Super Bowl

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:08 pm

KC Scott wrote:
mvscal wrote:
War Wagon wrote:should be an imminently watchable game.
Based on what compelling storyline or matchup? What it will be is a fucking joke.

So who do you think will win?

NBC.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:54 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:So Wags, because it's about to occur, that's what makes it so... watchable? Imminently watchable?

Just admit to the mistake and move on. Or better yet, just ignore the gaffe and move on. Digging a deeper hole for yourself helps you... how?

absolutely, this SB is imminently watchable. Isn't that what I said? Why, these tiresome questions tend to wear a fellow out.

twas no mistake or gaffe, wifey is making cheese dip. I look forward to that and stand by my adverb.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:29 am

War Wagon wrote:absolutely, this SB is imminently watchable. Isn't that what I said?

Sunday afternoon is "imminent"?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:36 pm

Papa Willie wrote:I (like the other 3/4 of the country) just don't give a fuck.

I bet it will be the most watched Super Bowl... ever. 3/4? Your math skills, much like everything else you fail at, fucking sucks.

The 2008 Super Bowl was one of the highest rated (not viewers -- but Nielsen ratings) of this century. Total viewership of the game has increased every year for the last 5 years. There hasn't been this much buzz about a Super Bowl since I can remember. Even more so than 2008.

The country does give a fuck. It will tune in. It will set records. It will be the most watched Super Bowl of all-time. Count on that. Not just because the Super Bowl is an out of control monster that gets bigger every year. But also, because of the two teams playing in it and their recent history.

By contrast, you insufferable fat fuck, the country categorically DID NOT give a fuck when your shit franchise played in 1999. Only 6 other Super Bowls have garnered a lower rating than Denver vs. Atlanta. And 5 of those were before the Super Bowl became popular. That right, loser... if you throw away all Super Bowls from 67-71 the only Super Bowl rated lower than 1999's was Denver/San Fran in 1990. No one gives a shit about Atlanta. Go fuck your uncle, hillbilly.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:56 pm

It's highly hyped and it will be highly viewed, I agree.

High viewership doesn't = high intelligence.

Half the country approves of the job Barry is doing.

Idiots everywhere.

Neither team is that exciting and neither team is really all that good.

There have been 92 Super Bowl teams, and I rate neither of these squads in the top 50.

Great job with your parity bullshit, NFL.
This game blows.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:23 pm

mvscal wrote:
War Wagon wrote:absolutely, this SB is imminently watchable. Isn't that what I said?
Sunday afternoon is "imminent"?

Every fucking Friday. Like clockwork.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:14 pm

poptart wrote:There have been 92 Super Bowl teams, and I rate neither of these squads in the top 50.

a meaningless comparison. All that matters is that one of these teams will be hoisting the ultimate team sports trophy afterwards.

And after further review I've decided that my use of the term "imminently" watchable was indeed inappropriate.

Mea culpa, how about we go with "immensly"?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:07 am

The word you wanted was 'eminently.' EOS.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:47 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Now that he has a chance to "get someone back" he will surely win.

Not saying anything about sure to win, but don't tell me he and Belichick don't have payback in the back of their minds.

I'm not really sure where you get the idea that football players and coaches are emotionless cyborgs.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:58 am

He probably noticed that Belichick literally rusts following extensive exposure to rainfall.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:18 pm

mvscal wrote:Not saying anything about sure to win, but don't tell me he and Belichick don't have payback in the back of their minds.

I'm not really sure where you get the idea that football players and coaches are emotionless cyborgs.

If you need something other than the fact that you're in the frigging Super Bowl as motivation for doing everything in your power to win this game, you don't deserve to be in this game. They are not going to "try harder." They are not going to "execute better." They are not going to "game plan better." It has nothing to do with the opponent and everything to do with the prize.

Go smoke another bowl, Spicoli.

