Losing on a sucker play in ANY sport.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Losing on a sucker play in ANY sport.

Ok, I don't care what sport you are into or what team you root for. Is it just me, or would you rather suffer a blowout than lose a close game on what amounts to a middle school playground sucker play "Made you look" "Your shoe is untied" play?

That is exactly what happened to Dallas this weekend against Detroit. It wasn't that Detroit got it to the 1 yard line, but that Dallas fell for the fake spike only to have the Detroit QB put the ball over the goal line to win at the last second.

 

What happened in that game was like falling for a fake extra point or flee flicker. It does happen, but should not happen.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If Dallas had a time out

If Dallas had a time out they should have called it. It might not have changed the outcome, but why the fuck would you not in that context call one?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
it wasn't a trick play. he

it wasn't a trick play. he audibled a spike then realized he could take it in because dallas was not even in their set positions.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:it

digitalbeachbum wrote:

it wasn't a trick play. he audibled a spike then realized he could take it in because dallas was not even in their set positions.

Yes it was, a gamble it was, but he was betting that the defense would buy the spike to stop the play. BECAUSE of what you said, to catch them off guard. It WAS a trick play, and it worked.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
So, football offenses should

So, football offenses should only make plays the defense expects? Guess we should throw out play action, option and quarterback draws too. That cheater Peyton Manning should be banned for routinely snapping the ball before the defense is ready, it isn't fair.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

it wasn't a trick play. he audibled a spike then realized he could take it in because dallas was not even in their set positions.

Yes it was, a gamble it was, but he was betting that the defense would buy the spike to stop the play. BECAUSE of what you said, to catch them off guard. It WAS a trick play, and it worked.

After the game the interviewed him and he said that he was going to spike the ball but he saw that Dallas was just standing there, flat footed, so he decided to go for it.

Who cares? You are a Skins Fan... you should be happy Dallas lost.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So,

Beyond Saving wrote:

So, football offenses should only make plays the defense expects? Guess we should throw out play action, option and quarterback draws too. That cheater Peyton Manning should be banned for routinely snapping the ball before the defense is ready, it isn't fair.

 

Oh my god this is soooooo stupid. The entire game depends on schemes and misdirection. I am talking about odds of a play working that if one side is paying attention, should make it a low yield play when you are paying attention. Where the fuck did I say that play was cheating? I said it was a sucker play. I never said it was cheating.

 

As in Homer Simpson DOH!  Not "they cheated".

 

I thought that was a funny as hell loss for Dallas being a Redskins fan, but I wouldn't want the Redskins to loss like that. Never claimed it should be banned.

See unlike you, I understand what is fair. You'd be the type to run the WWE where it is all scripted and you pick the winners. Just like your economic views.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh my god this

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my god this is soooooo stupid. The entire game depends on schemes and misdirection.

No shit, that is my point. There is a lot of misdirection in the game and you are whining about this one play because.... it was tricky?

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am talking about odds of a play working that if one side is paying attention, should make it a low yield play when you are paying attention.

It isn't a low yield play. Stafford essentially converted the spike into a QB sneak, which is the play with the highest success rate in 1 yard situations- it has an 80% success rate, higher than any other play within 1 yard. Even if he had spiked the ball, calling a QB sneak would have been a good call. Since he noticed the defense was not prepared, the play had a higher than average chance of success. It isn't anywhere near say a successful Hail Mary pass. Sure, the defense expected a spike because most teams spike there, but I don't see how that is different than deciding to pass on 3rd and 1 or deciding to run on 3rd and 17- plays that sometimes pay high dividends because the defense is caught unprepared but are risky. Hell, Peyton's rushing touchdown against the Cowboys was a lot more tricky because Peyton never scrambles. The Cowboys should be embarrassed that they got caught with their pants down again.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Where the fuck did I say that play was cheating? I said it was a sucker play. I never said it was cheating.

 

You said it "shouldn't happen" and seem to be implying that it was somehow unfair.

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

See unlike you, I understand what is fair.

Fair is a word used by little kids and liberals. Life isn't fair and football certainly isn't. I think watching fair football would be extremely boring.

