Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Seahawk Nay Sayers Gargle
Comments
-
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.CaptainPJ said:
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. -
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.TommySQC said:
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.CaptainPJ said:
OTOH, at least Bill Barnwell had the game dialed in.
-
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.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
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.CaptainPJ said:
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.
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. -
Tommy missed all that because he's a fucking goat.dnc said:
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.TommySQC said:
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.CaptainPJ said:
OTOH, at least Bill Barnwell had the game dialed in.
Most "happened to" pick Denver because they're fucking retards, Tommy. Way to climb on the short bust with them, though.
Congratulations?
-
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. -
Nominated!chuck said:
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. -
In your FACE, Marlon Wayans.
-
Marlon Wayans is good in my book. The 6th Man was awesome.ThomasFremont said:In your FACE, Marlon Wayans.