Yer a Fuckin Jerkoff · Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:52 am

Sure is a lot of talk about shit other than the game itself in this thread. This game comes down to Nate Solder vs. Pierre-Paul. Should be pretty easy pickens for Pierre-Paul. The rest of the d-line will eat the Pats alive and I like the Giants as having an underrated secondary. By the second half, the Giants will have the Pats' D sucking wind since their running game is miles better and they have much better receivers. I've been saying all year how much the Patriots suck cock and the offense doesn't even impress me. They have one dink-and-dunk WR and the rest are worthy of being on practice squads anywhere else. Oh and their running attack is a joke, too.
Giants win this game easier than people are predicting. NFC East continues its dominance of the NFL.
NYG 33, NE 21

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:01 am

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:If you need something other than the fact that you're in the frigging Super Bowl as motivation for doing everything in your power to win this game, you don't deserve to be in this game.

I don't know/care which bath house you picked that pearl of "wisdom" from, but it's complete bullshit. Don't tell me the fact that the Giants shit on their perfect season and kicked their asses a few weeks ago isn't on their mind.

What does a little added determination to get some payback translate to on the field? I don't know. Nobody does. Just don't tell me it isn't a factor and that they haven't given it any thought.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:15 am

KC Scott wrote:
mvscal wrote:
War Wagon wrote:should be an imminently watchable game.
Based on what compelling storyline or matchup? What it will be is a fucking joke.

So who do you think will win?

Too many people picking the Giants. If the Giants do win, it will be without Victor Cruz. Belichick is probably the best I've seen at taking away your favorite toy and making you win without it. I just don't see the Gaytriots dropping three straight to the Giants.

Still a shit game, though. I'm about 50-50 on whether or not I'll bother watching. Too bad there's no hockey on. That would have made it an easy call.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:31 am

mvscal wrote:Too bad there's no hockey on.

Who the fuck are you kidding, Meximelt? You'd be at the beach watching a men's volleyball game even if your shit franchise was about to be on the wrong end of 3 TD Super Bowl assraping... again.

The only "sport" you watch on ice is figure skating... or are you talking about field hockey?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:43 am

I don't have a "shit franchise." I fired the Chargers after they retained Norveiga.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:38 am

YaFJ wrote:I've been saying all year how much the Patriots suck cock and the offense doesn't even impress me.

Which is precisely how they came to find themselves playing in the Super Bowl.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:43 am

Van wrote:
YaFJ wrote:I've been saying all year how much the Patriots suck cock and the offense doesn't even impress me.
Which is precisely how they came to find themselves playing in the Super Bowl.

Looks like the 'over' is a lock this week.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:54 am

mvscal wrote:I don't have a "shit franchise." I fired the Chargers after they retained Norveiga.

Fucking liar. You've been making excuses for Pineapple Face since they fired Marty.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:55 am

mvscal wrote:Too bad there's no hockey on. That would have made it an easy call.

Rack.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:20 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
mvscal wrote:I don't have a "shit franchise." I fired the Chargers after they retained Norveiga.
Fucking liar. You've been making excuses for Pineapple Face since they fired Marty.

I understood why he was hired in the first place when Douchenbagger forced the team to fire him over his ridiculous demand that the team hire both his dickheaded son and his retarded brother. It happened later on in the offseason and there really weren't any prime candidates available. Then Norv did enough to keep his job over the next couple years by actually winning a few playoff games.

You can't make that claim any longer and it's clear that the organization is quite content with mediocrity.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:24 am

Toddowen wrote:
mvscal wrote:I don't have a "shit franchise." I fired the Chargers after they retained Norveiga.
And what happens if next season they make it to the AFC title game?

That was a good one. I chuckled.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:28 pm

that twangy ass rendition of america by a coupla country singers had me about ready to puke.

national anthem was tolerable, i guess.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:44 pm

i have never seen an intentional grounding called on such a play. absolutely nobody near tom. always thought that was pretty much part of the equation as qbs get away with throwing it away out of bounds.

bad call, imo

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:46 pm

nice tackling, patsies.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:57 am

good game, not as much scoring as expected but entertaining nonetheless.