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You'd be the type to run the WWE where it is all scripted and you pick the winners. Just like your economic views.

How do you get that from anything I have ever said?

Remember, I am the "NO RULES" "ANARCHY" guy who has no sympathy for the loser at all. The WWE is an example of fairness, the winners are rotated and everyone gets their turn to win. Those who stick with it and work hard get their time in the sun. I am more of the UFC type where a champion might win a ridiculous number of fights in a row and many people fight their entire lives without ever getting a major fight because they simply are not good enough. Where someone might be dominating the entire fight, then get their ass knocked out with a single lucky punch from a clearly inferior fighter. I'm not the one whining because a team got caught flat footed and their opponent took advantage of it. Hell, I miss the pre-Zuffa UFC when they didn't have weight classes before the fucking politicians decided they needed to get involved and make it "fair".

The WWE is an example of YOUR utopia of heavy regulation and fairness, where the "little guy" gets a shot even if they don't have the skills.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Oh my god this is soooooo stupid. The entire game depends on schemes and misdirection.

No shit, that is my point. There is a lot of misdirection in the game and you are whining about this one play because.... it was tricky?

 

Brian37 wrote:

I am talking about odds of a play working that if one side is paying attention, should make it a low yield play when you are paying attention.

It isn't a low yield play. Stafford essentially converted the spike into a QB sneak, which is the play with the highest success rate in 1 yard situations- it has an 80% success rate, higher than any other play within 1 yard. Even if he had spiked the ball, calling a QB sneak would have been a good call. Since he noticed the defense was not prepared, the play had a higher than average chance of success. It isn't anywhere near say a successful Hail Mary pass. Sure, the defense expected a spike because most teams spike there, but I don't see how that is different than deciding to pass on 3rd and 1 or deciding to run on 3rd and 17- plays that sometimes pay high dividends because the defense is caught unprepared but are risky. Hell, Peyton's rushing touchdown against the Cowboys was a lot more tricky because Peyton never scrambles. The Cowboys should be embarrassed that they got caught with their pants down again.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Where the fuck did I say that play was cheating? I said it was a sucker play. I never said it was cheating.

 

You said it "shouldn't happen" and seem to be implying that it was somehow unfair.

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

See unlike you, I understand what is fair.

Fair is a word used by little kids and liberals. Life isn't fair and football certainly isn't. I think watching fair football would be extremely boring.

 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You'd be the type to run the WWE where it is all scripted and you pick the winners. Just like your economic views.

How do you get that from anything I have ever said?

Remember, I am the "NO RULES" "ANARCHY" guy who has no sympathy for the loser at all. The WWE is an example of fairness, the winners are rotated and everyone gets their turn to win. Those who stick with it and work hard get their time in the sun. I am more of the UFC type where a champion might win a ridiculous number of fights in a row and many people fight their entire lives without ever getting a major fight because they simply are not good enough. Where someone might be dominating the entire fight, then get their ass knocked out with a single lucky punch from a clearly inferior fighter. I'm not the one whining because a team got caught flat footed and their opponent took advantage of it. Hell, I miss the pre-Zuffa UFC when they didn't have weight classes before the fucking politicians decided they needed to get involved and make it "fair".

The WWE is an example of YOUR utopia of heavy regulation and fairness, where the "little guy" gets a shot even if they don't have the skills.

BULLSHIT, the WWE is scripted, the owners pick the winners, based on who they think will lead the gullible watchers to the advertisers.

 

In the NFL it is NOT scripted and both sides have the same rules they play by.

 

NO! THE WWE IS an example of your UTOPIA where the owner controls everything.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Fair is a word used by

Quote:
Fair is a word used by little kids and liberals. Life isn't fair and football certainly isn't.

 

"Life isn't fair" NO FUCKING SHIT,

 

But people like you take that as license to fuck other people over, then when they beat you in an election you use the same line "life is not fair"

 

WE WON YOU LOST SO GROW UP! After all "life is not fair".

 

OBAMA WON "Life is not fair"

 

See how that works?

