Raj, I feel your pain and could not be more disappointed. They looked terrible this afternoon. What the hell was that? Offense, Defense and Special Teams all stunk. Play calling was conservative. Arians and Rossum need to find new homes for 2008. This is not the team who will beat the *Patriots.
Bears at Seahawks is mildly intersting. Radio Rex is starting. Why Radio Rex, you might ask? Cos when he came in and threw that TD to Berrian late to beat the Raiders, it felt like something out of that movie. Rex is "special". I've not been ready to right off the Bears yet, even tho they've seemed mortally wounded.
I am saying this as a GIGANTIC Seahawks fan, but the Flexed-out 3:00 game today was actually pretty damn good. Sure would have killed this Flexed-in Pats/Bills clinic/poopfest.
Bears at Seahawks is mildly intersting. Radio Rex is starting. Why Radio Rex, you might ask? Cos when he came in and threw that TD to Berrian late to beat the Raiders, it felt like something out of that movie. Rex is "special". I've not been ready to right off the Bears yet, even tho they've seemed mortally wounded.
I am saying this as a GIGANTIC Seahawks fan, but this Flexed-out 3:00 game today was actually pretty damn good. Sure would have killed this Flexed-in Pats/Bills clinic/poopfest.
You raise an interesting point, which is namely...What is more intersting? A (now) 49-10 game starring the premiere team in the NFL, or a competitive game between two to 6-4 teams.
The networks are having to wrestle with this, and they have chosen the former. Unfortunately, the latter seems to have been the obvious conclusion for better football. Watching the Dallas-Skins game today, or the Giants-Dallas/Pitt-Cleve games last weekend was every argument for this.
Now, I don't know what it would take for me to watch a CHI-SEA game this season (dudes...two fraud teams right there. The AFC and NFC west are locked in some sort of death struggle as to which is the more mediocre division...) so I can understand why NBC flexed out of this. But, now, the Pats are in their season-limit-6 primetime games (which are a pain in my ass x 1,000,000) so they're schedule can't change anymore.
The AFC and NFC west are locked in some sort of death struggle as to which is the more mediocre division...) so I can understand why NBC flexed out of this. But, now, the Pats are in their season-limit-6 primetime games (which are a pain in my ass x 1,000,000) so they're schedule can't change anymore.
Bob Kraft was in the stands at the MLS Cup in DC today, and the TV commentators were saying that he was flying to Buffalo at the end of the game to be there for the Pats game - they also said that Kraft used his influence on the flex committee to get the Pats game put on at night this week, so that he could attend the MLS Cup and not miss the Pats game ... crazy ...
Bears at Seahawks is mildly intersting. Radio Rex is starting. Why Radio Rex, you might ask? Cos when he came in and threw that TD to Berrian late to beat the Raiders, it felt like something out of that movie. Rex is "special". I've not been ready to right off the Bears yet, even tho they've seemed mortally wounded.
I am saying this as a GIGANTIC Seahawks fan, but this Flexed-out 3:00 game today was actually pretty damn good. Sure would have killed this Flexed-in Pats/Bills clinic/poopfest.
You raise an interesting point, which is namely...What is more intersting? A (now) 49-10 game starring the premiere team in the NFL, or a competitive game between two to 6-4 teams.
The networks are having to wrestle with this, and they have chosen the former. Unfortunately, the latter seems to have been the obvious conclusion for better football. Watching the Dallas-Skins game today, or the Giants-Dallas/Pitt-Cleve games last weekend was every argument for this.
Now, I don't know what it would take for me to watch a CHI-SEA game this season (dudes...two fraud teams right there. The AFC and NFC west are locked in some sort of death struggle as to which is the more mediocre division...) so I can understand why NBC flexed out of this. But, now, the Pats are in their season-limit-6 primetime games (which are a pain in my ass x 1,000,000) so they're schedule can't change anymore.
I know that my 'Hawks are average this year (save Hasselbeck, who will be one of the best QBs to not make the Pro Bowl), but to me, competitive games > video game showcases. The Bears probably have a stronger fanbase than the Pats, either way.
Tough to predict a videogame showcase before it happens...plus, every network wants the game when the Pats lose.
