|
Post by damngumby on Jan 5, 2020 16:34:43 GMT
is a Pick-6. Another one-and-done for the Patriots. Some similarities to Joe Montana's last game. A wildcard playoff game loss. One and done. Couldn't score in the entire second half of the game. A late 4th quarter interception that sealed the deal. Of course, Joe Montana was still a spring chicken compared to old man Brady. At that age Brady was still collecting more rings.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 5, 2020 15:21:55 GMT
First, congrats Mike Vrable and the Titans!
Now, for the postmortem and eulogy ... After watching the game last night, it was pretty obvious that there would be no play-offs magic to propel the 2019 Patriots to Super Bowl glory, like last year. It was an ugly slog. Even though they coulda/shoulda won that game, there was no way this Patriots team was getting by KC or Baltimore. It was better that we just got it over with. A quick shot to the head. Bam!
The defense - pedestrian, Brady - showing his age, and why in gods name were they handing the ball to Sony Michel? ... eh, whatever.
Is it the end of an era? It sure feels that way. The Patriots have dominated the NFL for two decades. Two Decades. Think about that for a minute. Nearly half of the Super Bowls this century have featured the Patriots, who won most of them. And for the last decade, the Patriots have been the gate-keeper for the AFC. You want to play in the Super Bowl? You've got to make it past NE. Almost all failed, and the worthy victors in those few instances went on to be the World Champions.
That's not going to happen this year. As much as I like to root for the underdog and anticipate upsets, the Titans don't have a snowballs chance of making it past the next two rounds. The pedestrian Patriots were beat by another pedestrian team.
You may all cast a sigh of relief now.
What next for the Patriots? Can the phoenix rise once again from the ashes? Or are we looking at a - all good things must come to an end?
Who knows. The future is now an open book, with unlimited possibilities. Hey, maybe even Jerry Jones might hoist the Lombardi trophy next year! (lol)
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 4, 2020 18:19:23 GMT
No one was willing to pick Miami over over-rated New England in Week 17, except me. And now no one is willing to pick Tennessee over over-rated New England, except me. Oh dear. Settle down, ace. Your track record picking against the Patriots has been absolutely dismal the last few years. I mean, epic bad. Sorry, but by failing as much as you do, you have evoked the broken clock rule and thereby forfeit any and all self-congratulatory rights - if you manage to guess correctly today. A broken clock does not get to cheer when it occasionally displays the correct time.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 4, 2020 14:34:19 GMT
Holy cow ... 52,000 post?
What's he going to do with all the free time, now?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 3, 2020 22:53:03 GMT
What would a transgender superpower be, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 3, 2020 10:48:16 GMT
So this thread matters even less than any other. This thread actually matters a lot. Because dcfan couldn't win an argument on the sports board about who holds the longest single season undefeated streak in NFL history. (It's the NE Patriots, BTW) Holy crap! It's a crisis of mammoth proportions! ... for dcfan. 1 "MCU fan" (on the sports board) has insisted that winning 18 games in a row is more impressive than winning 17 games in a row. Losing a 19th game does not suddenly elevate 17 over 18. For some reason dcfan can't accept that simple fact, so he has come to the MCU board to continue the argument under the guise of a hostage rescue by superheroes ... and in typical dcfan fashion, manages to completely botch the comparison in his very first post. It has been all downhill from there. I'd like to apologize to the MCU board for perpetuating this thread. The premise was so stupid (even for dcfan), I just couldn't resist.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 3, 2020 10:07:52 GMT
They made a movie about the Djibouti rescue because it was considered a success. WOW! You really are an idiot. They didn't make the movie because it was considered a success. How the fuck is a child being killed by terrorists considered a success? There are plenty of movies made not because it was considered a success but because it was a tragedy. And that's what this movie was. A child was killed by terrorists. That's a tragedy, not a success. The children who's lives were saved say otherwise. 30 saved. That is why the operation is considered a success. Did you even watch the movie or ever read anything about the operation? Only a total douche would condemn the men (heroes) who saved 30 children because they did not measure up to your ridiculous standard of "perfection". You should probably fuck off now. You make me sick.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 22:21:58 GMT
If in 25 years or so, a Patriots fan dares to ask something like “is it possible that we win it all? I can hardly believe it... it’s surreal... boggles the mind...” well, I’ll be pissed. I'll be pissed if it's 25 years too!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 18:19:05 GMT
later when a politician told the special forces leader that they were going to hold a press conference to announce their success They made a movie about the Djibouti rescue because it was considered a success. Like Entebbe. You couldn't figure that out on your own? 30 children were rescued. One died. Sure, there was sadness associated with the loss of that child, but overall it was an impressive endeavor - because it was so difficult. They don’t make movies about relatively easy hostage rescues that were “perfect” – because those are less impressive. So, thanks for making my point for me. Of course, this is just you throwing up smoke to avoid answering my questions. The number of hostages saved in a single operation is in no way comparable to winning football games. When I paint a more comparable hostage to football analogy, you flee. Like usual.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 13:51:13 GMT
In typical dcfan fashion, he has completely bungled the comparison between winning football games and hostage rescues.
