|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2021 0:47:53 GMT
Are you suggesting that the Dems didn’t unanimously block a resolution to condemn violence and rioting? The fact that fraud is infinitely easier these days is also the Democrats fault. I’ve come to believe they think all this chaos is more of a feature than a flaw. You've got to see a difference between taking over a city block and taking over the US Capital? Right? Of course. Spending 4+ years to subvert a presidential election is quite the crime. The Dems have been trying to oust Trump, by any means necessary, throughout his entire term. Election fraud is also something that should be taken seriously. If anything, the Dems enable it. Trump is no angel and his behavior, post election, is a deal breaker for me. I can not condone his attempts to void the election with no actionable evidence. He may think he was cheated, he may have been cheated, but if you can’t prove it, 100%, it’s a fools endeavor with no upside. The Dems are a reflection of the worst of Trump. Fortunately for the Republicans, Trump is just one person. The Dem problem is party wide.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2021 0:19:15 GMT
It’s unfortunate Hillary said that if Biden should find himself on the losing end of a tight election, “he should not concede under any circumstance”. Apparently, Trump listened. It’s unfortunate that when the Democrat leadership had the opportunity to condemn the protest violence that was devastating vast areas of the inner cities, they flat out refused. Apparently, Trump watched. It’s unfortunate that the Democrat Vice President expressed her support of endless protests even though she knew that they often resulted in arson, violence and death. Apparently, Trump heard. It’s unfortunate that so many Democrats said they would do anything to keep Trump from being re-elected. Apparently, Trump believed them. Trumps behavior sure is a mystery! This is patently false. And long before any of this happened, Trump called the 2016 election rigged, until he actually won it. So your entire post proves nothing. Trump was, is and forever shall remain a liar and a fraud. Semper idem. Are you suggesting that the Dems didn’t unanimously block a resolution to condemn violence and rioting? The fact that fraud is infinitely easier these days is also the Democrats fault. I’ve come to believe they think all this chaos is more of a feature than a flaw.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 23:07:25 GMT
It’s unfortunate Hillary said that if Biden should find himself on the losing end of a tight election, “he should not concede under any circumstance”. Apparently, Trump listened.
It’s unfortunate that when the Democrat leadership had the opportunity to condemn the protest violence that was devastating vast areas of the inner cities, they flat out refused. Apparently, Trump watched.
It’s unfortunate that the Democrat Vice President expressed her support of endless protests even though she knew that they often resulted in arson, violence and death. Apparently, Trump heard.
It’s unfortunate that so many Democrats said they would do anything to keep Trump from being re-elected. Apparently, Trump believed them.
Trumps behavior sure is a mystery!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 18:09:48 GMT
Considering how the police tended to stand down against left-wing riots all year, I'd say the number shot would be zero. I don't think it's a virtue that the left will riot on their own volition, while ring-wingers need to be cajoled. Still only one fringe group that stormed the US Capitol, and it wasn't a liberal one. Still only one political figure that told his followers to do it, and it wasn't a liberal one. I don't think that's a virtue. I guess libs can be thankful they were denied the opportunity to behave badly ... now they can clutch their pearls and pretend that they would never do such a thing!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 17:36:56 GMT
Trump supporters acting like a bunch of demented liberals. Quite frankly, it's embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 17:11:06 GMT
Are we all going to pretend there would have been no riots if Trump had narrowly won the election? Let's talk about that. Let's talk about the conservative reaction if it had been the other way around yesterday. Think it would be a bigger deal to the guys in this thread brushing it off? What would Republican politicians have to say about it? How many people would've been shot on the Capitol steps if a multi-ethnic, liberal leaning crowd (as opposed to an exclusively white, conservative crowd) tried to storm the building to disrupt Trump's certification? Because I agree, it's extremely likely the same thing could've happened (though the rioters would've had to make that decision on their own as opposed to being incited by Joe Biden, the way these people were incited by Trump). But I suspect the outcome would've been entirely different. Considering how the police tended to stand down against left-wing riots all year, I'd say the number shot would be zero. I don't think it's a virtue that the left will riot on their own volition, while ring-wingers need to be cajoled.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 16:46:10 GMT
Are we all going to pretend there would have been no riots if Trump had narrowly won the election?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 14:51:01 GMT
So, this is what it’s like being on the losing end of an argument.
Ok, Ace, Champ, Cupcake. I concede.
All ball-busting aside, you’ve made some valid points.
My previous thinking that credit for the Patriots success was a 60/40 split between Brady and Belichick must be amended.
