Bleacher Report lists Bills-Giants Super Bowl as best of all time

[NoSaint]

So can we start a petition to block Bleacherreport links around here? God damn.

 

Id even be ok with an op saying "bleacher article from so and so random writer rates these as the top 5 (insert a few of them here), I (agree, or insert my own top 5). What do you guys think we're your favorites?"

 

I'm incredibly sick of having to click to bleacher to even have a clue what's being discussed, and who's doing the discussing. The "article" should augment the post, not be the only content. I don't care if op got the idea from br and wants to give the tip of the hat but more than a link should be required on just about any op - especially a BR one.

Edited January 27, 2013 by NoSaint

[vincec]

So can we start a petition to block Bleacherreport links around here? God damn.

Don't read the links or post in the threads when you see them. You'll be doing everyone a favor, including yourself apparently. Win-Win.

 

 

 

Id even be ok with an op saying "bleacher article from so and so random writer rates these as the top 5 (insert a few of them here), I (agree, or insert my own top 5). What do you guys think we're your favorites?"

 

I'm incredibly sick of having to click to bleacher to even have a clue what's being discussed, and who's doing the discussing. The "article" should augment the post, not be the only content. I don't care if op got the idea from br and wants to give the top of the hat but more than a link should be required on just about any op - especially a BR one.

Again, if it's too much work to click a button then why do it? Just so you can B word?

[Meathead]

its just really bad posting etiquette to provide a link and nothing else. if youre trying to contribute to the posting environment then CONTRIBUTE

 

at the very least there should be a significant blurb from the article that gives a firm idea what its about. better is to tell us why you decided to post the link and blurb, tell us specifically how you are adding value, interest, or intrique to the board

[boyst]

I wonder if it's possible to post anything on this board without getting flamed. This is just a link so the title get's flamed. Classic.

 

In regards to the material at hand, my personal favorite was the Dallas - Pittsburgh SB that he lists as number 3. That game had an Ali - Frazier feel to it. Both teams coming off recent championships and clearly the two best teams of that era. The game was not bad either with a classic Staubach led Cowboys rally falling just short. Given the short memories of most of these lists just the fact that it's so high all these years later shows how memorable it was.

I think a better title for this type of post would have been "Best Super Bowl of All time?" Maybe even leaving out the BR link. You could put that a BR article did pretty good listing some pretty good games, etc. BR does not start dialogue, it destroys it.

[mob16151]

Loved that superbowl XXV gets some love, but to me it's the third best superbowl. My three best.

 

1. Giants-Patriots the first time

 

2. Rams Titans 1 yard short.

 

3. Giants Bills

[Dibs]

The best Superbowl in my mind was NE vs NYG (part I). Considering what was at stake - a perfect record - and the miraculous plays made by NYG in the waning minutes, it doesn't get any better than that. When you factor in the disgust for the Patsie franchise and golden boy Brady, the loss almost felt like a Bills Superbowl win!

[Jack Straw]

TBD needs some sort of script that replaces the words "bleacher report" with "some random guy" every time it's typed.

[truth on hold]

its just really bad posting etiquette to provide a link and nothing else. if youre trying to contribute to the posting environment then CONTRIBUTE

 

at the very least there should be a significant blurb from the article that gives a firm idea what its about. better is to tell us why you decided to post the link and blurb, tell us specifically how you are adding value, interest, or intrique to the board

He didn't need to, title said it all. Isn't it obvious why it could be of interest to bills fans?

[NoSaint]

 

He didn't need to, title said it all. Isn't it obvious why it could be of interest to bills fans?

 

That some dude on bleacher thought it was his favorite Super Bowl isn't that interesting by itself. That's where the OP could've created context, framed a discussion etc....

Edited January 26, 2013 by NoSaint

[RuntheDamnBall]

So can we start a petition to block Bleacherreport links around here? God damn.

I'm for it.

[truth on hold]

 

 

That some dude on bleacher thought it was his favorite Super Bowl isn't that interesting by itself. That's where the OP could've created context, framed a discussion etc....

Speak for yourself. Not to you but to several others myself included it was. Simple rule: if you don't find something of interest don't open the thread.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[NoSaint]

 

Speak for yourself. Not to you but to several others myself included it was. Simple rule: if you don't find something of interest don't open the thread.

 

I guess I expected more than an isolated link. As several have said, and I think especially true with bleacher, atleast a small writeup in the OP makes it much nicer for everybody. Unless you are arguing you prefer threads started with just links, then I don't mean to speak for you.

 

Bleacher gets a lot of hell around here - I think it'd be fine if people (1) used it simply as jumping off point for there own conversation, and (2) didnt treat it as an authority on any topic and instead just another non expert opinion. In this case giving some of the meat and potatoes in the OP instead of making everyone click over would've been courteous, that's all.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I guess I expected more than an isolated link. As several have said, and I think especially true with bleacher, atleast a small writeup in the OP makes it much nicer for everybody. Unless you are arguing you prefer threads started with just links, then I don't mean to speak for you.

 

Bleacher gets a lot of hell around here - I think it'd be fine if people (1) used it simply as jumping off point for there own conversation, and (2) didnt treat it as an authority on any topic and instead just another non expert opinion. In this case giving some of the meat and potatoes in the OP instead of making everyone click over would've been courteous, that's all.

Thank you. I think there are some good conversations covered at BR, but to treat it like any kind of authority is just a mistake. We have some much finer authorities here.

[truth on hold]

I guess I expected more than an isolated link. As several have said, and I think especially true with bleacher, atleast a small writeup in the OP makes it much nicer for everybody. Unless you are arguing you prefer threads started with just links, then I don't mean to speak for you.

