The Laughing Man
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by The Laughing Man
-
-
Peyton needs to make those throws to win this game. 2 overthrows so far.
-
Just throwing his name out there since you failed too, hehe. Stay on topic.
You were the one who brought him up...
DEN with a couple of first downs showing signs of life.
-
Or Tom Brady who looked awful against Denver's awful defense.
Yes, like I implied there...
We would get beaten by this SEA team 9 times out of 10.
This drive is going to be enormous for DEN. A 3 and out here and the game may get away from them.
-
They can't after the way Brady has looked when it counts lately.
No way we could move the ball on this defense. Can you imagine us trying to attack these guys downfield with Julian Edelman and Aaron Dobson?
-
Seattle absolutely dominating early. The stage looks way too big for Manning and the Broncos right now.
-
I love everything about the Seahawks. So physical.
-
TERRIBLE spot.
-
Huge conversion. If the Hawks punch it in here it will be huge. Interesting to see how Denver responds.
-
Percy Harvin showing off the wheels!
-
Love it. It seems that the big stage is getting to some players.
-
Gabriel,
Thank you for taking up this fight. I must have missed all of this negative information about marijuana when I was wrapping up my master's in C.J. and writing on drug policy. Interesting.
If anyone is interested, the most damning finding that is consistent in the literature concerns changes in impulsivity and decision making (gambling studies show that people under the influence are prone to make riskier decisions). Studies that have tried to link marijuana use to violence have actually found that the drug inhibits aggression. Concerns about psycopharmacological crimes with concern to this drug are overblown for this reason.
On the topic of addiction, the overwhelming majority of studies show that adolescents, not adults are the most prone to develop dependency, making it a moot point of discussion concerning NFL players, who we're concerned with. It's also a completely unsurprising finding and not a terrible referendum on marijuana in and of itself. The human brain develops into your late teens (and perhaps your early 20s according to isolated studies) with the prefrontal lobe being among the last areas to develop. Introducing stimuli during this critical developmental stage has consequences. Obviously, the circumstances are not the same with adults, whose incurred risks by nature of using are insignificant in comparison.
And as for D.A.R.E. It's actually probably for the best that Gabriel never encountered it. The research on the effect of the program is dubious. There are actually a number of findings that suggest that, like the Scared Straight program, it actually had an iatrogenic effect. Glad you have no idea what it is.
-
What gets lost in all of this is the fact that "bad weather" is an umbrella term, which analysts don't seem to realize. What constitutes bad weather? Rain? Heavy winds? Snow? Those are three entirely different playing situations (which may overlap, granted), and require separate adjustments on the part of the quarterback.
Can anyone honestly name me a QB in the league who consistently plays well in all three of those conditions (especially in heavy wind/ downpour scenarios). I can think of QBs who play great in the snow, like my guy, but that's only part of the equation. I seriously am at a loss to think of one. Hence why I think "bad weather QB" is such a stupid term.
-
I'm sure do the nature of their fandom, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who don't think that the outcome of the Superbowl will change Peyton's case for GOAT in any way, but I was hoping to get opinions from people who still think his legacy can change. Right now, I think he's the best ever, but that can change given a poor performance int he big game.
Here's my take, given the scenarios that can play out:
A.) Peyton plays well, Broncos win: I will consider Manning to be the greatest of all time, no question.
B.) Peyton plays mediocre, Broncos win: Same as A. An average game against Seattle is a great game against essentially any other team in the NFL.
C.) Peyton plays poorly, Broncos win: Here I'm a bit iffy. Peyton has carried that defense many times this season, and he hasn't had a poor game all season. It would be hard to fault him for finally having an off day, but it would be at the most inopportune time. If Peyton has a game where he's clearly making poor decisions and hurting the team, I'd probably slide him back to #2 behind Montana.
D.) Peyton plays well, Broncos lose: This is tough, but I'd still have him as the GOAT. For all the records the Broncos set this year, I still think that Seattle may actually be the better team. If Peyton torches that secondary and still winds up on the losing side of things, I can't imagine that I would think it was his fault in any way. If he has a great passing day, the rest of the team has to step it up, period.