Let me fix it for him.
In 1972 the Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-72) was faced with 17 hostage situations in one year. They successfully thwarted each situation and saved 17 people.
Flash forward to 2007. The crime rate in Gotham has risen, the criminals are tougher, and new police union rules have made it more difficult to keep the best officers on the rescue team.
The 2007 Gotham hostage rescue team (GHRT-07) also finds themselves up against 17 hostage situations and they also successfully thwart each of them, saving 17 people.
But then they run into something the GHRT-72 never had to contend with - an 18th hostage situation. GHRT-07 successfully does what no team had ever done before, or since – they rescue their 18th person.
Now, at this point, anyone keeping score would conclude that the successful rescue streak by GHRT-07 was obviously “better” than the successful rescue streak by GHRT-72. 18 > 17. It is impossible to argue otherwise.
But wait – there’s a little wrinkle to all this. Remember that higher crime rate in 2007? GHRT-07 now finds themselves faced with a 19th hostage situation! Two more than GHRT-72 faced in 1972.
Tragically, GHRT-07’s 19th rescue attempt fails.
Question 1: Does the failure of the 19th rescue attempt in anyway diminish the previous 18 successful rescue attempts by GHRT-07?
Question 2: Factoring in the result of the 19th rescue attempt, which team had the more impressive streak of successful rescues. GHRT-72 at 17, or GHRT-07 at 18?
I believe answering those two questions will put this topic to bed, once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 11:00:29 GMT
King Kong Shady believes that letting a hostage die is acceptable. Once you start misconstruing what another poster has said, you've lost. I think you're done here, cupcake. Winning x football games in a row (which is what this is really all about) is not even remotely comparable to saving x hostages in a single rescue operation.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 3:24:48 GMT
Bottom line: The Sports board agreed that 17 out of 17 (100% success rate, 0% failure rate) is much better than 18 out of 19 (95% success rate, 5 % failure rate). LOL. If they did, you wouldn't be on this board trying to get someone (anyone) to agree with you. Bottom line: You lost the argument on the sports board, and now it looks like you're duplicating that failure on the MCU board. Why don't you try the DC board next? Should be good for a chuckle! I already did. Are you dense? It's about overcoming more difficult odds and saving more lives. Rescuing a lone hostage (100% success!) is relatively routine. If you do a raid on Entebbe where the success rate was less than 100% but the endeavor was far more impressive, they make a movie about it staring Charles Bronson. If you have nothing else besides repeating yourself, ad nauseam, I'll just add this one to your long list of failed threads. Bad start to the year, eh?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 2:21:51 GMT
No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise simply because it returned a "100%" on the tally sheet. Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario ... because doing so is stupid. The Sports board already agreed that winning 17 out of 17 games is much better than winning 18 games and losing 1 game. In the sports board the argument was different - there was a prize associated with winning 17 games in scenario 1. In scenerio 2 that prize wasn't even available until 19 game were won. In fact, just 17 games in scenerio 2 would have been considered quite the failure. I think only one moron (who shall remain nameless) tried to argue that 17 > 18. But these cross comparisons clearly confuse you. Let's just stick with the hostage scenario you introduced. Tell us again how rescuing a lone hostage is more impressive than saving 95 out of 100.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 1:54:16 GMT
No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise. We don't need to deviate any further down the dcfan rabbit hole of faulty comparisons. If you failed to get your point across with the hostage scenario, it's game over, thanks for playing! Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario. Not if you let 1 person die vs not letting anyone die. In a hostage situation, all the lives are at risk. Saving a lone hostage is relatively easy compared to saving 95 out of 100. Raid on Entebbe, when some hostages were killed but most were saved, is considerably more impressive than rescuing a lone hostage in a bank heist.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2020 1:26:56 GMT
