Welcome back E/O, leagl and Fringey: no one say the name "Penske" 3 times in a row

[tmdiva]

Originally Posted by str8outavannuys

That's hot.

Dude. What up?

tm

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Not one post about George Clinton winning the rights to "bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea"? http://www.ebonyjet.com/bigideas/?p=1282 . Or how absurd out copyright law has become?

if they stole his lyrics, that implies there is value to the lyrics, right? why is this absurd?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Go big or go home? That was always my philosophy. That, and "go fast or die" (I have that tattoed on the part of my arse that hangs out from my speedo). I'm still here.....draw your own conclusions.

I have. You went big on snacks while sitting at home.

TM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if they stole his lyrics, that implies there is value to the lyrics, right? why is this absurd?

Not so much this one since he turned nonsense sounds into a recognizable phrase, similar to Jabberwocky. I was thinking more of Paris Hilton being alowed to mark "That's Hot," the patenting of genes, and other absurdities like "Threepeat" and "March Madness" that were in widespread circulation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy seeing him get dumped on today, but I don't think his choice was idiotic. He made a defensible bet, and lost. He basically sacrificed 40 yards of field position for a 50-50 chance of winning the game right there. And given the ease with which the Colts scored - Manning did everything but twirl the ball on his finger Globetrotter-style on that last drive - he was probably right to think that getting the first down was New England's best and only chance to win.

I'm sorry, but 70-80 yards in 2 minutes and three timeouts is not a gimme. I think he's not very happy with his defense and now they know he has very little faith in them. Not only that, but when the Colts hold, they're pumped. When the Pats fail to hold, they're deflated. I think you bet on your defense if you're going to make a bet. Betting on a passing play on a screen for 2 yards seems like a pretty stupid bet.

TM

[dtb]

Originally Posted by John Phoenix

It just tied for second in an Edmunds.com test between the Cadillac SRX, Mercedes GLK 350, and Volvo XC60.

Autoblog liked it, but at a price.

The Q7 is in my final three picks. Any thoughts on that one?

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I have. You went big on snacks while sitting at home.

TM

Timeline is off. After I went big, I went home anyway, and got bigger.

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm sorry, but 70-80 yards in 2 minutes and three timeouts is not a gimme. I think he's not very happy with his defense and now they know he has very little faith in them. Not only that, but when the Colts hold, they're pumped. When the Pats fail to hold, they're deflated. I think you bet on your defense if you're going to make a bet.

OK, but check out the drive chart. Two of the their 3 4Q possessions resulted in TDs prior to that. And both drives were 79 yards. So there's a decent probability that the Colts score a TD, even from a ways back on the field.

Compare that to a 100% probability that the Pats win the game if they make that 4th down play. With 8.7 yards per pass and 4.0 yards per rush, there's also a pretty good probability that they make that first down.

Betting on a passing play on a screen for 2 yards seems like a pretty stupid bet.

Now here, we agree. Among plays they could've run, the screen did seem like a dumb choice.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Not one post about last night's idiotic decision to go for it on 4th and two from their own 30 yard line?

TM

Yeah - WTF? Even I knew that was stupid -- and I barely even follow football. My HUSBAND (I am such a girl) and I were watching and I looked puzzled and said -- why aren't they punting?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

OK, but check out the drive chart. Two of the their 3 4Q possessions resulted in TDs prior to that. And both drives were 79 yards. So there's a decent probability that the Colts score a TD, even from a ways back on the field.

Compare that to a 100% probability that the Pats win the game if they make that 4th down play. With 8.7 yards per pass and 4.0 yards per rush, there's also a pretty good probability that they make that first down.

I hate this kind of argument. The Patriots were up big. You can't tell me that the touchdown given up when the Pats were up 20 should be compared to the stand they had to make at the end of the game. If you can't count on your defense to hold another team for another 80 yard drive when the game is on the line, then why wouldn't you always go for it with 3 yards or less on 4th down? And, given your argument, at what spot on the field should he have not gone for it? On the 20? On the 10? The 1 yard line? According to you (and the yards per pass or rush you quoted), the gamble is the same, no?

Yeah, if they make it it's a sure win. But if they don't, you give Manning a short field with 2 minutes and 3 timeouts. That's fucking suicide. And it's a really stupid play. If Mangini makes that call for the Browns, no matter how many yards they're averaging per play that game, I doubt you argue the same way.

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Now here, we agree. Among plays they could've run, the screen did seem like a dumb choice.

What I don't get is why they didn't let the Colts score with a 1:30 left. Why tackle the guy at the 5 or wherever it was? Clearly you have no faith that your defense can stop Manning, so why not let him score and hope Brady can get you within field goal range to win it?

Belichick fucked that game up. From the blown timeouts to his play calling to his decision to go for it. I don't know how anyone looks at his decisions at the end of the game without thinking they were exceedingly stupid.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

OK, but check out the drive chart. Two of the their 3 4Q possessions resulted in TDs prior to that. And both drives were 79 yards. So there's a decent probability that the Colts score a TD, even from a ways back on the field.

And both drives took 2 minutes, which is more time than they would have had left.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What I don't get is why they didn't let the Colts score with a 1:30 left. Why tackle the guy at the 5 or wherever it was?
TM

Because the Pats and Colts had seen the replay of Maurice Jones-Drew against the Jets earlier in the day?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by dtb

The Q7 is in my final three picks. Any thoughts on that one?

Can I ask you how you're changing the climate?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by str8outavannuys

That's hot.

Hi. Still renting space in some shyster's office?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Because the Pats and Colts had seen the replay of Maurice Jones-Drew against the Jets earlier in the day?

Also a stupid gamble, in my opinion.

[dtb]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Can I ask you how you're changing the climate?

Sure - we're single-handedly (sts) repopulating New England!