The NFL Thread - Root for your favorite team (or laugh at the Browns, whichever's easier)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Who are you rooting for in Super Bowl 60?

  • New England Patriots

    Votes: 11 22.0%

  • Seattle Seahawks

    Votes: 25 50.0%

  • Team State Farm

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • The Meteor

    Votes: 13 26.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
I will agree with Vicuckqueens fans that the calling back the fumble and TD was bullshit. Stafford could not see any receivers and it should have stood. He didn’t fucking pass it, he tossed it like a bean bag.


Goff had Gibbs there, hit a lineman by accident, and actually attempted a passing motion.

I do actually need to ask: does the SpongeBob NFL thing count as Vtubers? @Trombonista
 
Off topic, but CTE has always felt like an out for obvious drug and alcohol abuse that a lot of athletes went wild on. I’m sure it does play a role, but most of the guys who “go insane due to CTE” usually are in assloads of drugs or are a gang member who gets into literal brawls.

Some degree of brain injury does come from football, but it’s mostly to cover up that like 50% of the League would be in prison if not for pro football. The younger guys who get CTE just seemed like schizophrenics or bipolar who basically can no longer keep it together and suffer a traumatic break because they are no longer getting paid to violently stuff another player into the Earth.
 
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
Off topic, but CTE has always felt like an out for obvious drug and alcohol abuse that a lot of athletes went wild on. I’m sure it does play a role, but most of the guys who “go insane due to CTE” usually are in assloads of drugs or are a gang member who gets into literal brawls.

Some degree of brain injury does come from football, but it’s mostly to cover up that like 50% of the League would be in prison if not for pro football. The younger guys who get CTE just seemed like schizophrenics or bipolar who basically can no longer keep it together and suffer a traumatic break because they are no longer getting paid to violently stuff another player into the Earth.
Click to expand...
In my estimation CTE is just new jargon for an old problem... "punch drunk syndrome". It exists, but a lot of lawyers and doctors stand to make big time $$ suing over and "treating" CTE. Conversely, the NFL has completely pussified the game in the name of CTE, but has done little to nothing about all the other crippling injuries football players suffer. That was what ex NFLers used to worry about before CTE hit the scene... still being able to walk when they're old men.
 
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
Off topic, but CTE has always felt like an out for obvious drug and alcohol abuse that a lot of athletes went wild on. I’m sure it does play a role, but most of the guys who “go insane due to CTE” usually are in assloads of drugs or are a gang member who gets into literal brawls.

Some degree of brain injury does come from football, but it’s mostly to cover up that like 50% of the League would be in prison if not for pro football. The younger guys who get CTE just seemed like schizophrenics or bipolar who basically can no longer keep it together and suffer a traumatic break because they are no longer getting paid to violently stuff another player into the Earth.
Click to expand...

It's amazing you can take an overbuilt hyper-aggressive maniac and order him to go completely destroy another man's body but yet at the same time they don't mean anything by it on the "field of battle" (usually). The NFL really is hyper-militarism at work I was sitting with some dullard who had no idea why the NFL always supports the troops, 1st responders any and all authority and will do Air Force flyovers. Tampa gets F22s but holy shit Josh Allen gets A10s. Go BRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrills!
 
I realize why Mahomes will probably never replace Brady as the face of the NFL. Not because Mahomes is a feminine mutt, but more because Brady was always about the game. What happens if the Chiefs have a bad play? Mahomes cries to a ref for roughing the passer, it cuts to Taylor, it cuts to that nigger Kelce, and then Mahomes whines about it during a press conference like a priss.

Brady? The Pats have a bad play and Brady looks like it was justification to kill himself and is on the side line talking to linemen and receivers. Belichick briefly looks more annoyed and goes back into coaching.
 
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
I realize why Mahomes will probably never replace Brady as the face of the NFL. Not because Mahomes is a feminine mutt, but more because Brady was always about the game. What happens if the Chiefs have a bad play? Mahomes cries to a ref for roughing the passer, it cuts to Taylor, it cuts to that nigger Kelce, and then Mahomes whines about it during a press conference like a priss.

Brady? The Pats have a bad play and Brady looks like it was justification to kill himself and is on the side line talking to linemen and receivers. Belichick briefly looks more annoyed and goes back into coaching.
Click to expand...
Seeing the Chad Huwhite Man Brady defeat Patrick Mutt Mahomes was one of my happiest Super Bowl's in recent memory.
1903924-9ecf0a23395ca0e4edfc9cabac955220.jpg
 
HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:
I realize why Mahomes will probably never replace Brady as the face of the NFL
Click to expand...
Cause he's a nigger.

Also because, despite the 31 fanbases making jokes about him crying to refs, Brady did take a fair amount of big hits that would easily get flagged today. He also made more with less on offence.
 
W00K #17 said:
Yess Ms. Virginia sarr. I will help draft better next time time miss Sarr. Please don't fire me Sarr.

