Super Bowl

[sabreklutz]

Elijah, (this isn't really directed at you, I'm just used to arguing with you!)
If all flaunting of sex and nudity should be banned from tv, one would also have to remove a huge percentage of the pieces in every fine arts museum in the world.
The only thing that really bothered me was that on the national news Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction" recieved more coverage than people being killed in verious regions of the world.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by darius
Manning doesn't throw well on the run, but Brady can't throw a 50 yard bullet, and neither of them can pretend to be a halfback like McNair.

Actually, Brady CAN throw bullets deep. not QUITE as well as manning, but he is MUCH closer to Manning in that regard than Manning is to him in throwing on the run. every time Manning was flushed in the AFC championship game, he turned the ball over. When brady throws deep, he doesn't create many turnovers, and errs in the proper direction (away from the DB) if at all.

The only statistic that means anything is wins. And there, the Pats are tops. But having that defense makes Brady's job much easier - he's in a position where he has to play to not lose the game, rather than light up the scoreboard.

here's my favorite stat about game management: Brady is UNDEFEATED in overtime games. in other words, if you give him a chance to win late, he WILL execute. defense helps there as well, granted, but the defensive effect is much lower. Also, remember that the Pats played a much harder schedule than the Colts this year (based on many things, including RPI), and ALWAYS did enough to win. rarely more, but always enough, be it 9-3 against the Browns, or 38-34 against the Colts. The flip side of your argument is that if Brady had the Colts Defense, he would try to run up the score, instead of using his running game to nowhere to burn clock and depend on defense to assure that 6 points is enough. look at how much more effective Brady is in last chance drives. do you think he's just THAT clutch? mind you, I think he's clutch, but it's also that they DON'T play for score, but rather clock control unless they NEED a score. I bet if you break it down his yards per play (and percentage of passing plays) is DRASTICALLY higher when the Pats are behind than when they're ahead.

to quote Bill Simmons: "When an athlete reaches a point where you expect them to come through, now you're getting somewhere." I really can't imagine I'd ever EXPECT Manning to come through in the clutch. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he did, but I wouldn't EXPECT it. The difference is that if Brady has four plays to get it in the endzone from the 1 to win the game, he'll do it. clearly the D has NOTHING to do with THAT.

You're right. I'm comparing to several years back, but they did not play well at all in the AFC Champ game.

they played just as well as they usually do, but they played against Washington and Seymour.

I know Dungy preaches speed over size on the D-line, but he had Sapp, who was both. I'd be going into the draft looking for a monstrous run stuffer.

Really, the Colts D needs a versatile linebacker in the mold of Derrick Brooks. We probably don't need a shutdown corner: Nick Harper has played amazingly well (he almost picked Brady twice in the AFC game).

Those are 3 pretty big holes, but the Colts defense is pretty good outside of that. A more disciplined Dwight Freeney oughta help, too.

darius

wow. colts d is pretty good besides the line, the linebackers, and the secondary?? good to know...

seriously, though, almost doesn't count, and more importantly, the colts secondary DOES need a shutdown corner. he may have come close on a few passes, but Brown still caught plenty. the fact is, he can't shutdown a receiver as good as Brown (which isn't that good), and every team needs at least one back who CAN shutdown a receiver. Law had more receptions from Manning than harrison. Law also took out Muhammad in the super bowl. it makes game planning SIGNIFICANTLY easier. EVERYBODY needs a shutdown corner. The Colts D has a LONG way to go. btw, Manning is 1-7 against Belichick, despite most of those games coming between a playoff team (colts) and a losing team (pats pre 2001). that tells me that Belichick OWNS him. and that he can be owned by a single coach, tells me that he has a pretty big hole in his game. Brady doesn't have a similar hole.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by achilleus
I remain skeptical of the hype, and here's why:

Kobe Bryant.

Considered the Heir Apparent, his game and stats were constantly being compared to Jordan. He won more championships, at a younger age, and his numbers, in some areas were more impressive. His future was predicted to be much brighter than Jordan's. Even though Jordan's career was considered inimitable.

Then one offseason, Kobe is derailed.

No one knows the future. It's fun to speculate. It's fun to argue about which team would win (2003-4 Patriots vs a past team), it's fun to talk about something besides a star shaped nipple cover.

