I never get tired of Skip Bayless being wrong, which is often. He must lead a miserable and pathetic life. Skip's younger brother, Rick, is more accomplished and already has an Emmy to his name.
I never get tired of Skip Bayless being wrong, which is often. He must lead a miserable and pathetic life. Skip's younger brother, Rick, is more accomplished and already has an Emmy to his name.
No. Every year they pick a winner and a loser. Most happened to pick Denver....big fucking deal. This shit happens all the time but apparently Seahawk fans vaginas get infected if that happens.
No. Every year they pick a winner and a loser. Most happened to pick Denver....big fucking deal. This shit happens all the time but apparently Seahawk fans vaginas get infected if that happens.
The difference is the national media had 0 fucking clue about the Seahawks team when they all picked the Broncos. Some of them knew what they were talking about and picked Denver and had solid reasoning behind it.
However a lot of these "experts" made it seem like they looked up the team on wikipedia really quick. Saying shit like "I don't know if they can stop Peyton Manning without Brandon Browner" or "Peyton will pick apart Kam Chancellor in coverage because he is big" makes everything they say go down the shitter. Things like "The Seahawks have a good defense but haven't seen an offense like the Broncos" and don't use the reverse logic even though it is true.
If they actually knew a little something about the team it would be different. Saying basic shit like "They won't win because Russell Wilson is struggling" when the team had won on running the ball and defense the past two years is fucking comical.
Agree with cuntwaffle, the people who said Peyton manning two weeks to prepare is too much for the seahawks I completely understood, but the shit like "Seattle has a bad offense" or "Denver just has to stop the run and force Wilson to beat them" as if it's that simple, or as cuntwaffle said shit like "maxwell will get picked apart cause he's not as good as browner" or "demver's defense has been good in the playoffs so we get to throw out all the reg season stats, or my favorite one "Wilson is just a game manager cause he doesn't throw for a lot of yards
The Wikipedia-esque coverage of the Team after the fact was awesome, too. Blatantly obvious there wasn't any prep done on the impossible chance the Hawks actually won. I've never heard so many name mismatches since Faux (lol!) started doing college football.
I really didn't pay attention to that much media during Super Bowl week because there's so much hype. Of course the local guys (especially the mouth breathers like Softy) are going to be biased. I definitely heard a few national radio guys pick the Broncos, the biggest Whoosh being Jonathan Coachman. He said Denver 30-21.
Just in general for the entire regular season, the national media seemed pretty fair. Boomer Esiason and the Fox guys definitely gave Seattle their due. I try to avoid ESPN... I don't think I watched more than 10 minutes of their 11 hour pregame show.
No. Every year they pick a winner and a loser. Most happened to pick Denver....big fucking deal. This shit happens all the time but apparently Seahawk fans vaginas get infected if that happens.
But Seattle was the better team by every possible metric. Every advanced stat said Seattle would win, historical comparisons of great offenses meeting great defenses said Seattle would win, even Vegas had Seattle favored at the very beginning. And despite all this, and despite Seattle being the significantly healthier team to boot, almost every national analyst picked the Broncos - the ESPN "experts" tally was something like 31 picked Denver and 9 picked the Hawks. Their local "blogger" beat writers were about 50-50 - the local guys were far superior to the alleged experts because they actually watch the games. It's not sand in the vajayjay to ask the "experts" to have a fucking clue what they're talking about.
OTOH, at least Bill Barnwell had the game dialed in.
I really didn't pay attention to that much media during Super Bowl week because there's so much hype. Of course the local guys (especially the mouth breathers like Softy) are going to be biased. I definitely heard a few national radio guys pick the Broncos, the biggest Whoosh being Jonathan Coachman. He said Denver 30-21.
Just in general for the entire regular season, the national media seemed pretty fair. Boomer Esiason and the Fox guys definitely gave Seattle their due. I try to avoid ESPN... I don't think I watched more than 10 minutes of their 11 hour pregame show.
Most of the season wasn't too bad I agree. But they also didn't have to talk to them much besides MNF and Sunday Night games... sans people like Trent Dilfer.
The two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl were a fucking dreckfest, when all they had to do was talk about TWO teams and one of them they already knew about my jumping on their dick the entire season.
Barnwell was the only guy who had a solid preview of the game. The NFL Network writers strongly favored Seattle and one of them picked Seattle 38-12. After reading Barnwell I felt it could be a blowout.
DNC & Cuntwaffle make the point here. Its the fact that these pundits didn't do any research and made ridiculous claims. An abundance of stupidity.
No. Every year they pick a winner and a loser. Most happened to pick Denver....big fucking deal. This shit happens all the time but apparently Seahawk fans vaginas get infected if that happens.
But Seattle was the better team by every possible metric. Every advanced stat said Seattle would win, historical comparisons of great offenses meeting great defenses said Seattle would win, even Vegas had Seattle favored at the very beginning. And despite all this, and despite Seattle being the significantly healthier team to boot, almost every national analyst picked the Broncos - the ESPN "experts" tally was something like 31 picked Denver and 9 picked the Hawks. Their local "blogger" beat writers were about 50-50 - the local guys were far superior to the alleged experts because they actually watch the games. It's not sand in the vajayjay to ask the "experts" to have a fucking clue what they're talking about.