 

Say what you really mean, "It is fair when I get what I want", THAT is what you really mean. The only child here is you.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BULLSHIT, the

Brian37 wrote:

BULLSHIT, the WWE is scripted, the owners pick the winners, based on who they think will lead the gullible watchers to the advertisers.

Yes, in other words, the winner is not winning because of their skill or ability.

 

Brian37 wrote:

In the NFL it is NOT scripted and both sides have the same rules they play by.

 

Exactly, which is why I think it is ridiculous that you are whining about the play being unfair. It was an intelligent decision and it was well within the rules of the game.

 

Brian37 wrote:

NO! THE WWE IS an example of your UTOPIA where the owner controls everything.

I don't support owners controlling everything. I believe that is a terrible way to run a business, and if you ever read anything I have written about running a business, it is something I advise against. I am not a majority owner in any of my businesses, I prefer to invest and allow others to have the responsibility of making those decisions. My management style is to give employees tasks with goals and leave it to them to figure out the best way to achieve it. I don't care to work hard enough to micromanage or handhold- I am lazy. 

And obviously, I am against government, and one of the main reasons is that I do not believe it is effective or desirable to have a decision maker at the top trying to control everything. 

I do support the WWE's right to control everything from the top down if they want. I also support the right of any company to set itself up as a communist system or whatever other design they want regardless of what I think. I don't think I should have any say whatsoever over what they do except for choosing whether or not to be a fan. I am not a fan of WWE, I am a fan of MMA. If I were going to start a company in the fighting world, it would look more along the lines of the UFC than the WWE.

The difference between you and me is that I do not think I have the right to impose my beliefs of what works best, what is moral, or what is fair on anyone. I think everyone should be free to decide what they want to do themselves, even if I think it is a bad idea. I might tell you I think it is a bad idea, but I would never do anything to force you to do what I think is best. I think the WWE is a shitty company that produces a shitty product, but they can do what they want and apparently, enough people like their shitty product.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Life isn't

Brian37 wrote:

"Life isn't fair" NO FUCKING SHIT,

 

So why are you whining about a play in a football game being unfair?

 

Brian37 wrote:

But people like you take that as license to fuck other people over, then when they beat you in an election you use the same line "life is not fair"

 

WE WON YOU LOST SO GROW UP! After all "life is not fair".

 

OBAMA WON "Life is not fair"

 

See how that works?

 

Yeah, Obama won, life isn't fair. I am living with it. Have you seen me whining somewhere about how unfair it is that Obama won? Have I demanded a recount? A recall? Have I ever suggested Obama be impeached? Have I ever suggested we should get rid of elections because I didn't get what I wanted? Nope. The odds of the guy I voted for winning were 0%- why if he did win, I would think that someone had tampered with the machines. I know I am going to lose at the voting booth, and you have never seen me whine about it. I may have pointed out a time or two how fucking stupid all of you who vote for either major party are and you all really deserve to get exactly what you voted for, it is just sad that you are hurting a lot of other people along the way, some of whom I care for a lot.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Say what you really mean, "It is fair when I get what I want", THAT is what you really mean. The only child here is you.

No, I definitely wanted the Cowboys to win, I was rather pissed off when they lost because it cost me the bar tab. That on top of my Jets getting absolutely crushed led to a high bar tab and a very sad football day for me, which was piled on top of my favorite bartender taking the day off. I didn't get anything I wanted, if I believed in God I would have concluded I did something to piss him off. But hey, life isn't fair. I'm not the one whining about the Lions play. It was a smart play and they won straight up.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Life isn't fair" NO FUCKING SHIT,

 

So why are you whining about a play in a football game being unfair?

 

Brian37 wrote:

But people like you take that as license to fuck other people over, then when they beat you in an election you use the same line "life is not fair"

 

WE WON YOU LOST SO GROW UP! After all "life is not fair".

 

OBAMA WON "Life is not fair"

 

See how that works?