But potential is just that. Brady is young, and he could surpass Montana. I, for one, would love to see it.

That's the way of the world, the youth eventually surpass their elders.

again, I think you're underestimating how good Montana was.

Kobe, while temporarily setback, has NOT been "derailed". that remains to be seen.

Additionally, I've never heard anybody say that Kobe would be better than Jordan. best I've heard is as good as. We have already seen players, imo, better than jordan. who would you rather start a team with: Jordan, or Bird?? My answer: Bird. he made everybody else better. Jordan is a SPECTACULAR player, and would probably beat Bird one on one, but this isn't a one on one game, and if you gave them each the same four teammates, my bet's on Bird (or Basketball Jesus, as Bill Simmons calls him).

-m

[epeemike81]

and the idiocy continues...

In response to the Janet Jackson debacle, NBC has cut a scene of a bare chested patient from tonights episode of ER. lest anybody make the mistake of thinking that this was "flaunting sexuality," the scene was of a middle aged woman unconcious on an operating table. While I don't particularly care whether or not a show I don't watch shows a bare chested middle aged woman, this is a GREAT example of the problem with censorship. to quote the West Wing: "Making sure the National Enquirer can write whatever it wants is the only way I can be sure The New York Times can write whatever it wants."

-m

[Soldier]

Definitely have to agree about the censorship. That's a perfect example of "it's a body, deal with it", versus "look, it's a breast, be shocked!"

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by epeemike81
and the idiocy continues...

In response to the Janet Jackson debacle, NBC has cut a scene of a bare chested patient from tonights episode of ER. lest anybody make the mistake of thinking that this was "flaunting sexuality," the scene was of a middle aged woman unconcious on an operating table. While I don't particularly care whether or not a show I don't watch shows a bare chested middle aged woman, this is a GREAT example of the problem with censorship. to quote the West Wing: "Making sure the National Enquirer can write whatever it wants is the only way I can be sure The New York Times can write whatever it wants."

-m

She wasn't a middle aged woman, btw, she was 80+, not something I wanted to see anyways.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Actually, Brady CAN throw bullets deep. not QUITE as well as manning, but he is MUCH closer to Manning in that regard than Manning is to him in throwing on the run. every time Manning was flushed in the AFC championship game, he turned the ball over. When brady throws deep, he doesn't create many turnovers, and errs in the proper direction (away from the DB) if at all.

here's my favorite stat about game management: Brady is UNDEFEATED in overtime games. in other words, if you give him a chance to win late, he WILL execute. defense helps there as well, granted, but the defensive effect is much lower. Also, remember that the Pats played a much harder schedule than the Colts this year (based on many things, including RPI), and ALWAYS did enough to win. rarely more, but always enough, be it 9-3 against the Browns, or 38-34 against the Colts. The flip side of your argument is that if Brady had the Colts Defense, he would try to run up the score, instead of using his running game to nowhere to burn clock and depend on defense to assure that 6 points is enough. look at how much more effective Brady is in last chance drives. do you think he's just THAT clutch? mind you, I think he's clutch, but it's also that they DON'T play for score, but rather clock control unless they NEED a score. I bet if you break it down his yards per play (and percentage of passing plays) is DRASTICALLY higher when the Pats are behind than when they're ahead.

to quote Bill Simmons: "When an athlete reaches a point where you expect them to come through, now you're getting somewhere." I really can't imagine I'd ever EXPECT Manning to come through in the clutch. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if he did, but I wouldn't EXPECT it. The difference is that if Brady has four plays to get it in the endzone from the 1 to win the game, he'll do it. clearly the D has NOTHING to do with THAT.
they played just as well as they usually do, but they played against Washington and Seymour.

wow. colts d is pretty good besides the line, the linebackers, and the secondary?? good to know...

seriously, though, almost doesn't count, and more importantly, the colts secondary DOES need a shutdown corner. he may have come close on a few passes, but Brown still caught plenty. the fact is, he can't shutdown a receiver as good as Brown (which isn't that good), and every team needs at least one back who CAN shutdown a receiver. Law had more receptions from Manning than harrison. Law also took out Muhammad in the super bowl. it makes game planning SIGNIFICANTLY easier. EVERYBODY needs a shutdown corner. The Colts D has a LONG way to go. btw, Manning is 1-7 against Belichick, despite most of those games coming between a playoff team (colts) and a losing team (pats pre 2001). that tells me that Belichick OWNS him. and that he can be owned by a single coach, tells me that he has a pretty big hole in his game. Brady doesn't have a similar hole.

