Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Super? Bowl
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 43 (749070)
02-01-2015 8:26 PM


Well, hopefully the second half will not be as boring as halftime and almost all the ads so far.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 02-01-2015 9:12 PM jar has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 02-01-2015 10:56 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 43 (749075)
02-01-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
02-01-2015 8:26 PM


I'm not normally a football fan but I've been known to watch a big game if something special is supposed to be happening. In this case I'm just curious because of deflate-gate and because some family are huddled around the TV*, elsewhere, and I'm missing it, don't have TV, can't find out anything over the internet for some reason, computer can't handle the videos or something.
Anyway, I'd appreciate any kind of recap anyone feels like offering. I suppose by now the thing is about over anyway though.
ABE: * should have said this is unusual for my family too, to watch a Superbowl. In this case it's not because of anything particularly special about the game, just the fact that some other family members are around who ARE into football.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 02-01-2015 8:26 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2015 10:17 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 3 of 43 (749077)
02-01-2015 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
02-01-2015 9:12 PM


Seattle had the ball on the 1/2 line, with time and downs to play and one of the best running backs around.
So they threw an interception and lost the game.
Bah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 02-01-2015 9:12 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2015 7:08 AM Coyote has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 4 of 43 (749078)
02-01-2015 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
02-01-2015 8:26 PM


Well, hopefully the second half will not be as boring as halftime and almost all the ads so far.
Nothing boring here.
I just left the TV and radio turned off, and got on with my life.
But it will probably get boring soon, when the news comes on and it is all football nonsense instead of real news.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 02-01-2015 8:26 PM jar has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 5 of 43 (749087)
02-02-2015 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
02-01-2015 10:17 PM


Bah!
Bah? Bah nothing!
Both defenses were superb and both quarterbacks struggled to overcome.
I know everyone loves to see points but, if you're into the tactics and the chess match of play selection, to watch both defenses shut down the best productive offenses in the league for no score in the entire first quarter was a true thing of beauty.
As far as Lynch v Wilson on that last play, I can understand Pete Carroll's thinking. Everybody knew where the ball was going to go. Every Patriot knew where Lynch was. 20 seconds, 2 timeouts left, 1/2 yard line, it's a no-brainer, right? There was really no other choice was there.
It didn't work out so now everyone gets to second guess but it took balls (non-deflated ones) and I respect Carroll for the try.
If one is into football this was a most excellent, and fun, game.
Halftime sucked. So did the commercials. Bah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2015 10:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 02-02-2015 10:06 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 43 (749090)
02-02-2015 7:49 AM


Only smiles here in New England.
--Percy

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 43 (749105)
02-02-2015 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AZPaul3
02-02-2015 7:08 AM


can understand Pete Carroll's thinking. Everybody knew where the ball was going to go.
There is a really good reason why every 'knew' Lynch was going to get the ball. Because the play was highly likely to result in a score regardless of what the Patriots knew or did. And because even trying and failing would likely leave Seattle in no worse spot.
What I thought was a bit classless were the attempt by the announcer to bait the Pats coach into commenting on the call.
quote:
Lynch wasn’t surprised at the playcall. Because we play football, he told ESPN’s Jim Trotter. It’s a team sport.
It didn't work out
Nicely understated. Almost in the best British tradition. It worked about as poorly as anything could have worked!

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2015 7:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 02-02-2015 2:52 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 8 of 43 (749106)
02-02-2015 10:13 AM


Smiles indeed. I did not believe that ending.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 9 of 43 (749108)
02-02-2015 10:16 AM


American fottball seems very complicated.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 02-02-2015 10:31 AM Larni has replied
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 02-02-2015 11:34 AM Larni has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 43 (749110)
02-02-2015 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Larni
02-02-2015 10:16 AM


Larni writes:
American football seems very complicated.
And a wandering offsides line is simple?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 02-02-2015 10:16 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 02-02-2015 10:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 11 of 43 (749114)
02-02-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
02-02-2015 10:31 AM


And a wandering offsides line is simple?
That's only in there to stop Hail Mary's from dominating the innings.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 02-02-2015 10:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 02-02-2015 11:18 AM Larni has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 43 (749123)
02-02-2015 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
02-02-2015 10:49 AM


Larni writes:
That's only in there to stop Hail Mary's from dominating the innings.
Innings? Sounds like cricket.
I understand there's an excellent reason for the mobile offside rule in soccer, and in the same way there are just as excellent reasons for every one of the 9,362 rules of American football. After all, we can't have the Mike crashing into slot receivers all willy-nilly.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 02-02-2015 10:49 AM Larni has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 13 of 43 (749124)
02-02-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Larni
02-02-2015 10:16 AM


Larni writes:
American fottball seems very complicated.
If you look at the Wikipedia article, you'll notice that the American football field is flat whereas the Canadian field is balanced on one corner so the snow will slide off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Larni, posted 02-02-2015 10:16 AM Larni has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 14 of 43 (749125)
02-02-2015 11:36 AM


It was second down, ball on the 1 yard line, 20 seconds to go, Seattle had 1 time out. There was time for 3 plays, as long as at least one of the plays on second or third down was a pass. They probably didn't have time to run the ball three more times. If they had run it on second down, they would have had to call their last time out and would have had to pass on third down to save time for another play on fourth down if they didn't get in. By passing on second down, they left the option of either a run or a pass play on their down, making the defense guess.
In my mind, it's a no brainer than you pass on second down. It was a poor pass choice.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 02-02-2015 11:48 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 16 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2015 12:56 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 15 of 43 (749128)
02-02-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
02-02-2015 11:36 AM


Lol, my eyes actually lost focus half way through that.
Reminds me of school...

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 02-02-2015 11:36 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024