 

Yeah, Obama won, life isn't fair. I am living with it. Have you seen me whining somewhere about how unfair it is that Obama won? Have I demanded a recount? A recall? Have I ever suggested Obama be impeached? Have I ever suggested we should get rid of elections because I didn't get what I wanted? Nope. The odds of the guy I voted for winning were 0%- why if he did win, I would think that someone had tampered with the machines. I know I am going to lose at the voting booth, and you have never seen me whine about it. I may have pointed out a time or two how fucking stupid all of you who vote for either major party are and you all really deserve to get exactly what you voted for, it is just sad that you are hurting a lot of other people along the way, some of whom I care for a lot.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Say what you really mean, "It is fair when I get what I want", THAT is what you really mean. The only child here is you.

No, I definitely wanted the Cowboys to win, I was rather pissed off when they lost because it cost me the bar tab. That on top of my Jets getting absolutely crushed led to a high bar tab and a very sad football day for me, which was piled on top of my favorite bartender taking the day off. I didn't get anything I wanted, if I believed in God I would have concluded I did something to piss him off. But hey, life isn't fair. I'm not the one whining about the Lions play. It was a smart play and they won straight up.

Quote:
Yeah, Obama won, life isn't fair. I am living with it. Have you seen me whining somewhere about how unfair it is

All the fucking time. You have been acting like a sour loser brat since day one of his first election.

Quote:
I'm not the one whining about the Lions play. It was a smart play and they won straight up.

 

Go back and read my posts. You are stupidly equating "sucker play" to cheating. I wasn't whining about the play at all, I laughed my ass off.

It WAS a smart play on the Lions part, but it also was a huge risk and a low yield play, like a fake field goal, or flee flicker. THAT is what I meant by "sucker play".

Now if the Redskins had lost on that play to the Lions, I WOULD NOT BE MAD AT THE LIONS, I would be mad at the Redskins for letting the Lions go "Your shoe is untied. Made you look".

Please tell me you are not that dense. A "sucker play" is funny when other teams fall for it or a rival falls for it, but it is never fun if your team falls for it. That is not the same as calling it cheating.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Go back and

Brian37 wrote:

Go back and read my posts. You are stupidly equating "sucker play" to cheating. I wasn't whining about the play at all, I laughed my ass off.

It WAS a smart play on the Lions part, but it also was a huge risk and a low yield play, like a fake field goal, or flee flicker. THAT is what I meant by "sucker play".

Now if the Redskins had lost on that play to the Lions, I WOULD NOT BE MAD AT THE LIONS, I would be mad at the Redskins for letting the Lions go "Your shoe is untied. Made you look".

Please tell me you are not that dense. A "sucker play" is funny when other teams fall for it or a rival falls for it, but it is never fun if your team falls for it. That is not the same as calling it cheating.

 

Sorry I misinterpreted you. I don't agree it was a low yield play- Qb sneaks work 80% of the time within 1 yard and would have been a likely call after the spike anyway. But whatever, clearly the cowboys were caught unprepared.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:All the

Brian37 wrote:

All the fucking time. You have been acting like a sour loser brat since day one of his first election.

Well let us see, to the RRS DeLorean!

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33295

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

  Huh, well I'm surprised. I'm part of almost a full percent (Johnson has around .97% now) and here in Ohio the independent candidate for the Senate got 5% not bad considering he did virtually no advertising and was excluded from the debates. Well enjoy another four years. 

don't worry - you've lost nothing in this.

Come on JC, he has every right to worry. Now that that black secret Muslim commie has won  ONCE AGAIN there is nothing stopping us Stalin loving nanny state huggers from knocking down his door and stripping him of his wallet and taking away his private business.

MUEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

We're here Beyond , our cooties are spreading and there is no escape!

To quote the cerial killer in "Silence Of The Lambs" "It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose".

Nah, I'm not worried, I am confident in my ability to take care of myself whatever D.C. does and I don't rely on anyone else for my job or my income. It is the rest of you that will be whining about companies not hiring fast enough or paying enough money. No doubt you will blame me for it, but I will point out that not a single person I voted for got more than 5% of the vote. 

The 2014 election should be interesting because I am sure that Bama will be blaming the House for "obstructing" his brilliant plans and the house will be blaming Bama for everything. I wonder if it will look like another 2010 or if the dems will take over and have another two years of complete control? 