Rack the Giants.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:03 am

Looks like Tom Coughlin owns Belichick. Highly underrated coach.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:12 am

the patsies were looking good for awhile there in the second half, but, then their pass defense went missing in action again. and brady makes a few shitty throws.

rack coughlin, eli and the g-men. they deserved it.

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:44 am

Props Eli, props G-men.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:30 pm

What did you think about that grounding/safety call? I thought it was kinda bullshit, myself. Brady was not in anyone's grasp. Yeah there was a dude homing in on him, but, he had all the room in the world to step to the right, tuck it and at a minimum, get to the LOS. Probably would have picked up a few yards it he had done it 2 seconds earlier.

The announcers went on about how it technically met the standard for grounding, but, I've never seen it called as it was. In fact, I kinda look at grounding the way that fukker looked at pron (I can't define it, but, I know it when I see it). In 40+ years of watching football, I have never before been surprised by a grounding call. In this case I was, completely. And in a case where the result of the call is immediately seen on the 'bode, I think it had damn well be a pretty flagrant violation.

I'll bet tom wishes he had that one back to throw incomplete just a little closer to a blue shirt/

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:00 pm

Brady was in the box, under serious pressure and threw the ball in an area where there were no receivers. That’s intentional grounding. Period.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:01 pm

Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:34 pm

Mikey wrote:Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.

In the grasp is subjective and irrelevant. If a QB throws the ball away (no receiver in the area) while in the pocket to avoid a sack, it's grounding.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:05 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Mikey wrote:Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.
In the grasp is subjective and irrelevant. If a QB throws the ball away (no receiver in the area) while in the pocket to avoid a sack, it's grounding.

Exactly. If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:25 pm

You’re looking for logic in a suckaholic post? Good luck with that.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:28 pm

Mikey wrote: If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.

But in this case, the same result.... a safety.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:02 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Mikey wrote: If the QB is "in the grasp" the officials can call the play dead, similar to stopping forward progress. Not the same thing as intentional grounding.
But in this case, the same result.... a safety.

Well yeah, Whitey, that's the way the rules are written.

Then there’s this:

It’s been more than four years now since the dark cloud of the “Spygate” scandal passed over the New England Patriots, but the Pats’ reemergence this season as a Super Bowl team has reignited the discussion. Former New York Giants wide receiver Amani Toomer said he’d put an asterisk on all three New England championships.

“I would,” he said today in an interview with Jim Rome. “I would, definitely. Without question.

“Tom Brady hasn’t won a Super Bowl since Spygate. If they don’t win another Super Bowl with Brady, with [coach Bill] Belichick, their three Super Bowls that they did win are going to be tainted. It’s going to be like Barry Bonds. You’re going to look at these three Super Bowls with an asterisk because of Spygate.

Belichick and the Patriots were disciplined by the league office when they were caught videotaping the New York Jets’ defensive coaches’ signals during a Sept. 9, 2007 game. It was later revealed that Belichick was guilty of taping many other teams, including the St. Louis Rams during preparations for Super Bowl XXXVI.

“If you know somebody’s defensive calls before you line up on the field, that’s as close to cheating as you can get in the NFL,” Toomer said. “If you know what their adjustments are, what their signals are, and you practice with those signals, that’s cheating. There’s no other way to slice it.”

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:19 pm

Giselle's prayer chain went unanswered.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... efeat.html

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:21 pm

Mikey wrote:Never heard of being "in the grasp" as having any relevance at all to grounding.

Being in the grasp is not part of the definition. My point is, even though there has to be some sort of definition for grounding, it is still a subjective call. Also, as a general rule, announcer dude is all over that call before the zebra eve has a chance to reach for his flag. If I recall, even the zebras had a little chat before they threw the flag.

One thing is for sure, I'll bet the next time it happens, tom will at least throw it in the same zipcode as one of his receivers.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:24 pm

There was nothing subjective about that call, you gibbering fucktard. Between the tackles, (Whitey]eminent[/Whitey] pressure, ball thrown to an area devoid of receivers. What the fuck is your major malfunction?