, 12:41:43 AM
Always with the class Cam. :lmfao:
Is anyone surprised? He's been like that his whole career.
What are you guys talking about?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2016, 01:43:16 AM
What are you guys talking about?
Post game press conference antics.
Barely answered reporters questions, before he just stood up and walkout.
Transcript of what responses of his that were audible
QuoteWhat's your message to Panthers fans?
"We'll be back."
Ron [Rivera] said Denver two years ago had a tough time and they bounced back. Do you take that to heart?
"No."
Can you put a finger on why Carolina didn't play the way it normally plays?
"Got outplayed."
Is there a reason why?
"Got outplayed, bro."
Was it pretty much what you had seen on film from Denver? Anything different they put in for this game?
"Nothing different."
Do we sometimes forget that defenses can still take apart the offenses in this game?
"No."
What did Ron Rivera say after the game?
"He told us a lot of things."
Anything in particular that was memorable?
"Nope."
Obviously you're disappointed. On the biggest stage it's difficult, I know.
[nods head]
Did you see anything that you didn't expect tonight?
"They just played better than us. I don't know what you want me to say. They made more plays than us, and that's what it comes down to. We had our opportunities. It wasn't nothing special that they did. We dropped balls, we turned the ball over, gave up sacks, threw errant passes. That's it. They scored more points than us."
Can you put into words the disappointment you feel right now?
"We lost."
Did Denver change anything defensively to take away your running lanes?
"No."
I know you're disappointed not just for yourself, but for your teammates. It's got to be real tough.
[shakes head] "I'm done man."
the brady v. manning debate is pretty silly. manning has the pedigree, while brady was the original underdog who has now consistently outperformed manning.
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2016, 02:01:48 AM
Post game press conference antics.
Barely answered reporters questions, before he just stood up and walkout.
Sounds like he gave them a (marginally) better story than if he had let them grill him a little longer.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2016, 02:37:03 AM
Sounds like he gave them a (marginally) better story than if he had let them grill him a little longer.
Well duh. A butthurt athlete always makes a good story.
I just don't think it's a big deal when athletes don't want to talk to the press. I never want to talk to them myself.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2016, 03:12:42 AM
I just don't think it's a big deal when athletes don't want to talk to the press. I never want to talk to them myself.
Nope, especially after what must be the biggest disappointment of his life.
Atleast it wasn't Lynch who was out there.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 02:23:26 AM
the brady v. manning debate is pretty silly. manning has the pedigree, while brady was the original underdog who has now consistently outperformed manning.
...while cheating.
I was rooting pretty hard against cam newton here, and I wasn't disappointed - he showed himself to be a whiny punk. I particularly enjoyed when he jumped away from his own fumble, so as to not have to fight for it in the pile.
On another note, Peyton looked just terrible. It would have been a lot better for the broncos if he'd retired in the first quarter.
The live Late Show with Stephen Colbert after the game was the best part of Soup Bowl 50.
Oh, and the Taco Hell Quesalupa looks good.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 08, 2016, 12:12:11 PM
Oh, and the Taco Hell Quesalupa looks good.
Turn in your latino card. Membership revoked!
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2016, 12:13:40 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 08, 2016, 12:12:11 PM
Oh, and the Taco Hell Quesalupa looks good.
Turn in your latino card. Membership revoked!
I'm sorry, did I offend you? Is it the Taco Hell comment or the fact that something from there looks edible?
Nothing from there is edible. Not unless you enjoy liquid shits.
They are not always THAT liquid, they do have some consistency to them.
Other good thing from the Superbowl was the Capt America Civil War trailer.
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 02:23:26 AM
the brady v. manning debate is pretty silly. manning has the pedigree, while brady was the original underdog who has now consistently outperformed manning.
...while cheating.
Cheating the right way, scrambling to get an edge 19th century style. Manning takes drugs. I vastly prefer the old school cheating myself.
Quote from: katmai on February 08, 2016, 12:13:40 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 08, 2016, 12:12:11 PM
Oh, and the Taco Hell Quesalupa looks good.
Turn in your latino card. Membership revoked!
Meh Lusti isn't Mexican.
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2016, 09:57:56 AM
I was rooting pretty hard against cam newton here, and I wasn't disappointed - he showed himself to be a whiny punk. I particularly enjoyed when he jumped away from his own fumble, so as to not have to fight for it in the pile.
On another note, Peyton looked just terrible. It would have been a lot better for the broncos if he'd retired in the first quarter.
Peyton needs to be done. I heard how bad he was all season but to see him unable to zip the ball anymore was a real eye-opener.
Cam not jumping in that pile was a shocker. I understand maybe in week 6 not sacrificing yourself as the star player but that was a play that decided the Super Bowl.