-m

IIRC, Law had the SAME amount of receptions as Harrison off of Manning during th AFC CHampionship game. He just had more YAC, and total yards than Harrison.

[epeemike81]

Alright, Hell's freezing over... A member of n'sync said something at least slightly inciteful which I actually AGREE with! In response to being fired from the halftime show and then asked to sing the National Anthem instead, JC Chasez said:

"While I agree the mishap at the Super Bowl was a huge mistake, the NFL's shallow effort to portray my music as sexually indecent brings to mind another era when innocent artists were smeared with a broad brush by insecure but powerful people. That's not the America I love. Nor is this the NFL I love. I'll sing the national anthem anytime, anywhere, but not for this NFL."

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
She wasn't a middle aged woman, btw, she was 80+, not something I wanted to see anyways.

actually, that's not true. as one of the cast members involved in the scene put it "she was in her 60's when, worked with her, in her seventies by last nights news, and in here 80's by this morning, so I guess she's aging pretty fast." He happened to be on the Daily Show last night.

Her age, though, is ENTIRELY beside the point. the point is that censorship can lead to much worse things like ignorance, persecution of opposing viewpoints, and a secretive government. well... MORE ignorance, MORE persecution of opposing viewpoints, and a MORE secretive government. What was that West Wing quote you used to explain why you're a republican?

West Wing, Season 3, Episode 3 Ways and Means
I'm a republican because I believe in smaller government. this country was founded on the principle of freedom. Freedom stands opposed to constraints, and the bigger the government, the more the constraints.

So, as somebody who's against government constraints, can I assume you are APPALLED by the heavy handed action the FCC is attempting to take in dealing with this issue? As nice as the above sentiment is, it turns out that on nearly EVERY issue of personal freedom, the Republican party takes the view that MORE constraint is better ("Defense" of Marriage Act, flag burning, mandatory minimums). oh, wait... I'm sorry... I forgot guns! they ARE for more personal freedom there. the "smaller government" thing only comes into play when discussing social programs. even in the social programs, the want more constraint (for example, making money for public schools dependant on not distributing condoms, making foreign aid dependant on a gag order preventing the doctors in the clinics from even TALKING about abortion, or "marriage incentives" in welfare programs).

btw, it should be noted that the dialogue that follows that quote is:
Donna: Wow.
Cliff: You believe that?
Donna: No, it's crap, but you're really cute.
Cliff: yeah, I know.

While it's unclear whether cliff knows he's really cute, or knows it's crap, I think you can guess which I choose to believe.

-m

[achilleus]

Originally posted by epeemike81
again, I think you're underestimating how good Montana was.

No I'm not.

Originally posted by epeemike81
Kobe, while temporarily setback, has NOT been "derailed". that remains to be seen.

It's quite possible, and I'm hopeful that Kobe gets back on track. Derailed doesn't mean stopped forever. That's where the phrase 'back on track' comes into play.

Originally posted by epeemike81
Additionally, I've never heard anybody say that Kobe would be better than Jordan. best I've heard is as good as. We have already seen players, imo, better than jordan. who would you rather start a team with: Jordan, or Bird?? My answer: Bird. he made everybody else better. Jordan is a SPECTACULAR player, and would probably beat Bird one on one, but this isn't a one on one game, and if you gave them each the same four teammates, my bet's on Bird (or Basketball Jesus, as Bill Simmons calls him).

-m

A number of players and analysts have thought it might happen. The one I remember clearly was John Salley of the Best Damn SPorts Show who played under Phil Jackson with both Kobe and Jordan realized that Kobe's potential could take him past Jordan. He pointed out that time doesn't freeze.

As for Jordan vs. Bird, no question Jordan. Bird made his teamates better, but then again he was on team where everyone was a threat. (Mchale, Parrish, AInge...)

