• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lancerman

  1. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    No it really shouldn't have. Changing the rule was rewarding stupidity. I knew people who were in the stadium that day. I had family who were at the stadium that day. It was announced to the entire stadium that those players were inelgible. The fact that the Raven's staff kept players covering ineligible receivers is on them. Anybody with half a brain should have figured that out. Ironically it's play you could probably only run once a year.
  2. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    Oakland caused this if we are being fair. They thought they had leverage and tried to lowball Davis. The opportunity for Vegas presented itself after years and after the Raiders did the league a solid by bowing out of the 3 way race to LA. This was his reward. Then Oakland came in at the last hour with a very vague plan like a day before the vote. They knew damn well the vote was a formality at that point and it was too little to late. It's like that cliche of rushing to a wedding to change the brides mind right before she says I do. It was unrealistic and too wishy washy. That said, it's probably best for all involved that the Raiders find somewhere else to play. Cut a deal with UNLV or something. But get out of Oakland. You are good team, you don't need to be a lame duck somewhere, it's toxic at this critical juncture in the team's development.
  3. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    Besides the point. And singling out the tuck rule, as if the pattern isn't the more relevant point, is also missing the mark, for the record nobody gave a shit about the tuck rule in the 2001 season when the Patriots were on the wrong end of it in the Jets game. If most fan bases could cite multiple explicit rule changes because their team was utilizing it, they would be screaming bloody murder. If this happened in another sport and rules were being constantly changed in response to what one team was having success with, it would put into question the legitimacy of the league. The fact that they still win is beside the point. It shouldn't happen to any team.
  4. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    2003 Patriots kick the hell out of the Colts. Colts lobby to have defensive contact rules tightened. Pretty much changed the QB game for this generation of QB from 2004 on. 2014 Patriots exploit and eligible receiver designation rule in a playoff game against the Ravens. Harbaugh lobby's to have rule changed. It is. 2016 after the Seahawks had been doing it for years, the Patriots start utilizing a leaper and it gets noticed in high profile games. Rule changed next season. Patriots win Super Bowl in overtime. Now the rules committee is talking about toying with the overtime rule. Tuck rule eventually got repealled. You have journalists saying owners won't change rules if the Patriots propose it because they are afraid it is an advantage for them. But the Patriots are the one's who have an issue with the rules.
  5. Jon Connington and Young Griff- meh. It would take alot of work for an unknown payoff. It would really come off as a "who the hell are these people". Also the fact that they aligned Dorne with Dany almost immediatly circumvents his storyline in my opinion. Lady Stoneheart- they could have, but it would have been rather pointless to have done it without adding a ton of filler to justify bringing a main character back. I said in another thread, they could do the whole current LSH storyline in the first two episodes of next season and we wouldn't miss anything. Arianne and Quentyn- You could just do the same Dorne plot with Arianne. Quentin is unnecessary. The whole plot feels like a complication to align Dorne with Dany. Too much of it ties to Jon Con and Griff. You have to bypass the whole marriage thing and just have Doran's speech to mean an alliance to Dany with no strings attached. But that's about it. Victarion and Aeron- With some reworking maybe. But we essentially have the same result. Garlan and Willas- Willas hasn't even been seen yet. Only mentioned. Garlan would have been killed at the Sept in this seasons finale. So who cares?
  6. Remark by Jaime's aunt Genna about Tyrion

    Tywin has a sister who point blank said Jamie isn't his son, whether that was figurative or not. He knew Aery's had a thing for his wife. He knew Aery's wife kicked Joanna out of court. Aery's made a comment about nursing children ruining Joanna's breasts, it was enough of a slight to outrage Tywin to leave the court. It's not like there is nothing there. He knows there are rumors of his children practicing incest (he likely knows their were similar issues at Casterly Rock). He knows that his grandson was mad and drew comparisons from several characters to the Mad King, a person Tywin is all to familiar with. There Maybe you could argue Tywin doesn't know for sure, but it's very possible the seed of that is in his mind. Maybe it's not either. But it isn't entirely baseless to say their are enough bread crumbs for him to see the possibility. As far as everything else. Tywin is so against Tyrion being his heir and ruining his legacy that he wants his firstborn son who is regarded as a kingslayer to forsake one of the most honorable life vows in the seven kingdom. Tywin in that same situation outright told Tyrion he would never allow him to inherit Casterly Rock. He has a serious disdain for Tyrion. He has a serious image issue with the projection of power on his house. And again Tywin would never be able to 100% prove Jamie isn't his son, just like he wouldn't be able to prove Tyrion is. So even if he suspects something, Jamie is still far and away the better option in his eyes. And to the whole world Jamie will never be regarded as anything other than Tywin's son.
