• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

NFL Network Every Bit As Big Of A Joke As ESPN

Seriously Ex?

The Rams instantly gained respect in 1999 with Kurt Warner. This was despite the fact they had not been to a Super Bowl in 20 years (fact), they had never won a Super Bowl (fact), they had a losing team for 9 straight seasons (fact), and for 14 out of 20 seasons (fact). Yet the respect was instant. It didn't take them putting together multiple winning seasons. So they disprove your argument (fact).

Yeah, and they won the super bowl the very next year. They were called the 'greatest show on turf' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Turf

They broke offensive records. Their QB is probably going to be in the HOF. Their running back already is.

They more than deserved the respect they were shown.

In 2010, the Seahawks went 7-9 and became the first losing team to ever make the playoffs (fact). In the first round, against the mighty Saints, many media pundits were predicting the Seattle upset (fact). This was a losing team getting more respect than a juggernaut. Seattle had lost their only Super Bowl appearance in team history 4 years earlier (fact), they had a losing or even record for 13 of the previous 20 seasons (fact), they had only had back to back winning seasons a few times in team history (fact), and they still got respect and didn't even have to win to get it, that was just a bonus.
Wait... I thought I was a liar because these teams hadn't won or been to a super bow before they got their hypel? The seahawks went in 2006. I thought you were talking about that team.
So am I a liar or are you confusing who you're talking about? Which is it?

In 2003, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers won the Super Bowl. That entire season, praise was heaped upon them almost from day one, because of what a great job Jon Gruden was doing with guys like Warren Sapp, Ronde Barber, John Lynch, etc. At that point in time, the Buccaneers had only put together a winning season 6 times in team history (fact). They were widely accepted as the worst team in NFL history, and there wasn't even an argument that could be made for any other team. Yet after putting together a futile 117 wins in the previous two decades (fact), they were a media darling. Before that and since, they've almost never had a reason to smile about their team's performance.
You mean praise was heaped upon a team that was good enough to win the super bowl that year?

You don't say?

God damn media and their 'hype.' Wish they'd learn how to figure out which teams are actually good....

In 2009, the New Orleans Saints were a media juggernaut all season long, from the initial snap, on their way to winning the Super Bowl. It was so bad, that to not be rooting for the Saints was frowned upon as meaning you must hate life. This was in spite of the fact that this was a team who only had 8 winning seasons in 42 years up to that point (fact), and 5 winning seasons in the previous 20 years (fact), with no Super Bowl appearance in team history (fact).
Yeah... and they won the super bowl. Again, you choose to pick a team that was praised for being good, then eventually won the super bowl, as some sort of evidence that they didn't deserve the praise they got.

Seriously? You're making my case for me...

also you're forgetting that there were lots of ties to Katrina for their run - regardless of whether I agree with those ties or not, they were made and are certainly part of the story behind the coverage.
In 2010, the Detroit Lions drafted Matthew Stafford. In spite of the fact they were widely accepted as the most mismanaged team in the league for a very long time, they were instantly respected. The fact they had become the only 0-16 team in NFL history just 2 years earlier (fact) didn't matter. The fact that in the previous 20 years they had only had 6 winning seasons (fact) didn't matter. The fact they have still never been to a Super Bowl (fact) didn't matter. They had Matthew Stafford now. Things were different now. The media wanted to make sure everybody knew just how great they were gonna be, and showed them nothing but respect. The fact that their one season in the sun was apparently a fluke doesn't matter, they still get respect as a 4-8 team.
I said there was one team on your list that didn't fit the mold the rest of your list had That would indeed be the lions. They are the 1 team that hasn't been to the super bowl in that time span.

They do have arguably the best WR in the game, but other than that I don't understand the hype around them either. They play well at times but not consistent.

Now unless you have facts to back what you're saying, quit pursuing a futile point that isn't real. None of these teams had a winning history as you said, none of these teams had ever won a Super Bowl, let alone multiple ones as you claim, and most had never even been to one. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make, because again, what you said in response to my comment is a total lie. Look above at the facts. These teams were losers that gained instant respect. And proof that it doesn't take multiple years of a winning environment to gain respect. Unless, apparently, you're the Washington Redskins.