I was impressed with Peyton that after the game was won, in his moment of triumph, he was still such a professional he remembered to put in a plug for major NFL sponsor Budweiser. :lol:
He's already made a mint and doesn't have to do a thing the rest of his life. If he wants it though I'm sure he'd be a natural at broadcasting.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2016, 02:15:09 PM
I was impressed with Peyton that after the game was won, in his moment of triumph, he was still such a professional he remembered to put in a plug for major NFL sponsor Budweiser. :lol:
It was great. Like a slogan:
'Hug your family, hug your wife, pray to God, Drink Budweiser. 'Murica!'
Apprently Eli Manning was unimpressed by the last Broncos touchdown:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT0BKHID0k3NScIm9q/giphy.gif)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaqfdmHUcAEB25D.jpg)
(https://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2016-02/7/22/enhanced/webdr11/enhanced-2335-1454902074-10.png)
(https://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2016-02/7/22/enhanced/webdr07/enhanced-5694-1454902416-2.png)
Yeah I was commenting on that as well. I haven't seen him that depressed after throwing his fifth interception.
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2016, 09:57:56 AM
I was rooting pretty hard against cam newton here, and I wasn't disappointed - he showed himself to be a whiny punk. I particularly enjoyed when he jumped away from his own fumble, so as to not have to fight for it in the pile.
On another note, Peyton looked just terrible. It would have been a lot better for the broncos if he'd retired in the first quarter.
Give Newton a break. He wasn't really in a position to recover that fumble, a guy was threatening to roll into his planted leg, and the move was instinctual. There wasn't time to calculate: "This is the super bowl, all season it has been the smart team move not to dive into piles pointlessly, but this time it is."
It actually crossed my mind at a few points that Peyton was a couple of bad plays away from deserving to get the hook. What a wild story that would have been.
LOL @ excited and happy Eli pics.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 12:56:35 PM
Quote from: Kleves on February 08, 2016, 09:57:56 AM
I was rooting pretty hard against cam newton here, and I wasn't disappointed - he showed himself to be a whiny punk. I particularly enjoyed when he jumped away from his own fumble, so as to not have to fight for it in the pile.
On another note, Peyton looked just terrible. It would have been a lot better for the broncos if he'd retired in the first quarter.
Peyton needs to be done. I heard how bad he was all season but to see him unable to zip the ball anymore was a real eye-opener.
Cam not jumping in that pile was a shocker. I understand maybe in week 6 not sacrificing yourself as the star player but that was a play that decided the Super Bowl.
Carolina's inability to sustain a second drive decided the game, really.
You know what was really bizarre? Ron Rivera deciding to punt with 2:08 left in the game and 2 timeouts on a 4th and 24. You need to go for that.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2016, 03:01:26 PM
You know what was really bizarre? Ron Rivera deciding to punt with 2:08 left in the game and 2 timeouts on a 4th and 24. You need to go for that.
I thought the same thing. I think the Panthers' will had been broken by then. Even at 4th and 24 you have to go in that situation.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
I thought the same thing. I think the Panthers' will had been broken by then. Even at 4th and 24 you have to go in that situation.
I'm generally not for becoming hyper conservative, but if I was Kubiak I'd have lined up in the victory formation and taken 3 knees. Don't risk a fumble, and punt with ~1:00 left (which is what happened anyway). The odds of Carolina winning at that point are basically zero, and if they can score 2 TDs and recover an onside kick in 1 minute with no timeouts, LOL forget it that wasn't happening.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2016, 02:56:20 PM
Carolina's inability to sustain a second drive decided the game, really.
Well Carolina recovers that fumble they still have a decent chance. Losing it and it was basically game over.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 08, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
It actually crossed my mind at a few points that Peyton was a couple of bad plays away from deserving to get the hook. What a wild story that would have been.
I didn't see it. I saw maybe one wild pass in the first half and you can't put those sacks on him.
They should have shown more details of the Doritos sonogram baby shooting out of the Mom. Maybe that is how Puppy Monkey Babies are born.
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 02:23:26 AM
the brady v. manning debate is pretty silly. manning has the pedigree, while brady was the original underdog who has now consistently outperformed manning.
...while cheating.
Is there anyone who still doesn't understand that scientists have decisively rejected the "deflated footballs" canard?
I mean, I can understand the "while cheating" thing as a tongue-in-cheek comment, but you don't seriously dispute the scientific consensus, do you?
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 02:23:38 PM
Yeah I was commenting on that as well. I haven't seen him that depressed after throwing his fifth interception.
He's 2-0 to Peyton's 2-2 and Eli played a lot better in his games than Peyton did in his.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2016, 04:53:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 08, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 08, 2016, 02:23:26 AM
the brady v. manning debate is pretty silly. manning has the pedigree, while brady was the original underdog who has now consistently outperformed manning.
...while cheating.
Is there anyone who still doesn't understand that scientists have decisively rejected the "deflated footballs" canard?