  7. Why did Tywin liked Jaime so much?

    -He's his firstborn son. -He's one of, if not the, finest knights of his generation. -He's one of the most handsome men in the kingdom and projects a strong image for House Lannister. -He didn't outwardly project too many vices, maybe the biggest was vanity and rashness. -His only other option as an heir was a disliked, deformed, imp, that spent his days drinking and whoring around across the kingdom. Because of all that, he's willing to overlook the faults he KNOWS Jamie to have, because he has all the aspects people will see first. Later on he probably hopes that Jamie is teachable and he can get him in line and to be more cunning. Tyrion on the other hand has the mind and substance, but he'll never have the things that people see when they look at Jamie.
  8. Remark by Jaime's aunt Genna about Tyrion

    It's a world where you can't definitively prove parentage. So even if Tywin suspects it, it's not like he can just claim it. He'd be claiming that: 1. He got cuckolded. Which makes him look bad, makes his wife look bad, makes his house look bad, makes two kids that he can't prove aren't his either way possible abominations, and forces him to name the most undesirable child of his wife to true heir. 2. Now he's calling his king an adulterer and the father of two bastards, which he again can't prove definitively. And it's something Aerys could find as treasonous. And similarly to your explanation that there is no proof in the books that Tywin would be okay with it, there's no proof he wouldn't. At best Tywin's entire basis for thinking that, if he does at all, is almost entirely based in suspicion and not actual confirmation of fact. So if he turned out to be wrong, then he's bypassing his son who is one of the best knights of his generation and one of the most desirable men in Westeros for an imp who would make his house a laughing stock. Even if he kinda thinks it, going with Jamie is still the overall smarter thing for his house in the future. Even if Tywin believed in his heart of hearts that Jamie was 100% not his son, what do you think his actual options are? Because nobody else would know but him, he has no proof, and it puts Tyrion as his sole heir. Tywin is not a classicist to the extent of Stannis. He is a man whose sole objective is the strength of his house. I mean come on, Tywin's a pretty smart man, who had to know what happened with Jamie and Cersie when they were kids, he heard the rumors, he knows about Robert's bastards, even if he denies it he can put two and two together. He just turns a blind eye because Joffrey and Tommen as King is better for House Lannister. And if Tywin were that much of a classicist, well Jamie's a Kingsguard, he wouldn't exactly be putting all his eggs into getting his son out of a life vow for one of the most high profile and honorable positions in the kingdom.
  9. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    It's less about how much in story time passed and that you in a television format you are telling it season by season at a very defined pace for the original airing. Even if we say one second has passed for the characters, one year has passed for the audience, the actors, the crew, etc. So when you introduce a character like LSH it's a major development for the audience, and when you have to sit on that devopment for two years, it impacts how the audience digests it. And that impacts how the audience perceives the plot point. Example, to most fans they had to wait a year with Jon Snow dead to see what happened to him. In series, he was probably only dead a few hours at most and two episodes apart. If you switched the episodes around so that season 5 had him killed off in episode 8, Davos finds him in 9, and he's ressurected in 10, all of a sudden he was brought back right away and it lessens the impact. But that's not how it happened. We waited a full off season to see him come back and it impacts how we perceive what happened. And that's the problem you run into LSH. You bring her in, and then have nothing do with her sans maybe 1 scene in season 5 and 6.
