• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


OnWis97 last won the day on December 5 2016

OnWis97 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,468 Excellent

About OnWis97

  • Rank
    It should always be Christmas in New Jersey
  • Birthday 06/05/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Favourite Teams
    U of Wisconsin, Twins, Vikes, Wolves, Wild

Recent Profile Visitors

25,876 profile views
  1. That's why I can't get on board with him as the clear-cut GOAT. Not even the Browns, but any mid-pack team; hell any non-Pats team drafts him, it gets a lot easier to count those rings. I am not trying to diminish it but I do believe that for QBs (and hoops players) circumstances matter. And in this case, he landed on a franchise that's head-and-shoulders above anyone else right now. Does it help, in their system to have a good QB? Of course. Would they have been as dominant cycling through mediocrity and past-their-prime veterans like the Vikings? No. But he could not have landed in a better situation and on some teams, I'm not convinced he wouldn't be Tony Romo. The "Patriot Way" is a bigger part of the difference than Brady.
  2. "Winning with a bunch of nobodies" is a sure sign that the Patriots are doing it well. But yeah, it's getting pretty stale. I also feel that the deflategate issue was blown out of proportion. Teams/players do all sorts of analogous things that net them modest fines but because it was the Empire, fans lost their minds, media covered it ad nauseum and Goodell, making it up as he goes (as per usual), let that dictate the punishment. So I really have no beef with the Patriots. But I can't imagine any neutral fan not at least getting a little burned out by this. That's my primary issue. My secondary issue is that if Brady gets one more Super Bowl win he'll be universally declared the GOAT...and I am not really there. This is not a rip, but I do think he is to an extent, a product of the system and ring-counting is lazy. Great? Yes. The undisputed GOAT? I don't think so.
  3. Quarterback's always been the most important position on the field, but I feel like it's gotten much further down the road that for a team to have a chance it needs either a top-flight QB or every single other piece to fall into place via a perfect storm. Maybe it's the same as it's always been, but four QBs from the AFC in 16 years is a pretty amazing parody-free run. There's probably not much that can be done about it but it's frustrating that the majority of teams really should be trying their damnedest to improve that position since they are probably out-of-luck until they do.
  4. ^^ And in the "Major League" uniform. I did not realize he wore that.
  5. America's Team! For two week anyway... As a neutral fan, I'd like to see the wealth spread...I am neither a Pats fan nor hater...just Pats fatigued.
  6. LOL. But as someone who probably over-perceives the Packers getting calls I was legitimately surprised to see Atlanta get the better end overall. Thanks to the margin of victory nobody will be too worried about it and nor should they.
  7. That's a big if...more likely Trumpies Brady and Belichick patting backs with the President. Sad.
  8. No problem if Brady's still around.
  9. Atlanta looks really good. Good enough that I may even believe the Packers are not going to win it all before 00:00.
  10. I think if not for Ray Lewis, people would have had no beef with the Ravens for sure. The Seahawks carried a certain amount of swagger that most fans did not like, along with Carroll's collegiate shenanigans. And yeah, given that the victim of the Fail Mary was the Packers, I think some still held a grudge. (I had never heard those 9/11 rumors...which does not mean it was not widely known.) So I guess DG's statement is true, but in general, I still think a lot of fans like the upstart over the perennial (even though the later brings better ratings).
  11. The Packers disagree. If they win the next ten Super Bowl's, they'll still be the second-favorite team of most NFL fans. But for the most part, yeah...winning brings with it a certain amount of dislike from neutral fans...I wish cheered for a team that everyone hated.
  12. I get all that. But the Packers are also self-dubbed America's Team and everyone who does not cheer for the Lions/Vikings/Bears likes them. (Admittedly, I don't know how those two teams did it...was it the Cowboys team that actually did that? Because I think the Packer version is the fanbase thinking that the Packers are more than a football team and I guess it's worse if it came from an official source.) In fact, despite my post above, I know the Atlanta paper could never have made that graphic because even people there would say "the Packers are the Empire? I don't think so!" Maybe they could do David and Goliath but not good vs. evil. I guess my point is that I actually don't find the Cowboys that loathsome...there have been times when I have but I think given their place over the last several years, that's just gone for me. Or maybe I have no point and I just found the door to bitch about the Packers open a crack.
  13. gotcha...I was thinking you meant "Wizards vs. Wolves." I was also thinking "wait he's a Clipper fan, how'd he miss that?" I should have thought that through. Of course, the Wizards and Timberwolves played teams from the two largest markets...but even I understand that you can't show Wolves/Wizards on national TV.
  14. The Falcons are the only team worthy of having their logo on the (huh, I did not even think of this) Millenium Falcon.
  15. Clippers, who should have had Paul and Griffin (star power). I tend to agree that MLB is worse than the NBA or NFL. NHL isn't great either. I hate to say it but it almost makes sense for MLB. Regular-season MLB games are a tough sell to neutral fans. So Pirates/Reds or Twins/Rangers is going to appeal only to the most hard-core (or bored) of neutral fans. I know a lot of us around the country don't care about Yankees/Sox (I am really sick of it) but they pull in haters as well as their national following. NFL is the best because FOOTBALL! It's got a pretty distinct advantage in that it's the league for which so many fans will just watch it when it's on. I know that's being tested, as evidenced by the Thursday mess and reduced ratings, but I still think it holds true more than in the other sports, anyway. Also, while we love top-flight QBs, it's the least star-dependant...we view these padded/helmeted warriors almost as robots. NBA may not be the NBA of 15 years ago (all the calls going to stars, all the focus on stars and big markets) but there certainly is a bent toward highlighting stars. However, putting teams like the Bucks on TV could be an indication of trying to expand the base of who is a star...it's not just Steph and LeBron...(long Greek name) is up-and-coming and it's nice to see him getting noticed. A lot of you watch so much hockey that I am sure someone will correct me...I pretty much just catch some Wild games. But I feel like, in the US, national NHL coverage kinda needs Ovechkin, Crosby, the Rangers or the Blackhawks. Then some later-night west coast stuff involving the Sharks and/or Kings.