I mean, I can understand the "while cheating" thing as a tongue-in-cheek comment, but you don't seriously dispute the scientific consensus, do you?
There's always the Signal stealing scandal to label him a cheater.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 09, 2016, 07:14:35 AM
There's always the Signal stealing scandal to label him a cheater.
Well, if he's to blame for that, then so is the Prime Minister of Canada. :P
Seriously, though, "Spygate" has to be the most over-wrought "cheating' scandal of the modern NFL era. There was no 'sign stealing" scandal; the filming was entirely within the rules, and all teams do it. The Patriots just did it from a location that Goodall decided was an "unauthorized location." No rule was ever broken. No "spying" ever occurred.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 09, 2016, 06:49:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2016, 02:23:38 PM
Yeah I was commenting on that as well. I haven't seen him that depressed after throwing his fifth interception.
He's 2-0 to Peyton's 2-2 and Eli played a lot better in his games than Peyton did in his.
Hey if you are trying to cheer Eli up you can probably reach him on twitter or something.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2016, 07:57:48 AM
Seriously, though, "Spygate" has to be the most over-wrought "cheating' scandal of the modern NFL era. There was no 'sign stealing" scandal; the filming was entirely within the rules, and all teams do it. The Patriots just did it from a location that Goodall decided was an "unauthorized location." No rule was ever broken. No "spying" ever occurred.
Ohhhhh grumbler. You might want to just stop yourself there.
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
Ohhhhh grumbler. You might want to just stop yourself there.
Why? What are you afraid of hearing?
Belicheck is an asshole, and that is all that "Spygate" is about - him and Goodell butting heads because Goodell tried to unilaterally change the NFL rules on filming. Goodell could have punished the Jets (yes, the same Jets that complained about the Patriots because they were caught doing this exact same thing to the Patriots in November 2006) to make his point, but chose not to.
Belicheck versus Goodell is one of those "hope for a meteor" battles, but it's not like the truth behind these "scandals" is hard to find.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2016, 09:52:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 09, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
Ohhhhh grumbler. You might want to just stop yourself there.
Why? What are you afraid of hearing?
Belicheck is an asshole, and that is all that "Spygate" is about - him and Goodell butting heads because Goodell tried to unilaterally change the NFL rules on filming. Goodell could have punished the Jets (yes, the same Jets that complained about the Patriots because they were caught doing this exact same thing to the Patriots in November 2006) to make his point, but chose not to.
Belicheck versus Goodell is one of those "hope for a meteor" battles, but it's not like the truth behind these "scandals" is hard to find.
Belichick being an asshole has nothing to do with it. Most successful NFL and college coaches are assholes to some degree. Practically seems to be a prerequisite.
The Patriots filmed other teams' coaches with the intent of stealing signals (and did it repeatedly). Hell, they even filmed other teams' walkthroughs. And don't come back with "well everyone does it" because I guarantee you that is not true.
I understand why you jump to Brady's defense in the Deflategate thing-- he's a Michigan guy and all that. But it puzzles me why you take the Patriots's side in Spygate.
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2016, 09:39:58 AM
I understand why you jump to Brady's defense in the Deflategate thing-- he's a Michigan guy and all that. But it puzzles me why you take the Patriots's side in Spygate.
It goes along with the narrative that tries to exonerate Brady - why would the NFL just make up this complete fiction of deflated balls out of complete thin air? Because they want to get the Pats so bad!
Poor Tommy is just an innocent victim of the NFL witch hunt, because the NFL hates the Pats because they win so much...
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2016, 09:39:58 AM
I understand why you jump to Brady's defense in the Deflategate thing-- he's a Michigan guy and all that. But it puzzles me why you take the Patriots's side in Spygate.
It goes along with the narrative that tries to exonerate Brady - why would the NFL just make up this complete fiction of deflated balls out of complete thin air? Because they want to get the Pats so bad!
Poor Tommy is just an innocent victim of the NFL witch hunt, because the NFL hates the Pats because they win so much...
Still waiting for why you don't mind dangerous drug use but get worked up into a rage over a simple hi-jinks like slightly deflating a ball in a blowout :lol:
I got the Ray Lewis thing but this is just stupid.
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2016, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2016, 09:39:58 AM
I understand why you jump to Brady's defense in the Deflategate thing-- he's a Michigan guy and all that. But it puzzles me why you take the Patriots's side in Spygate.
It goes along with the narrative that tries to exonerate Brady - why would the NFL just make up this complete fiction of deflated balls out of complete thin air? Because they want to get the Pats so bad!
Poor Tommy is just an innocent victim of the NFL witch hunt, because the NFL hates the Pats because they win so much...
Still waiting for why you don't mind dangerous drug use but get worked up into a rage over a simple hi-jinks like slightly deflating a ball in a blowout :lol:
I got the Ray Lewis thing but this is just stupid.
WTF are you talking about?
What drug use do I not care about, and what rage am I in over the ball thing?
