Redwall: Warlords

I think I'm going with the Patriots, even though I wanted the Steelers to win, or at least the Broncos. :(

Packers aren't in it so I don't care.(parents are from mid west)

RAVENNNNNSSSSS!

Not a big football fan tbh, and the commercials have been overall 'meh' lately

Hate the Packers, so happy they got knocked out of the playoffs. I'm hoping it's Ravens vs the 49ers in the Superbowl, don't really care who wins, I just hate the Patriots and the Giants more than I do those two teams, and I don't want to see them play each other in the Superbowl again. Also, bit of a soft spot for the 49ers I guess, they were Joe Montana's team for a decade, and I'm a Notre Dame fan. The Superbowl we will probably see is the 49ers vs the Patriots though. I don't think the Ravens have enough defense to stop Brady, and I think the 49ers defense is going to shut down the Giants.

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on January 18, 2012, 02:14:03 AM
Hate the Packers, so happy they got knocked out of the playoffs. I'm hoping it's Ravens vs the 49ers in the Superbowl, don't really care who wins, I just hate the Patriots and the Giants more than I do those two teams, and I don't want to see them play each other in the Superbowl again. Also, bit of a soft spot for the 49ers I guess, they were Joe Montana's team for a decade, and I'm a Notre Dame fan. The Superbowl we will probably see is the 49ers vs the Patriots though. I don't think the Ravens have enough defense to stop Brady, and I think the 49ers defense is going to shut down the Giants.

I agree with basically your whole statement! Haha, well except the hating the Patriots part. So flipping happy the packers got stomped on!

I like football.

Pats beating 49'ers

Yes Elokobi starts for wolves!

I'm hoping for a 9ers/baltimore superbowl so it can be THE HARBAUGH BOWL, but to be honest, it'll likely be a Giants/Pats rematch. I hate Eli Manning with ever fibre of my being.

Anyhow, being that this is an American internet web site, I believe you mean "soccer", firefight.

Well I like the sport where you kick the ball with your foot into a goal, if that's any help.

They do that in football. (the not soccer version of football)

I bet their goal doesn't have a net, though!

I agree though, the difference between the two is hard for some to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA)

That's soccer. The video I mean.

Soccer/football are the same thing you yanks (originally wrote tanks, oops)

No, football is where gigantic men put on pads and a helmet and run at other gigantic men in pads and helmets as fast as they can, trying to get to the guy with the ball. Soccer is where a bunch of pansies kick a little black and white ball around a field for 60 minutes and maybe score once, or not at all. Soccer games can end in a tie, tied football games end in sudden-death overtime.

Pansies? Okay, maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, and a few others, but there are plenty of giant footballers. Heskey, Elokobi, Akinfenwa, Frimopong, Helguson etc.

http://www.images99.com/i99/02/31804/31804.jpg (http://www.images99.com/i99/02/31804/31804.jpg)

(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00369/Emile_Heskey_369245a.jpg)

Not many games end 0-0, and it's actually 90mins. Plus, many games are high scoring. The Manchester derbies (man utd-the biggest team and man city-probably the best atm) have finished 6-1 to man city and 3-2 to Manchester united so far this season.

Oooo, 6-1, that must have been TERRIBLY exciting, 7 whole goals scored. The final score of the Alamo bowl this year was 67-56. That's 9 or so touchdowns by just one side. Granted, that was one of the highest scoring games in history, but still, 7 touchdowns by just one side is not uncommon, and both sides together have more than 7 touchdowns with some regularity. I was using hyperbole, but the point stands, US football is a lot more exciting than soccer. Especially if it's only 7 goals in 90 mins. American football lasts 60 minutes, nominally. Commercials and timeouts and halftime adds more, but 60 minutes of play.