E.) Peyton plays mediocre, Broncos lose: Another hard call. As I said before, struggling against Seattle's secondary isn't anything to be ashamed of. That said, if he wants to be the GOAT, he needs this win on his resume for me. He'd be 2nd behind Montana otherwise.
F.) Peyton plays poorly, Broncos lose: He clearly takes a huge step back. I think it would take another MVP calibur season and strong postseason run to contend for the GOAT spot again.
Your thoughts?
-
Again, this site has a strict rule about the mentioning of politics for reasons such as this. If you don't believe send a personal message to Nadine, the chief moderator on this Forum. I, myself. have had a status update locked & a joke related picture removed because it was "too political" in scope.
Rules are rules sir. Analogy or not, I am not attempting to derail your thread sir. You have 22 posts thus far while I have well over 10,000. I think I have been here long enough to know what the rules are. Thank you. Have a pleasant evening The Laughing Man.
And you didn't just PM me about the rules instead of launching into a long, tangential diatribe why?
Rent-a-modding aside, I'll let Nadine take a look and let her edit my posts if need be. The rules state that there are no political discussions allowed. A discussion entails conversation aimed at reaching a decision or exchanging ideas. That was clearly not the intent, by any fair measure. The political aside was an analogy-a tool for a seperate discussion of football.
-
You are free to like whatever team or teams you wish The Laughing Man, but again a person's political beliefs have no bearing on a NFL perspective to me whatsoever. I could care less what direction you lean politically. Yes, it may influence how a person thinks, reacts, or finds appealing to read or write, but again, to me your liberal or conservative leanings are of no consequence to me at all. I really don't need to know that.
You are free to express yourself any way you wish naturally. However, politics to me is not relevant to any football discussion. JMO.
I get the point you were trying to make sir. Namely that you can keep an open mind when listening to another person's perspective, which is very admirable. However, your Fox or MSNBC example could easily be illustrated without mentioning either news organization.
It's an analogy. The examples I used were perfectly relevant and made my case. It's clear political talk irks you. That's a referendum on you, not me.
So please don't derail the thread by overanalyzing something that was very simple. Thanks.
-
I fail to see what mentioning either Fox News or MSNBC News has to do with "expanding [your football] horizons intellectually" The Laughing Man. Patriots fans have just as much of a right to be here & engage in civilized discourse as you do or I do for that matter.
I am a Patriots fan. The FOX and MSNBC was an extended analogy. I'm a liberal, so I watch FOX to hear a conservative perspective on issues. I don't need to watch MSNBC, because, more often than not, they will say what I'm already thinking. It does no good to me as a debater to insulate myself to the point that I don't hear relevant counterpoints to my posiitons.
-
So basically you're here to keep the Colts fans in line when they talk bad about the Patriots. k gotcha, take a ticket and wait in line.
Please quote the portion of my post that leads you to believe this. I'll save you the time, it's not there. I'm not here to change your opinion. I simply enjoy debating, and seeing how people respond when their assertions are challenged. What's even more amusing is that your comment doesn't adress the fact that I talk bad about the Patriots just as much as you do. My opinion of Brady for example is much worse than most posters here for example. In the wake of our loss, some of your posters have used weasel words and have tried to appease Patriots fans by offering some qualified praise for him. I can't tell you how many times I've heard lines like, "Brady's still one of the best. It just goes to show that wins are a team accomplishment". Brady is not elite, and he hasn't been since about 2007? Want to point to his M.V.P season in 2010? Look up the statistics and see how many passes he completed past 10 yards. It was a dink-and-dunk season predicated upon relying on speedy receivers with great YAC ability like Hernandez and Welker. Brady's deep ball has been one of the worst in the league for years, and was below 25% this year. Brady is an average quarterback who folds under the right circumstances. If you get pressure up the middle or take away his first option, it's practically a wrap.
So yeah, so much for that argument about me not appreciating bad-mouthing the Pats. ;)
As for the "holier than thou" sentiment, I agree. Whether I or other Patriots fans like it, Spygate is a perfectly relevant and fair topic to discuss when talking about the success of this team. You can say that correlation =/= causation, but the fact remains that the narrow margins of victory we enjoyed in the first 3 Superbowls have transformed into narrow margins of defeat. I can't prove this statement mind you-but I think that any honest Patriots fan wants to win a Superbowl more than anything in the world to make that talking point irrelevant. It's something that I truly think weighs on them. Until we win again, I think it's foolish to point to our championships and hang them over the heads of other fanbases.