Quote from: derspiess on February 10, 2016, 09:39:58 AM
Belichick being an asshole has nothing to do with it. Most successful NFL and college coaches are assholes to some degree. Practically seems to be a prerequisite.
But they aren't successful assholes, and so don't get hammered by the commish.
QuoteThe Patriots filmed other teams' coaches with the intent of stealing signals (and did it repeatedly). Hell, they even filmed other teams' walkthroughs. And don't come back with "well everyone does it" because I guarantee you that is not true.
I don't know how to tell you this, since you expressly say that you don't want to hear it, but every team films the other teams. And they still do. Every well-run team, anyway. I can't guarantee anything about the incompetently-run teams.
And the canard about "filmed other teams' walkthroughs" has been so thoroughly discredited that i would have thought even you would know that. The newspaper that printed that canard also printed a front-page apology for printing it. That dog don't hunt.
QuoteI understand why you jump to Brady's defense in the Deflategate thing-- he's a Michigan guy and all that. But it puzzles me why you take the Patriots's side in Spygate.
I take the side of truth. The facts are out there, if you aren't afraid of what you'll find when you look for them. If you prefer fairy tales, fine. Just don't be surprised when you have to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lah lah lah I can't hear you!" to avoid the truth.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
It goes along with the narrative that tries to exonerate Brady - why would the NFL just make up this complete fiction of deflated balls out of complete thin air? Because they want to get the Pats so bad!
Poor Tommy is just an innocent victim of the NFL witch hunt, because the NFL hates the Pats because they win so much...
Actually, the narratives of the Brady defenders and the Brady bashers are irrelevant. Science has shown that there's no case for him or anyone else to answer for. Not even by the lame-ass "more probable than not because we already decided this" standards for conviction in the NFL front office.
Sorry that that doesn't fit your narrative, either, but there we are.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerpivotpro.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Fimage12.png&hash=dab07a48cf58711504c48a6617b9c482d188a9ee)
Grumbler wants to believe (in Brady).
Faith is a powerful tool.
Texans vs Raiders in Mexico City next year on a Monday night. Counting as a Raiders home game.
Grumbler, Science? :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2016, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 11:45:56 AM
It goes along with the narrative that tries to exonerate Brady - why would the NFL just make up this complete fiction of deflated balls out of complete thin air? Because they want to get the Pats so bad!
Poor Tommy is just an innocent victim of the NFL witch hunt, because the NFL hates the Pats because they win so much...
Actually, the narratives of the Brady defenders and the Brady bashers are irrelevant. Science has shown that there's no case for him or anyone else to answer for. Not even by the lame-ass "more probable than not because we already decided this" standards for conviction in the NFL front office.
Sorry that that doesn't fit your narrative, either, but there we are.
Bullshit. The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using. If it were just a matter of the balls naturally losing pressure over time (which of course
does happen, which is what the science explains) then both sets of balls would be under-inflated by essentially the same amount. It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls; the only question is the extent of Brady's involvement.
Quote from: dps on February 10, 2016, 10:19:01 PM
Bullshit. The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using. If it were just a matter of the balls naturally losing pressure over time (which of course does happen, which is what the science explains) then both sets of balls would be under-inflated by essentially the same amount. It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls; the only question is the extent of Brady's involvement.
They were less but not significantly less, and critically the difference was not larger than the initial permitted range. If both sets of balls started out within the allowed range but the Colts balls were higher in that range (both legal but not at the same pressure), they'd still be higher after losing pressure due to the conditions.
Blahblahblah.
The balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it. Even the guys writing the tortured "scientific consensus" articles know it.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 10, 2016, 07:44:06 PM
Texans vs Raiders in Mexico City next year on a Monday night. Counting as a Raiders home game.
If I wanted to be a trolling Raider fan...I'd mix their jersey with either a Santa Anna or, probably better, Pancho Villa getup. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2016, 11:24:02 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 10, 2016, 07:44:06 PM
Texans vs Raiders in Mexico City next year on a Monday night. Counting as a Raiders home game.
If I wanted to be a trolling Raider fan...I'd mix their jersey with either a Santa Anna or, probably better, Pancho Villa getup. :P
Villa invaded New Mexico not Texas :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 10, 2016, 11:28:37 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 10, 2016, 11:24:02 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on February 10, 2016, 07:44:06 PM
Texans vs Raiders in Mexico City next year on a Monday night. Counting as a Raiders home game.
If I wanted to be a trolling Raider fan...I'd mix their jersey with either a Santa Anna or, probably better, Pancho Villa getup. :P
Villa invaded New Mexico not Texas :P
Santa Anna then! :mad:
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 10:50:34 PM
Blahblahblah.
The balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it. Even the guys writing the tortured "scientific consensus" articles know it.