  10. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    I doubt they are too. I'm just saying, based off the material we have, there is nothing that she did that can't be accomplished in the first two episodes of next season if they wanted to use her. So the idea that they needed to introduce her before or should have introduced her 2 seasons ago and then made up filler plots to keep her active just isn't a compelling argument to me. The question is less why wasn't she introduced yet, and more "why wasn't she introduced at all". Assuming they don't use her. And truthfully if they were going to introduce her they would try to keep it a secret anyways. For that final question, it depends on how important she is in the novel going forward. If Brienne has a change of heart and slays her to save Jamie in the very next scene, then it's like okay probably a poignant character moment, but not the most effective use of plot time. If she plays heavily into the endgame, then we might question it more and argue that it was a mistake to not include her. But either way at this point there simply is a lack of information and source material to have that discussion. With other additions or subtractions to the series there is generally enough information to see what the thought process was for doing one thing over another. Whether you agree with it or not, you can see the "why". There isn't enough to create a "why" for LSH.
  11. Remark by Jaime's aunt Genna about Tyrion

    It doesn't ultimately matter. For all intents and purposes, Jamie and Cersie are his children. They are also the blood of his wife who are related to him. In Tywin's mind, it's probably better for the Lannister name if the handsome brave knight were to inherit his family lineage than sticking the family's future and Tywin's legacy under a deformed imp. He simply just might not care as long as his family legacy is protected.
  12. Remark by Jaime's aunt Genna about Tyrion

    In my mind it's a double meaning. Realistically Gemma would have no idea whether Jamie and Cersie were not Tywin's biological kids. She probably meant it strictly to mean that Tyrion has Tywin's mind and temperament, while Jamie is his own person. But it's also probably a hint that we may or may not find out that Jamie and Cersie are actually not his biological children. Cersie and Joffrey were both mad like Aerys. Jamie seems to be more of a fun loving free spirit. The ultimate irony of the Lannister family would be if the two kids who were outwardly perfect but had severe personality issues were not Tywins kids. And the intelligent son he rejected who was disfigured ended up being his only true son.
  13. It's the most boring option, but a Robert's Rebellion makes the most sense for this sort of a project. It is a well layered story in and of itself. AND it features enough ties to the original series to give it a hook for most of the current audience. A series where a young Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon team up to defeat the Mad King. Where Lyanna is kidnapped. Where Jamie becomes a KG. Where Tywin takes over his father's seat and watches his relationship with Aerys detoriate. Where Cat has her bethrothed taken from her and is forced to settle for Ned. Where Rheagar accidentally starts a war that will destroy his house. You could very easily get a few seasons out of that.
  14. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    Because you can trace the logic behind what they did and didn't add. With Jamie in Dorne it was because he had nothing else to do and they used him to help streamline the Dorne plot into something that is simpler into getting the Dornish to declare war on the Lannisters and join Dany. With Brienne in Winterfell it was because she had nothing else to do and this was a simple way to get her close to a major plot without impacting it too much and giving her some character moments. With Ros she was used to give other major characters that would be important later on some character scenes that weren't present in the book. With LSH you are advocating for two years of posturing because you want a character to exist at a certain time when she has done nothing notable so far. Like I said, it makes no difference plotwise if you waited until the start of next season to do both major LSH scenes and it changes virtually nothing. The reality is, with LSH she is a major resurrection and more importantly she simply hasn't done enough that it mandated bringing her back at any point so far. And we don't even know what she is doing in the books so far. And she isn't minor enough that the show can get away with showing her and then only giving her one scene over two years. So the only rational takeaway I am getting from this is for some reason you wanted LSH to appear chronologically when she appears in the books and then for the writers to just write filler around it for two years.
  15. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    Doing essentially nothing. Like I said, we could literally start next season with the Epilogue to ASOS. Then an episode later Brienne runs into her on her way back to Winterfell. And it would change nothing regarding her plot and how it effects literally everything else. And it probably gets her plot going in faster. Meanwhile starting it at the end of season 4, essentially means you are writing filler for her and putting her in a holding pattern for two year. Which most fans, would start wondering why this major character that just returned is dicking around for two season without any major plot development. That's how little of her story has developed thus far.
  16. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    And the argument against that would be that Brienne in Winterfell and Jamie in Dorne did not change those plots all too much regardless, it just gave another familiar character something to do. And that if you did that scene in season 5, what are you going to do with Jamie and Brienne up until now? It's plainly obvious Jamie and Brienne were only involved in those plots because the LSH plot put a monkey wrench in their stories.
