infrared41

54 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

Michigan is not a serious football program.

Never has been. What's your point?

42 minutes ago, Sport said:

Always felt bad for the White Sox growing up because their drought was basically just as long as the Cubs and Red Sox, but they never got any of the same sympathy or cache.

Three things always come to mind when I think of the White Sox.

All the different uniforms they've had.

Knuckleballer Wilbur Wood went 24-20 for the White Sox in 1973. Everyone made a big deal of him winning 20 and losing 20.

The SI cover with Dick Allen juggling while smoking a cigarette in the dugout.

1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

 

Underrated . . . 

 

I thought it was pretty solid. These days, it would probably sweep the Oscars - which says more about the current quality of movies than it does about the quality of About Last Night.

1 hour ago, pmoehrin said:

The dynamic of the Cubs being the clear-cut #1 team in Chicago and the White Sox being the #2 doesn't start until the late 90s.

It didn't hurt that every other movie in the 80s and early 90s was set in Chicago and the Cubs were in all of them. Rob Lowe (or something just like him) made being a Cubs fan look cool.

On 8/15/2023 at 1:38 PM, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Sage Steele is out at ESPN to presumably do InfoWars or something like that.

Seems like a step down in her career, but maybe the money at InfoWars is too good to pass up.

3 minutes ago, Glover said:

Roush is back!

We'll see.

I am happy to see Buescher get back to back wins.

On 8/2/2023 at 4:36 PM, DCarp1231 said:

I just struggle to see how Wood Brothers Racing is even a viable race team anymore. Why Burton continues to pilot the 21 is beyond me. 
 

They’re sitting at 99 wins. Are they waiting around for that special one? If so, Burton ain’t the guy. Either find a proven ford driver, fully merge with Penske or another ford team, or close up shop.

 

For such an iconic team, they’re bottom of the barrel and have been for quite some time.

These days Wood Brothers is basically a field filler that just happens to have a history. It's a shame.

FWIW,  the classic 21 car paint scheme has been one of my favorites since back when David Pearson was driving it.

5 hours ago, Unocal said:

I said it last January, I'll say it again:

 

Dak and Josh Allen 1-for-1 would be a win win trade for both teams

And you're just as wrong today as you were in January.

5 hours ago, Unocal said:

1984- That 84 49er team was Montana, Lott and not much else. They played a schedule so soft that Matt Cavanaugh could have gone 18-1.

I don't know, I'd say Roger Craig and Keena Turner were pretty good too. It wasn't like it was Montana, Lott, and a bunch of hacks. There were a lot of solid players on that team.  In any case, the Niners had no trouble with the Dolphins. Teams play who is on their schedule. You can't hold that against them. And Matt Cavanaugh ain't going 18-1 in the Big Ten, let alone the NFL.

5 hours ago, Unocal said:

1990- The Giants so-called perfect game plan was 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Parcells played not to lose and got away with conservative cowardly football.

"Cowardly football?" What was Parcells supposed to do, try to win a shootout against the Bills with Jeff Hostetler, Ottis Anderson, and a bunch of guys named Stephen Baker? Played not to lose. Please. The Giants played to their strengths and won the game. Granted, they should have lost, but even if they had, they still kept it closer than it ever should have been by playing "cowardly football."

5 hours ago, Unocal said:

The NFC was top heavy outside of the 49ers and the Eastern Division teams

Outside the the Niners and the Eastern Division teams? They were the teams that made the NFC top heavy during that period. In the 13 year AFC losing streak, the Niners won four Super Bowls,  Cowboys won three, and the Giants and Washingtons won two each. That's 11 out of 13, but yeah, those teams weren't the reason the NFC was top heavy.

On 7/28/2023 at 3:58 PM, FiddySicks said:

The only thing dumber than pitchers throwing retaliatory pitches at players is fighting in hockey. It’s some sideshow garbage that has hurts the legitimacy of the sport and makes it even easier to not take seriously. I get it “Tradition” and “strategy”, but it’s stupid and is off putting to most people.

Agree 100%. If pitchers don't want batters hitting home runs, throw better pitches. The hitters are major league baseball players, do these pitchers actually believe that knocking them down or hitting them intimidates them in any way?

I've thought fights in hockey are stupid from the first time I saw one. If there's a strategy to them, I've never figured out what it is.

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

As for how the field became so tilted?  I don't know.  Some of it is luck, in that you had the Montana/Walsh 49ers, the Cowboys dynasty, and Gibbs' and Parcell's systems during that time frame.  But also the AFC had Elway, Marino, an incredible Bills team, run-and-shoot Warren Moon, and couldn't get it done.