I think Brady is an obsessive asshole who wanted to make sure the balls were at the bottom end of the allowed inflation range, but that's as far as the conspiracy goes.
Quote from: frunk on February 10, 2016, 11:44:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 10:50:34 PM
Blahblahblah.
The balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it. Even the guys writing the tortured "scientific consensus" articles know it.
I think Brady is an obsessive asshole who wanted to make sure the balls were at the bottom end of the allowed inflation range, but that's as far as the conspiracy goes.
Yeah, I am sure the Pats employee just took the balls for no particular reason, and was fired because the Pats wanted to placate the NFL.
Quote from: dps on February 10, 2016, 10:19:01 PM
Bullshit. The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using. If it were just a matter of the balls naturally losing pressure over time (which of course does happen, which is what the science explains) then both sets of balls would be under-inflated by essentially the same amount. It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls; the only question is the extent of Brady's involvement.
That's the problem with reasoning from faith rather than evidence; you end up arguing that "facts" like the one that "The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using" as though they were eivdnce for something. That is not evidence of anything; NFL rules
allow teams to inflate balls to different pressures based on QB preference. Science explains perfectly the actual observations of football pressures at halftime.
So, the statement "It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls" is a faith-based statement, not a science-based one.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2016, 10:50:34 PM
Blahblahblah.
The balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it. Even the guys writing the tortured "scientific consensus" articles know it.
Good ol' faith-based football! :lmfao:
When the science is against you, you faith guys argue instead that "everyone knows" that the facts aren't important, and that science should be discarded because it scientific explanations are "tortured."
This happens every time. At least you guys are predictable. I'm looking forward to your argument that Brady is guilty because of the "lack of transitional fossils."
Quote from: frunk on February 10, 2016, 11:44:46 PM
I think Brady is an obsessive asshole who wanted to make sure the balls were at the bottom end of the allowed inflation range, but that's as far as the conspiracy goes.
Exactly. The fact that the NFL has never released, nor did the Wells report even mention, the pressures measured in the footballs at the end of the game tells you that there was no deliberate deflation of the footballs below the legal limit. Since the NFL investigators knew exactly what pressure they set the balls to at halftime, if the end-of-game measurements had shown significantly less deflation than the halftime measurements, thus disproving the Ideal gas Law and its explanation of the halftime results, Wells would have mentioned it and it would have been leaked by the commissioner's office.
And we know that they measured the balls at the end of the game, because the NFL investigators would have had to been monumentally stupid or utterly disinterested in the truth to pass up that chance to recreate the suspect event under controlled circumstances. failing to measure at the end of the second half would have crippled the credibility of the "investigation."
Quote from: Berkut on February 11, 2016, 12:12:40 AM
Yeah, I am sure the Pats employee just took the balls for no particular reason, and was fired because the Pats wanted to placate the NFL.
:lmfao: The Pats employee took the footballs to the field
because that was his job! He'd been doing this for years. Did you seriously not know this?
And those "fired' guys are still with the Patriots, though McNally, who was a game-day employee, didn't apply for any game-day jobs last year as far as I can tell. You have a strange definition of "fired."
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2016, 07:25:29 AM
Quote from: dps on February 10, 2016, 10:19:01 PM
Bullshit. The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using. If it were just a matter of the balls naturally losing pressure over time (which of course does happen, which is what the science explains) then both sets of balls would be under-inflated by essentially the same amount. It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls; the only question is the extent of Brady's involvement.
That's the problem with reasoning from faith rather than evidence; you end up arguing that "facts" like the one that "The balls the Patriots were using were less inflated than the ones that their opponent was using" as though they were eivdnce for something. That is not evidence of anything; NFL rules allow teams to inflate balls to different pressures based on QB preference. Science explains perfectly the actual observations of football pressures at halftime.
So, the statement "It's clear that someone with the Patriots deflated the balls" is a faith-based statement, not a science-based one.
No, its a statement based on facts reported by the press. And while I don't have much faith in the press, those facts haven't been denied, which makes the press credible in this instance.
Quote from: dps on February 11, 2016, 05:01:33 PM
No, its a statement based on facts reported by the press. And while I don't have much faith in the press, those facts haven't been denied, which makes the press credible in this instance.
The "facts" reported in the press include a lot of junk science that has been reputed by real scientists (you can believe the Nobel laureate from MIT or Bill Nye the Science Guy) and a lot of deliberate misinformation "leaked" by the commissioner's office but subsequently shown (even by the commissioner's own hired gun) to have been lies.
I don't know how you "deny" these "facts" you claim have been published by "the press," but do you believe, for instance, the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/sports/football/nfl-ignores-ball-deflation-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/sports/football/nfl-ignores-ball-deflation-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html)
QuoteJohn Leonard is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who roots for the Philadelphia Eagles, listens to sports talk radio when he is exercising, and teaches a course called Measurement and Instrumentation.
...
