Space Bandito Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 True, but in the NFL you don't have power houses meeting every week. They will play the Patriots story until they find a new one. I don't think the media particularly likes the Patriots. They just like that they bring in money. Stadiums sell out etc. Just like Dallas will probably have its share of games next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 True, but in the NFL you don't have power houses meeting every week. They will play the Patriots story until they find a new one. I don't think the media particularly likes the Patriots. They just like that they bring in money. Stadiums sell out etc. Just like Dallas will probably have its share of games next year. No, but you have other important games with playoff implications that could be shown instead of the Patriots destroying bad teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14th Dragon Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 No, but you have other important games with playoff implications that could be shown instead of the Patriots destroying bad teams. You wanted to see Arizona v. Cleveland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 No, but you have other important games with playoff implications that could be shown instead of the Patriots destroying bad teams. Only one network gets to take advantage of flex scheduling. (Unfair in my opinion) CBS and Fox can only protect their games. There are only a few of these "important" games each year. They are hard to predict. Last year a Ravens/Patriots game would have been a treat. Now it is worth complaining about? ESPN can not control what games they put on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 You wanted to see Arizona v. Cleveland? No, but I would have rather seen Indy/Jacksonville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 You wanted to see Arizona v. Cleveland? Actually, yeah. A little. But not on Monday night. NBC has stolen almost all the thunder from MNF and ESPN hasn't done a very good job with the spot since they started with it (in my opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Last Bastard Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 You wanted to see Arizona v. Cleveland? I assumed that was the only game anyone wanted to see in that time slot. I watched it. Browns 11-5 Wildcard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I assumed that was the only game anyone wanted to see in that time slot. I watched it. Browns 11-5 Wildcard I'm rooting for them...even against the Bengals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14th Dragon Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 No, but I would have rather seen Indy/Jacksonville. That was primetime 5 weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Dunno - Ari/Cleveland was a good game with some nice catches and plays in it on both sides of the field. Can't say that about the Pats/Ravens game. Though to be fair, this was scheduled months ago - when the Ravens were one of the best AFC teams and the Pats were good on paper but not known how great they'd be. It's a great matchup if you only know how 2006 went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Thus the ubiquitous "Hines Ward Problem" A lot of that has to do with the formations they use. He's generally either in the slot, stacked in that weird formation everyone is using these days, or in motion. Also, he's not the fastest guy on the field anyway, so it's not like you need to keep him from burning you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14th Dragon Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Dunno - Ari/Cleveland was a good game with some nice catches and plays in it on both sides of the field. Can't say that about the Pats/Ravens game. Though to be fair, this was scheduled months ago - when the Ravens were one of the best AFC teams and the Pats were good on paper but not known how great they'd be. It's a great matchup if you only know how 2006 went. If you wanted a game where one qb is heave hoing into double and triple coverage, why not put on the Eagles Seatle game. Also had plenty of play-off implications. Or perhaps the Giants-Bears game. PLenty of bad quarterback play to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 If you wanted a game where one qb is heave hoing into double and triple coverage, why not put on the Eagles Seatle game. Also had plenty of play-off implications. Or perhaps the Giants-Bears game. PLenty of bad quarterback play to go around. What's your point? That we should watch the Patriots steamroll their opponents every week because there is guaranteed to be good QB play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14th Dragon Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 What's your point? That we should watch the Patriots steamroll their opponents every week because there is guaranteed to be good QB play? No, just that the Arizona-Clevland game was a penalty filled mess made worse by bad quarterback play. You want to tell me the Lions-Vikings game would have been better in Primetime- fine, I certainly would not mind watching the emergence of a great running back. (Lets just hope Peterson does not get an ad deal for 5 years.) You want to make the case that the CHargers-KC game should be flexed in, I can see that after the fact. Both would have been entertaining to watch as you had good football to watch. But are you honestly saying that Bears-Giants, Seahawks-Eagles, or Cards-Browns; all games I saw, which were painful to watch, are somehow deserving because the games were close? Don't insult my intelligence. You want good football to be played nationally. This year that means, Indy, New Eng, Green Bay, and Dallas. No matter if they are playing each other or the little sisters of the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 But are you honestly saying that Bears-Giants, Seahawks-Eagles, or Cards-Browns; all games I saw, which were painful to watch, are somehow deserving because the games were close? Don't insult my intelligence. You want good football to be played nationally. This year that means, Indy, New Eng, Green Bay, and Dallas. No matter if they are playing each other or the little sisters of the poor. When did I ever say the bolded part? Oh wait, I didn't. So now you're the one insulting my intelligence by attributing suggestions to me that I never made in order to make a point. Nice work genius. I'm so impressed with your intelligence I don't even know where to begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I'm saying that as painful to watch as a game with two not great QBs can be, it's a lot more entertaining to watch that than it is to watch a blowout game when I'm not interested in either team. I don't care about the Pats or the Ravens, and I'd rather watch Edwards make stupid nice catches or the Cardinal defense crack down a bit, or watch how good Joe Thomas is. Or watch Adrian Peterson decleat people in a game that means something to both teams in a division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14th Dragon Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 When did I ever say the bolded part? Oh wait, I didn't. So now you're the one insulting my intelligence by attributing suggestions to me that I never made in order to make a point. Nice work genius. I'm so impressed with your intelligence I don't even know where to begin. Good, I'm glad you agree with me totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 Like I said before. Only NBC has the flex power so I am not sure what we are complaining about. ESPN takes what is given to them. As Kal said, this looked like a great game in September. In other news. I hear Vinnie Testaverde is old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Good, I'm glad you agree with me totally. I don't agree with you at all. I just don't appreciate you trying to use things I didn't say to make a point against me. I could care less about bad QB play. It's part of the game. I rather watch a game where 2 teams need the win in order to further their team then one team steamroll another team just because they can. I don't find that entertaining. I like games that come down to the wire where two teams are fighting it out no matter how many mistakes are made. That's football. Watching the Patriots win is tiresome. If the games were always close, fine, but these 56-10 blowouts and what not just plain sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Bandito Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 I don't agree with you at all. Mex I know your team lost, but you really need to lighten up. Get satellite or something. Oh and this is some of the same talk a lot of people did before the Eagles game. A game that ended up being very entertaining. I watched Jags and Colts/ Giants and Bears/ and a certain Sunday night game yesterday. I was happy enough. I like any football beyond college. In other news. I hear Kurt Warner is also old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.