SoI, I'd heard that about Kraft and the Revs (tough loss, btw...ouch) but wondered about the timing- NBC needs 10 days lead to flex, I believe, and the Revs didn't make the MLS cup until 10pm on the 9th/10th night. Wouldn't surprise me, though...dude's got the juice.
And, I might be wrong about everything. In fact, I probably am.
Was at the Ravens game today. One of the most surreal sporting events ever. Day started out with my regular Thanksgiving weekend crew (my father in law and his law partners) bitching about how we may not score at all and how my perfect 7-0 lifetime record at M&T field is over for sure. Ravens looked like the worst team in the league during the first half. Only had two first downs, and those came just before half when the Browns were playing prevent. Boller made TOs in every conceivable fashion. Special teams blowing every return and kick off. Second half was the exact opposite. Boller slinging touch passes, finding Macgahee as the 2nd option. The defense just dominating the line. Ray Lewis tackling everything in site. With 28 secs to go we took the lead on a FG. We of course allow a big return and then the Browns make an unbelievable 3rd and long play to get within FG range with 3 secs left. Dawson hits it, looks good. Then it hits the upright, then the crossbar and falls back into the end zone. Refs indicate a missed FG. Place erupts and everyone is rubbing my head saying, "the kid can't be beat". I'm yelling "undefeated mofos" to no one in particular.
We sprint to the car and are half way home when the refs reverse their call and say the FG is good. Suddenly we're in OT. We listen to the radio stunned as Cleveland marches methodically down the field and wins it with a 34 yarder. Frickin' crazy.
The Bears probably have a stronger fanbase than the Pats, either way.
You haven't been to Chicago.
Yes, I have. Any other assumptions?
Dude, the Chicago Bears is a historic team that's been around for nearly twice as long as NE. There is really no question that Bears fans are some of the most loyal in football, certainly more than NE fans. As soon as this little time-period of productivity ends, NE fans will fall back into the woodwork like they were before the team was good.
Dude, the Chicago Bears is a historic team that's been around for nearly twice as long as NE. There is really no question that Bears fans are some of the most loyal in football, certainly more than NE fans.
Eh, obviously I'm not going to win an NFC gang fight with a Packers fan and a Bears fan - and I completely acknowledge the old-school authority of the Bears franchise. But if we are talking 2007, you shouldn't take NE lightly. The fanbase covers 5+ states. Not that it's the final indication of loyalty or lineage, but the most recent Harris poll had the 2 teams almost completely even, with a slight edge to NE. That should at least count for something. I know from living here how huge they are. The Red Sox rule the region, but alot of the diehard locals and old school heads see the Sox as too popular with the Pats being "their" team.
As soon as this little time-period of productivity ends, NE fans will fall back into the woodwork like they were before the team was good.
Whatever, kid. The Pats have been competitive since the Parcells era, over 15 years now. The dynastic moves of the last few years have only blown an already popular team over the top. And all the years the Pats sucked they still had a huge fanbase, even if they didn't go to the neglected armpit that was Sullivan Stadium. I don't doubt the immense deep loyalty of Bears fans, it's the dismissal of Patriots fans that I find obnoxious. You can call fans bandwagoners, but winning a few Super Bowls can do wonders for your popularity. It's been over 20 years since Chicago won. That doesn't mean fans are less loyal than they were then, but I'm willing to bet there are alot less of them.
The Bears probably have a stronger fanbase than the Pats, either way.
You haven't been to Chicago.
Yes, I have. Any other assumptions?
Dude, the Chicago Bears is a historic team that's been around for nearly twice as long as NE. There is really no question that Bears fans are some of the most loyal in football, certainly more than NE fans. As soon as this little time-period of productivity ends, NE fans will fall back into the woodwork like they were before the team was good.
Bears fans are absolute football zombies come the colder months. The third largest city in the country (first without divided NFL interests) spends crazy money on the team even if they have a dismal season with a losing record (as they have this season). If you haven't seen this encompassing tenacity in action, you really don't know what I'm talking about - no personal slight intended. Chicago just about matches Steelers and Cowboys fans fans in their zeal - not only in the city, but also as a presence in out-of-town games. I'll bet the Bears are still top-3 in merch sales for the NFL. The Pats are probably in the top 10, but are really a baseball town at heart.