Based on his study of the data, Leonard now says: "I am convinced that no deflation occurred and that the Patriots are innocent. It never happened."
He is hardly the only scientist to take that position. As Dan Wetzel pointed out in a recent Yahoo Sports column, scientists at Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College — and others — have all come to the same conclusion.
The "facts" may not have been "denied," but they have been disproven.
It is interesting how, when you introduce the facts, what you hear from the True Believers is... *crickets*
What's the languish over/under on the number of days before the True Believers start to once again start to proselytize the One True faith, which is that
(1) the Patriots obviously deflated the footballs
(2) Brady is guilty of organizing the cheat, and
(3) people like me are lying when we say we don't believe in the One True Faith, because
(4) "Everyone knows" that 1 and 2 are true and scientific conclusions are mere "Blahblahblah"?
I'm saying seven days.
Brady obviously deflated the footballs and grumbler helped him do it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
It is interesting how, when you introduce the facts, what you hear from the True Believers is... *crickets*
What's the languish over/under on the number of days before the True Believers start to once again start to proselytize the One True faith, which is that
(1) the Patriots obviously deflated the footballs
(2) Brady is guilty of organizing the cheat, and
(3) people like me are lying when we say we don't believe in the One True Faith, because
(4) "Everyone knows" that 1 and 2 are true and scientific conclusions are mere "Blahblahblah"?
I'm saying seven days.
I'm sure that if the subject comes up again, people will state their opinions, one way or the other. In the meanwhile, to address your 4 points:
We KNOW that Patriot employees tampered with the balls--there are tapes of them discussing it.
We don't have that same level of knowledge about the extent of Brady's involvement.
Since I can't read your mind, I don't know if what you've posted on the topic honestly represents you actual thoughts on the matter or not; however, I don't recall anyone accusing you of lying about it. It's been more a matter of people saying that you're wrong.
If there are "scientific conclusions" that say that the balls weren't tampered with, then in light of the fact that we know that they were tampered with, then those conclusions must be incorrect. When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts. (Though that doesn't quite apply in this case, the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly.)
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2016, 08:48:41 PM
I'm sure that if the subject comes up again, people will state their opinions, one way or the other. In the meanwhile, to address your 4 points:
We KNOW that Patriot employees tampered with the balls--there are tapes of them discussing it.
Of course they did. That's their job! Every team, college, pro, and probably high school has guys who tamper with equipment. They are called equipment managers. No one plays with balls straight out of the carton.
QuoteWe don't have that same level of knowledge about the extent of Brady's involvement.
We have plenty of knowledge that Brady liked his footballs at the lower end of the allowed pressure.
QuoteSince I can't read your mind, I don't know if what you've posted on the topic honestly represents you actual thoughts on the matter or not; however, I don't recall anyone accusing you of lying about it. It's been more a matter of people saying that you're wrong.
Berkut said that
QuoteThe balls were deflated, and everyone knows it. Even grumbler knows it.
That's an accusation that I was lying, because I have consistently been on the record as saying not only do I not "know" this, I don't even believe this. Berkut is arguing that I secretly know it is true but for some reason lie and say I don't. That's pretty common behavior among True believers; they think that the One True Faith is so self-evident that only dishonesty can account for the unbelievers.
QuoteIf there are "scientific conclusions" that say that the balls weren't tampered with, then in light of the fact that we know that they were tampered with, then those conclusions must be incorrect. When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts. (Though that doesn't quite apply in this case, the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly.)
Science provides the facts. My whole point in this discussion has been to point out how people like you can argue that the facts are not a matter of science, but rather belief. As Richard Feynman noted "reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." You cannot ask that science and facts yield to belief. The Catholic Church tried that with Galileo and their "victory" was a decisive defeat.
Oh, and I hope everyone took the "under," because it was something like 30 minutes.
I don't think you are lying, just playing your side of the game. You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely. You are on Team Brady-Michigan, so you present Team Brady's argument. It is like a defense attorney. You don't expect them to be impartial.
You cite those "facts" and articles that support your conclusion, and pretend like it is all so very obvious, because you are trying to win an argument on the internet.
It is patently obvious that they messed with the balls, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They got caught, and did a decent snow job that all the Brady/Pats fans can use to thump their chest and climb on their crosses over, which is to be expected. It's not like there is some level of evidence that would cause the Pats fans to call for their ridiculously successful team to ever admit that there was anything at all wrong. Winning excuses just about everything, for most (but not all) fans.
It isn't really that terribly interesting. Brady and the Patriots are cheaters, and their legacy will always - justly - have that faint stink to it. Just a whiff though, since even those who despise them, rather than just finding their antics distasteful, have to admit that even absent all that cheating, they still would have won almost all of those games anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2016, 09:59:20 PM
I don't think you are lying, just playing your side of the game. You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely. You are on Team Brady-Michigan, so you present Team Brady's argument. It is like a defense attorney. You don't expect them to be impartial.