I think you nailed it. The AFC Super Bowl losing streak ran from the 1984 season thru the 1996 season. How much of it was due to facing a couple dynasties, a couple almost dynasties, and a defense for the ages  vs. how much of it was due to the AFC simply not being good enough to win? Let's take a look.

• 1984 - Montana and the Niners are in the middle of their run and easily pick up Super Bowl win #2 against Dan Marino, Duper, Clayton, and a bunch of nobodies on the Dolphins. The 80's Dolphins were never much more than Marino and hope for the best with the rest.
• 1985 - The '85 Bears. For my money that Bears defense was the greatest defense of all time. No one was beating them that season. Especially not the '85 Patriots. When asked if he thought the Pats could beat the Bears, NBC analyst, Bob Trumpy said "I'm not sure they can score a point."
• 1986 - Parcells, LT and a great Giants defense make quick work of Elway and the Broncos. I think people remember those 80's Broncos teams as better than they actually were. It was basically Elway, a decent defense, and not much else.  And Elway spent most of every game waiting for Dan Reeves to turn him loose. I think my Browns would have been a tougher match up for the Giants that year, but we all know how that turned out.
• 1987 - Gibbs, Doug Williams, and the Washingtons totally expose Denver's secondary and hang 35 of them in one quarter. Hard to believe now, but Denver was up 10-0 in that game.
• 1988 - Montana and the Niners rip the heart out of Cincinnati while making jokes about John Candy. Credit to the Bengals, they somehow managed to hang around against a team that was way better than they were.
• 1989 - The Niners are at their pinnacle. Montana shows the world how sick he is of being of being compared to John Elway and hangs 55 on the Broncos. The Broncos are now officially the new Vikings.
• 1990 - Ottis Anderson signs a deal with the devil and Parcells and the Giants execute the perfect game plan to stop the Bills. The Bills should have won this one. They were by far and away the best team the AFC had sent to the Super Bowl since the '83 Raiders.
• 1991 - Thurman Thomas loses his helmet and Gibbs and the Washingtons do what they do. Maybe Washington was just the better team that year, but I think the Bills showed up a little tight and never loosened up.
• 1992 - It's the Cowboys turn to do the dynasty thing for a while. The Bills never stood a chance. Losing the last two Super Bowls was in their heads big time at this point.
• 1993 - See 1992 except the Bills are now in complete "we're gonna this up no matter what" mode.
• 1994 - The Niners and their other HOF QB come back for an encore and destroy a Chargers team that had no business being there.
• 1995 - The Cowboys are coming down the other side of the hill, but they still had more than enough to catch the passes Neil O'Donnell threw right to them and beat the Steelers.
• 1996 - The Niners and Cowboys have slowed enough for the Packers to finally break through and beat Parcells and the Pats, but there was light at the end of the tunnel for the AFC.

Long story short, of the 13 straight losses, I'd argue that the Bills were the only AFC team that came close to having the talent to beat any of the NFC Super Bowl teams during that run. They should have gotten the first one, they were certainly good enough to win the second one, but that's about it. Every other AFC team in that stretch had huge holes somewhere. If memory serves, Buffalo was the only AFC team to be favored during the streak. I don't remember the NFC being loaded top to bottom over those years, but the top teams were just that much better than everyone else in the league and it wasn't particularly close.

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

To be fair, the Bills really should have won 1990, which would have made the streak not nearly as bad.  But as great as they were - and they were great - the Cowboys completely worked them, and they couldn't stop Doug Williams and the counter.

 

Mark Rypien was the QB for the Washingtons in that Super Bowl, but your point remains.

35 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Starting in 2025, the Xfinity Series will be exclusively on The CW for 7 years.

 

Weird choice.

 

 

Gotta go where the money is.

On 7/24/2023 at 8:35 AM, DCarp1231 said:

Both Cleveland and Baltimore are the Browns, yet neither are the Browns

 

Shrodinger's NFL franchise.

20 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

YoU CaN'T ChAnGe tHe sEaHaWkS UnIfOrMs, ThEy wOn a sUpEr bOwL In tHeM!

 

Why does that argument apply to some teams and not others?

It shouldn't apply to any team because it's a really stupid argument.

2 hours ago, B3N said:

 

And just like that, the nice little streak of good uniform reveals is over. It was fun while it lasted.

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

1 hour ago, bowld said:

Browns is a throwback to 1946, not some random alternate they came up with on the fly-

Thanks for that; I didn't know.

I get it, but it's just so far removed from what the team is known for looking like.

It's really not...if you're in your 90s.

I really like the uniform, but outside of this community,  I seriously  doubt many people know it's based on an actual throwback.

49 minutes ago, NH4 said:

And we're 3 for 3. These look great. Ditch the awful current look and go with this full time, Seattle.