The benefit is that there is a small chance Bama might sign a law legalizing internet poker, there was probably no chance of Romney doing so. And if he does that I don't really care how much he fucks everything else up. Probably the most irritating thing is that I will have to put up with Michelle Obama running her fat ass around on my cooking shows and telling me to eat healthy. I hate when people tell me how to eat.

Right now I'm going to go roast myself up a little crow kabob with a few shots of Wild Turkey.

That is what I said immediately after the election. Where is the whining? I will admit that pointing out Michelle's ass wasn't nice.

You on the other hand are an extremely obnoxious winner, rubbing my nose in it at every opportunity and telling me to "shut up". Even a year later you continue to gloat. The irony is that my team had less of a chance than the middle school playing an NFL team so gloating seems unnecessary.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Go back and read my posts. You are stupidly equating "sucker play" to cheating. I wasn't whining about the play at all, I laughed my ass off.

It WAS a smart play on the Lions part, but it also was a huge risk and a low yield play, like a fake field goal, or flee flicker. THAT is what I meant by "sucker play".

Now if the Redskins had lost on that play to the Lions, I WOULD NOT BE MAD AT THE LIONS, I would be mad at the Redskins for letting the Lions go "Your shoe is untied. Made you look".

Please tell me you are not that dense. A "sucker play" is funny when other teams fall for it or a rival falls for it, but it is never fun if your team falls for it. That is not the same as calling it cheating.

 

Sorry I misinterpreted you. I don't agree it was a low yield play- Qb sneaks work 80% of the time within 1 yard and would have been a likely call after the spike anyway. But whatever, clearly the cowboys were caught unprepared.

 

WOW, damn, there is a god! GEEEZE, now was that so hard? Liberals don't have cooties dude. That is all I meant, the Cowboys were unprepared.

Yield depends on the efficiency of the team trying to do it. I'd concede that is a better argument. But I call them "sucker plays" because you should be prepared for them. No different than when everyone on the field stops because they think the play is over, but the guy with the ball keeps going, because everyone thinks the play is dead, but the whistle didn't blow.

I understand what you are saying. But it just comes across as a really fucking stupid way to lose a game.  I'd rather get my ass beat really bad, than to lose a close one like that. That's just me.

 

If the Lions had spiked the ball, and stopped the clock, that would have given the Cowboys time to set up a defensive play, so I do understand the risk. But if you look at the risk the QB took, he put that ball up in the air arms stretched out, if the Cowboys had seen that coming, which they should have, they should have jumped up hands in the air like blocking a field goal, in that case he'd had had the ball slapped out of his hands.

 

Lions got lucky and took a risk that the Cowboys would not see it, and they were right.

It just comes across as a DOH!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I understand

Brian37 wrote:

I understand what you are saying. But it just comes across as a really fucking stupid way to lose a game.  I'd rather get my ass beat really bad, than to lose a close one like that. That's just me.

 

I'm a Jets fan, so I am used to my team coming up with fucking stupid ways to lose.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
to Beyond saving.

                Thanks for the memory,  this Patriots fan remembers that game; that Sanchez fumble was in the middle of three straight fumbles that lead to 3 Patriots touchdowns in less then one minute, before St.Thomas of Brady and his offence got into the game, [actually 2 fumbles and a nosetackle interception] It's got to be a bad day in the Meadowlands when it's 21 to 0 Pat's and the only offence on the feild is the Jet's.                Pay back is a bitch, 2 weeks ago the Jets beat the Pat's in overtime because a Patriots nosetackle shoved his hand on a team mates butt and pushed; the missed fieldgoal didn't count , the next much closer attempt won the game.  That's football.               

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I understand what you are saying. But it just comes across as a really fucking stupid way to lose a game.  I'd rather get my ass beat really bad, than to lose a close one like that. That's just me.

 

I'm a Jets fan, so I am used to my team coming up with fucking stupid ways to lose.