You raise an interesting point, which is namely...What is more intersting? A (now) 49-10 game starring the premiere team in the NFL, or a competitive game between two to 6-4 teams.
The networks are having to wrestle with this, and they have chosen the former. Unfortunately, the latter seems to have been the obvious conclusion for better football. Watching the Dallas-Skins game today, or the Giants-Dallas/Pitt-Cleve games last weekend was every argument for this.
Now, I don't know what it would take for me to watch a CHI-SEA game this season (dudes...two fraud teams right there. The AFC and NFC west are locked in some sort of death struggle as to which is the more mediocre division...) so I can understand why NBC flexed out of this. But, now, the Pats are in their season-limit-6 primetime games (which are a pain in my ass x 1,000,000) so they're schedule can't change anymore.
I'd rather see two teams I don't really care much about have a competitive game than watch a team like the Patriots shellac an obviously piss-poor team like the Bills. I'll be totally upfront about hating the Patriots, but that's irrelevant here. I hate watching just about any game when one team is winning by so ridiculous a margin it's not really worth watching. What's the point of even watching a game if one team's up by 40 points unless the team that's winning is your personal favorite?
I'm a Packers fan and last week FOX cut away from the Packers/Vikings game when the Packers were totally stomping the shit out of the Vikes. I was kind of annoyed at the time since they were cutting away from one of my favorite teams, but from a network standpoint I understood since the game was a blowout and there were other games that were much tighter going on. It really just kind of annoyed me because I live in Kentucky and we don't get a whole lot of Packers games on TV down here aside from primetime games. That, and I was annoyed because they cut to a game with Tony Siragusa doing the sideline "reporting" and man would I ever like to punch that idiot in the face. Seems we get stuck with the FOX game that fat blathering idiot's on 80% of the time.
And I am not a Bears fan. I laugh when they lose because their fans are so lemming-like. Every loss is a dagger and every win is the Super Bowl. My Seahawks (fan since 1985) just beat them, and I am going nuts relishing work tomorrow.
I'd rather see two teams I don't really care much about have a competitive game than watch a team like the Patriots shellac an obviously piss-poor team like the Bills. I'll be totally upfront about hating the Patriots, but that's irrelevant here. I hate watching just about any game when one team is winning by so ridiculous a margin it's not really worth watching. What's the point of even watching a game if one team's up by 40 points unless the team that's winning is your personal favorite?
Well, I actually watched much of the game because the Pats and Brady are a thing of beauty. Historical, even, if only at this point. But the game sucked on a competitive basis.
Comments
Do you do that little left eye flutter thing too??
Oops...i think we scored again.
Gotta run.
Buffalo is sh*t and I might have had a more clever comeback for you had we beaten the damn jets.
1A just matched 1B's impressive whole game numbers in the first half.
Now maybe you understand why my prediction was bold.
Until midnight I am officially a
I am saying this as a GIGANTIC Seahawks fan, but the Flexed-out 3:00 game today was actually pretty damn good. Sure would have killed this Flexed-in Pats/Bills clinic/poopfest.
I am loving every minute of it.
You raise an interesting point, which is namely...What is more intersting? A (now) 49-10 game starring the premiere team in the NFL, or a competitive game between two to 6-4 teams.
The networks are having to wrestle with this, and they have chosen the former. Unfortunately, the latter seems to have been the obvious conclusion for better football. Watching the Dallas-Skins game today, or the Giants-Dallas/Pitt-Cleve games last weekend was every argument for this.
Now, I don't know what it would take for me to watch a CHI-SEA game this season (dudes...two fraud teams right there. The AFC and NFC west are locked in some sort of death struggle as to which is the more mediocre division...) so I can understand why NBC flexed out of this. But, now, the Pats are in their season-limit-6 primetime games (which are a pain in my ass x 1,000,000) so they're schedule can't change anymore.
Bob Kraft was in the stands at the MLS Cup in DC today, and the
TV commentators were saying that he was flying to Buffalo at the
end of the game to be there for the Pats game - they also said that
Kraft used his influence on the flex committee to get the Pats game
put on at night this week, so that he could attend the MLS Cup and
not miss the Pats game ... crazy ...
