erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 First, it's totally MY job to rip Eryn for his spelling and grammar. I've been doing it for years. He's actually light years ahead of where he used to be - as hard to believe as that may be. Second, I know Eryn. Crack would improve his typing. He's not exactly a cunning linguist. 364763[/snapback] I showed this post to my wife. She say's( for what ever reason ) that I grajumated magnum cum lager from the university of CL. I'll be looking to pick up some crack later. If the wife will let me
erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 "EryRetard"? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? 364730[/snapback] Sorry, I'm not to fond of people that are Red Sox fans, they smell.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 First, it's totally MY job to rip Eryn for his spelling and grammar. I've been doing it for years. He's actually light years ahead of where he used to be - as hard to believe as that may be. Second, I know Eryn. Crack would improve his typing. He's not exactly a cunning linguist. 364763[/snapback] He DID get a new keyboard...the "e" works. So does the "w". I think Bill is bringing us all down to the lowest common spelling denominator. Let's pick on Bill. He stirs up easy.
erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 As opposed to your very high brow "put down the crack pipe" reset? 364757[/snapback] Forgive him, he's got RJ in his handle, plus a rainbow flag in his profile. Not that there is anything wrong with that
Ghost of BiB Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I showed this post to my wife. She say's( for what ever reason ) that I grajumated magnum cum lager from the university of CL. I'll be looking to pick up some crack later. If the wife will let me 364783[/snapback] I've met your wife. No doubt you have something going to get her. Pretty Lady. You sharing the crack? Hey, it's Wednsday.
Alaska Darin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Now on the other hand I'll have to concede to you anything "obivous" since among the 5 languages I speak fluently you've discovered a word I'm unfamiliar with. Perhaps you'd care to explain it to all of us? 364710[/snapback] When Tom and I finish the translating "Potato Head" to English, you'll get an early copy. It's an arduous process because the interviews have to be short - for obvious reasons.
Alaska Darin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Sorry, I'm not to fond of people that are Red Sox fans, they smell. 364786[/snapback] Like vinegar and water?
erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Like vinegar and water? 364795[/snapback] Is this a douche bag reference Nice one
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 A win is a win364777[/snapback] You're within grasp of the golden ring- Yes, a win is a win. And a squeaker is a squeaker. And a squeaker of a win can never be characterized as "dominant" as those before you have insisted, and a non-dominant champ can never be characterized as a dynasty as those before you have insisted. Otherwise the world still spins on an axis 23.5 degrees from vertical once every 24 hours and the Pats have won three Super Bowls without dominating a single one, leaving them the poorest candidate among all NFL champions in the history of the sport to be considered a "dynasty".
OJ's Glove Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Take into account anything you want, there's simply no way a 3-point win in football qualifies as "dominant" in my dictionary or yours regardless of the level of competition. You either dominate an opponent or you don't, and a field goal kicker's margin of error will never crest the level of "dominant". Jan Stenerud never dominated a game anymore than Adam Viniatieri, and your championships were won by AV- whether you are willing to admit that or not. 5 Super Bowls over 14 years- I'd argue THAT'S exactly what the term "dynasty" means- Lombardi won three consecutive championships with the same team- not a dynasty until another generation of Packers went on to win the trophy. 364417[/snapback] A few things: The Steelers had several key players there for all 4 Titles, including Bradshaw and Joe Greene. Are you actually giving the Niners credit for taking so long to win five? If the Patriots happen to do the same thing in fewer years, they don't qualify? The Packers won championships before Lombardi under Curly Lambeau. That's what helps cement them as a dynasty, not Favre. Lombardi's era qualifies as a dynasty all by itself. Also: The problem I have is that you're cherry-picking this one statistic, and invested it with an amount of importance that I don't think it deserves. If feel like people are responding, but not talking about the central point of the disparity or lack of disparity between the conferences. It isn't a coincidence that the NFC won 13 Super Bowls in a row. Former Giant Steve DeOssie always said that he and his teammates considered a game against an AFC team to be almost like a week off. The NFC dominance at that time was staggering. the 13 in a row was no fluke. So why are you investing blow-outs in the Super Bowl with such importance? If you come out of the dominant conference, and your opponent is the weak-sister survivor of the inferior conference, why should we be impressed by soundly beating them? That's what should happen in most cases. The salary cap has basically helped to eliminate the lopsided dominance of one conference. The result is that the SB is more likely to be competitive. I know Bills fans have a vested interest in talking up the 90's Cowboys, because the greater they are the less it reflects badly on the Bills. But we need to admit how weak the AFC was and not pretend that it doesn't matter. These days, that isn't the case. No one can argue that the Rams or the Eagles didn't belong in the Super Bowl, and even arguing the Panthers is debatable. Dominance needs to be determined by looking at the whole package, not at one piece of data that supports your argument. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Patriots were in the NFC and not the AFC. If they had beaten the Eagles in the Conference Championship Game 24-21, and then soundly beaten the Steelers (41-27) or the Colts (20-3) in the Super Bowl, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But that's just the dumb luck of which team happens to be in which conference. It shouldn't reflect badly on the team that ultimately wins. The Patriots are 34-4 over two seasons. They won 21 straight. When Carolina briefly went slightly ahead of them in SB 38, it was the first time they had even trailed in a game since before Thanksgiving. Brady is 57-14 as a starter, and in the one season the Patriots didn't win the SB (2002), he still led the league in TD passes. We need to stop looking at one debatable stat of questionable importance, an instead take everything into account.