You're talking percentages here, so the actual number of hostages saved is immaterial to your argument. Okay. Scenario 1 could be one out of one hostages saved (100%). Scenario 2 could be 95 out of 100 hostages saved (95%). Which act of heroism is more impressive? Scenario 2, obviously. It would have been a much more difficult task than scenario one. You're saying that 5 innocent people killed (a 5% failure rate) is better than zero innocent people killed (a 0% failure rate)? No, I'm saying saving 95 people is much more impressive than just saving one. No rational person would say otherwise simply because it returned a "100%" on the tally sheet. We don't need to deviate any further down the dcfan rabbit hole of faulty comparisons. If you failed to get your point across with the hostage scenario, it's game over, thanks for playing! Why don't you go to the sports board and ask if winning 1 out of 1 games (100%) is "better" (more impressive) than winning 95 games out of 100 (95%). I'm betting that no one will pick the one out of one scenario ... because doing so is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 1, 2020 23:04:28 GMT
What does this have to do with anything? I'm asking for opinions here on whether 17 out of 17 (a 100% success rate) is better OR 18 out of 19 (a 95% success rate) is better. You're talking percentages here, so the actual number of hostages saved is immaterial to your argument. Okay. Scenario 1 could be one out of one hostages saved (100%). Scenario 2 could be 95 out of 100 hostages saved (95%). Which act of heroism is more impressive? Scenario 2, obviously. It would have been a much more difficult task than scenario one.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 1, 2020 21:08:18 GMT
I finished tied for 4th this season and despite your repeated efforts to bully me into picking the Patriots every week, I was the only one who correctly picked all of the Patriots losses this year. This pick 'em thing seems very important to dcfan. What is hilarious tragic is - if he had heeded hehateshe's advice and not repeatedly picked the Patriots to lose, out of spite, he would have won this contest and all the bragging rights associated with being #1. Instead, he goes home with the same participation award I got for picking (and missing) mostly upsets each week. Add another one to the list of self-inflicted injury, courtesy of abject Patriots hatred & jealousy. LOL! so sad ...
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 31, 2019 21:57:05 GMT
Wrong 1) 100% of 17 < 95% of 19 All day, every day. Wrong 2) I've never said otherwise. The Dolphins won the SB that year. The Patriots did not. Wrong 3) If Tom Brady hired someone to make his coffee for him, it is incredulous to think he would accept that person haphazardly throwing different amounts of sugar into his coffee. It is even more ludicrous to think he would accept that sort of thing with his footballs. Wrong 4) The Colts footballs were inflated to a higher pressure to begin with, and they were warmer. Comparing them is about as stupid as you can get. It looks like you somehow managed to get every single freakin' thing wrong! Again! How do you do it?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 31, 2019 10:27:07 GMT
I'm hoping for a couple big upsets this week!
Buffalo @ Houston - BILLS 21-20 Tennessee @ New England - PATRIOTS 21-17 Minnesota @ New Orleans - VIKINGS 28-27 Seattle @ Philadelphia - EAGLES 24-13
Super Bowl winner: NE PATRIOTS
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 31, 2019 10:14:04 GMT
I gotta ask. I understand Beardy didn't play every week. But how the hell did King Kong Shady end up 10 games under .500? Oh dear ... is dcfan really running a victory lap for coming in 4th? I did the prediction thing last year and won it all. You didn't see me running around, acting like a gloating asshat. But if I had, at least it would have been somewhat justified ... since I was #1. ... and where were you? Hiding in your room sulking after humiliating yourself once again. ... but 4th place? I think you get a participation award for that, champ. ... the exact same one I get. "If you ain't first, you're last!" BTW, I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, But I believe I made it quite clear how I was playing this years pick 'em. Try not to embarrass yourself at every single opportunity, mmmkay? ... and in the interest of dcfan being alway wrong ...
a) 18 > 17 (A concept that continues to elude dcfan) b) winning the SB > not winning the SB c) One would expect someone whose job it was to deflate footballs to do a better job than haphazardly deflate those footballs to a imprecise range of pressures that were indistinguishable from normal.
|
|