Also, Heskey would be only middling-size in college football, let alone the NFL. Might be a decent corner or safety, those are usually the smaller guys on the team. I dunno how fast he is though, those guys are usually stupid fast, like if they weren't in the NFL, they'd be running track at a high level somewhere. The fastest NFL players would be running 10 second hundred meter dashes or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Chris Johnson or Devin Hester couldn't at least stay in the ballpark of Usain Bolt. The NFL times on the 40 yard dash, which means the runners still haven't reached their top speed before they are done, but Johnson and Hester both had sub-4.5s 40 times. The timing systems are different though, so it's hard to make a direct comparison. The guy who won the gold at the 2004 Olympics in the 100m had a slower 40yd time than someone who's best wasn't under 10s, for example. Anyway, point is, your "giant footballers" would be on the small side in the NFL, like the smallest NFL corner is about as tall as Elokobi, and those soccer players would probably be too slow to boot. Calvin Johnson is one of the bigger wide receivers in the game, he's 6'5", 235 lbs, and he's stupid fast. Then there are the offensive linemen, who tend to be 6'4" and taller. Byrant McKinnie, for example, is 6'8" and weighs 345 lbs. That's the kind of size I mean when I talk about "giant guys in pads and helmets".

The highest scoring football/soccer game remember is 9-1, so 10 goals. Moreover, goals are dull if they're really common, the fact they're difficult makes them more worthwhile. ANd whilst Yank football is indeed skilled, it is not on the level of soccer in terms of technical ability required, at least in my opinion. You won't get stuff like roulettes, wonder goals and such, there's a lot less variety in the kinds of goals scored, at least in my opinion. Basically I'm saying quality/quantity, but that is of course subjective as pretty much every American prefers American football to soccer football. On the point of it being better for there to be a few quality goals instead of a load of tap-ins, I can't remember a single goal from the 9-1 match, and it isn't even a memorable match for me. Do you think this would be memorable if you got these all the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLRiM2F60lk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLRiM2F60lk)

Now Heskey has the pace of drying paint, but in his youth he was rapid. Most football teams have at least one "big" (moderate by american football standards) in defence and usually one up front, too. Chris Samba, Didier Droga, Yakubu, Dzeko and (of course) Heskey would all be good examples. Of course American footballers are bigger, no denying, but you do still get big footballers. Akinfenwa (did link, image at bottom) isn't tall but stupidly huge considering his height. Plenty of tall footballers, too. As I said, most teams have a striker who is tall and has strength to score headers, called a target man. Drogba at 6'2 1/2 is a good example, Jaap Stam (retired) was 6'3, Edin Dzeko is 6'4, Andy Carroll is 6'3. Obviously not quite as big as the tallest American Footballers, but all over 1.80. Of course there are plenty of good small guys, like Michael Owen and Lionel Messi (pretty much the best player since Maradonna) which is actually a good thing. Nice to see a sport where both strength and nimbleness are rewarded. As for speed, Obafemi Martins, Ashley Young and Darren bent are rapid, and several footballers (like Marvin Emnes) were actually sprinters in their youth's.

tl;dr you're basically right, but there are a lot more big soccer players then you probably realize, considering I only gave a handful of examples, all of whom play in the British league, which isn't even the world's best. Strength and size are important in both types of football, just more so in American football, for obvious reasons. I also prefer soccer, but that's just personl prefence.

(http://www.images99.com/i99/02/31804/31804.jpg)

Patriots. Diehard fan for those of you not in the Spa. Ravens can't stop Brady's arm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byhsk-HAsTY&feature=related

Watch that video, and tell me you still think there is more technical ability required in soccer. I'll grant those are some of the craziest catches ever made, but stuff on a slightly lower level of skill happens every Saturday and Sunday in college and NFL games. It takes A LOT of skill and athletic ability to be a top flight receiver in the NFL or at a Division 1 college. As much or more as it takes to play the more skilled positions in soccer.

As for roulettes etc. Look up the Statue of Liberty, Fumblerooskie, Flea Flicker, hook and ladder, or heck, just Google "trick plays". Or "spread option". LOL. Believe me when I say this, touchdowns in football are almost never boring. The most boring games are the ones where few to no touchdowns are scored. Like LSU vs Alabama during the regular season this year, or the championship rematch of those two teams. In those two games, there were a total of 13 field goals attempted, 10 made, 1 touchdown, and like 80 punts. (I am exaggerating on the punts) Two most boring bloody games I have seen in a long time. Blowouts are particularly exciting in football either, unless you are fan of the team that's winning, which is why that 9-1 match wasn't very exciting, but the 67-56 Alamo bowl was pretty fun to watch. The 70-33 demolition of Clemson by West Virginia was not as fun, though pretty amazing, given how good everyone thought Clemson was. Yes, that's 10 touchdowns scored by just one team. Not the highest scoring game I've ever seen either. The highest scoring game I have ever seen was Navy vs. North Texas in 2007, 74-62, and since it was close, it wasn't actually that boring. The highest scoring game in college football history happened in 1916, when Georgia Tech defeated Cumberland 222-0. I imagine that was pretty boring. That was a weird game though, Cumberland had canceled their football program the year before, so the team that faced a really good Georgia Tech team was just 14 random guys a student manager picked, because they had to play the game or pay GT 3000 dollars. (That was a lot of many back then, equivalent of 60 grand today.) In that game, Georgia Tech never had a 3rd down, and Cumberland never managed a 1st down, and only had 14 total yards, to Georgia Tech's 1,620 rushing yards. Easily the most lopsided game in football history.