8 hours ago, simtek34 said:

YES! YES! 
 

 

Outstanding. Make these full time.

We're  2 for 2 today. Your move, Seattle.

5 hours ago, McCall said:

Might have to bring in the Majestic 37. They're 3.083333333333333 times more powerful than the Majestic XII.

The Majestic XII has 27 members.

2 hours ago, buckeye said:

When I first heard the Browns were possibly adding a white helmet, I didn't think I'd like it and I was right. I don't like it, I love it. Outstanding.

16 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Trying to get the thread back on topic.  

 

Things do go sideways once in a while around here. Your effort is most appreciated. I'll put on my mod hat and make it official and I'll start by reprimanding myself.

Let's get back on topic, folks. infrared41, either move on or take it to PM.

Fair?

9 minutes ago, Skycast said:

 

Yea, I'm way past it, but as a representative of this site it's my feeling that you should rise above and take the higher road when interacting. And all of those censored emojis you used are not from quoting what he said.

 

But I guess, if you're just an ass in how you communicate then you're just an ass. It's a shame because outside of that the content of your posts are valid and if I was running this site I wouldn't want something like that representing me or this (otherwise) fine site.

You sure? This is the second time you've brought it up and you seem to have strong feelings on the matter. Anyway,  I guess I'll have to learn to live with your disappointment.

Seriously though, you are entitled to your opinion, but this place ain't exactly the Harvard Debate Club. Surely you've noticed that in all your years here.

1 hour ago, Skycast said:

 

I've followed this conversation and gotta say, while I agree with your take over the other dude, your delivery with all the masked cussing is atrocious. As a moderator here you are of course free to debate and give your viewpoints, but (in my opinion) it should be done with quite a bit more tact.

You'll get past it.

For the record, if you read the original post you'll see that I was quoting what he said. That aside, I do have a tendency to use R-rated language. It's all part of my delightful personality.

46 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

This is where I know i hit a nerve. Never said you did. But you defended it anyways. I said:

"Hit a nerve." Please. Don't flatter yourself. And I didn't defend anything.  I said I don't fawn over anything in sports. Other people might and that's really weird too, but I don't. I can only speak for myself on that matter.

46 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You also admit you're mad about something you don't know enough about to even form an opinion. But anger is your natural response.

Quote me "admitting I'm mad" about any part of this conversation and I'll concede this entire argument. I'm not mad at all. Haven't been this entire time. You can't come up with a defense for your weird obsession with watching kids play sports so you're trying to deflect by making things up like me being angry. My opinion is both formulated and crystal clear on this. Again, you have no counterargument so you're left with nothing but making things up.

46 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Most any HS team would be seniors, and they start turning 18 at... guess what, when school starts. Before school even starts in the fall (my school had a mid-june cutoff). Most 'starters' for a HS team are going to be seniors. The rest would be juniors with the rare sophomore here or there.

No, most kids do not turn 18 when school starts or before school starts. Sure, some do, but it's more the exception than the rule. For example, I turned 18 in April of my senior year.

46 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

But your focus is on the absolute youngest you'd expect to see. Now, that's weird. What's your obsession with it?

Which part of "16 is what I figured the median age on a high school football team would be" is tripping you up? As far as being obsessed goes, I'm not the one tenaciously defending getting off on watching kids play football. That would be you.

46 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

You mad about gymnastics in the Olympics? They actually had to change the rules to stop 14 year olds from competing. Yet most of America went gaga in 96 over the Olympic team because a girl hurt her foot to win gold.

Again, I'm not mad about anything. I'm glad they had to change the rules. Those kids were treated horribly by their coaches. I'd imagine no longer being allowed to watch 14 year olds on TV must be tough for a guy like you, but it's for the best.

All that being said, I think it's a good idea to end this conversation before I actually do get angry and decide to stop playing nice with you.

57 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

What's your obsession with 16 year olds? You know most people are in high school until they're 18, right? And yet college fans fawn over any true freshman doing anything on the college field. But I'm guessing you don't have a problem with that. 

Obsession? Nice try, now  off with that nonsense. 16 is what I figured the median age on a high school football team would be.  Would you prefer I'd said 17 year olds? (Which is still every bit as ing weird as being a fanboy of 16 year olds.) There's a huge difference between a college freshman and a junior in high school and I'd like to think you know that, but I can't say I'm confident that you do.  For the record I don't "fawn" over true freshman in college either. Mostly because I don't "fawn" over anything sports related. But I especially don't fawn over 16 and 17 year olds (and the occasional 18 year old) playing high school football. But that's just me...well, me and the overwhelming majority of well adjusted adults.