I’m starting to warm up to the idea that Brady should get the lion’s share of the credit, and Belichick has sometimes hurt the team as much as he helped it.
Certainly, letting Brady walk and/or driving him away, with no fall back plan, was a really bad move.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 7, 2021 11:31:14 GMT
It was just a matter of time before right-wingers started acting like left-wingers.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 5, 2021 19:35:56 GMT
There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock. Everyone thinks they understand how something works, until they try looking at it a new way. New wisdom replaces the old. Thanks to analytics, sports works the same way. Whether you agree with the old school or the new, at some point all the 'experts' agreed on information that was flat out wrong. You don't need a counter argument because you never had one. Nobody does. It doesn't exist. For someone who frequently whines about “context”, you certainly seem willing to abandon it when it suits you. Bill Belichicks career in “context”. Cleveland. Not a great record. Why? Simple – He had yet to develop into the first round hall of fame coach most experts now consider him to be. That transition didn’t occur until he came to New England, got total control of the team and finally had the opportunity to implement his own system, 100%. So, we can toss the Cleveland numbers. Contextually, they do not apply. No one is claiming that Belichick was operating at a first round hall of fame coach level in Cleveland, so adding those numbers to the tally is something a drunk might do to win a bar argument. 2020 Not a great record. Why? A scrub QB who could barely complete a pass, and most of the teams talent sat out the season. Even a first round hall of fame coach needs some talent on the field to win a game. 2020 was just too much of a outlier to form any sort of reasonable judgement. In statistics, you toss the outliers unless you are deceptively trying to skew the results. So, what do we have left? 10-5 with Matt Cassel and 3-1 with Garopollo and Brissett. Three not awful QBs who don’t artificially influence the evaluation of a coach due to their own suckiness. 13-6 68% win percentage with a fully functional team and an average-ish QB. The equivalent of a 11-5 season. The puts him in the realm of the greats. Approx 77% win percentage with Tom Brady ... so, Brady tacks on another 10%, which sounds about right. Informed NFL experts, employing analytics (one word) know which facts and figures are relevant and which are not. Drunk fans, apparently employing something called “analytics champ”, just throw everything in the blender, and churn out your sort of nonsence.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 4, 2021 3:35:25 GMT
You think you see the twoof about Belichick and the folks who actually play the game are all wrong. We get it, Champ. I recall reading the exact same sort of argument from 9/11 twoofers, years ago. I wonder what happened to them? Did they eventually smarted up, or are they still fuming in some remote corner of the internet? Will you smarten up after Belichick is inducted into the HOF in the first round, I wonder? Or will we be further entertained by your proclamations that the NFL selection committee are all wrong. Two words: Analytics, champ. There’s nothing new about Analytics (one word), champ. Belichick has been using it for years. If you’re trying to suggest that your argument is the next evolutionary step in the evaluation of coaching talent, rendering previous expert views obsolete ... well ... excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. That’s what’s so funny! You think comparing wins/loses with and without Tom Brady is a comprehensive evaluation of the coaches abilities. That’s the sort of simple argument you hear drunks at a bar make. One does not need a counter argument in order to recognize a crock.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 3, 2021 18:27:34 GMT
“most people” is not the argument. It’s, most experts ... and it’s not them agreeing with me, it’s me deferring to their expertise. Like Climate Change, there are elements to the topic that are beyond purview of the casual observer. We rely on the experts who work in the field. Climate deniers are great at concocting their own armchair analysis that defy the experts. 9/11 twoofers came up with some great theories on how planted bombs really took down the World Trade Center. Statistical anomalies and some odd occurrences are evidence of a stolen election. ... and Bill Belichick is really an awful coach. Lots of “explicit detail” all around. You’re in good company, Ace! In this thread alone I've posted examples of poor coaching and the stark contrast between Belichick with and without Brady. Your argument: "I don't know, the television told me Belichick was great, so that's what I'm going with. I don't actually look into it to formulate my own opinion." Par for the course with you though, I expect nothing less, Ace!