I know that my 'Hawks are average this year (save Hasselbeck, who will be one of the best QBs to not make the Pro Bowl), but to me, competitive games > video game showcases. The Bears probably have a stronger fanbase than the Pats, either way.
SoI, I'd heard that about Kraft and the Revs (tough loss, btw...ouch) but wondered about the timing- NBC needs 10 days lead to flex, I believe, and the Revs didn't make the MLS cup until 10pm on the 9th/10th night. Wouldn't surprise me, though...dude's got the juice.
And, I might be wrong about everything. In fact, I probably am.
You haven't been to Chicago.
We sprint to the car and are half way home when the refs reverse their call and say the FG is good. Suddenly we're in OT. We listen to the radio stunned as Cleveland marches methodically down the field and wins it with a 34 yarder. Frickin' crazy.
Did anyone else see this shit?
Yes, I have. Any other assumptions?
Dude, the Chicago Bears is a historic team that's been around for nearly twice as long as NE. There is really no question that Bears fans are some of the most loyal in football, certainly more than NE fans. As soon as this little time-period of productivity ends, NE fans will fall back into the woodwork like they were before the team was good.
Eh, obviously I'm not going to win an NFC gang fight with
a Packers fan and a Bears fan - and I completely acknowledge
the old-school authority of the Bears franchise. But if we are
talking 2007, you shouldn't take NE lightly. The fanbase covers
5+ states. Not that it's the final indication of loyalty or lineage,
but the most recent Harris poll had the 2 teams almost completely
even, with a slight edge to NE. That should at least count for
something. I know from living here how huge they are. The Red Sox
rule the region, but alot of the diehard locals and old school
heads see the Sox as too popular with the Pats being "their" team.
Whatever, kid. The Pats have been competitive since the Parcells era,
over 15 years now. The dynastic moves of the last few years have only
blown an already popular team over the top. And all the years the Pats
sucked they still had a huge fanbase, even if they didn't go to the
neglected armpit that was Sullivan Stadium. I don't doubt the immense
deep loyalty of Bears fans, it's the dismissal of Patriots fans that
I find obnoxious. You can call fans bandwagoners, but winning a few
Super Bowls can do wonders for your popularity. It's been over 20 years
since Chicago won. That doesn't mean fans are less loyal than they were
then, but I'm willing to bet there are alot less of them.
Bears fans are absolute football zombies come the colder months. The third largest city in the country (first without divided NFL interests) spends crazy money on the team even if they have a dismal season with a losing record (as they have this season). If you haven't seen this encompassing tenacity in action, you really don't know what I'm talking about - no personal slight intended. Chicago just about matches Steelers and Cowboys fans fans in their zeal - not only in the city, but also as a presence in out-of-town games. I'll bet the Bears are still top-3 in merch sales for the NFL. The Pats are probably in the top 10, but are really a baseball town at heart.
I'd rather see two teams I don't really care much about have a competitive game than watch a team like the Patriots shellac an obviously piss-poor team like the Bills. I'll be totally upfront about hating the Patriots, but that's irrelevant here. I hate watching just about any game when one team is winning by so ridiculous a margin it's not really worth watching. What's the point of even watching a game if one team's up by 40 points unless the team that's winning is your personal favorite?
I'm a Packers fan and last week FOX cut away from the Packers/Vikings game when the Packers were totally stomping the shit out of the Vikes. I was kind of annoyed at the time since they were cutting away from one of my favorite teams, but from a network standpoint I understood since the game was a blowout and there were other games that were much tighter going on. It really just kind of annoyed me because I live in Kentucky and we don't get a whole lot of Packers games on TV down here aside from primetime games. That, and I was annoyed because they cut to a game with Tony Siragusa doing the sideline "reporting" and man would I ever like to punch that idiot in the face. Seems we get stuck with the FOX game that fat blathering idiot's on 80% of the time.
Nope. It's still 1985 here. Really.
And I am not a Bears fan. I laugh when they lose because their fans are so lemming-like. Every loss is a dagger and every win is the Super Bowl. My Seahawks (fan since 1985) just beat them, and I am going nuts relishing work tomorrow.
Well, I actually watched much of the game because the Pats and Brady are a thing of beauty. Historical, even, if only at this point. But the game sucked on a competitive basis.