NFL Week 4

[hawkeyecub]

Asks Gruden: "What do you say to all the Packer fans? They gotta be confused."

 

Said Favre in the version that aired Sunday morning: "It was 16 great years. I hope they enjoyed it, they appreciated . . . that run as much as I did. You can't take that away. You just have to let it go and just move on."

 

In the late Sunday/early Monday version, the "and just move on" language was omitted.

 

Pretty unethical move by ESPN, but what else is new? They have to protect their guy.

 

Does that omission really change much?

[Flames24Rulz]

Asks Gruden: "What do you say to all the Packer fans? They gotta be confused."

 

Said Favre in the version that aired Sunday morning: "It was 16 great years. I hope they enjoyed it, they appreciated . . . that run as much as I did. You can't take that away. You just have to let it go and just move on."

 

In the late Sunday/early Monday version, the "and just move on" language was omitted.

 

Pretty unethical move by ESPN, but what else is new? They have to protect their guy.

 

Does that omission really change much?

 

In the grand scheme of things, not really. I just don't get why they took it out when they aired it on earlier editions of SC. That's why I think it's pretty unethical.

 

If they're editing things from this interview, there's a good chance that this hasn't been the first time that's happened. ESPN should be getting ridiculed.

[jersey cubs fan]

Asks Gruden: "What do you say to all the Packer fans? They gotta be confused."

 

Said Favre in the version that aired Sunday morning: "It was 16 great years. I hope they enjoyed it, they appreciated . . . that run as much as I did. You can't take that away. You just have to let it go and just move on."

 

In the late Sunday/early Monday version, the "and just move on" language was omitted.

 

Pretty unethical move by ESPN, but what else is new? They have to protect their guy.

 

Does that omission really change much?

 

In the grand scheme of things, not really. I just don't get why they took it out when they aired it on earlier editions of SC. That's why I think it's pretty unethical.

 

If they're editing things from this interview, there's a good chance that this hasn't been the first time that's happened. ESPN should be getting ridiculed.

 

I think it's safe to say they have edited stuff from every interview anybody has ever done on their network.

 

I don't see any problem whatsoever.

[Banedon]

so where's the parity this year? After 4 weeks, there are five 0-4 teams, and, after tonight, potentially five 4-0 teams.

 

Nobody ever claimed there to be parity after only 4 games. That's probably impossible. The Broncos aren't going to win all their games, and the Titans (presumeably) won't lose all of theirs. It will even out over the long run of the season.

 

Also, I never really thought parity meant that you wouldn't have good and bad teams in an individual season. But that bad teams wouldn't stay bad and good teams would have a harder time staying good over the long run. We can debate the extent to which that has been the case (Hello Patriots and Lions), but that's what I took the whole "parity" thing to mean.

[Guest]

i know the 49ers have become pretty good, but man the rams [expletive] suck.

 

I didn't watch much of the Raiders game - I did see the safety - and watched nearly the whole Niners-Rams game and yeah, the Rams are pretty sad. That second half was one mistake after another.

[dew1679666265]

so where's the parity this year? After 4 weeks, there are five 0-4 teams, and, after tonight, potentially five 4-0 teams.

 

Nobody ever claimed there to be parity after only 4 games. That's silly. The Broncos aren't going to win all their games, and the Titans (presumeably) won't lose all of theirs. It will even out over the long run of the season.

 

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

Also, I never really thought parity meant that you wouldn't have good and bad teams in an individual season. But that bad teams wouldn't stay bad and good teams would have a harder time staying good over the long run. We can debate the extent to which that has been the case (Hello Patriots and Lions), but that's what I took the whole "parity" thing to mean.

 

That's what I think it means as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

Also' date=' I never really thought parity meant that you wouldn't have good and bad teams in an individual season. But that bad teams wouldn't stay bad and good teams would have a harder time staying good over the long run. We can debate the extent to which that has been the case (Hello Patriots and Lions), but that's what I took the whole "parity" thing to mean.[/quote']

 

That's what I think it means as well.

 

That's not how it's been defined by much of the media though. People have been painting the picture that parity=mediocirity=everybody goes 7-9 or 9-7. The NFL is set-up so that any team can recover from being horrible and win big in a short amount of time. You can suck every year if you are run by incompetent morons, Detroit. And I think that's a very good thing for a sport.

[dew1679666265]

Also' date=' I never really thought parity meant that you wouldn't have good and bad teams in an individual season. But that bad teams wouldn't stay bad and good teams would have a harder time staying good over the long run. We can debate the extent to which that has been the case (Hello Patriots and Lions), but that's what I took the whole "parity" thing to mean.[/quote']

 

That's what I think it means as well.

 

That's not how it's been defined by much of the media though. People have been painting the picture that parity=mediocirity=everybody goes 7-9 or 9-7. The NFL is set-up so that any team can recover from being horrible and win big in a short amount of time. You can suck every year if you are run by incompetent morons, Detroit. And I think that's a very good thing for a sport.

 

I haven't really heard that definition of parity, but if that's what they're pushing, it's wrong. Parity means terrible/mediocre teams can improve quickly (SF, Denver, Cincy) and good teams can collapse (Ten, Dal?). The NFL does have parity this year.