Yea, I saw this, funny for me, but really had to be a sucky facepalm for you. I'd hate for my Skins to lose like that too.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

              Thanks for the memory,  this Patriots fan remembers that game; that Sanchez fumble was in the middle of three straight fumbles that lead to 3 Patriots touchdowns in less then one minute, before St.Thomas of Brady and his offence got into the game, [actually 2 fumbles and a nosetackle interception] It's got to be a bad day in the Meadowlands when it's 21 to 0 Pat's and the only offence on the feild is the Jet's.
 Yeah, and worse that it happened on Thanksgiving so I wasn't watching the agony at home alone.   
Jeffrick wrote:
              Pay back is a bitch, 2 weeks ago the Jets beat the Pat's in overtime because a Patriots nosetackle shoved his hand on a team mates butt and pushed; the missed fieldgoal didn't count , the next much closer attempt won the game.  That's football.             

Ah, the moments worth living for.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ugh you guys just don't get

Ugh you guys just don't get the WWE. It isn't fair, and it isn't scripted the way you think it is. You could spend 50 years in that company being the paragon of loyal and dependable, and never see a championship. And the days of scripting a winner before the match starts died more than a decade ago.
The matches are scripted by the participants, not the management. The management might want something to happen, but it is the performers who decide how.
Most of the dialogue is off the cuff. Again, management wants certain things said, but if all you can do is parrot a script you aren't going to last long.
The results are almost always decided in-match, based mostly on what the fans want/react to (which is largely dependant on how well the performers go over with the fans, and that is a mix of luck and how much effort the performers put into getting over with the fans). The whole damn thing is ridiculously predictable. But it isn't fair and it isn't scripted a week in advance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Ugh you guys

Vastet wrote:
Ugh you guys just don't get the WWE. It isn't fair, and it isn't scripted the way you think it is. You could spend 50 years in that company being the paragon of loyal and dependable, and never see a championship. And the days of scripting a winner before the match starts died more than a decade ago. The matches are scripted by the participants, not the management. The management might want something to happen, but it is the performers who decide how. Most of the dialogue is off the cuff. Again, management wants certain things said, but if all you can do is parrot a script you aren't going to last long. The results are almost always decided in-match, based mostly on what the fans want/react to (which is largely dependant on how well the performers go over with the fans, and that is a mix of luck and how much effort the performers put into getting over with the fans). The whole damn thing is ridiculously predictable. But it isn't fair and it isn't scripted a week in advance.

My knowledge of WWE is limited to Dwayne Johnson's autobiography which was actually a fascinating read. He went from being bullied in school to an utter failure as a football player to becoming "The Rock". His accounts of wrestling was of it being scripted improv, they would go in knowing the general storyline and who would win but not the details but that was about 20 years ago.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Ugh you guys

dp


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

All the fucking time. You have been acting like a sour loser brat since day one of his first election.

Well let us see, to the RRS DeLorean!

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33295

I must say what a difference that a year has made between that thread and now.

The guys approval ratings are at an all time low and if one is to believe the BBC news (which I actually prefer over all of the glitz and glamour crap over here) and others, his approval rating has hit an all time low and Europe really is not pleased with him either. The wiretapping NSA thing would be the problem there. Here it would be this latest problem with the Affordable HealthCare Act.

Just check out some of these :

 

Mark Mardell: Obama’s worst week yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24963378

 

It has been a pretty dreadful week for President Barack Obama. Flapping around his head are a whole flock of chickens coming home to roost.

This is all about his greatest achievement - the law for which he will be remembered - the programme nicknamed for him, Obamacare.

It is in trouble. He is in trouble.

Five Signs Obama's Second Term Is In Serious Trouble

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-obamas-term-trouble/story?id=20887636

 

President Obama is at one at one of the lowest points of his presidency. His poll numbers are slumping, the health care bill that he was counting on to be one of his lasting legacies has been tarnished by technical problems and even fellow Democrats are up in arms.

Now before anyone jumps me on this one, as I am sure that some of his supporters will. I am not a Republican nor a right winger, as I think I have been clear on here many times about.

I just find it rather amazing that he can go from being the top man that he was when being elected, to being in so much trouble now.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Well obviously there has

Well obviously there has just been an increase in the number of racist bigots.