Nice ad hom argument.
QuoteYou cite those "facts" and articles that support your conclusion, and pretend like it is all so very obvious, because you are trying to win an argument on the internet.
It is patently obvious that they messed with the balls, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They got caught, and did a decent snow job that all the Brady/Pats fans can use to thump their chest and climb on their crosses over, which is to be expected. It's not like there is some level of evidence that would cause the Pats fans to call for their ridiculously successful team to ever admit that there was anything at all wrong. Winning excuses just about everything, for most (but not all) fans.
Its patently obvious that the science, the facts, don't support the One True Faith. When that happens, the True Believers double down, just like this. You aren't citing evidence, you are repeating the Rosary of the One true Faith, as though repeating it enough times makes it true, no matter what the scientists say. Faith excuses all dismissals of fact, because Faith.
QuoteIt isn't really that terribly interesting. Brady and the Patriots are cheaters, and their legacy will always - justly - have that faint stink to it. Just a whiff though, since even those who despise them, rather than just finding their antics distasteful, have to admit that even absent all that cheating, they still would have won almost all of those games anyway.
So you say. The facts say otherwise. It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational. But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith. The New York Times is wrong. Professors at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong. Berkut is right, because Faith. "Everyone knows" Faith.
Fascinating. No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation. No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself. But Nature cannot be fooled.
OK.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 11:04:43 PM
So you say. The facts say otherwise. It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational. But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith. The New York Times is wrong. Professors at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong. Berkut is right, because Faith. "Everyone knows" Faith.
Fascinating. No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation. No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself. But Nature cannot be fooled.
Nice ad hom argument.
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2016, 11:40:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 11:04:43 PM
So you say. The facts say otherwise. It is terribly interesting, because you claim in other threads to be so rational. But when science says your Faith is wrong, you cling to The One True faith. The New York Times is wrong. Professors at MIT, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc... all wrong. Berkut is right, because Faith. "Everyone knows" Faith.
Fascinating. No immolation is as fascinating as self-immolation. No one can be so fooled as the man who desperately desires to fool himself. But Nature cannot be fooled.
Nice ad hom argument.
You might want to look up "
ad hom argument" before using that phrase again. An argument against an argument isn't an
ad hom argument. An ad hom argument is an argument against the man, not against his argument. For instance, to say "You are a Brady fan, so you approach this from the standpoint of what you can and cannot argue, not what you actually think is likely or not likely." This is saying that my arguments are based on who I am, not what the evidence says. I claim that science is right and antiscience is wrong. I am not saying that Berkut is wrong because he is Berkut, or because he is a fan of something/someone, or whatever would be an argument against the man. I say he is wrong because his argument is contrary to the facts.
I am kinda surprised you don't know that. You are a university grad, are you not?
What a pleasant exchange...
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2016, 09:39:22 PM
Science provides the facts.
No, the facts exist, whether or not there's any science about them at all. Gravity was a fact before Newton provided the science to explain it; and when other facts were later discovered that didn't quite fit Newton's theory, Einstein provided the science to modify Newton's theory under certain conditions. The facts that didn't fit Newton's theory weren't ignored, and certainly couldn't be changed to fit the science, so the science had to change to fit the facts.
QuoteMy whole point in this discussion has been to point out how people like you can argue that the facts are not a matter of science, but rather belief. As Richard Feynman noted "reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Well, my argument is more "Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" (don't remember the source of that quote offhand). I can't say what other "people like me" might argue because I'm not sure what "people" you're referring to. Methodists? Fifty-three year olds? People who work in retail? Not that it matters, since I'm not responsible for their arguments, just my own. And BTW, you using that quote is deliciously ironic.
QuoteYou cannot ask that science and facts yield to belief.
Well, technically you can ask, but expect the answer to be "no". ;) Seriously, though, I'm not asking that, so it's not really relevant.
QuoteThe Catholic Church tried that with Galileo and their "victory" was a decisive defeat.
This is actually a good example, though, of what I'm talking about. One of the reasons that the Inquisition initially "won" the case against Galileo was that the facts in evidence at the time didn't support the heliocentric theory. For the heliocentric theory to be true, there should have been an observable stellar parallax. There was none detected at the time, which gave the Church the excuse to stifle Galileo Well, there is in fact an observable stellar parallax, using instrument available to us now, but not available in 1632. Once it became possible to observe stellar parallax, the heliocentric theory triumphed over the geocentric theory. But again, as with gravity, the facts were always there. Geocentricism was the established scientific theory as accepted by most of the scientific community at the time of Galileo's work because it fit the facts in evidence at the time, but when additional facts were uncovered, the science had to change.
