NFL Playoffs: Super Bowl LIII

[the admiral 28,190]

12 hours ago, Quillz said:

Some people around here wanted the Rams to win to "heal" SoCal after the wildfires and Thousand Oaks shooting.

 

Crawl before you walk! How about "the Rams are not associated with white nationalism"?

[FiddySicks 11,047]

Seeing PG&E crumble and not shift the financial burden to their customers would probably be a lot better way to “heal” Californians right now. 

[the admiral 28,190]

5 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

Maybe it dies when Bob Kraft dies and his congenital idiot of a son takes over.

Maybe Kraft's heart will explode while he's railing another "aspiring actress" and because of some deus-ex-machina fine print in the will, the New England Patriots are inherited by that kid he had with some other aspiring actress while his wife was dying of cancer. It'll be like a kids' sports movie, called Li'l Football Bastard.

[DG_ThenNowForever 15,292]

I didn't watch the big game last night because the outcome was never in doubt and Patriots football is joyless.

 

I wrote the same sentiment in fewer words than the returning Drew Magary, though I recommend you read his column anyway: https://deadspin.com/the-worst-people-win-again-1832321959

[Quillz 1,356]

2 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

I didn't watch the big game last night because the outcome was never in doubt and Patriots football is joyless.

 

I wrote the same sentiment in fewer words than the returning Drew Magary, though I recommend you read his column anyway: https://deadspin.com/the-worst-people-win-again-1832321959

History is full of bad people succeeding, whether its sports, politics, whatever.

[verno 170]

A neat little O/U l heard today, number of Super Bowls wins Tom Brady has left in him. The line is 1.5. I predict under. My primary feeling is Gronk will retire over the off season, eliminating a great over the middle threat for Brady. Your thoughts?

[DG_ThenNowForever 15,292]

33 minutes ago, Quillz said:

History is full of bad people succeeding, whether its sports, politics, whatever.

 

Of course. And I'm not compelled to spend 5 hours of my precious time watching them do so.

[Wings 2,142]

I think Brady & Belichick want 7 so the Pats can pass the Steelers and stand alone. 

[rams80 4,219]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Maybe Kraft's heart will explode while he's railing another "aspiring actress" and because of some deus-ex-machina fine print in the will, the New England Patriots are inherited by that kid he had with some other aspiring actress while his wife was dying of cancer. It'll be like a kids' sports movie, called Li'l Football Bastard.

 

Crusader Kings 2 meets the NFL.

[Darknes 374]

I think Belichick also wants to prove he can win one without Brady

[Sport 13,693]

1.5? So they can win one more and still be under? Under. Took some incredible good fortune against the Chiefs to win even this one. Were it not for a bone-headed offsides penalty the Chiefs would've won that game. 

Tom Brady will be 42 when next season starts, which means in order to go over 1.5 he'll have to do so as a 43 year old, at the earliest. Did he look good last night? He did not. Time will get him eventually. Someone on another team will get him eventually. I think that happens sooner than he thinks. 

[the admiral 28,190]

That 75-year-old sperm, poor kid is just gonna be memorizing train schedules and twiddling a third thumb.

[BBTV 19,367]

1 hour ago, verno said:

A neat little O/U l heard today, number of Super Bowls wins Tom Brady has left in him. The line is 1.5. I predict under. My primary feeling is Gronk will retire over the off season, eliminating a great over the middle threat for Brady. Your thoughts?

 

Then they'll just make a star out of someone else.  Players tend to look better when Tom Brady is throwing to them, as opposed to... oh, IDK... Chase Daniel.  Funny how that works.

[Quillz 1,356]

So the ratings were released, and this was the least watched Super Bowl in a decade, although it still had a very respectable 98 million viewers. I bet a lot of people stopped watching at halftime because they released it was going to be a slow, defensive battle.

[Quillz 1,356]

Let's be honest: Tom Brady was almost a non-factor last night. He played fine, but not brilliant. Didn't even throw a touchdown. Granted, it was a slow defensive game so he didn't exactly need to be amazing, but as mentioned, he can't fight fate (i.e. Father Time). And I agree that if Gronk retires, the Patriots will still very much contend (it helps when they play in the worst division of all time), but I don't think will make the Bowl.

[Tracy Jordan 992]

47 minutes ago, Quillz said:

So the ratings were released, and this was the least watched Super Bowl in a decade, although it still had a very respectable 98 million viewers. I bet a lot of people stopped watching at halftime because they released it was going to be a slow, defensive battle.

 

That's what I did.

[Red Wolf 5,513]

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

So the ratings were released, and this was the least watched Super Bowl in a decade, although it still had a very respectable 98 million viewers. I bet a lot of people stopped watching at halftime because they released it was going to be a slow, defensive battle.

I don't know why people worry so much about the ratings unless they're TV execs or advertising people whose livelihoods depend on them. Also, the Steelers-Cardinals Super Bowl that was awesome was rated lower than this one.

[Quillz 1,356]

36 minutes ago, Tracy Jordan said:

 

That's what I did.

I did too, but only because of Maroon 5. And I knew from the start my Rams weren't going to win.

[Quillz 1,356]

16 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

I don't know why people worry so much about the ratings unless they're TV execs or advertising people whose livelihoods depend on them. Also, the Steelers-Cardinals Super Bowl that was awesome was rated lower than this one.

Which was exactly a decade ago, as mentioned by the ratings.

 

I don't care about ratings, I was just curious because my assumption was the very slow-paced nature of the game would have turned a lot of people off, especially give the past few bowls that were a lot faster-paced and higher scoring.

[Red Wolf 5,513]

28 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Which was exactly a decade ago, as mentioned by the ratings.

 

I don't care about ratings, I was just curious because my assumption was the very slow-paced nature of the game would have turned a lot of people off, especially give the past few bowls that were a lot faster-paced and higher scoring.

I honestly don’t think the game itself dictates the ratings that much. The overall interest in the matchup beforehand probably determines the bulk of your ratings in these cases. That’s why a matchup involving the Arizona Cardinals who went 9-7 (and are named the Arizona Cardinals) would do relatively poorly despite being an all-time classic Super Bowl.