*watches video*

Still more technical ability in soccer. :P

Don't get me wrong, to play any professional sport at the top level you have to be incredibly talented. But soccer is less defined by build and more about skill. Those kind of catches are very impressive, but you'd see that kind of stuff from the goalkeepers in football as well.

As for whether touchdowns are boring, obviously depends on how into American football you are. Obviously it's a shorter game and has more points crammed in and is faster paced. You do get duff soccer matches, the last I watched was awful, Chelsea v Norwich, no goals, spent most the time losing the ball and passing in their own half. All in all though, I think soccer is slower paced because more co-ordination and vision is required to break down defenses and make attacks. This is all subjective though. I've never played American football (played rugby a fair bit, which is similar-ish?) and I doubt you are a soccer fanatic, so lots of this is just down to different preferences.

Dunno about that. Goalie doesn't have to worry about keeping his feet inbounds. A sideline or back of the endzone catch requires the player to catch the ball, secure it, keep both feet in bounds, and make sure he doesn't lose the ball when he hits the ground. That's quite a bit of athletic and technical skill required. I get what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. I think it takes more skill to play wide receiver in football than to kick a little ball around the field.

Probably some of it is down to different preferences, but I think anyone who goes to a football game is going to find it exciting. It's easier to score points in football than in soccer, but not so easy that it's boring, and it's not so hard that points are rarely scored. We have soccer in the US, and football is a lot more popular. I think there is good reason for it too, the game itself, no matter who is playing, is one of the most exciting sports on the planet, and the deeper you get into the game, the more complexity and skill you realize there is required. Rugby and football have a common ancestor, to use an evolutionary term, but they have diverged greatly since then.

Really its more of what player you are. In fact, neither of them requires too much skill to play, just they both require a lot of mental exertion that makes it harder to play. To think on your feet every time you say the word hike is going to be mentally taxing and require more energy to take care of that. If your are skilled enough to know what your going to do instead of winging it, its much more of skill then a waste of energy.

I truly have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

Fair enough,we can agree to disagree on that. I also agree on average American football is more exciting in terms of individual games, simply because there are more points scored, but I think that the best soccer games are more exciting. American football is more popular for lots of reasons, but soccer is becoming more popular in America. Lots of good talents such as Donovan, Dempsey, (scored a hat-trick today) Howard and more.

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on January 21, 2012, 03:59:26 PM
I truly have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

Seconded haha. Both require a great deal of skill to play.

Define "best soccer games", and while, yes, soccer is increasing in popularity in the US, I don't think its ever going to be as popular as football. It's pretty much a niche market here. In the polls they do, the NFL is far and away the most popular, baseball is a somewhat distant second, and then basketball, and then hockey and soccer are about tied for popularity. Both hockey and soccer are only really popular in certain areas of the US.\

Also, a lot of soccer's increase in popularity has to do with shifting demographics, that is, immigrants from countries where soccer is the most popular sport. As they assimilate into US culture, that is probably going to disappear some.

The funniest thing about soccer in America is that its popularity grew tenfold when some NFL players thought about playing on soccer teams if the NFL had locked out. Sporting KC, the Kansas City team almost had Chad Johnson on their team, and they went from barely breaking even to filling their stadium every night with people who really didn't care much about the game prior.

That just goes to show how insanely popular football is in the US. LOL.

I think realistically that soccer would be more popular in the US if the best teams weren't in Europe. The best athletes in Europe play soccer. The best athletes in the US play football. People want to watch the best, and it's difficult to justify waking up at 6am all the time to watch premier league stuff. The idea of drinking beer for breakfast at 6am to watch premier league euro soccer intrigues me, but not enough to actually do it.

Furthermore, you and I are in a gross minority of people who like college football more than the NFL, volkov, it's hard to explain to NFL people why the game is better at the university level. (It has nothing to do with the athletes being paid or not, that's a horrible argument imo)

QuoteFurthermore, you and I are in a gross minority of people who like college football more than the NFL, volkov, it's hard to explain to NFL people why the game is better at the university level. (It has nothing to do with the athletes being paid or not, that's a horrible argument imo)

True. Personally, I think it's better because it's still much more of a team sport at that level, which is more true to what football is all about. Part of it is because the athletes aren't paid, but not because of any amateur vs pro type thing, more because the players can't hold out over contracts, or get traded in the middle of the season, or demand a trade if they aren't getting their way. You are going to have standout players who affect the game at any level, but in college you don't have to worry about that standout player being traded or let go on free agency because of an injury. (Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc.) In fact in college, you might get a player for an extra year, or even two, if they are injured. You do often get standouts leaving for the NFL early, but I think that makes it more interesting. It's cool to watch a team rebuild every year, as the older players graduate and the underclassmen take on more leadership. The increased turnover makes for a better game, I think. That leads me to my last reason, I like college football because it's more volatile than the NFL. In the NFL you basically know who the good teams are from year to year, and if the team has a big lead going into the fourth quarter, they are almost certainly going to win. In college, the good teams change up nearly every year, and comebacks late in the game are much more common. You also get surprises like WVU beating the snot out of Clemson a lot more often in college than you do in the NFL.

AHAHA!

Pats vs Giants. East coasters must be thrilled.

This sucks. Stupid Ravens. Stupid 49ers. Can't hold on to a stupid ball. Lee Evans, hero to zero in no time flat. Suspect Ravens will be shopping for a new placekicker in the off-season.

I think the Giants will win

PATRIOTS! PATRIOTS!
Just had to do that. Anyway, the kid was a rookie. When you have all that pressure on you and every eye is staring at you and you have the weight of your team on your shoulders knowing that one bad kick will get you beat up in the locker room, you might snap. Give the kid a break, if he did that in the beginning of the game, no one would care.

QuoteJust had to do that. Anyway, the kid was a rookie. When you have all that pressure on you and every eye is staring at you and you have the weight of your team on your shoulders knowing that one bad kick will get you beat up in the locker room, you might snap. Give the kid a break, if he did that in the beginning of the game, no one would care.

Kyle Williams was not a rookie, Lee Evans even less so, and Billy Cundiff was definitely not a rookie. Williams was in his second year in the NFL, Cundiff was in his 9th. Lee Evans was in his 7th year in the NFL. They are all professional football players, being paid lots and lots of money to do their jobs. Cundiff couldn't make a 32 yard field goal. He's being paid 2 MILLION dollars a year to make field goals. There is no excuse. Especially not after 9 years in the league. Lee Evans, Kyle Williams, a bit more sympathy, but not much more. Williams job was to catch punts. He failed. TWICE. It led directly to the Giants winning. Lee Evans I have the most sympathy for, that was a difficult catch and he had the defender draped all over him, and in the slo-mo it looks like he actually had possession before it got knocked out. Which means it's a fumble in the end zone, which went out of bounds, so a touchdown for the Ravens. In other words, Evans might have gotten screwed over by the refs. Besides which, that was second down. They had third down still to go, and the 4th down field goal attempt. Cundiff lost the Ravens the game, and he has no excuses.

I heard Cundiff was a rookie. My bad. And so what? People screw up at work a lot. Even people working there for 9 years. Especially under pressure.

It's his job, his only job. Let's say you worked at a factory, and your only job was to make sure the widgets coming out of a particular machine were not defective. If you screw up, and some of the widgets are defective, how is your boss not completely justified in firing your incompetent butt? Cundiff's only job is to kick the ball. He's not asked to do anything else, not tackle, not block, just kick the ball. For that he gets paid 2 million dollars a year. He screwed up his only job, and there is no excuse. The Ravens will be looking for a new kicker in the offseason.

It was only a 32 yarder. It's not like it was the 47 yarder that destroyed the superbowl for the '90 Buffalo Bills. 32 yards is a chip shot, especially for a Pro-bowler. You just shouldn't miss that kick.

Yeah! I'm also outraged about sports! Grrrrrr!

Good contribution.

I'm just saying that he makes mistakes. Don't we all? Everyone screws up at work. No matter what the salary. Not that he shouldn't have made it but we shouldn't be putting so much of our anger and frustration on him. You could put it anyway. Flaccos only job is to be a quarterback. If he played better, maybe they could've won.

Then it's your right to be disgusted with Joe Flacco's awful third down completion percentage. I don't see why fans of the team should have to give anyone a pass for anything. It's the nature of sports, indeed part of what most people like. Gives them something to talk about.

Quote from: KilkenneIt was only a 32 yarder. It's not like it was the 47 yarder that destroyed the superbowl for the '90 Buffalo Bills. 32 yards is a chip shot, especially for a Pro-bowler. You just shouldn't miss that kick.

Exactly.

Quote from: Dark Claws
I'm just saying that he makes mistakes. Don't we all? Everyone screws up at work. No matter what the salary. Not that he shouldn't have made it but we shouldn't be putting so much of our anger and frustration on him. You could put it anyway. Flaccos only job is to be a quarterback. If he played better, maybe they could've won.

When they screw up as bad as Cundiff did, they get fired. Of course we should be putting our anger and frustration on him, it is directly his fault that the Patriots are going to Superbowl. Flacco played quite well that day, heck he outplayed Tom Brady. Few QBs can say that. You honestly couldn't have asked much more from the guy, he put them in a position to at least have a chance to win, and Cundiff couldn't make the kick. These guys get paid millions of dollars to do what they do, I see no reason to give them a pass, for any reason. If I was in a high pressure, multi-million dollar job, I would be expected to perform. If I didn't, my boss would be completely justified in firing me.

The world is a fair place, Volkov, it's why you are presently working in a laboratory using atomized kitten farts in a (successful) attempt to biologically treat cancer.

I have no clue why i keep visiting this topic. I really couldn't care less about American football... Or really any football that I'm not personally on the field (please note the last time I played football was almost exactly 10 years ago, that is an indication about how little time I spend caring about the sport). None-the-less, it's apparently fun to hear people talk about sports.

from a sociological perspective (ahhhahaha) sports are just a modern alternative to war - since they arose when there was a decline in war (even though wars still go on, they only involve like 3% of the population. They used to involve everyone). So the "seriousness" of sports, and the expectations you place on young men on the field is similar to the high stakes involved in warfare. This fellow failed to make an easy kick. That's not a big deal in most social contexts, but if you fail to perform on the battlefield you will die. So when Kilk talks about the "nature of sports," I think he is actually talking about the residual war-faring culture of the America's.

QuoteThe world is a fair place, Volkov, it's why you are presently working in a laboratory using atomized kitten farts in a (successful) attempt to biologically treat cancer.

LOL.

Quotefrom a sociological perspective (ahhhahaha) sports are just a modern alternative to war - since they arose when there was a decline in war (even though wars still go on, they only involve like 3% of the population. They used to involve everyone). So the "seriousness" of sports, and the expectations you place on young men on the field is similar to the high stakes involved in warfare. This fellow failed to make an easy kick. That's not a big deal in most social contexts, but if you fail to perform on the battlefield you will die. So when Kilk talks about the "nature of sports," I think he is actually talking about the residual war-faring culture of the America's.

This is hogwash. Sociology is hogwash.

From a biological perspective, sports are important to people because they play on man's innate competitive nature. Sports teams almost become an extension of the tribe or family. For some fans, they even approach the level of religion. Brain scans have shown that the same areas of the brain that activate when most people think about God are activated in the brains of some sports fans when they think about their teams. This is particularly prevalent in Cubs fans. But I digress. Anyway, the reason sports fans get so worked up about sports is because it activates the same emotional centers that normally activate in response to thoughts of family. So when a person's team fails, its like a member of the family has failed, and that produces a lot more emotion than it would in a normal context.

I suppose there is also the outrage factor, that these multi-million dollar athletes aren't doing their job, but will still get paid.