-
I've heard this talking point thrown out every time that a Pats fan says something inflammatory or contrarian here, so I thought I would offer my own motivation for participating on these boards.
For me, the answer is simple: I love debate and expansing my horizons intellectually. I'm quite far to the left on the political spectrum, but my go-to source for news is FOX. When I watch shows like O'Reilly and Hannity, it makes me want to throw something at the screen. What FOX will do that MSNBC won't is challenge my beliefs and force me to actually consider the arguments on the other side. I don't need to tune into a channel where the pundits will tell me what I'm already thinking.
The same holds true for message boards. Our boards are overwhelmingly uniform in their perspective. Good news is exaggerated as great news, and bad news is spun into good news. If there's a debate over how great Tom is, it's over whether he is the greatest living player today or the greatest of all time. When we lose, there is an initial rush of threads critiquing our personnel, but also a range of threads offering excuses. It's a tired and predictable trend that doesn't offer me growth as a fan of the game of football. I come here to hear the other side of the story, offered by those fans who will invariably have the harshest and most pointed critiques to offer. By examining two antithetical positions, it makes it easier to find a middle ground and navigate bias when you encounter it in the future.
So that's why I'm here, and why I have no intentions to stop engaging posters on here with heated debate. Hopefully that makes sense.
-
Tom Brady won't see the Super Bowl, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
-
Didn't you say just because it wasnt a foul called that it doesn't make it legal?
In English please?
In the other thread I pointed out that it's fallacious to point out that a play was legal just because no penalty was called on it. Officials miss calls that they shouls have made and make calls that they shouldn't have. In this case, a supreme arbiter stepped in and ruled that there was no foul. They, unlike myself, are impartial, and I respect their decision. I accept it as being the most reasonable, objective interpretation of the play possible.
Like I said, the ruling is a moot point to me. The play has garnered unnecessary attention because of excuse-making whiners.
-
The former head of officiating already made the same assessment. You have to respect that. Hopefully it will put to bed what was a complete non-issue that was blown out of proportion by our fans to justify getting obliterated by Denver.
-
I wasn't arguing that Tom has a great respect for Peyton. Like I've stated a millions times already I respect Tom for caring about Peyton during 2011. And if I remember correctly that interview was when Tom was young guy, and back then he wasn't the compadre with Peyton as he is now, and did say it in a disrespectful manner. So the point ReMeDy was making still holds because the Patriots are not always gracious, and you can't try and say they are. But truly I could care less about anything these next two weeks except watching Peyton in the Super Bowl.
1.) No team is always gracious. They are composed of human beings, and human beings are fallible. You're going to have instances where one of your 53 guys doesn't do what complies with the standard etiquette.
2.) Prove the bolded. All we have is a cut clip, with no context. He may have added a qualifier afterwards or laughed to denote that he was joking. We don't know because the OP wanted to further his agenda with doctored evidence.
More importantly, why is it disrespectful if it's true? I sat here and tried to think of a QB who throws a higher percentage of wobblers and couldn't think of one. It's a signature of his play, and like I said earlier, it's something people have noticed forever.
-
Well seeing as you said,
You insinuated the interview you posted and the clip ReMeDy posted were the same.
No, I didn't. If I was to insinuate that the interviews are the same, I would have used an indefinite article instead of a definite article. Nice try though.
The point of the last 2 posts is to show that this person is choosing to present doctored, isolated incidents of Brady's thoughts on Manning instead of showing unabridges instances which contradict his assertions, which are far more numerous.
-
Again, as you usually do jvan, you're trying to state your subjective opinion as an objective fact. There's grey area and you and I will see things differently because of our respective worldviews.
THE **OFFICIAL** SUPER BOWL XLVIII GAME THREAD.
in NFL General
Posted
I feel like DEN is going to have to take a few gambles to get back in this. Given that Fox is the most conservative coach in the game, I'm not sure how that happens.