It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
disappointing game! i didnt want the broncos to win.. but i was hoping for a better game to watch. The bronco's defense looked particularly awful.
avatar
zavlin: disappointing game! i didnt want the broncos to win.. but i was hoping for a better game to watch. The bronco's defense looked particularly awful.
yeah, this game was lame.
avatar
reaver894: Did you know that apparently 7% of Americans that were surveyed bought a new tv for the superbowl....
I'm guessing that's a timing thing. There are usually really good deals in time for the superbowl, so if you didn't get one for Christmas, you can often times get them during the after Christmas sales. Then there's the sales that come up during the run up to the Superbowl. For teams like the Seahawks, that don't go very often, you might as well splurge on the TV, if you don't already have a good one.

Also, that figure probably includes people that return them afterwards. Sometimes those TVs seem better in the showroom than they are in ones home.

One thing I will say is that I was disappointed that the local Fox affiliate wasn't broadcasting in 1080i or 1089p, that 720p, was alright, but it would have been nice to have had full hidef, considering what a major game it was. I'm surprised that they didn't have the spectrum rights to do it.
My excuse for my NFL addiction is snow. I don't know what the rest of you have to blame. :D Fact is in a couple of weeks I'm going to be sitting here watching Olympic curling, and ENJOYING IT!

Laugh if you want, but my PC sits right next to my TV and you can expect some hardcore curling threads not to mention the hell that will follow when the luge events get underway.
avatar
jamyskis: Seems there's a lot of Niners fans disappointed as well. It wasn't so much wanting the Broncos to win, but rather something about what one of the Seahawks' cornerbacks said and wanting the Seahawks to lose as a result.
avatar
Trajhenkhetlive: Well aside from the poor sportsmanship of one player, Seattle for a few years (since 2010) led the league in PED suspensions. Just prior to the 2013 season, 5-6 players were suspended for PED's (A fair chunk being starters). Sherman was almost banned from play this season but got off on technicality. I guess you could make the argument that those players acted on their own, but with near 7 suspensions, at some point common sense would dictate the coaches and other players knew about it and either did nothing to resolve the epidemic or promote it.

Normally I could care less since my team didn't go and might even wish the current Super Bowl champs well on their way to face the Broncos (they are a fellow West Coast team). However, their winning and not being held accountable for a large volume of penalties pretty much sets a dangerous precedent that teams should go ahead and start giving players special "vitamins". In case your wondering the 49ers have no suspensions for PEDs in a long time.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/20/seahawks-lead-the-league-in-ped-suspensions-since-2010/

Pete Caroll avoiding some investigation when the college team he ran had a PED epidemic; http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/23/why-suspend-terrelle-pryor-but-not-pete-carroll/
Are you sure that means that there are actually more infractions? Considering how ineffectual the typical drug testing programs are in other sports, an additional one or two players testing positive is more likely an indication of being stupid about it than necessarily higher rates. I mean, just look at the success that amateurs have had at hooking up A-rod with PEDs. He never did test positive in any of his tests.

Waiting until somebody wins to crack down is really not the right approach. The NFL should have been cracking down on this years ago. Most professional sports don't take this seriously until well after the damage has been done. I know that the NFL, for as long as I can remember, has tolerated a considerable amount of dirty play, and that also needs to be fixed.

BTW: PEDs include a crapload of things that one wouldn't normally expect to be PEDs and would result in a positive test regardless of whether or not they impact the game. So, even when people do test positive, it's not as simple as one might imagine. And some of the best substances aren't directly detectable either.

I make no apologies for cheating, but I've been around long enough to know that any time we do something well, there's all sorts of insinuation that there's something wrong. And I tend to take it with a grain of salt.
avatar
Reever: My question is: why the hell are so many Germans following the Superbowl, lol. Noticed that on FB too :D
avatar
Niggles: Lot of americans live in germany and germany had a team in the old NFL Europe?. :P
Hmm, good point. But there was something like a NFL Europe? Damn...
avatar
Niggles: Lot of americans live in germany and germany had a team in the old NFL Europe?. :P
avatar
Reever: Hmm, good point. But there was something like a NFL Europe? Damn...
That my friend, is probably why it failed. Same goes for why it's taken Soccer so much time to catch on in the US, lack of history of people being interested in it, makes it a lot harder to catch on.
avatar
Reever: Hmm, good point. But there was something like a NFL Europe? Damn...
avatar
hedwards: That my friend, is probably why it failed. Same goes for why it's taken Soccer so much time to catch on in the US, lack of history of people being interested in it, makes it a lot harder to catch on.
There's a fairly large NFL following here in the UK, and for the last...5-10 years? or so, they've been hosting regular season games at Wembley stadium, London, to try to kickstart a UK franchise for the sport.

There will be 3 games hosted here next season.

TBH, though, there's far too many stoppages, and an hour's game time taking 5 hours, just to fit in a shit-ton of adverts? Not gonna happen in the UK.

:P
avatar
hedwards: That my friend, is probably why it failed. Same goes for why it's taken Soccer so much time to catch on in the US, lack of history of people being interested in it, makes it a lot harder to catch on.
avatar
Lone3wolf: There's a fairly large NFL following here in the UK, and for the last...5-10 years? or so, they've been hosting regular season games at Wembley stadium, London, to try to kickstart a UK franchise for the sport.

There will be 3 games hosted here next season.

TBH, though, there's far too many stoppages, and an hour's game time taking 5 hours, just to fit in a shit-ton of adverts? Not gonna happen in the UK.

:P
I dunno, I've tried watching soccer and it feels much slower. Sure they play for the time mostly consecutively, but there's ton of time during games I've watched where nothing meaningful was happening.
avatar
zavlin: disappointing game! i didnt want the broncos to win.. but i was hoping for a better game to watch. The bronco's defense looked particularly awful.
Totally disagree. Right up through the kick return TD to start the 2nd half, the Denver defense was the only reason they were anywhere near being close. Out of those first 29 points Seattle scored, half of them came on a kick return TD and interception return TD, neither of which is on the D. Despite having one legit cornerback (Champ Bailey needs to be a free safety at this point) and Seattle consistently starting in good field position, and constant three and outs and turnovers meaning they never got a rest, the Denver D only gave up 15 of those points.

Eventually they broke, but any D will under circumstances like that.
avatar
StingingVelvet: The differences make it super dangerous even with all that protection, to the point Americans are kind of wondering whether the sport can keep going without massive changes.
Changes like this? ;P http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-marijuana-can-save-the-nfl
avatar
StingingVelvet: The differences make it super dangerous even with all that protection, to the point Americans are kind of wondering whether the sport can keep going without massive changes.
avatar
shaddim: Changes like this? ;P http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-marijuana-can-save-the-nfl
I wouldn't take that too seriously. MJ might help parts of the brain, but it decreases blood flow to the prefrontal cortext, which is where a lot of that typical stoner behavior comes from. Now, it might well be better than nothing for some people, but the issue definitely needs more study.

It really bothers me that the discussions on legalization focus on damn near everything except the actual effect that the drug has on the brain.
Perhaps that's the reason the Broncos played so badly. Colorado just legalized pot coincidence I think so. While the state of Washington legalized it back in 2012.
Post edited February 03, 2014 by jjsimp
avatar
jjsimp: Perhaps that's the reason the Broncos played so badly. Colorado just legalized pot coincidence I think so. While the state of Washington legalized it back in 2012.
They both legalized it in the same year but Washington has yet to get recreational establishments going.
avatar
Shaolin_sKunk: They both legalized it in the same year but Washington has yet to get recreational establishments going.
Ah, so that's why Seattle played so well.