Quote from: dps on February 13, 2016, 03:50:18 AM
No, the facts exist, whether or not there's any science about them at all. Gravity was a fact before Newton provided the science to explain it; and when other facts were later discovered that didn't quite fit Newton's theory, Einstein provided the science to modify Newton's theory under certain conditions. The facts that didn't fit Newton's theory weren't ignored, and certainly couldn't be changed to fit the science, so the science had to change to fit the facts.
I don't think Einstein or Newton were ever involve in Deflategate, so your point seems moot.
QuoteWell, my argument is more "Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" (don't remember the source of that quote offhand). I can't say what other "people like me" might argue because I'm not sure what "people" you're referring to. Methodists? Fifty-three year olds? People who work in retail? Not that it matters, since I'm not responsible for their arguments, just my own. And BTW, you using that quote is deliciously ironic.
"Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored" is not an argument, it is a tautology. When you have an argument to make, other than the absurdity that "When science doesn't fit the facts, it's science that needs to change, not the facts" when of course, only science can supply the facts about whether the balls were deflated below 12.5 psi, feel free to make it. Don't try to argue that " the science itself isn't wrong, it's just being applied incorrectly" when it is your word against the word of guys applying it are winners of Nobel prizes in science or PhD physicists at Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College, etc, though. That dog won't hunt. And BTW Feynman was one of the great minds (and not just of science), so quoting him is not "ironic" at all.
QuoteThis is actually a good example, though, of what I'm talking about. One of the reasons that the Inquisition initially "won" the case against Galileo was that the facts in evidence at the time didn't support the heliocentric theory. For the heliocentric theory to be true, there should have been an observable stellar parallax. There was none detected at the time, which gave the Church the excuse to stifle Galileo Well, there is in fact an observable stellar parallax, using instrument available to us now, but not available in 1632. Once it became possible to observe stellar parallax, the heliocentric theory triumphed over the geocentric theory. But again, as with gravity, the facts were always there. Geocentricism was the established scientific theory as accepted by most of the scientific community at the time of Galileo's work because it fit the facts in evidence at the time, but when additional facts were uncovered, the science had to change.
the evidence at the time fully supported the heliocentric theory. Your argument that only an observable stellar parallax could support it is untrue. Observations of the motions of the planets, and observations of the moons orbiting another celestial body (not possible in the Ptolemaic model the Church was defending) were sufficient evidence to defeat the Ptolemaic model. Geocentrism was never the established scientific theory of the time because there was no established scientific theory of the time. There were no scientific theories at all (not even Heliocentrism was a scientific theory).
In this case, on the other hand, there is an excellent scientific theory, the Ideal gas Law. It has yet to be disproven. When applied to the evidence at hand, it yields the fact that the measurements of football deflation and inflation are consistent with the New England footballs originally being at 12.5 psi and the Colts balls at 13 psi, which is exactly what they would have originally been without any illegal depressurizing. For you to argue that this science must change or must be improperly understood by scientific experts because you think you have some unspecified "facts" that make it impossible for the evidence to be so interpreted is feeble. You can't just argue that you are right and the scientists are wrong "just because."
Brady > Manning
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14778342/reaction-peyton-manning-allegations-cam-newton-press-conference-nfl
QuoteIn a time of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, Johnny Manziel and Baylor University, Newton being upset that he lost a football game has received far more attention than Manning's involvement in being named in a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee alleging the university has fostered a hostile work environment for women. The lawsuit alleges that Manning -- already hounded by HGH allegations this summer -- placed his naked genitals on the face of a female athletic trainer in 1996 while she was examining him for an injury. Manning has denied that he assaulted the trainer, saying instead that he was "mooning" a teammate. And in spite of his inclusion in the lawsuit, the mainstream power machine -- the networks, the NFL itself, the media -- is reluctant or outright unwilling to add Manning to a list that in the past it has been so unworried about naming.
I suspect quite a few star athletes have gotten away with shit like that. Entitled jerks.
Yeah, I think we have known for a while that Peyton Manning is a grade-A asshole who just pretends to be wholesome because it is worth money to him.
What I thought was most interesting was that Manning violated the very non-disclosure agreement his dad got signed by all parties when Tennessee settled the lawsuit against them by the female trainer. He felt vindictive enough against the trainer that years later, in the autobiography he and his dad wrote, he had to bring up the episode again. That cost him another fat settlement for defamation.
Stupid + asshole = I just hope that what goes around does indeed come around.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2016, 01:03:44 AM
Brady > Manning
Bah none of that stuff is deflating balls so Berkut is alright with it :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2016, 10:49:33 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2016, 01:03:44 AM
Brady > Manning
Bah none of that stuff is deflating balls so Berkut is alright with it :P
Welll...no. If the claims made are substantiated, then of course I think Manning is a giant asshole. Not so much for what he did back when he was a dumb ass kid (although that is douchebaggery enough), but because, like grumbler said, he apparently didn't learn anything from it - or rather, if he learned anything at all, it was exactly the wrong thing.