You think you see the twoof about Belichick and the folks who actually play the game are all wrong. We get it, Champ. I recall reading the exact same sort of argument from 9/11 twoofers, years ago. I wonder what happened to them? Did they eventually smarted up, or are they still fuming in some remote corner of the internet? Will you smarten up after Belichick is inducted into the HOF in the first round, I wonder? Or will we be further entertained by your proclamations that the NFL selection committee are all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 19:45:56 GMT
I'd be happy to hear a defense beyond, "Well you're wrong, and most people agree with me. “most people” is not the argument. It’s, most experts ... and it’s not them agreeing with me, it’s me deferring to their expertise. Like Climate Change, there are elements to the topic that are beyond purview of the casual observer. We rely on the experts who work in the field. Climate deniers are great at concocting their own armchair analysis that defy the experts. 9/11 twoofers came up with some great theories on how planted bombs really took down the World Trade Center. Statistical anomalies and some odd occurrences are evidence of a stolen election. ... and Bill Belichick is really an awful coach. Lots of “explicit detail” all around. You’re in good company, Ace!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 18:51:18 GMT
Wow. All that to completely miss the point. All the experts are wrong about Belichick, except you, who sees the truth via a cursory examination of wins and losses. The Brady & Belichick combo was a perfect storm of sorts, that led to 20 years domination of the NFL. Very few people “tune out” the Brady factor so they can heap praise upon Belichick alone. He’s a first ballot hall of fame coach. When he’s inducted into the HOF, I look forward to your whinny post proclaiming how the selection committee are a bunch of idiots. You're right, I completely missed the point. Coaching isn't about wins and losses at all. Oops, another swing and a miss! The point is - an evaluation of a future first ballot hall of fame coach is more than just tallying up the wins and loses. NFL experts understand this. You, apparently, don’t. Hopefully, they will be less numerous than your off-topic protests of the term “snowflake” and banning trolls.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 17:40:22 GMT
Are we saying that all the other coaches who have called Belichick the best evah are unable to isolate the Tom Brady factor in their evaluation of what Belichick has accomplished? If he was simply riding TB’s coat-tails all this time, you’d think they, of all people, would be able to recognize it. Even the great Belichick needs some talent on the field to make a team go. This year, he has been working with virtually nothing. Belichick has had plenty of talent in years where his record was terrible, including his first year in New England. In fact I'd argue that 2000 Patriots team was loaded, and Belichick went 5-11. They went to Super Bowl 46 with statistically the worst defense in the Super Bowl era.
Hell, this year has been a disaster on all fronts, and they were 12-4 last year with Brady. They were a top ten scoring offense last year, look it up. Brady threw for more yards than his 2010 MVP season with these bums. Yet the local press kept blaming the offense for losses, even the regular season finale where the Pats scored 24 points, including a go ahead TD with under four minutes to play. Yet Belichick's defense couldn't stop a 4-11 team from marching down the field and scoring a TD to knock the Pats out of a first round bye. Brady maximized the potential of the shit team Belichick gave him last year, this year BB has to lie in the bed he made alone.
5 straight division titles from 2003-2007 with Brady; 2008 - No Brady, no playoffs
11 straight division titles from 2009 to 2019; 2020 - No Brady, no playoffs
Belichick has a sub .500 record in New England alone without Tom Brady, never mind the 36-44 disaster in Cleveland.
So to answer your initial question, it's clear the pundits, coaches and various football peers are able to tune out the Brady factor just as you are now. Take comfort in knowing you aren't alone.
Wow. All that to completely miss the point. All the experts are wrong about Belichick, except you, who sees the truth via a cursory examination of wins and losses. The Brady & Belichick combo was a perfect storm of sorts, that led to 20 years domination of the NFL. Very few people “tune out” the Brady factor so they can heap praise upon Belichick alone. He’s a first ballot hall of fame coach. When he’s inducted into the HOF, I look forward to your whinny post proclaiming how the selection committee are a bunch of idiots.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 2, 2021 13:12:30 GMT
Are we saying that all the other coaches who have called Belichick the best evah are unable to isolate the Tom Brady factor in their evaluation of what Belichick has accomplished? If he was simply riding TB’s coat-tails all this time, you’d think they, of all people, would be able to recognize it.
Even the great Belichick needs some talent on the field to make a team go. This year, he has been working with virtually nothing.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 1, 2021 16:15:40 GMT
A couple of things. 1-Not all the men in the movie are bad. Aside from Steve Trevor being the obvious one, there’s also the homeless guy and the guy who Steve inhabits. Hell, even Maxwell lord isn’t irredeemable. 2-Wonder Woman losing her powers is a consequence of her wish. It’s established that each of the wishes made with the stone comes with a personal cost. In Diana’s case, the cost is slowly losing her powers. 1. Wasn’t the homeless guy one of the gauntlet of “hey baby” male creeps that Barbara ran by before she coincidentally encountered the same over-the-top cartoon creep who assaulted her in the park the previous night? (In a city of millions, what are the odds?!) It looked like he just drew the line at watching her beat the snot out of someone. We know next to nothing about the guy Steve Trevors inhabited, other than his total indifference to a flirtatious Gal Gadot at the end of the movie. He must have been gay ... which makes the previous use of his body for sex, by a woman, even more disturbing. This is one fucked up movie. 2. This movie ripped off so many things, It was hard to keep track. A person being the mcguffin - Jewel of the Nile. Having to choose between your super powers and someone you love - Superman 2. Hmmm ... maybe the point of setting this in the 80’s was because they were ripping off other 80’s movies! There certainly wasn’t any other reason for it.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 1, 2021 3:44:54 GMT
SPOILERS!
