The National Football League

Ledbetterman10 · September 2016

HesCalledDyer said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.

I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.

HesCalledDyer · September 2016

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.

I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

HesCalledDyer · September 2016

Let me take another specific stat... interceptions.

Brett Favre threw more interceptions than every other QB who ever played the game. In no way am I then saying that every other QB who ever played the game had a better career than Brett Favre. It just means he was better than all of them at throwing INTs.

Ledbetterman10 · September 2016

HesCalledDyer said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HesCalledDyer said:
Given multiple appearances with equal number of victories, undefeated should always be more impressive.
I completely disagree. You don't just appear in the championship through a random drawing. You earn your way there and it's tough to do it.

I once saw an e-mail in Bill Simmons' mailbag that I found interesting. The e-mailer noted that, for legacy reasons, a player/team is almost better off not making the playoffs (or Super Bowl) than getting there and losing. The e-mailer, like myself, disagreed with this. But from the perspective of the media, and some fans (like yourself), I see what he means. Take Jim Plunkett for example. He's 8-2 in the playoffs. Well that means he only got his team to the playoffs 4 times. All his other seasons were a wash. So is he better than Peyton Manning who's 14-13 in the playoffs? That record means that Manning has led his team to the playoffs 15 times. But, like Simmons' e-mailer said, it seems that being consistently good enough to make the playoffs and great once in a while to win the Super Bowl isn't as good for your reputation as being great enough once or twice to win the Super Bowl and shitty all the other times. You lose in week 17 to miss the playoffs, nobody remembers. You lose in the conference championship, you're a choker. Weird.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not talking about who had the better career or who is the better overall QB or even who is the better playoff QB. All I'm saying is if you have a guy who is 4-0 in Super Bowls and a guy who is 4-2 in Super Bowls (or 4-1, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6 etc)... the undefeated record, in the Super Bowl game itself, is more impressive than the one with losses. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
I get what you're saying, dude. It's not that hard to understand. Your logic suggests that Brady "had more chances" than Montana and Bradshaw and thus, for Montana and Bradshaw to maximize their chances by winning them all, they're better. But you don't just appear in the Super Bowl and have a Super Bowl career that's separate from the rest of your career. You seem to want to separate a Super Bowl Career from the rest of their career. Which is fine for you if ya wanna do that, but I'm not. So my argument is that Brady has earned more chances and shouldn't be penalized for that. And I'll be making this same argument for Lebron if he gets a 6th ring and folks of your ilk argue that "Jordan never lost a finals." Again, I get what you're saying. It's not hard to understand...at all. But I'm just not in agreement with your premise.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

Well you're saying that a perfect winning percentage with four rings is better than a non-perfect winning percentage with four rings. You underlined "they're better" stressing you don't mean that. So you mean it's "more impressive" rather than "they're better" I guess. Or something. Whatever.

Ledbetterman10 · September 2016

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4

So great. I'm a big Kevin Harlan fan. Wish he did bigger games on TV.

g under p · September 2016

pjhawks said:

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4
actually might be the dumbest call. he just made this idiot go viral - which you proved by posting the video.

maybe Kaepernick can protest that too

He should.....I didn't watch the game but when there's a game that boring and out of hand I don't blame him one bit to make that call. It's not only fans that can feel or see the boredom coming from that game, the announcers see it as well. I hope the guy thinks it was worth it spend the night or two in the clink.

Peace

Poncier · September 2016

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4

Harlan is great.

The Juggler · September 2016

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4
So great. I'm a big Kevin Harlan fan. Wish he did bigger games on TV.

It was just so seamless the way he went from the game action to this douchebag. I've always been a fan of his too.

Ledbetterman10 · September 2016

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4
So great. I'm a big Kevin Harlan fan. Wish he did bigger games on TV.
It was just so seamless the way he went from the game action to this douchebag. I've always been a fan of his too.

Well as he mentioned, this was the most action there was in that game.

Jason P · September 2016

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:
The greatest call in the history of broadcasting. RIGHT HERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JssKqYoy5p4
So great. I'm a big Kevin Harlan fan. Wish he did bigger games on TV.
It was just so seamless the way he went from the game action to this douchebag. I've always been a fan of his too.
Well as he mentioned, this was the most action there was in that game.

I think he out rushed Todd Gurley. I was hoping for the tazer / billy club clothesline takedown, but we went down like a chump.

Jason P · September 2016

How is it this Rams betting line possible?

(-3.5) Sea vs Rams

In comparison:

(-14) Carolina vs 49ers

Where the Seahawks in a plane crash that I've yet heard of?

F Me In The Brain · September 2016

Wilson is dinged and they almost lost at home to Miami.

(I think Seattle destroys the Rams. In fact, I think everyone destroys the Rams.)

Amongst the Ani · September 2016

Rams won both games last year and 3 of last 4 which is why I think the line is that way.

F Me In The Brain · September 2016

Rams fucking suck

HesCalledDyer · September 2016

The LA Rams have not scored since the 2nd Quarter on Christmas Eve 1994. Last point was scored by Tony Zendejas on a PAT. Jerome Bettis had 48 yards rushing.

F Me In The Brain · September 2016

Ha!
This winner of a human being was on that team as well. I lived a short walk from the Coli at the time, attending USC. (Not a walk you made after dark, however.)

F Me In The Brain · September 2016

Bills fire Greg Roman.

Did anyone who watches that game last night think the issue in Buffalo is their play calling? Overwhelmingly, the issue is a defense that blows giant schlongs. They couldn't stop NY without NY shooting themselves in the foot.
A few questionable play calls but Taylor overthrew lots of open receivers.

The problem here is clear - Lapband has to go. He is the "defensive genius" and his defense was awful last night.

Amongst the Ani · September 2016

Bills should never have hired sexy rexy's twin. I dislike Roman from his 49ers days but he was not the issue.

Jason P · September 2016

Da Bills

Degeneratefk · September 2016

Amongst the Ani said:
Bills should never have hired sexy rexy's twin. I dislike Roman from his 49ers days but he was not the issue.

The ills should have never hired rex

The National Football League

Comments

Categories