  17. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    Blackfish is secondary character who most fans only remember for shooting a fire arrow at a raft. He came back to die because it was portion of Jamie's plot. His final scenes were used as something Jamie and Brienne could play off of. Osha was a side character who helped Bran escape and showed her tits. She came back to die because it was portion of the Winterfell plot. Her death scene was used to play up Ramsay's sadism Ros was a nothing character who was literally a plot device so they could give Theon, Littlefinger, and Joffrey some character building scenes. Doran was an already named Prince in a region they were going to show anyways. He was used as a foil for Ellaria and the Sandsnakes. And died when he was neccessary. You named 4 characters who were secondary characters (if that) from their debut on and were used primarily for the benefit of the character building of other major characters. That's like saying they shouldn't have brought Walder back to be killed by Arya. By contrast you are talking about resurrecting a core original original cast member whose reappearance is significant for all these other major characters: Sansa, Arya, Jon, Brienne, Jamie, Littlefinger. Her current undeveloped plot in the books, is reliant on Jamie and Brienne. And since her resurrection scene she has had one major scene and it put's those two previous cast members in a holding pattern once it happens. So you are advocating for making what at the time would be the single biggest plot twist and return in the show up until Jon's ressurection, and then making up nothing scenes for her, where she can't interact with any major characters because so far it is important to her character that nobody knows she exists. It's very different. Right now they could start next season with a the first official appearance of LSH and then two episodes later do the Brienne scene, and nothing would have been lost plotwise yet and you wouldn't have to waste filler time to keep her relevant. That's where we are at with that character.
  18. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    If we are going chronologically, so far in the series, Stone heart would have been the last scene of season 4 and she would have been in one scene late in season 5 or very early season 6. In the case of that latter scene, whenever you did it, it automatically puts Jamie and Brienne in a holding pattern until whenever you can resolve it. Which hasn't happened in the book series yet. There was a reason Jamie was in Dorne and Brienne was at Winterfell
  19. why was Ladystoneheart cut out

    They could, but Ramsay was a major plot point way back in book 2 that was took the home castle of most of the major characters back from the Greyjoys, was holding a POV character hostage, and was before the tv series even started was pretty clearly shaping up to be a major antagonist. And it was pretty easy to predict what was going on with Ramsay. Marg likewise was married to three seperate kinds and was one of the catalysts for everything Cersei did in KL. They were around everything, they just weren't expanded upon in the same way by Martin because you heard so much about them. That isn't true for LSH. The reality is that if they did LSH the same way they did in the books, she would have showed up end of season 4 (so a full year after the Red Wedding) and had maybe two scenes in season 5 and season 6. So the novelty of it is kinda wasted and by the time you ever get into the plot GRRM had in mind you are already onto Dany coming to Westeros, the reveal of Jon's heritage, and the consolidation of most storylines. Meaning those are more prevalent and fresh.
  20. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    Manning and Brady will finish neck and neck in bulk stats when Brady's career is over. The difference is Brady will be well ahead of him in efficiency stats. Just to give you an idea, it will take Brady 2-4 years to catch Manning in bulk stats. Which will put them roughly even in playing time. BUT and this is a big but, at Brady's current average per season for him to match Manning in the number of interceptions, Brady would have to play 10 more years. But at the same time if he did that he'd also put almost every bulk record out of reach forever. With Rodgers it's a little different. Rodgers is the best efficiancy stat QB of all time. But he's also the best QB to play post the 2004 rule changes. If you compare Rodgers to Brady/Manning/Brees from 2008 on, Rodgers is still better in efficciancy stats, but only by like a negligible amount. Like Rodgers since 2008 when he started has a 104 passer rating and Manning and Brady are 101. And that's not taking into account that Manning and Brady both missed a season to injury in that time frame. If you go strictly to there last 9 years vs his, it's Rodgers at 104 to Brady at 103 (mainly because you get the 2007 season in there). And Rodgers is never going to catch them in bulk stats. And to catch Brady in winning, well he's 33 now, he'd need the greatest 6 year run in the history of the sport to get anywhere near him. And Rodgers numbers are a bit inflated because earlier in his career he was more willing to take sacks than throw incompletions which effected his passer rating and Manning started from day 1 and Brady started 1 year in, Rodgers got the benefit of missing those growing pain years and started year 3, which also helps his standing there. If I'm starting a team from scratch I take Brady. He has the best of both their qualities plus the winning. And to be honest, one game for my life, I really can't go with anybody else besides him or Montana.
  21. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    He was taking less before he married her.
  22. Season 1 was original and personal. Like it was a big deal when Jack and Palmer just finally met face to face. The twist at the end was also legendary. I really feel like season 2 established the terrorist formula and they took such care to be nuanced and not stereotypical in handing Islamic Extremism and also showing how the corporate military industrial complex can be just as bad. Season 3 was great in that it combined the personal touch of the first season with the scope of the second. Saunders was a great foil to Jack. I will always maintain that season 4 is crap and it's almost like they said "hey remember season 2, lets try to do that again with almost none of the respect, care, and logic". Elements of season 6 and season 7 should have just been combined honestly. I don't mind a rogue Tony and think that should have been the crux of the season, Tony searching for the co consirators to Logan and Jack having to stop him when he goes to far. And it kinda ties into a theme that goes across the series of you having all these kinda agents who are fighting the good fight and a changing government that betrays them. In the first two seasons Jack sacrafices everything for these people and you see how it completely destroys him. In season 3 Saunders is like his dark reflection who taunts him about how things change and someday he'll be in his shoes. In season 5 he brings down a corrupt President who completely dicks over his friends and he watches it drive his buddy Tony insane. Then in season 8 he watches this leader he believed in subvert justice for her own political ends and it drives Jack off the deep end. And then in the end he is the terrorist getting in the way of peace talks.
  23. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    True but didn't like almost every analyst say something like the Patriots had one of the worst schedules for opposing offense in the league and highly questioned the validity of that ranking? The Patriots had good defenses but they had nothing on teams like the 2000 Ravens, 2008 Steelers, 2013 Seahawks, 2015 Broncos. And tbh a lot of people will argue that DVOA is more predicative of success than ppg. I think it's better to say they always had competent defenses for the most part, though 2009-2012 were crap imo. And as much as people remember the early 2000's as being great, the 2001 team wasn't a world beater defense. It was more of a plucky team with good scheming and fundamentals and Brady doing some game managing as well as making some clutch plays down the stretch. 2003 was a great defense but Brady was also the 3 best QB arguably in the league and like I said led the league in TD's. Also their defense that year made Jake Delhomme look like Joe Montana in that Super Bowl. And the 2004 team also had a great defense, but the offense again was a powerhouse as well. They might actually have been the most dominant team of the 2000's when you consider what they were and what they did. They went through a historically great Colts offense, a historically great Steelers defense, and the best team in the NFC (and really standardbearer for the NFC in the early 2000's) in the Eagles.
  24. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    They are already ahead of anybody,anything they do just adds to that. Even if they go 18-1 now they had two of the only 3 perfect regular seasons, they increased their lead in AFCCG and Super Bowl appearances. Brady blows open his lead for most wins of all time and increases his winning percentage to near an .800 average with twice as many wins as anybody with a similar average (Lamonica and Graham who have around 60 all time wins to Brady's over 200). It's just more stats on their resume. They already did something that you'd have to go back to before the merger to find any coach or QB doing something similar.
  25. NFL Offseason: Trail of Tears or My Cousin Kirky

    They've always had a good overall defense. But from like 2009-2012 their secondary was a freaking nightmare and the end of games sucked. The only reason they were in the Super Bowl in 2011 was because Brady willed his team along all year to overcompensate. And consider this, the two times Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl in 2006 his offense actually was kind of abysmal in the playoffs and his defense legit carried the team with an excellent showing (I think the defense outproduced the offense that playoff run) and in 2015 he was again carried by a defense when he was at the end of his rope. Manning's had some pretty good defenses. Nothing as good as Brady. But really outside of 2001, it's not like Brady didn't carry his weight in his Super Bowl runs. He was 3rd in MVP voting in 2003, led the league in passing, and won a major shootout against the Panthers, he and the offense were elite in 2004, in 2007 he led one of the best offenses of all time, in 2011 he overcompensated and made it to the Super Bowl with one of the worst secondaries to ever enter in the league, I think he had the number 1 or 2 ranked offense in 2014, and he led an outstanding offense this year.