Other video games, TV shows, movies, general chit-chat...this is an all-purpose off-topic board where you can talk about anything that doesn't have its own dedicated section.
Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:48 pm
Oznogrd wrote:Also: the halftime show was horrid
Was it? I keep seeing this criticism, but I didn't really see anything wrong with it. Of course, I also don't care the slightest little bit about music, which may have something to do with that.
Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:43 pm
A) halftime show was waay better imo, finally with people that don't belong in a retirement home. (ahem, i blame you, JT & Janet)
B) the game was very exciting for me because i really wanted the packers to win AND they lost Woodson to a broken collarbone in the 2nd quarter.
all in all, a great game, close throughout and a stellar performance for rodgers, who didn't even make the pro bowl but i think he'll take the ring over the pro bowl any day
Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:40 am
Ok so what are the black eyed peas? pop with hip-hop/rap influences? My criticism of it: it sounded like shit, none of the stuff they did made sense outside of the "LOVE" on the stage (fergie trying to sound like axl rose was just brutal). The old guys were boring but at least they didnt do bad impersonations of other people
And as far as the game being exciting, the steelers never really felt like they were coming back even when it was down to a 3 point game. he execution wasnt there and they were just sloppy the majority of the game. Not for a single moment did I think Godgers didnt have everything under control
Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:32 am
for me there was tension because green bay this season would get out to big leads and then run the ball into the ground which allows the other team to make a comeback. big ben with all of his experience has made plenty of comebacks, plus one of their best defenders was out for the rest of the game.
Wed Feb 09, 2011 9:28 am
The game was exciting? Ben played like garbage, and the Packers played average. I was bored halfway into the game.
Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:16 pm
Houndy wrote:The game was exciting? Ben played like garbage, and the Packers played average. I was bored halfway into the game.
/co-sign
My god i just agreed with houndy.
*looks outside for armageddon*
Ok we're still safe
Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:40 pm
Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:45 pm
Houndy wrote:Ben played like garbage
half of the reason why i found the game to be exciting. i was rooting for GB
Houndy wrote:and the Packers played average
um Aaron Rodgers passing for 300+ yds & 3 TDs (should've been 400+ with all the drops) on an elite defense? a collins pick six & matthews forcing the lost fumble with the former DPOY on the sidelines?
Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:07 am
Qballer wrote:Houndy wrote:Ben played like garbage
half of the reason why i found the game to be exciting. i was rooting for GB
Houndy wrote:and the Packers played average
um Aaron Rodgers passing for 300+ yds & 3 TDs (should've been 400+ with all the drops) on an elite defense? a collins pick six & matthews forcing the lost fumble with the former DPOY on the sidelines?
Your second reason is because of my first reason. Ben played like garbage, so Aaron Rodgers looked good.
Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:02 am
Houndy wrote:Your second reason is because of my first reason. Ben played like garbage, so Aaron Rodgers looked good.
You realize you just named the two players that probably are actually completely independent of each others performances? That doesnt make any sense. Rodgers looked good because despite his receivers pretending like it was dodgeball and not football, he still had no pick, 3 tds and 300 yards. Ben wasnt THAT bad. He just didnt have anyone to go to. You can't win 1 on 11 and thats what ben was having to do.
Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:26 am
After Super Bowl XLIII, I wasn't about to ever assume the Steelers weren't going to win.
Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:13 am
Oznogrd wrote:Houndy wrote:Your second reason is because of my first reason. Ben played like garbage, so Aaron Rodgers looked good.
You realize you just named the two players that probably are actually completely independent of each others performances? That doesnt make any sense. Rodgers looked good because despite his receivers pretending like it was dodgeball and not football, he still had no pick, 3 tds and 300 yards. Ben wasnt THAT bad. He just didnt have anyone to go to. You can't win 1 on 11 and thats what ben was having to do.
True, I was surprised Mike Wallace didn't do anything.
Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:30 am
So the CBA negotiations are sucking ass and everyone's fighting over 1 billion dollars.
Prepare to have nothing happen in the NFL for a long time folks...
Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:48 am
Houndy wrote:Oznogrd wrote:Houndy wrote:Your second reason is because of my first reason. Ben played like garbage, so Aaron Rodgers looked good.
You realize you just named the two players that probably are actually completely independent of each others performances? That doesnt make any sense. Rodgers looked good because despite his receivers pretending like it was dodgeball and not football, he still had no pick, 3 tds and 300 yards. Ben wasnt THAT bad. He just didnt have anyone to go to. You can't win 1 on 11 and thats what ben was having to do.
True, I was surprised Mike Wallace didn't do anything.
yeah you made it sound like ben was the nose tackle going after rodgers or something.
and it seemed like wallace was thrown to maybe less than 4 times.
i think it's pathetic that the owners want 18 games. week 17 is shitty enough as it is, we don't need any more. greedy bastards.
Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:06 am
Qballer wrote:i think it's pathetic that the owners want 18 games. week 17 is shitty enough as it is, we don't need any more. greedy bastards.
It doesnt extend the regular season at all. They're just converting 2 preseason games to regular season because nobody watches preseason.
I will say though: they are being greedy bastards. You can't ask people to play this sport more AND take their healthcare.
Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:52 am
I personally think 16 games is enough, and if we had a L.A. team, revenue would be up so much, it wouldn't be funny.
Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:58 am
yeah but starters only play like half of game 3 of the preseason anyways. players get hurt every week. it would suck for more (star) players to get hurt
Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:12 am
Don't hate the players, this whole mess is on the owners.
(from Drew Brees):
"The NFL brought this fight to us – they want $1 billion back, we just want financial information to back up that request. They refuse to give that information to us. They think we should just trust them. Would you?"
From everything I've read and heard, this whole mess seems to be driven by the owners at the bottom(guys like Mike Brown & Jerry Richardson). They're not making as much as the top owners(Jerry Jones, Snyder & the Maras), so they want givebacks from the players.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... _over.html
Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:04 am
sounds about right. that's pretty much the situation with the NBA (Kings, Bucks, small market teams not named San Antonio)
one of their solutions is an 18 game season but that just sucks for players. players get hurt every week and it's one more opportunity to get hurt. the only way i could see it working is if starters don't play at all in preseason instead of playing the 3rd game every preseason
Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:15 am
i was completely on the players side until i saw this article (
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-players/) (i know its biased cuz its made by the NFL but still)..but the owners completely gave the players everything except MAYBE how much the owners take off the top..hm
Not sure if De Smith ever truly wanted a deal. I dont trust him. Love the players, just not sure if De Smith's agenda is to look out for the players or make the owners look bad.
Really hope this shit gets resolved
Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:22 am
when i was talking about the 18 game season in the post above, for some reason i thought it was 1 extra game. i forgot the season is 17 weeks long with 16 games so it's actually TWO extra games which seems like a lot. week 17 is already pretty pointless as it is, don't think they need to extend the season. man, both sides are making tons of money so i think the real loser in all this would be the fans. the UFL (United Football League) was set up to last until this summer in hopes of an NFL lockout so they could possibly get more NFL talent into their league. i wonder if people would actually watch it or if they'd still ignore it since it isn't the NFL in the same way we treat women's basketball... the "it ain't real basketball" type argument.
Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:47 pm
Qballer wrote:sounds about right. that's pretty much the situation with the NBA (Kings, Bucks, small market teams not named San Antonio)
one of their solutions is an 18 game season but that just sucks for players. players get hurt every week and it's one more opportunity to get hurt. the only way i could see it working is if starters don't play at all in preseason instead of playing the 3rd game every preseason
18 games is a fucking joke. These cats can't even make it through 16. It's all about the owners not being able to sell pre-season games. What about the long-term health of the players?
Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:32 am
maybe if pre-season games weren't the 4th and 5th string guys struggling for a spot they'd sell better? Or lower the cost. A pre-season game is not the same caliber as a regular season game. Cut the price in half and maybe people will show.
Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:10 pm
John Lucas is such a quitter.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.