Hahaha, God is a section of the brain is he? Man your perspective on life is depressing!

That said, I agree with everything this so-called "biologoy" has to say about sports. It does not conflict with what I said. In fact if you look into the sociological study of sports you'll see many papers comparing it to religion. Though, we don't always use brain scans for that, since we have the ability to understand social behaviors without them.

Also what's with the outrage about their salary? Didn't you vote republican last time? Haven't you been supporting a political system that cherishes the rich? Were you this upset when the banks failed to do their job? Because they make lots more. In other words if you're not supporting Ron Paul right now you are totally not allowed to complain about salaries!

What does..what. He isn't complaining that the guy is paid. He's complaining that he failed on his duties that he was paid to do. You are trying to turn this from a convoluted religious point into a convoluted political point. It is sports, it is neither of those things.

Hmmm... Maybe this should be in the UMD.

noooo, if it were in UMD I would have to post intelligibly...

Quote from: Peace AllianceHahaha, God is a section of the brain is he? Man your perspective on life is depressing!

There is a certain region of the brain that activates when one things about religion and god, and using electrical fields, scientists have induced religious experiences. Like seeing angels and stuff. It's not depressing, it's interesting.

Quote
That said, I agree with everything this so-called "biologoy" has to say about sports. It does not conflict with what I said. In fact if you look into the sociological study of sports you'll see many papers comparing it to religion. Though, we don't always use brain scans for that, since we have the ability to understand social behaviors without them.

If you aren't looking at how the organism functions, you are just guessing. This is why sociology is hogwash. I don't care what the sociological studies say, because sociology is bunk. Pseudoscience. Uneducated guessing, or maybe over-educated guessing.

QuoteAlso what's with the outrage about their salary? Didn't you vote republican last time? Haven't you been supporting a political system that cherishes the rich? Were you this upset when the banks failed to do their job? Because they make lots more. In other words if you're not supporting Ron Paul right now you are totally not allowed to complain about salaries!

Uh... what? Like kilk said, I'm upset that they aren't doing their jobs. If they do their jobs, then by all means, pay them millions of dollars. They are important pieces in a multi-billion dollar business.

Err 49ers? Giants?  Ohh your talking about that funny sport when you through the ball and then run into someone.
Go the 49ers!!

Is English your first language? Not to be mean or anything, but that post is so horrible, even after you edited it, that I have to wonder.

I'm guessing you meant to say this:

Err 49ers? Giants?  Ohh Oh... your you're talking about that funny sport when where you through throw the ball and then run into someone.
Go the 49ers!!

Its 15 past one I've had a 5 hour car trip and I'm on my phone so every time I push 1 button I hit another.
But yea that is what I ment to say

QuoteIts 15 past one I've had a 5 hour car trip and I'm on my phone so every time I push 1 button I hit another.

Perhaps you shouldn't phonepost then.

There is nothing wrong with posting ohh.

I am PRO phoneposting.

Go Pats Go Pats Go Pats.

I will not be watching it this year much to my displeasure.

Quote from: Peace Alliance on January 29, 2012, 08:59:19 PM
I am PRO phoneposting.

Does that mean you are an expert at phoneposting, or that you are for it? I agree to the latter, but you can't consider me to be a pro at it.  ;)

I hope he's not saying he's a pro at it, because I can point to many typos he has posted that are linked to phoneposting

Name 'em

I am all for it. Currently doing it. How else does one ensure that RWL is part of their life 24/7?

Joblessness and stimulants

Giants

Quote from: Peace Alliance on January 23, 2012, 09:06:48 AM
I think the Giants will win

Totally right! Funny, I don't even know where the Giants are from. They just sounded bigger then the other team.

Whoop tee do, the frickin' Giants won. That is only slightly better than the alternative of the Pats winning.

The Grumpus strikes again!

Waa! I was following the game all the way home. And it was looking good too!

Ate chili and drank beer pretty much all day. Lost 150 bucks on the game. But I think I ate enough free chili and drank enough beer to make a dent in that. Overall a successful Sunday.

The Giants may have won but Brady was the better QB overall. (yes I acknowledge all you naysayers who will point to the safety, statement still stands)

From checking Facebook it seems that everyone here (apart from me) actually watched the Superbowl this year. This is the first time I've seen this. Very strange.