[bukie]

Also' date=' I never really thought parity meant that you wouldn't have good and bad teams in an individual season. But that bad teams wouldn't stay bad and good teams would have a harder time staying good over the long run. We can debate the extent to which that has been the case (Hello Patriots and Lions), but that's what I took the whole "parity" thing to mean.[/quote']

 

That's what I think it means as well.

 

That's not how it's been defined by much of the media though. People have been painting the picture that parity=mediocirity=everybody goes 7-9 or 9-7. The NFL is set-up so that any team can recover from being horrible and win big in a short amount of time. You can suck every year if you are run by incompetent morons, Detroit. And I think that's a very good thing for a sport.

 

I haven't really heard that definition of parity, but if that's what they're pushing, it's wrong. Parity means terrible/mediocre teams can improve quickly (SF, Denver, Cincy) and good teams can collapse (Ten, Dal?). The NFL does have parity this year.

Parity technically means similar. In reference to sports, it generally is used to denote all teams are similar, there are no great or awful teams. In the NFL, that is not the case year to year. Overall, there is a general similarity in most of the teams, aside from the most outstanding (NE) or the most disappointing (Detroit).

[dew1679666265]

Parity technically means similar. In reference to sports, it generally is used to denote all teams are similar, there are no great or awful teams. In the NFL, that is not the case year to year. Overall, there is a general similarity in most of the teams, aside from the most outstanding (NE) or the most disappointing (Detroit).

 

Ok, maybe I'm misusing the word then.

[Guest]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

[Flames24Rulz]

I think it's safe to say they have edited stuff from every interview anybody has ever done on their network.

 

I don't see any problem whatsoever.

 

Obviously. You know what I mean, though. They edited that quote to fit what they wanted to hear.

 

I don't even have a problem with what Favre said. They should've just left that quote in.

[dew1679666265]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

 

I really doubt it. I guess the Titans might as well win a couple games then.

[CubbieBum]

Oh boy...Peter King has bought into the Broncos.

 

He also said Hutson is the best receiver of all time instead of Rice.

[ISUCubsFan]

If you want parity of win% the NFL isn't going to rate very highly because the better team wins in football more often than in most other sports (and less games means more variance). In baseball, for example, the Netherlands can beat the Dominican Republic twice in a row, Manatee Community College can beat the Pirates scrubs, and teams losing to their minor league affiliates in spring training isn't unheard of. The disparity in lineman alone makes me think any NFL team losing to a NCAA or CFL-type team is extremely low. I think the NFL has the best parity of talent of any major league I can think of due to teams having roughly equal payrolls and the ability to make huge leaps in the pecking order within a single offseason.

[hawkeyecub]

Asks Gruden: "What do you say to all the Packer fans? They gotta be confused."

 

Said Favre in the version that aired Sunday morning: "It was 16 great years. I hope they enjoyed it, they appreciated . . . that run as much as I did. You can't take that away. You just have to let it go and just move on."

 

In the late Sunday/early Monday version, the "and just move on" language was omitted.

 

Pretty unethical move by ESPN, but what else is new? They have to protect their guy.

 

Does that omission really change much?

 

In the grand scheme of things, not really. I just don't get why they took it out when they aired it on earlier editions of SC. That's why I think it's pretty unethical.

 

If they're editing things from this interview, there's a good chance that this hasn't been the first time that's happened. ESPN should be getting ridiculed.

 

But what about the edit makes Favre look better?

 

That's why I don't understand what makes it unethical. It doesn't change the intent or meaning of what he said.

[chuckywang]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

 

Is he even that great of a prospect?

[hawkeyecub]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

 

Is he even that great of a prospect?

 

Yes

[JonJayCutler]

I can honestly say it makes zero difference to me who wins tonight. Those are the best kind of games to watch. :)

[Keener98]

I can honestly say it makes zero difference to me who wins tonight. Those are the best kind of games to watch. :)

 

Im rooting for the Pack(ugh) I want all 3 teams at 3-1, and I want to see Favre fail MISERABLY tonight.

[dew1679666265]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

 

Is he even that great of a prospect?

 

Absolutely. Berry is the best safety in the draft and fairly easily the best safety in the NCAA. He's a fantastic player on one of the best defenses in the league and he's a big part of our defensive success.

 

For what it's worth, Monte Kiffin said he'd take Berry with whatever pick he had, even #1.

[Butterscup1679666578]

I almost want to see us get into the Eric Berry sweepstakes at this point, so why not?

 

I doubt Berry will be the first pick in the draft.

 

Is he even that great of a prospect?

 

Absolutely. Berry is the best safety in the draft and fairly easily the best safety in the NCAA. He's a fantastic player on one of the best defenses in the league and he's a big part of our defensive success.

 

For what it's worth, Monte Kiffin said he'd take Berry with whatever pick he had, even #1.

 

It's really not worth anything, since he's his coach.

 

But seriously, I'd have zero qualms with the Bears trading up for Berry.

[dew1679666265]

It's really not worth anything, since he's his coach.

 

But seriously, I'd have zero qualms with the Bears trading up for Berry.

 

That's precisely why I put the for what it's worth there. However, this was shortly after Monte took the job and had barely even met Berry.

[Soul]

Lordy this is going to be fun

[Keener98]

Haha what the hell is McCarthy challenging? This is Lovie-esque