IDBillzFan Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I grajumated magnum cum lager from the university of CL. 364783[/snapback] You went to the University of Cablelady?
erynthered Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 You went to the University of Cablelady? 364805[/snapback] For saying that I have one thing to say to you: The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Are you actually giving the Niners credit for taking so long to win five? If the Patriots happen to do the same thing in fewer years, they don't qualify? The NFC dominance at that time was staggering. 364803[/snapback] I'm giving credit where credit is due to one Mr. Daniel Webster who proclaimed the multigenerational foundation of the word "dynasty". The only difference between the a-whipping the AFC has been putting on NFC teams during the Pats run verus the opposite situation when the NFC was the dominant conference is that their champs were whipping on all the AFC teams in the big game. Today, when the AFC is regularly pounding the NFC all season long (AFC won a staggering .688 against the NFC in '04 reg. season) we are forced to suffer through the embarrasment of watching the Pats limp through field goal squeakers under the same circumstances where the past NFC champs exhibited domination.
OJ's Glove Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 I'm giving credit where credit is due to one Mr. Daniel Webster who proclaimed the multigenerational foundation of the word "dynasty". The only difference between the a-whipping the AFC has been putting on NFC teams during the Pats run verus the opposite situation when the NFC was the dominant conference is that their champs were whipping on all the AFC teams in the big game. Today, when the AFC is regularly pounding the NFC all season long we are forced to suffer through the embarrasment of watching the Pats limp to field goal wins under the same circumstances the former NFC champs showed domination under. 364808[/snapback] You're wrong, and using the wrong numbers to back yourself up. There has been no dominant conference since the salary cap started.There just hasn't. In the 80's and 90's, you could argue that five teams were head and shoulders above the rest: Dallas, SF, Giants, Redskins and Packers. They are all in the same conference, not to mention the Bears for one year. That didn't mean that a crappy NFC team was better than a crappy AFC team, and the results should reflect that. The NFC was dominant because their TOP teams - several of them - were superior to anything the AFC offered. How the conferences competed top to bottom isn't relevant. Interconference records taken as a whole don't matter. There is no analogous situation today. You will find plenty of people willing to argue that the Eagles aren't quite as good as the Patriots, but they're possibly better than the Steelers and Colts. You won't find the same situation looking back at when the NFC dominated the big game. You're giving to much weight to blowing out an inferior team in the Super Bowl, and not enough weight to beating a team close to your own level in the Super Bowl. The laltter situation is what is happening now. The Cowboys of the 90's did have teams close to their own level, but they just had to play them before the Super Bowl instead of at the Super Bowl.
AKC Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 You're wrong, and using the wrong numbers to back yourself up. 364813[/snapback] You oughta do a little homework before second guessing me ;-) AFC Domination In fact, not only does the linked article support my numbers to the EXACT percentage, it further points out that the AFC domination was greater (or to use your phrase "more staggering") than AT ANY TIME DURING THE NFC PERIOD YOU REST YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT UPON! This surely does beg the question- ARE THE PATS THE WEAKEST SUPER BOWL CHAMPS EVER? Hey- Thanks for the tipoff on opposing conference strength! I never would have bothered considering that angle if you Patsy fans hadn't taken the losing side of the "Pat's Dynasty" argument and kept on arguing it even after it was clearly out of your reach! How interesting to find out that conference strength ALSO lends further support to the "weak champion" position.
kegtapr Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Damn, missed a good thread. Those Hulk Hogan videos have a way of making you lose track of time.
Ghost of BiB Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Damn, missed a good thread. Those Hulk Hogan videos have a way of making you lose track of time. 364841[/snapback] I only made it through 6 out of 7,000 hours before I was hit with corrosive blood agent out of the predator drone's HARMs. But I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so I slapped some Gitmo prisoners around, because...Hey. I'm the man! And if you don't like it, be a man and tell me I'm a raving idiot to my face! I'll beat you up. THAT's....what makes you a man!
Tux of Borg Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Damn, missed a good thread. Those Hulk Hogan videos have a way of making you lose track of time. 364841[/snapback] Don't worry... i heard that the Hulkster has a reality TV series coming out.
RJsackedagain Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Forgive him, he's got RJ in his handle, plus a rainbow flag in his profile.Not that there is anything wrong with that 364788[/snapback] Rainbow flag huh? .... Damn, your wife has no complaints when I stop over to "visit with her". I think she likes having a real man around for a change!
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Rainbow flag huh? .... Damn, your wife has no complaints when I stop over to "visit with her". I think she likes having a real man around for a change! 365003[/snapback] Using the mother of another man's children as the punchline to a putdown is rarely funny. It's even less funny when you couldn't pick the man out of a lineup. A word to the wise.
Recommended Posts