Last edited:
Shots fired
- Thread starter DerekJohnson
- Start date
Herbie was fighting every inch of his homer being the last quarter of that game.
There's a new weird thing where no matter the team or player they for some reason think they're an underdog and try to weave some chip on their shoulder story. What they went through was losing two games they shouldn't have lost but deserved to lose on the field. I guess they lost a couple OL to injury but everyone has injuries, bro.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
This. I'll even add to it with something you wrote: "shouldn't have lost." Sports media gave us that one too and it's made its way into our everyday sports lexicon. I mean, what does it mean? Was the team that won not supposed to win? Sure, there are fluky af games and the ball isn't round so it bounces unpredictably. But when you have fewer points than the other guy, due to whatever, then that's it. Unless you can prove that the refs are baked or the team was doing a Black Sox dive, you're just barking at the wind.
So, I would change it to, they lost two games. Were they better than those teams? Sure, but we see it proven with the transitive property not being very mathematical every single year: the game is played on a given day and that's the day you have to show up and play. The rest is coping and navel gazing.
Don't get me wrong. After the 1986 Fiasco Bowl with Miami finding a way to lose against an inferior try-hard Penn State team, I proceeded to engage in this kind of discourse for the next 30 years. But I have finally grown out of it. It just doesn't matter. They're not replaying the game, and so the annals of history will show who won, who lost and that's it.
Buck lost to the Ducks on the road (location added for the PGOS) and to a shitty Michigan team at home. I don't know why, but they did. The day the game was scheduled, they weren't ready to be the best version of themselves. But then again, we never know if the team that won was the precisely best version of itself. Like I said, navel gazing.
Last edited:
I damn sure won’t miss him wax on the same compliments about JT and Egbuka each playoff game.
Petros has been calling out Herbie and his “emotional support dog” for quite some time.
The Throbber fucking loves Petros.
He and Stavros Halkias are my favorite dudes to listen to. Maybe I have a thing for the Greeks.
Greek men, more specifically?He and Stavros Halkias are my favorite dudes to listen to. Maybe I have a thing for the Greeks.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Greek men, more specifically?He and Stavros Halkias are my favorite dudes to listen to. Maybe I have a thing for the Greeks.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I know softy is hated in these parts, I enjoy a few of his individual interviews like Mike Florio, when he has Petros each week they are very funny! I pick and choose the interviews, Harlan is ok and occasionally interviews with Holmgren. Hugh is a difficult listen with softy because he gets so in the weeds I can’t take the entire interview. When he interviews a husky coach like Danny Sprinkle I listo too. Zero Ms or Kraken
I listen to Softy and Dick about five times a year but one of the times was a couple weeks ago when he had Petros on. He was ranting about what an insecure douche LeBron is. It's so rare for anyone in the MSM to criticize LeBron for anything at all. It was great radio, despite it being Softy's show.
He's also a decent color guy, even though I'm pretty sure they do that from a studio in LA instead of the actual stadium, because Fox is so cheap.
He's also a decent color guy, even though I'm pretty sure they do that from a studio in LA instead of the actual stadium, because Fox is so cheap.