MAC
-
Posts
5,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by MAC
-
-
The thread title implies that he's committing petty theft. That's pretty inflammatory. It's also inaccurate.
The accusation is essentially that he refused to give up his game worn gear - condoning non-game worn gear being used in it's place. WHO CARES. I'm sure that all name players are pushed to comply with requests like that, and I would guess that he's comfortable with the originals and is more focused on trying to win than with the nonsense "business" of memorabilia. That's morally pretty much exactly the opposite of what the thread title implies.I imagine that this happens all the time.
An original autograph is a great keepsake. A real helmet/uniform is just cool. But the other aspects pertaining to "authenticity" and "investment" is artificial nonsense. The first thing I'd do with a game worn uniform is stick it in the washing machine to attempt to return it to it's "un game-worn" condition".
-
I honestly don't get those text messages... what was the purpose of saying all that? were they actually mad at each other? It doesn't seem like a fun thing to do.
It sounds like a game in which one tries to top the other by giving the most absurd take on what would otherwise be a normal situation. Some of it was funny, some missed the mark, but I don't see any ill intent. I have a feeling that Incognito started it, and probably says a lot of over the top things to a lot of people. Martin probably "kept up with him to fit in", but didn't feel comfortable doing so.
-
That's some nasty texts going between them, hope they're never allowed to play in the league again.
It's harmless. It's just too friends teasing each other in an off-color manner. It never occurred to me that locker rooms were warrens of sophistication.
I guess it's possible that Martin never felt comfortable doing it, and that he was putting up a false front that he couldn't sustain any longer, but I don't see that it's Incognito's fault. I was against him on this because it came on top of an on-field anger related act of cruelty - but reading him asking his friend for help because he's about to be released because of silly comments that he thought were in jest - and being ignored - completely changes my mind. Incognito may be primitive and rude, but I'd need to see a HECK of a lot more than this to think for one second that it should have cost him his job.
-
It could rain anywhere, which it did in our last SB win in so called beautiful "Miami." And there isnt going to be a snowstorm for the SB. And even if there was it would still sellout. A snowstorm would just mean more real fans would get to go rather than the usual rich people who dont have any rooting interest.
Sure it rained when the Colts last won the SB, but I believe that it was the only seriously rain impacted SB in the entire history of the event, so it hardly proves your point. It's about "the odds of their being good weather", and the odds up here are pretty lousy. The fact that there isn't currently snow projected is pot luck - it's snowed repeatedly recently.
And stop with the "real fans" comment as if it's a matter of class warfare. It's fundamentally wrong that they don't directly offer a minimum of 80% of the seats to season ticket holders first, because they are the ones who deserve it. However I'm pretty sure that when corporations buy seats the actual attendees are often average schmucks who happen to have a relation to said corporation. Whether or not anyone is "rich" (whatever that means to you) has precious little to do with it - although I'll point out that no-one "poor" is flying in from Seattle or Denver for this regardless of the ticket prices. At this point I'd have trouble justifying the cost of gasoline to get there from central Jersey.
football was always meant to be played outside not inside. And outside includes the elements. It's colder on the east coast in late december than it is february usually. This is a very strange winter. There was a total of less than 6 inches of snow over the last two years. This year alone it's been 3+ feet, which is super rare.
The historical averages for late Dec and early Feb are similar, but the odds of adverse events are not. We can go YEARS without getting more than a smattering of snow before Christmas, and virtually never anything approaching a blizzard. In January/February on the other hand we get pummeled with regularity, with the odds of a serious temperature dip dramatically increased. Even if there isn't snow during the game, there is a significant probability that their will be snow on the ground impacting transportation, parking, and the ability to spend time and money enjoying other activities the area has to offer - which is the ENTIRE reason that cities bid for the SB in the first place.
Regardless of whether football can be played in these elements, there is a reason that many people from this area go to Florida for vacation in the winter. Offering a trip down there with the Super Bowl as a focal point is an easy and logical sell. Selling people on coming HERE in the winter is counter-intuitive. You are asking them to spend a fortune pretty much JUST for the game because most every other aspect of the trip is going to be largely unpleasant.
And I'm thoroughly sick of people implying that football in bad weather is "the real thing". It's not - it's an aberration that arbitrarily favors the team that happens to be built more a certain way. Shouldn't the conditions provide a completely neutral field that encourages the "better" team to win? Isn't that the entire point of the event? The earlier playoff games reward the teams built to excel in their home fields, but the SB is supposed to neutral in every respect.
Plus it's ridiculous to be asked by the league to build a team that can excel in conventional conditions and earn a trip to the bowl, only to be faced with conditions that neuter what you do best. Good weather doesn't stop a defensive team from playing defense, but it darn well can stop an offensive team from playing offense. It makes no sense, and perhaps most importantly, it makes for an incredibly dull game - and for those in attendance an incredibly uncomfortable game. Removing the chest thumping of those who bizarrely think it's admirable to pay through the nose for the privilege of subjecting yourself to lousy conditions to watch a lousy game, it makes for a lousy show - both for those there and the hundreds of millions watching around the globe as well. This is all about "rewarding" those in the boys club who succeed in getting new stadiums built. In my opinion they would be smarter to think of the fans first, last, and in between.
-
Anytime the ball is so difficulty placed that the announcers would have said "great catch" if it was snagged, it's hardly fair to call the inability to pull it in a drop. Welker has had plenty of drops - that wasn't one of them. I have no idea what happened at the Knicks game, but it sounds juvenile.
-
4 days away...
low 30s, high 20s
..but it could be windy
Huh? Is that specifically at kickoff?
Accuweather.com has a high for day of 45% with a real feel of 41% and a 30% chance of precipitation.
Low that night of 22% with a real feel of 18% and a 21% chance of precipitation.
Both have winds of 7mph with gusts of 11mph (NNW)
I imagine that game time it will be somewhere in between.
While the precipitation risk is listed throughout the day, it specifically says "chance of showers in the morning", which suggests that they risk will be lower during the game.
More importantly, the temps are higher than they were projecting yesterday, which were higher than projected the day before - while the wind threat has gone down. I keep hearing 20mph gusts but don't see it listed. 7/11 is more like a pleasant breeze. This all now constitutes ABOVE normal temperatures for the time of year, which would be a bizarre stroke of luck considering that it's been well BELOW normal the week (and much of the past several).
Crossing my fingers.
-
I prefer "I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
:
: A man after my own - uh - h'art. -
Wow, I said it before and Ill say it again, you seem to go to extremes often in my opinion(using incredibily stupid...or HATE or other extreme type words...just an observation not meant to offend of course). If the average person made 26 mill most would go out and blow it just like he seemingly did, The concept wont change even if the average american made that type of money...It just means the average american would have a much larger paycheck to blow
I disagree with that too. While I'm sure people would be more impulsive and more apt to spend a little more freely, I still think most people would know to be smarter with their money. Most people would love to leave a nest egg for their children and they think ahead with their finances instead of throwing their money around like it's trash.
I'm not arguing about anything really just speaking my mind.. I'm sure their are plenty of smart people that blew a fortune, and plenty of unintelligent people that saved their money. You really would have to take everyone on a case by case basis, and not generalize. Money can do strange things to people when they all of a sudden have a lot of it.
A difference that you gentleman aren't specifying is that the average person living paycheck to paycheck due to poor impulse control or financial acumen does so with the reasonable expectation of his salary growing each year for the rest of his working life. It can get out of hand, and it rarely ends well, but it's not irrational and the person will STILL end up ultimately enjoying the same quality of life down the road that he would have anyway.
A football player making millions is much more comparable to someone winning the lottery. Item #1 on the to-do list is setting aside enough money so that you never have to work again. Failing to take that simple step can hardly be described as "intelligent" regardless of whatever other difficulties hamper them. What are they assuming, that they are going to win the lottery a second time?
-
Wow, you are taking this way to seriously. Never did I condemn your recent posting history, unless of course you consider that one post your recent posting history. But in regards to that one post, yes it sounded like you were being negative just to be negative. The other poster mention, albeit with fewer words, is negative just to be negative, hence my comparison. If you consider it back tracking to say that I thought the vast majority of your posts were probably fine, well okay that is perfectly fine with me, I will just disagree with that point.
:scared: Uhhhh, yeah actually you did. And I'm not criticizing you for "back-tracking" - who cares. On a board in which the theme for the year is relentlessly negative
leading to one of our mods stepping down and nearly quiting the site, I'm expressing irritation with your absurd and insulting characterization.Most people would have apologized about two posts ago, but apparently you don't make mistakes.
Carry on. At least I know what I'm dealing with. :cuss:
-
You still play your ColecoVision? ;) or did you upgrade to the Atari?
Obviously joking ;)
Never heard of ColecoVision.
Actually when I was a kid I had some version of "Pong" that worked on a tv. Also had some sort of primitive hockey type game on it. Mildly entertaining mostly for it's novelty value, but we didn't use it much. One of those things that you "remembered" once a year and dragged out of the mothballs for a few hours until you realized once again how dull it was.I've had some pc games (car racing, versions of old games that I used to pump a fortune into at the arcade) but the graphics were primitive, the pc slow, and the entertainment limited - but they could still be a big time-suck. I've been know to play "freecell" until my eyes bug out for crying out loud - all the while with a voice in the back of my head yelling "will you STOP already and get something done".
I waste enough time on here as it is - I'm literally terrified of what I might do if I had a proper gaming setup. I'd probably get sick from vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight.
-
well in the context of how he was ALL OVER tebow, i thought it was pretty dang funny lol.
Oh, I'm all for that, I just couldn't take the noise. The humor was even more annoying than his reality - if that's possible.
-
I wont disagree....but c'mon...Skip is pretty bad. I mean to this day i dont think he has changed his mind on thinking Tebow can be an NFL QB. This video of him is HILARIOUS
I made it through about 15 seconds. I'm not sure that "hilarious" would be the first adjective that comes to mind.
-
No reporter is unbiased ....
Well................... unbiased is exactly what "reporters" are supposed to be, and to good ones that's a point of pride.
But we aren't actually talking about reporters here.
-
Flip flopping like a fish on the boat deck.
Your Broncos are the one of if not the biggest cheaters in NFL history and their current GM was smack dab in the middle of it but I'm sure he has changed.
Three TD's in the 4th up by two scores going in isn't running it up? Not for Peyton and your Broncos it isn't. I understand. I'm glad you feel good about them as you should.
Did you fail to quote me for any particular reason? Seems fitting.
What game are you talking about exactly? The facts are the facts, and they are not on your side.
By the way, I have very little knowledge of (and precious little interest in) what the Broncos did before Peyton joined the team, so that childish taunt falls flat. I've heard that there was a salary cap issue, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it was significant - aside from Pats fans on here attempting to deflect criticism. Frankly I had never even heard about it until a few months ago, so it clearly wasn't quite the "event" that "spygate" was.
But I'm not one to harass people about the Pats "cheating" regardless. Pretty childish. I doubt very much that it had a material impact on their performance on the field. They won the SB because they earned it, and I can respect them even if I don't like them. I even like and respect Belichick - pleased that he got his start with the Colts partially thanks to one of my favorite Colts coaches of all time, and pleased (as a NY area resident) for the impact that he had on the Giants. However the Pats intent in spygate (and in running up the score in 2007) is ethically something that you REALLY should think twice about before you embrace it with such pride, or dismiss it with fingers pointing and chants of "you did it, everyone does it". They don't.
And implying that their current GM is somehow responsible for a front office decision made when he was a player is either disingenuous or ignorant. Feel free to tell me which.
-
nonsense the Broncos ran it up plenty. I don't mind but I love how so many people flip flop when Peyton's involved.
You can stand on your head and repeat this all you want, but it's not "nonsense". There's more to it than reading the final scores. Did you watch the games?
IE: People harped on a late extraneous TD to Thomas early in the season - oblivious to the fact that it started as a screen pass behind the line of scrimmage. Their goal was to get a first down. Having gotten it they would have run the clock out. More often they put games away in the third, eased off, then watched the opponent close the score in garbage time. That's hardly running the score up.
No flip flopping involved what-so-ever. I loudly voice my objections when my own teams violate my principals. If I was a Pats fan I would have been at times embarrassed to the point that I'd have left messages for the front office. I've very rarely ever had reason to feel even remotely that way about the Colts or Broncos. None of this is a condemnation of Brady, he's just doing what his coach tells him to do.
-
Maybe he's an antisocial jerk who doesn't understand how lucky he is to be in this position. Maybe he's had problems with being miss-quoted and hates the media. Or maybe he has a problem.
Some people chase down cameras at public events then act like they are deliriously deranged. Some people line up to speak on tv about events in their neighborhoods even if they have nothing to contribute other than "I remember the time that I saw him unloading groceries from his car - this is just terrible."
In contrast if anyone approached me with a camera I'd either give them a steely glare and a stern rebuke, or I'd "stop, drop, and crawl". Hard to know for sure until it happens. The last time I was called for jury duty the judge asked us each questions in the middle of a crowded room, and I had trouble enunciating my answers because my body was vibrating from chills much like you get with a bad cold. Not surprisingly my brain wasn't working too well either. I would have gladly paid cash to avoid the experience. Not $50k mind you, but I don't have his salary either.
Suffice it to say that people are different, and if Lynch is so dead set against being interviewed he might well just be scared of freezing and floundering under the glare. If that's the case I can't say that I blame him. But if it's the other issues mentioned his coach (and agent) need to tell him to grow up, and give him a swift kick in the rear.
-
No one has ever run the score up more than Peyton and Denver did this year.
Patently absurd. They kept the foot on the accelerator more than the prior year because being too conservative had proven to be problematic - including arguable costing them the Ravens playoff game.
But "running up the score" suggests classlessly putting your foot on the opponents throat in an effort to humiliate them. The Broncos most certainly did not do that last year (nor has ANY Peyton led team ever done so). The Pats most certainly have- which is obviously why you are eager to justify the concept. Whether NFL players can "take it" or not, poor sportsmanship should never be applauded.
I recall a grand total of one "unnecessary: touchdown, and that was when they appeared to want to get the TD record out of the way against Houston. Whether that was because they weren't sure if Peyton would even need to take a snap the following week, or because they didn't feel like dealing with the media for another week about the topic I don't know - but Houston didn't say much more than "congratulations" as a result.
Now ask Rex Ryan or Eric Mangini about whether the Pats ever try to make things personal.
-
They sell out stadiums in the Northeast for outdoor hockey games, you could look it up. If East coast teams were playing, the place would be packed. Dan Marino says the SB should be in Miami every year.
They sold out stadiums a couple of times for LOCAL outdoor hockey games. It's not a vacation, it's an afternoon out, and you don't have to take out a HELOC for the pleasure.
And it's going to be packed regardless - you make it sound as if there will be empty seats.
But yes, I agree that the SB should be in warm weather sites every year. Marino favors Miami for obvious reasons, but a rotation of 1/2 dozen would be better. This entire escapade is ridiculous.
-
Apparently, Broncos-Seahawks isn't of interest to very many people.
"So much for being the most expensive Super Bowl ever.
With ticket prices in a freefall, seats for Sunday’s MetLife Stadium matchup between the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos could end up being the least expensive for a Super Bowl since the post-9/11 game of 2002.
After hitting record highs last week, ticket prices took a nose dive over the weekend, with the cheapest prices plummeting nearly 50 percent, to a low of $1,150 from about $2,200 at 9 a.m. on Jan. 19.
While the cold weather had been a concern, that’s now been factored into prices and isn’t expected to have much of an effect going forward, unless there is a snowstorm, market watchers said.
Instead, limited travel demand by fans of the two Western teams, a glut of available tickets and sluggish interest in the New York metropolitan area are contributing to the tailspin."
http://nypost.com/2014/01/27/ticket-prices-plummet-weekend-before-super-bowl/
I'm sure that it gives you pleasure to write all that - fortunately your logic is faulty.
Clearly either teams season ticket holders could fill the entire stadium if given the chance, and clearly Peyton is the most popular player in the league riding a unique story line. But the economy stinks, the weather is worse, the hotels are outrageously expensive and the plane rides absurdly long. I can't afford to go and I'm 50 miles away. I have no interest in visiting NY this time of year and I don't have to worry about travel or hotel.
Yes, the economy has been lousy for awhile, but all recent SBs have been in warm weather climates aside from Indy, and that featured NY/NE with vastly larger fan bases, vastly shorter traveling distances, vastly nicer predicted weather, and a DOME.
More to the point, I've read elsewhere what I highlighted in your post - that the average sale price of tickets at various points in this process has been HIGHER than in any previous year. I've also read that ticket prices ALWAYS drop in the lead up to the game, rebounding at the last minute when I guess people have to pull the trigger or stay home. But there probably aren't a heck of a lot of out-of-towners who'd be interested in paying for several extra nights of hotel space at hundreds of dollars per just to stand in the middle of Broadway in the frigid weather we are currently experiencing. As a vacation destination it hardly compares with Bourbon Street the week before Mardi Gras.
It's the WEATHER, not lack of interest in the game.
-
You're starting to sound like ____________ negative just to be negative.
I did not see your other posts, just the one that I replied to. I would not say that I do not appreciate your posts, I was only referring to that one specific post. The vast majority of your posts are probably fine, at least I cannot recall you being objectionable.
As far as ________________ goes, he/she is the Debbie Downer of posters on this board, negative about pretty much everything.
I did some research, and now I'm more irritated than I was before. So first you condemn my recent posting history, essentially calling me a troll. In the second, you backtrack and say that you were only referring to one specific post.
You might want to think before you type, or take the time to scan someones posting history before labeling them. Not appreciated in the slightest.
By the way, I'm sure that I do write many negative posts. If I agree wholeheartedly with someone about a topic that's important to me I'd be more inclined to just click "like". There is precious little to say, and this board would be boring as sin if everyone chimed in just to say "me too
" every five seconds. When I post it's either to discuss a topic of interest in a neutral manor, to try and make a joke, or to detail to someone the extent to which I disagree with them - which by the way is exactly what you attempted to do to me. Or would you consider that a positive and uplifting contribution to the forum?By the way, it's against the rules to discuss another member. I'll just say that comparing my thousands of usually lengthy and thoughtful posts to another parties two word or two sentence barely punctuated willfully contrarian crap really :cuss: You might want to consider doing more than backtracking.
-
I haven't seen all that much of him but I like what I see.
Despite the noise about the game changing, there have always been quarterbacks who could run or scramble. With his size, Wilson reminds me a bit of Fran Tarkington who I always liked. He's fun to watch.
I don't have a good feel for how good he is at actually passing the ball, nor how good his WRs are, but his yards per attempt is up there with the league leaders - uncomfortably close to Peyton's. Ironically their yards per carry isn't spectacular despite it being their bread and butter. They managed to score around the same amount of points as the high flying Saints despite running a lot less plays. That suggests that starting field position is in their favor thanks to that defense. Turnovers are obviously a huge factor as well. Defensive points scored? Doing just enough to extend drives, yet not having a dominating time of possession. It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Lets hope that it does to the Broncos.
I have NO idea whether they should try to limit their running game and let Wilson try to beat them - something that's worked two weeks in a row against far more frightening QB's, or if they take special steps to counter Wilson. For instance Denver has some mobile LBs, but Lenon has been a huge part of stopping the run. Do you go back to Woodyard who is more mobile even in the base defense? Do you play Ihenacho and Webster more because they can both "seek and destroy". Can't wait to find out.
-
I'd be afraid that if I ever got a gaming system I'd never leave my house.
-
We need a fourth option - I don't want him to retire at all.
-
They "only" won 13 games this year and their roster is going to be significantly worse next season with the loss of DRC, Decker, and Moreno.
No way they go 19-0 IMO.
I doubt their chances because they have what is shaping up as a difficult schedule, and you can add the possibility of loosing Bailey and others to your list - but I wouldn't assume that any of the players you mention are leaving (or couldn't be replaced). Your assumption that their roster will be significantly worse next season is incorrect. It might just as easily be significantly better.
The thing is, they could have easily gone undefeated this season despite suffering a significant number of injuries to key players, and despite Peyton gimping through half the season. They've also seen significant improvement from some depth players. A little bit better luck with injuries and anything is possible. More importantly however, I've always thought that the fantasy of "the perfect season" was fools gold even when the Colts were close. The nice thing about their season this year is that it for once vindicates the idea that getting the number one seed is worth something. Play well enough in every game to get that, and a couple of narrow loses to tough teams are not only acceptable, but probably beneficial.
: A man after my own - uh - h'art.
leading to one of our mods stepping down and nearly quiting the site, I'm expressing irritation with your absurd and insulting characterization.
Actually when I was a kid I had some version of "Pong" that worked on a tv. Also had some sort of primitive hockey type game on it. Mildly entertaining mostly for it's novelty value, but we didn't use it much. One of those things that you "remembered" once a year and dragged out of the mothballs for a few hours until you realized once again how dull it was.
" every five seconds. When I post it's either to discuss a topic of interest in a neutral manor, to try and make a joke, or to detail to someone the extent to which I disagree with them - which by the way is exactly what you attempted to do to me. Or would you consider that a positive and uplifting contribution to the forum?
Eli Manning possible in on selling fake Memorabilia
in NFL General
Posted
Any extra "value" over and above the cost of the equipment comes from the certification on it claiming that it's game worn, along with the buyer's vivid imagination. Whether it actually is or isn't game worn is of absolutely no relevance, and more to the point it would be utterly impossible to determine one way or another.
It makes NO difference whether Eli gave real equipment or not, it's just a freaking piece of equipment. It's the fantasy that they are selling to people, and the buyer got exactly what he paid for. All Eli did (if any of this is true) is refuse to play someone else's stupid game.
Have you ever stopped to think about players saving balls from big tds? Do you honestly think that the ball that ends up in their locker is ALWAYS the same ball that they caught or threw? And does it matter one iota? A busy equipment manager will get them a ball - it's just a memento to trigger a memory. A fan paying through the nose to get in on "the memory" is a quantum step farther away from reasonable, and frankly pretty ridiculous. There only value that item has is what some OTHER guy might be willing to pay them for it in the future. As long as it has that certification their "investment" is intact. And despite the implications of this article, their fantasy remains intact. What else should they expect?