View attachment 6863830

View attachment 6863834
Click to expand...
mfw sars redeem.png

Fields, Claypool, and Jones were this dude's top three at one point. :story: What are the odds he romance scammed Ginny into getting this position? The guy had 4 years of experience before getting hired as the dept. director. The over reliance, and I'm assuming misunderstanding of how to apply analytics, is an epidemic in the NFL. I think it also gets used as a crutch in game decisions. "The numbers to us to do X" is now an all too common excuse by head coaches during a post loss press conference. There are so many variables to a game that just saying "Going for it on 4 and 2 on our 47 gives us a 3.2% better chance of winning and has a 52% chance success rate" is dumb.

The counter argument is that you have to apply the numbers because it will eventually work out into your favor. Messing with them changes the outcome expectations. How many times will you have to make that decision for you to get the expected outcome advantage? Can it even happen over the course of a season? It's great if you win 3.2% more games over the course of 1,000 games. Was one of them a Super Bowl? How were the numbers derived in the first place? I'm of the opinion that they should be used to inform decisions and not blindly make them.

Analytics has it's place and can be a useful when applied situationally. I was very surprised when noted old school coach and NFL dinosaur Vic Fangio volunteered during one of his first press conferences that he has his own system of analytics he has never shared with anyone including his coaching disciples. The Eagles have a meddling owner's son who is heavily involved in the analytics department and it scares the shit out of me for the future.
 
break these cuffs said:
View attachment 6864692

Fields, Claypool, and Jones were this dude's top three at one point. :story: What are the odds he romance scammed Ginny into getting this position? The guy had 4 years of experience before getting hired as the dept. director. The over reliance, and I'm assuming misunderstanding of how to apply analytics, is an epidemic in the NFL. I think it also gets used as a crutch in game decisions. "The numbers to us to do X" is now an all too common excuse by head coaches during a post loss press conference. There are so many variables to a game that just saying "Going for it on 4 and 2 on our 47 gives us a 3.2% better chance of winning and has a 52% chance success rate" is dumb.

The counter argument is that you have to apply the numbers because it will eventually work out into your favor. Messing with them changes the outcome expectations. How many times will you have to make that decision for you to get the expected outcome advantage? Can it even happen over the course of a season? It's great if you win 3.2% more games over the course of 1,000 games. Was one of them a Super Bowl? How were the numbers derived in the first place? I'm of the opinion that they should be used to inform decisions and not blindly make them.

Analytics has it's place and can be a useful when applied situationally. I was very surprised when noted old school coach and NFL dinosaur Vic Fangio volunteered during one of his first press conferences that he has his own system of analytics he has never shared with anyone including his coaching disciples. The Eagles have a meddling owner's son who is heavily involved in the analytics department and it scares the shit out of me for the future.
Click to expand...
The Browns went full retard with analytics, going so far as to hire Paul DePodesta because our idiot owner watched the fucking Moneyball movie.

It's been a fucking disaster.
 
break these cuffs said:
View attachment 6864692

Fields, Claypool, and Jones were this dude's top three at one point. :story: What are the odds he romance scammed Ginny into getting this position? The guy had 4 years of experience before getting hired as the dept. director. The over reliance, and I'm assuming misunderstanding of how to apply analytics, is an epidemic in the NFL. I think it also gets used as a crutch in game decisions. "The numbers to us to do X" is now an all too common excuse by head coaches during a post loss press conference. There are so many variables to a game that just saying "Going for it on 4 and 2 on our 47 gives us a 3.2% better chance of winning and has a 52% chance success rate" is dumb.

The counter argument is that you have to apply the numbers because it will eventually work out into your favor. Messing with them changes the outcome expectations. How many times will you have to make that decision for you to get the expected outcome advantage? Can it even happen over the course of a season? It's great if you win 3.2% more games over the course of 1,000 games. Was one of them a Super Bowl? How were the numbers derived in the first place? I'm of the opinion that they should be used to inform decisions and not blindly make them.

Analytics has it's place and can be a useful when applied situationally. I was very surprised when noted old school coach and NFL dinosaur Vic Fangio volunteered during one of his first press conferences that he has his own system of analytics he has never shared with anyone including his coaching disciples. The Eagles have a meddling owner's son who is heavily involved in the analytics department and it scares the shit out of me for the future.
Click to expand...
I dunno, it's really fun to say "analytics say go for it" every fourth down, regardless of field situation.
 
Analytics is fine when you don’t have some retard who thinks the NFL is Madden or a map painting game. A lot of it is situational and involves a gut instinct. The computer is operating on a system that can’t factor certain variables, the coach has to factor those in.

Edit: Modern Analytics in sports is a lot like Deep Blue. The computer is not actually that good, the team around it is cheating against a human with the machine being brute force. When the machine fucks up it’ll actually cause it’s opponent to momentarily shit their pants because they aren’t sure if it’s actual strategy.

Basically it’s another layer of mind games beyond optimizing play.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom