Jump to content

BJORN

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2,553

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Posts posted by BJORN

  2. Posted · Edited by BJORN

    While not always, there has definitely been a trend towards teams winning SBs with QBs on lesser contracts. The team in recent memory that didn't was the Broncos but the stars aligned in terms of assembling the defense for them. They were fucking STACKED and had cap space to snag Peyton. 

    One team has had the greatest QB of this generation who has been paid MUCH below his market value: The Patriots. Now one could say Brady willingly sacrifices his salary so the team will be better off which is true. But Brady has one luxury most players don't: A motherfucking gold-mine for a wife. 

    While, I am sure winning plays a factor in terms of contract decisions and such, the reality is that these players need to make the most that they can, while they can. So if every QB decided to take (much) less than they are worth, that shifts their collective market value down and screws everyone over.  

    I think there is no doubt that Brady's contract has helped the Pats stay so consistent. But due to the fact that is he undercutting his felow QBs, is this something that should be looked into? It certainly effects the health of the league. (I know I am sure the owners would love it if everyone took less money!)

  4. Posted

    18 hours ago, Thanatos said:

    If the Chiefs win the coin flip, they are in the Super Bowl. A coin flip should not determine who wins an offensive shootout. Pats defense was just as bad in the 2nd half as KC's- Chiefs defense actually did pretty well in the first half, two picks taking at least 3 off the board and putting at least 3 on the board. They were just gassed from being on the field for 43 minutes.

    Two takeaways from these two games: Penalties should be challengable, and OT should at the very least be one possession for each team.

    60-51-7 - The record of team who got the ball first in OT..... Play defense. It wasn't automatic that the Chiefs score - just re-watch the first half for proof. It is however, fact, that the Pats did score and the Chiefs let them. 

  5. Posted

    13 hours ago, RazorStar said:

    If the chiefs just played defense they would have never been in that mess. Anyway I hope you're all excited for the Patriots dynasty never ending.

    Yeah, I get annoyed at all the crying over the Chiefs not getting the ball in OT and such. They had a million opportunities on defense to take the game and failed. 

  8. Posted

    Sarge, I think you have to be careful doing what you did because it could come off as douchey rather than what you are thinking. 

    That being said, I agree with your general message about handling  it at work...you just can't let it slide every time. I can be very fiery at work sometimes if I feel disrespected. But there is a fine line you walk...you want to be well-liked too.

    In public, I usually just write it off or will say something if I am really mad...but I try not to. Not worth the consequences/risks if it turns physical. I will completely write people off who I feel have disrespected me though.

     

     

  12. Posted

    Obviously, its Trump and is usually extremely petty or over actual truths so it is dangerous and all that but lets not forget the US media has been arguably one of the biggest issues in our country...so a part of me is kinda happy some of them are getting shit on even if its totally irrational. :smug:

  13. Posted

    On 11/11/2018 at 4:05 AM, RazorStar said:

    I think it's a great trade for the Sixers, and give them that key third option to fight against the top teams in the East. I'm really excited to see which team will end up being sacrificial lambs to the Warriors dynasty.

    Do you think the Eastern Conference champion banner would actually count for something then in this context? Got some squads forming in the East for sure.

  22. Posted

     

    On 9/21/2018 at 8:38 AM, seanbrock said:

    There is obviously a lot of differences but we do have some things in common. We do have common goals that we can only accomplish as a United front. Is it possible to form a coalition? Is it possible to bring people together on singular issues. I believe that it is.

     

    1. Put a stop to endless war or at least wars without congressional approval- How many Americans are here on this. Does anyone know why we're still in Afghanistan?

    2. Stop the corporate capture of politics.- What can we do here? We need to convince people on both sides that we can't vote from people who take corporate money or PAC money. RANKED CHOICE VOTING!!!!

    I think we could come together on this if the effort was made to organize people in this way. I don't think that effort is there but it should be. There is power in numbers. All the money in the world would not be able to stop a coalition of this size. We must organize. We have to smash the establishment to pieces with no mercy. 

    I agree, there are a few things in common that these groups share but as blots said/hinted, typically through completely different means. There are probably a few issues that are low-hanging fruit that all would agree on, sure.

    1. To help provide stability and to counter/manage insurgent groups like ISIS until the Afghans are built up enough to manage things themselves. 

    2. Nothing? Had every reason to boycott the major parties last pres election and no one did. 

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×