 

Bleacher gets a lot of hell around here - I think it'd be fine if people (1) used it simply as jumping off point for there own conversation, and (2) didnt treat it as an authority on any topic and instead just another non expert opinion. In this case giving some of the meat and potatoes in the OP instead of making everyone click over would've been courteous, that's all.

Theres no "authority" on a subjective topic like "Best Super Bowl", that goes without saying. Nearly everyone else realized that and viewed it as a discussion piece to express their own views. That you and a couple others see red whenever someone references Bleacher report IS YOUR PROBLEM. Is everyone supposed to keep track of your media preferences to spare his highness the trouble of simply bypassing the thread? The OP posted an article he thought would be noteworthy to Bills fans, and it was. The title was very self explanatory. If you want further embellishment, click the damn link (or his highness can have one of his servants do it for him). To B word out the innocent OP and make it about something else with a series of OT posts is where courtesy is clearly lacking. To the point I won't be engaging any further in your obnoxious OT rant.

 

Vincec, thanks again for the link.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[NoSaint]

 

Theres no "authority" on a subjective topic like "Best Super Bowl", that goes without saying. Nearly everyone else realized that and viewed it as a discussion piece to express their own views. That you and a couple others see red whenever someone references Bleacher report IS YOUR PROBLEM. Is everyone supposed to keep track of your media preferences to spare his highness the trouble of simply bypassing the thread? The OP posted an article he thought would be noteworthy to Bills fans, and it was. The title was very self explanatory. If you want further embellishment, click the damn link (or his highness can have one of his servants do it for him). To B word out the innocent OP and make it about something else with a series of OT posts is where courtesy is clearly lacking. To the point I won't be engaging any further in your obnoxious OT rant.

 

Vincec, thanks again for the link.

 

Never implied he used it as an authority. In fact, instead of seeing red every time I see the name, I suggested 2 things that might take some of the edge off the reaction to the site as a good chunk of the board doesn't want it used. If anything my post was offering a suggestion to bridge that gap, if you weren't already flying off the handle. Like I said, no one likes having to click through their 50 page slide show countdowns (relevant to this threads start and why many don't like a blind link to bleacher ratings) so a synopsis is nice and in a broader sense outside this thread no one likes hearing "you're 100% wrong because some nut job wrote a far fetched article on BR"

 

Those two things are highly relevant to bleacher as its not just clicking one link, it's clicking through typically at minimum 10-15 to get to the writeup for #1, and on the second half (which was not the issue here but is OFTEN on this board) their sourcing can get crazy and be no more authoritative than you or I.

 

It seems you are the one in the minority on this discussion joe, but rage on.

Edited January 27, 2013 by NoSaint

[bbb]

I wonder if anybody has ever come up with a theory as to why the first I guess 30-35 years of Super Bowls were mostly horrible games (it was an annual disappointment), and now over the last 15 or so years, we've had a whole bunch of thrillers.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Bleacher Report posted a list of something? I am shocked. Next you'll be telling me they posted it in slideshow form.

[Buftex]

I wonder if anybody has ever come up with a theory as to why the first I guess 30-35 years of Super Bowls were mostly horrible games (it was an annual disappointment), and now over the last 15 or so years, we've had a whole bunch of thrillers.

 

I have a theory, but it will make me sound like a sour old codger...the NFL used to have more teams that played dominant defense. I don't know if it is the rule changes, or the fact that this is pretty much a passing league (likely a combo of the two) or whatever....but parity has not only caught up with the league (minus the Bills of course) but it seems to have caught up to the games themselves.

 

Strangely, while I agree, the last dozen or so Super Bowls have been, for the most part, very entertaining games, I just don't think the game is as good as it once was. Like a lot of things...

 

I agree with Bleacher Report (just to piss the anti-Bleacher Report crowd off), Super Bowl 25 was the greatest Super Bowl I ever saw (1973-present)...two teams, with contrasting styles, who, for the most part, played their game...but defense wins championships, as they say. Now, most games are shoot-outs, comebacks, collapses of monumental proportions...it is entertaining I suppose, but I don't think it really makes for a better game.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Buftex

[bbb]

I have a theory, but it will make me sound like a sour old codger...the NFL used to have more teams that played dominant defense. I don't know if it is the rule changes, or the fact that this is pretty much a passing league (likely a combo of the two) or whatever....but parity has not only caught up with the league (minus the Bills of course) but it seems to have caught up to the games themselves.

 

Strangely, while I agree, the last dozen or so Super Bowls have been, for the most part, very entertaining games, I just don't think the game is as good as it once was. Like a lot of things...

 

I agree with Bleacher Report (just to piss the anti-Bleacher Report crowd off), Super Bowl 25 was the greatest Super Bowl I ever saw (1973-present)...two teams, with contrasting styles, who, for the most part, played their game...but defense wins championships, as they say. Now, most games are shoot-outs, comebacks, collapses of monumental proportions...it is entertaining I suppose, but I don't think it really makes for a better game.

 

Man you are a sour old codger!

 

I'm just glad that the games are not the blowouts they used to be. There were probably at the most 5 good games in the first 35!

[Meathead]

He didn't need to, title said it all. Isn't it obvious why it could be of interest to bills fans?

 

well i wasnt really commenting on the op, i was just commenting on the theme that had developed just before my post

 

but still, link only posting is a message board scourge that should be avoided at all costs, regardless of how descriptive the title is. at least invest the four seconds it takes to cut and paste a blurb even if you dont want to provide any personal commentary