CGI competition opening - A new low in lame. The mall heist action sequence - Greatest American Hero quality awful. Gal Gadot - insanely beautiful. Kristen Wiig character - central casting geek loser. Lazy writing. Really? A magic lantern thingy granting wishes. Who wrote this script? A 12 year old? Park assault by a typical creepy guy. Seen it a million times. But not quite this bad, so that’s a first. Holy smoke show - white dress! Those legs! Did I mention Gal Gadot is a knockout? Kristen Wigg transformation - The mark of a real woman is apparently someone who can confidentially walk in 6” heels. Pedro Pascal character - Just embarrassing. Please make it stop. The resurrection of Steve Trevor into someone else’s body. Wait, what?!! What is this, a Quantum Leap rip off? Is anything in this movie going to be original? Does Wonder Woman know she’s really sleeping with a complete stranger? Wow, they’re going all in on the wish fantasy thing. Christ, another recycled wardrobe changing sequence played for laughs. Steve Trevor has never seen a freakin train? ... and he can fly a jet, just like that? Invisible plane! - just because. Pointless flying through fireworks sequence. Why? Wow, are all random men in this movie of the “hey baby” creep sort? Dumb and pointless Middle East action sequence. Wait, where did the Wonder Woman costume come from?! Boring wish stone back-story. Good time to take a leak. More wishes. Aladdin minus the genie. This is getting nonsensical. Gal Gadot sure is a hottie! Ah, looks like the filmmakers are going full stream ahead with the men are just awful theme, throughout this movie. Pandering to the militant feminist audience? How did they all get in the White House? Boy, making wishes sure does make it all very easy. Kristen Wiig is now super evil! How do I know? Way too much black eye mascara. Why is Wonder Woman now weak? Did I miss a wish or something? Do I care? Oops. No more Steve Trevor. He has become a liability. Wish renounced. Bam! Wonder Woman just discovered she can fly. How convenient. Guess she doesn’t need that invisible plane anymore. Wish induced world chaos. Didn’t we see that sort of thing in Kingsman already? Evil guy laughs maniacally, of course. Wait. Where the fuck did the gold wing costume come from? Wasn’t it back in her apartment? Why does she need gold wings if she can now fly? Finally! The god awful idiotic cheetah cgi fight sequence. Kristen Wiig looks absolutely ridiculous. Is this supposed to be a comedy? Wish induced omnipotent powers! Except for that one flaw that WW will exploit. Yawn, Wonder Woman sermonizing. I might shed a tear. More asshole men, hitting women, humiliating children. Subtle, not. Good thing everyone can just take back their wishes with no consequences! Movie hits reset button. World back to normal. Cheetah forgotten. Wishes forgotten. Who’s going to clean up this mess? Wonder Woman runs into the guy she boinked when his body was being hijacked by Steve Trevor. Who thought that was a good idea? Gal Gadot - schwing! Linda Carter Cameo. The end. Thank god!
How do I rate this movie? Well, it gets 7 points just for the Gal Gadot eye candy. Minus one point because she speaks. Minus two points for the creepy Steve Trevor invasion of the body snatchers. Minus one point for the awful cgi action sequences. Plus 1/2 point for the unintended comedy of Cheetah and Maxwell Lord.
3.5
If you have to chose between watching this movie or shaving your ass with a dull razor and squatting in a bowl of gin ... it’s a toss up.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 30, 2020 11:07:35 GMT
Bills won the FOX poll for the best fans in the NFL. Winning fans got a billboard anywhere in the world.
Where is the billboard? Orchard Park? Downtown? Niagara Falls? Nope, three miles away from Gillette Stadium. Ha
Apparently, FOX only offered three choices for the billboard location. Miami, East Rutherford, and Foxboro. Naturally, Foxboro won. So now RT 1 commuters are aware that Bills fans think of themselves as the best fans in football, in accordance to their participation in an on-line poll. I mean, what else is there to do in Buffalo NY?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 19, 2020 15:03:32 GMT
![](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqVe_jQEO5O2wni_NmKWZw-nr9ouk1NyTjZEOBm_pksrIWgVsb) Huge omission.
|
|