You let out the patriots and panthers, both of which have gone to the super bowl at least once in the last 20 years.

You made my case for me ex. Those teams received praise BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOOD (lions excluded, althought they did make the playoffs.) Most of them went on to appear in the super bowl with the team that was being praised.

It doesn't take multiple years, you're right - unless your a team that has continually sold a false sense of hope year, after year, after year, after year, after year. That's what we've done. I don't blame anyone for having doubts about our team, and wondering how we'll screw it up. We have a proven track record of screwing it up. Those teams you mentioned? They (except for the lions) made the most of what they had and wound up in the super bowl with those teams.

None of those teams have the history over the last 20 years we do. That was my point. How can you compare our history to theirs? We have 3 years where we made the playoffs in 20. Outside of the lions, every other team there has done significantly better in that time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ex, pretty much every single one of those teams won the superbowl the year they were getting love from the media. At this point in the 1999 season the Rams were 10-2, and had started the season 6-0 in an absolutely dominating fashion. The Bucs in 2002 were 9-3, and had been to the playoffs four of the previous 5 seasons. The Saints in 2009 were 12-0, and had had only 3 losing seasons over the previous ten years (two of them 7-9). I don't remember the Seahawks getting a ton of attention the year they went 7-9 and won the division other than for the novelty of a 7-9 team winning a division. Even so, the Seahawks were only a few seasons removed from five straight winning seasons (all playoff teams) and a superbowl appearance. Hardly a team that had been 'horrible for 20+ years'. Who the heck is giving respect to the Lions this year?

We are a 6-6 team that has been to the playoffs three times in 20 years. One division title ... 12 years ago. We are coming off three straight 10-loss-or-more losing seasons.

And even so, the league is falling all over itself to heap praise upon our new QB. I've sen tons of 'experts' picking us to make the playoffs. We are 3 point favorites over the 9-3 Ravens. If anything we are getting more positive attention than we deserve. I'm not exactly sure what you think we've earned that we haven't gotten.
 
I must have watched a different segment, they gave Griff the edge across the board and Flacco was deemed inconsistant.

We all feel better when they prop our team and don't take it well when they do otherwise, just goes with the turf.

Regardless, I really don't buy into these shows a lot and have always had problems judging motivation behind the commentary.

Too often these shows remind me of high school debating teams where the participants make points based on which side of the argument they are assigned.
 
I must have watched a different segment, they gave Griff the edge across the board and Flacco was deemed inconsistant.

We all feel better when they prop our team and don't take it well when they do otherwise, just goes with the turf.

Regardless, I really don't buy into these shows a lot and have always had problems judging motivation behind the commentary.

Too often these shows remind me of high school debating teams where the participants make points based on which side of the argument they are assigned.

I'm pretty sure that's actually how it works.... I watched one show the other week where they let it slip. Someone on NFL network said something to the effect of 'What do you expect me to say? I drew this side in pre-show' and everyone on the set laughed in a 'hey, you're not supposed to say that' kind of way.

They're like the draft guys. They get on and over hype things and when they're wrong they just move on - when they're right they gloat.

5 weeks ago this was a college offense that was going to get Griffin killed.

Now it's an unstoppable confusion **** storm that grown men can't handle and is a 'revolution' in the way football is being played.

they're all clowns.
 
Wow this got kind of intense.. i like it.


1 thing you guys are missing out here, is that the Redskins won the East in 99', and was widely viewed as not only a Superbowl CONTENDER, but almost a favorite to win the whole thing... and we dropped the ball that season going 8 - 8.


Since then, how can you expect the media to like us? We've had spotty success AT BEST. We have an owner, who has taken out lawsuits against public media groups, as well as proposed law suits against season ticket holders. He's also, blatantly disconnected this team from the legends of this franchise. He's done just about everything you can imagine to destroy his public image for himself, and everything he does is going to be directly linked to the Washington Redskins.