OTOH, at least Bill Barnwell had the game dialed in.
Tommy missed all that because he's a fucking goat.
Most "happened to" pick Denver because they're fucking retards, Tommy. Way to climb on the short bust with them, though.
And then afterwards some, not all, don't even admit they're wrong. that stupid Denver post writer who said we didn't beat their "a" team. Fuck people are still saying Wilson is a game manager, some even say he isn't a franchise qb, it's like good christ
ESPN isn't about sports news. They're sports entertainment and almost to a man they do whatever it takes to cater to the majority of their viewing audience. They felt that the audience wanted to gargle Manning's jizz for a couple of weeks so that's what they served up. Game day results don't really matter compared to the two weeks prior.
I'm sure everyone remembers when ESPN held their best NCAA football team of all time tournament. It was the year that SC lost to Texas in the title game. They had obviously made up their mind that SC was going to win their mock tournament. Analysis had no part in it. It was purely viewership driven. The 91 Huskies were the first "matchup" for SC in that tournament and Herbstreit smugly dismissed that UW team like they didn't belong on the field with the mighty Trojans.
The funny thing was that SC had was all offense that year and their defense was inept against good teams. It was not the best SC team of the Carroll era by a long shot. They won the ESPN "tournament" and then Vince Young completely embarrassed the SC defense in the title game. It was a close offensive battle but they had no answer for him whatsoever.
I guess my point is that out of all the ESPN "analysts" there had to be some guys who recognized the shortcomings of that team, but that had nothing to do with how they wrote their show. That would be an issue if it was a news and analysis channel, but it isn't.
ESPN isn't about sports news. They're sports entertainment and almost to a man they do whatever it takes to cater to the majority of their viewing audience. They felt that the audience wanted to gargle Manning's jizz for a couple of weeks so that's what they served up. Game day results don't really matter compared to the two weeks prior.
I'm sure everyone remembers when ESPN held their best NCAA football team of all time tournament. It was the year that SC lost to Texas in the title game. They had obviously made up their mind that SC was going to win their mock tournament. Analysis had no part in it. It was purely viewership driven. The 91 Huskies were the first "matchup" for SC in that tournament and Herbstreit smugly dismissed that UW team like they didn't belong on the field with the mighty Trojans.
The funny thing was that SC had was all offense that year and their defense was inept against good teams. It was not the best SC team of the Carroll era by a long shot. They won the ESPN "tournament" and then Vince Young completely embarrassed the SC defense in the title game. It was a close offensive battle but they had no answer for him whatsoever.
I guess my point is that out of all the ESPN "analysts" there had to be some guys who recognized the shortcomings of that team, but that had nothing to do with how they wrote their show. That would be an issue if it was a news and analysis channel, but it isn't.
LevelPar
Member Posts: 447
Comments
Thanks for posting.
However a lot of these "experts" made it seem like they looked up the team on wikipedia really quick. Saying shit like "I don't know if they can stop Peyton Manning without Brandon Browner" or "Peyton will pick apart Kam Chancellor in coverage because he is big" makes everything they say go down the shitter. Things like "The Seahawks have a good defense but haven't seen an offense like the Broncos" and don't use the reverse logic even though it is true.
If they actually knew a little something about the team it would be different. Saying basic shit like "They won't win because Russell Wilson is struggling" when the team had won on running the ball and defense the past two years is fucking comical.
The Wikipedia-esque coverage of the Team after the fact was awesome, too. Blatantly obvious there wasn't any prep done on the impossible chance the Hawks actually won. I've never heard so many name mismatches since Faux (lol!) started doing college football.
Just in general for the entire regular season, the national media seemed pretty fair. Boomer Esiason and the Fox guys definitely gave Seattle their due. I try to avoid ESPN... I don't think I watched more than 10 minutes of their 11 hour pregame show.
OTOH, at least Bill Barnwell had the game dialed in.
The two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl were a fucking dreckfest, when all they had to do was talk about TWO teams and one of them they already knew about my jumping on their dick the entire season.
DNC & Cuntwaffle make the point here. Its the fact that these pundits didn't do any research and made ridiculous claims. An abundance of stupidity.
Most "happened to" pick Denver because they're fucking retards, Tommy. Way to climb on the short bust with them, though.
Congratulations?
I'm sure everyone remembers when ESPN held their best NCAA football team of all time tournament. It was the year that SC lost to Texas in the title game. They had obviously made up their mind that SC was going to win their mock tournament. Analysis had no part in it. It was purely viewership driven. The 91 Huskies were the first "matchup" for SC in that tournament and Herbstreit smugly dismissed that UW team like they didn't belong on the field with the mighty Trojans.
The funny thing was that SC had was all offense that year and their defense was inept against good teams. It was not the best SC team of the Carroll era by a long shot. They won the ESPN "tournament" and then Vince Young completely embarrassed the SC defense in the title game. It was a close offensive battle but they had no answer for him whatsoever.
I guess my point is that out of all the ESPN "analysts" there had to be some guys who recognized the shortcomings of that team, but that had nothing to do with how they wrote their show. That would be an issue if it was a news and analysis channel, but it isn't.