Jordan's greatness is more than just spectacular moves. He was the first small man to dominate basketball games without a big man present. The Bulls are the only team to win an NBA championship without a dominent big man.

Shaq and Kobe
Duncan and Robinson
Olajuwon
Lambier
Jabbar and Magic
Bird and Parish...

[achilleus]

To further continue the irrational discussionabout Jackson's breast.

I read the lamest article earlier.

AN opinion piece that claimed that what really has AMerica up in arms about the incident was the fact that it was a white man acting in sexually aggressive manner towards a black woman. And this act instantly reminded everyone about the horrors of slavery and rape.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by epeemike81

So, as somebody who's against government constraints, can I assume you are APPALLED by the heavy handed action the FCC is attempting to take in dealing with this issue?

Yup

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Yup

wow. yet another thing you disagree with this administration on... remind me again: how many of these do we have to find before you vote against them???

-m

[Soldier]

I also disagree with the current level of media control the FCC exercises. However, you can't blame it on "this administration". There's still large liberal sections of government, even if the White House is conservative. Even the president can't go through and change the whole government to how he sees fit - God help us if he could. Can you imagine a president trying to go through every four or eight years and not just get elected, but once in office, go through and switch over every part of the government to his own views? Nothing would ever get done. The same FCC people you're blaming were there under Clinton, I'm sure, and probably Bush, Sr. You can't blame everything on "this administration". Everybody's got to pick their battles, and that includes the president. I personally think a lot of the requirements the FCC puts on getting a broadcast license are unconstitutional, but I'm not about to blame it on any one administration.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Soldier
I also disagree with the current level of media control the FCC exercises. However, you can't blame it on "this administration". There's still large liberal sections of government, even if the White House is conservative. Even the president can't go through and change the whole government to how he sees fit - God help us if he could. Can you imagine a president trying to go through every four or eight years and not just get elected, but once in office, go through and switch over every part of the government to his own views? Nothing would ever get done. The same FCC people you're blaming were there under Clinton, I'm sure, and probably Bush, Sr. You can't blame everything on "this administration". Everybody's got to pick their battles, and that includes the president. I personally think a lot of the requirements the FCC puts on getting a broadcast license are unconstitutional, but I'm not about to blame it on any one administration.

actually, the pressure on this one is coming from Powell, who WAS appointed by this administration. it's part and parcel of the same attitude which led to Ashcroft draping bare breasted statues when he took over at justice.

Though there ARE clearly parts of the government not appointed by this administration, it IS Bush appointees pushing this issue. btw, are you REALLY under the impression that it's liberals who are for more censorship????

-m

[Soldier]

Censorship of what? Things that people might find offensive - everything from bare breasted statues or Superbowl singers to some of the most profane "art" around, or censorship of opposing viewpoints? I'll concede that conservatives do more of the former, but will ascribe more of the latter - which I deem more harmful - more to the liberals.

I will grant that parts of this administration are pushing the censorship. But can you really tell me that a Democratic administration wouldn't? The issues also extend beyond that. Even if you were to tell me that a Democratic administration wouldn't (which I would highly doubt), I'm speaking of censorship in general - the parts that have been there so long we don't even think of them.

Personally, I agree with KShan in wanting smaller government - much smaller government. While this administration (as any that will ever come into power) is guilty of reaching into places they should probably leave to us, I will assert that they do so to a much lesser extent than a Democratic administration would. I also think I'm going to start using the term 'regime', since it's shorter and easier to type than 'administration'. But I digress.

Ideally, I would see the United States dissolved into a lot of city-states. And the same with France, and Iraq, and actually every other nation-state on the planet. When you've got a population of perhaps a few thousand, it's harder to kill on the scale we currently do. Yes, I'm in the military, but I'm about protecting people. If killing is necessary to do so, then I'll do it. But break it back down to city-states, and killing for protection will be on a much smaller scale.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by epeemike81
wow. yet another thing you disagree with this administration on... remind me again: how many of these do we have to find before you vote against them???

-m

Not quite sure it matters if you can prove Bush is Clinton re-born, I still won't vote against them. Then again I won't vote for them either seeing as how I'll be a few monthes to young to vote this November.