That all being said, the last 3 years has shown that apparently he's learning, and things are coming together. This was a MASSIVE mess at Redskins park and i dont think everyone really wants to look in the mirror, and see how bad it's really been over the last 20 years. We LOVE our Redskins, and as much as people might bash Snyder, there is a part of us that will not accept anything negative about anyone dawning the Redskins Logo... I cant sit here and blame the media, saying they unjustifiably talk negative about the Redskins, because up until Griffin/Morris came in, what REAL, consistent element of the franchise did we have to give them to talk about?


This comes down on the fanbase as well. That game against Pittsburgh on a NATIONAL STAGE was a perfect example of how this fanbase cant get mad at the media for seeing what they see. Come on, seriously? I was at that game, and I was so embarrassed. THAT is the image that our fanbase put on display to the national media.

This season, that has changed. I heard fans singing Hail To The Redskins over the TV coverage when we played Tampa Bay... the interesting thing... we were IN TAMPA BAY. The sound of the crowd when Griffin broke the run against Minnesota was crazy, and now the way the crowd reacted in the game on Monday night against the Giants... things are going to change. Give it time... 20 years of media hatred is going to take more then 12 games of .500 ball to turn around.
 
Last edited:
tshile said:
I'm pretty sure that's actually how it works....

Yeah, you can also occasionally hear headset directions given to the guys covering the game live. Very Wizard of Ozesque.

I'm sure Aikman was prompted a-plenty to prop up the Pokes to maintain viewer interest in what appeared to be a Skins blowout.
 
Yeah, you can also occasionally hear headset directions given to the guys covering the game live. Very Wizard of Ozesque.

I'm sure Aikman was prompted a-plenty to prop up the Pokes to maintain viewer interest in what appeared to be a Skins blowout.

Haha I actually think Aikman does a decent job, but I know I'm in the minority. I thought he said some good things about us last time :)
 
... and now the way the crowd reacted in the game on Monday night against the Giants... things are going to change. Give it time... 20 years of media hatred is going to take more then 12 games of .500 ball to turn around.

As I was saying the other day, that crowd was the best we've had at home in a long, long time.

I watched the broadcast last night, and after the kneel down Tirico said "It looks like the redskins just won a playoff game in here"

And it did... (I say that having never been to a playoff game... so maybe i'm wrong? certainly seemed that way to me)
The way we celebrated after that morris first down is something you can't describe... you just had to be there... my wife described it as the best game she's ever been to, and it was. the 2005 dallas game is probably the only one better I can think of in a long time that I've been to that was 'better' in terms of how excitement and celebration at the end. But that had much more to do with how the game ended than the feeling most fans have about this team right now.

I wish the redskins fans that went to the game Monday night went to every game. We'd have one of the best home field advantages, and a great game day experience once again if they did.
 
In Ex' s defense (it IS 2012 ya know), the media love for Det boggles the mind. And it continues this year as the media can't figure out why they are regressing. Huh? perhaps last year was the exception, hmmm? NOT the rule, the Lions have been ****ty for years.
 
Well, I'm not seeing a ton of love for the Lions. The most I hear about them is that they're a dirty team and not very likable. But hey, maybe I'm watching the wrong channels. :)

However, I would point out that they went from 2-14 to 6-10 (winning their last four games) to 10-6 and it appeared that they were methodically climbing up the ladder to respectability. Perhaps they've ridden that expectation for a few extra games this season, but I suspect it will wear off rather quickly. We've seen similar flashes here. The glow fades fast.
 
In Ex' s defense (it IS 2012 ya know), the media love for Det boggles the mind. And it continues this year as the media can't figure out why they are regressing. Huh? perhaps last year was the exception, hmmm? NOT the rule, the Lions have been ****ty for years.

Yes, the Lions are a weird situation.

The only thing I can think of is that Suh was supposed to be dominate, Johnson is an elite WR - maybe the best in the league, and Stafford was supposed to be a good QB (he may be, I don't follow him enough to know)

I think the vibe around the lions has a lot to do with changing GM's. While they may turn back into being a ****ty team it certainly wont be for the same reasons they were before. They're actually making good (as in they are running things the 'right' way, not that every decision they made was the best one they could have made) decisions as an organization now - that doesn't directly translate into winning, however.

I don't know how much love they're getting - I never noticed before but I don't follow NFL news as much as many others here do.
 
If it's any consolation, NFL AM just had Al Mo on for a one on one.