I didn't watch it. I found out who was playing yesterday.

Quote from: Briar on February 06, 2012, 01:55:52 PM
The Giants may have won but Brady was the better QB overall. (yes I acknowledge all you naysayers who will point to the safety, statement still stands)

I'm going to second that. 96-yard drive, 16 straight completions, the first tied and the second broke super bowl records.

If only Grodonski (can't spell his name) wasn't injured. Hernadez (can't spell period) is good but isn't used to being thrown to that much. Even still, we were this close. THey just had to make that last second catch.

yep...and they failed

QuoteThe Giants may have won but Brady was the better QB overall. (yes I acknowledge all you naysayers who will point to the safety, statement still stands)

That's great for him. He is now Peyton Manning. Better QB who loses to a better overall team. Bill Belichick and the Pats front office decided to dismantle their superbowl-winning defense one offseason. Let a bunch of good, but aging defensive players go on free agency, and tried to rebuild on the fly in the draft. That was 6 years ago, and they were pretty terrible. The next season, they got a bunch of offensive firepower, in the form of Wes Welker, Randy Moss, etc. and basically tried to be the Indianapolis Colts. That was 5 years ago. The next year they went 18-0 but lost the Superbowl to the Giants, because the Giants had a defense and the Pats did not. Since then they have somewhat replaced the Colts as the team that almost wins it all, but doesn't quite succeed, because they still lack a defense. Like the Colts, they have a good QB and all kinds of offensive firepower, but they don't have the formula that won them 3 Superbowls in 4 years anymore, which was a decent offense and great defense. The reason it works a bit better for the Colts is mostly just because Manning is that good. Though the Colts upgrading their defense a bit in 2006 is probably part of the reason they beat the Bears. Basically, what I'm saying is, in the regular season you can win a lot of games with a high-powered offense, but the recipe for a Superbowl win is a great defense and a decent to good offense.

True. The Pats have a lot of offensive firepower. Really, if they had a decent defense, it would've been better. Their offense was great, they just had a key player injured. Their defense is same old, same bad. They were winning a lot this year because of that offensive firepower carrying them to the goal line. When one of their best cannons was injured, they had trouble recuperating. It really annoys me that Brady won't be a SuperBowl MVP just because his team didn't win. He played better overall. 

Not that much better, Manning had a pretty good day too.

I think I heard the announcer say the the Pats had the 32nd or 23rd worst defense. So yea, there is only so much a team can do with that.

30th best defense. Which makes them officially terrible.
And they still managed to sack Manning more than they sacked Brady.

QuoteAnd they still managed to sack Manning more than they sacked Brady.

They had more knockdowns on Brady than the Pats had on Manning. Pats also had pretty much no running game. The Giants defense dominated.

Pah, African cup of nations is where it's at. Zambia vs Ivory Coast!!!!

QuotePah, African cup of nations is where it's at. Zambia vs Ivory Coast!!!!

Get your kickball out my football thread.  :P

Get your ballthrow away from my football post. :P

No no, see, it is football, not throwball, because everything in football comes down to footwork. QB has to plant his feet right to pass the ball well, WR needs good control of his foot motion to catch the ball inbounds. Everyone who carries the ball needs to be able to move very well on their feet, and juke other players off their feet. Football is all about how you move your feet in relation to the ball. Soccer, on the other hand, is about kicking a ball up and down a field. It's kickball. Footwork plays a role, but in the end it's all about kicking the ball.  ;)

Yeah well...err...go play your game of football where you throw the ball! Ha.

Then what's kickball?

QuoteYeah well...err...go play your game of football where you throw the ball! Ha.

LOL. I will. Enjoy your kickball.

Darkclaws, kickball, as you know the term, is baseball with a bigger ball and no bat. It's kickbaseball.

I am so confused.

Ahahaha I know none of you care, but Zambia just won the African cup of nations! Big upset, on sudden death penalties as well.

Not China? I thought it was a big sport superpower.

China....

The key is in the title of the tournament, the AFRICAN cup of nations.
:P

Isn't China in Africa? Case in point:

Quote from: Ungatt Trunn II on February 11, 2012, 11:53:01 PM
Okay.
Africa sucks as a general rule.

Lol, well played.

Anytime, mate.