They tout him as the 'other outstanding rookie' for the Skins.

As per normal, kudos given for 1K yardage, showed the blurb of Griff supporting Al Mo for ROY, even got "Boo" (his car) on the show and explained that the car is now called the Bentley.....all old news to us but now it's going nationwide.

Looks like the media hypewagon is rolling along just fine for the Skins.
 
Yeah, and they won the super bowl the very next year. They were called the 'greatest show on turf' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Turf

They broke offensive records. Their QB is probably going to be in the HOF. Their running back already is.

They more than deserved the respect they were shown.
So winning AFTER the hype is your defense for your incorrect statements? I said at the time they got the hype, they had previously been horrible. Thanks for backing me up and proving me right. You can't seriously say the hype is justified because they eventually won. At the time the hype was going, they had done nothing to earn it based on YOUR requirement of two years of solid performances.

Wait... I thought I was a liar because these teams hadn't won or been to a super bow before they got their hypel? The seahawks went in 2006. I thought you were talking about that team.
So am I a liar or are you confusing who you're talking about? Which is it?
You're confused. I said you were a liar because you said every one of the teams I named had been to the Super Bowl. You then said some of them had won one. You also said a few had won more than one. Since every single one of those is a blatant lie, I called you a liar. Why don't you go back and read what you wrote since you can't seem to recall.

You mean praise was heaped upon a team that was good enough to win the super bowl that year?

You don't say?

God damn media and their 'hype.' Wish they'd learn how to figure out which teams are actually good....
Again, winning after the hype proves my point, not yours. You said a team needs two years of solid performances to earn the hype. BY YOUR OWN DESCRIPTION, none of those teams deserved the hype. That is the point I have been trying to make from the get go. The fact they were good after the fact is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Yeah... and they won the super bowl. Again, you choose to pick a team that was praised for being good, then eventually won the super bowl, as some sort of evidence that they didn't deserve the praise they got.

Seriously? You're making my case for me...
No, you're making my case for me. Instead of embarrassing yourself further, go back and read what you wrote that started this whole dialogue. I never once said those teams weren't good, or didn't eventually deserve the praise they got. I simply pointed out that your flawed excuse for why we are getting dumped on was because we have sucked for so long and we need to be good for two years first. I used those teams as examples to prove, which I did, that your theory is bull****, based on the fact other ****ty teams that were ****ty for years got hype during one successful year. Before it was known they would win the Super Bowl.

You let out the patriots and panthers, both of which have gone to the super bowl at least once in the last 20 years.
Dude seriously, I think your problem is that you're hung up on the past 20 years. I have repeatedly said the 20 years leading up to the hype they received, not the past 20 years. Before the Rams in 99 with their hype, they weren't ****. Patriots either. Obviously things have been different in the past 20 years, but the past 20 years was ever part of the conversation.

You made my case for me ex. Those teams received praise BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOOD (lions excluded, althought they did make the playoffs.) Most of them went on to appear in the super bowl with the team that was being praised.
What if we win the Super Bowl this year? Then what would your excuse be? There was no way to know at the time that any of those teams would win the Super Bowl. They did not have success leading up to that point, so there was no reason to believe it would continue based on history. Why can't you ever comprehend anything that people try to explain to you? Are you intentionally making up your own version in your head, or just trying to be a dick for the sake of being a dick? Get your own schtick mother****er :laugh:

It doesn't take multiple years, you're right
Thank you. This statement single handedly unraveled your entire case. This whole debate started because YOU said the only reason we aren't getting praised, is because we haven't put together two or more winning seasons in a row. So thank you for finally agreeing with me :D

None of those teams have the history over the last 20 years we do. That was my point. How can you compare our history to theirs? We have 3 years where we made the playoffs in 20. Outside of the lions, every other team there has done significantly better in that time.
All of those teams have a worse history than we do in the 20 years leading up to their hype, which was my point. Please don't let that go over your head again. You are using the current 20 year span, I am specifically saying compare our last 20 years to the 20 years all of those teams had leading up to their hype. As ****ty as we've been, our past 20 years have been more successful than the 20 years before all of those teams had their hype machine turned on.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top