American Football

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

If you don't feel like shopping at Safeway or some other chain that advertises, you can most likely find a corner store near by your home where you can shop instead. It's probably run by honest, hard-working immigrants who just want to improve their lot in life. So there's no reason not to shop there... as long as you don't mind paying $4.89 for 2 litres of milk.

I do just that, and get superior quality products at better prices, since I don't drink milk. (actually, my wife drinks it like water, so I do buy it) The Habib-mart near me sells excellent spices such as black pepper, crushed chiles, sugar, turmeric, cumin and the like for 1/4 of the price of what 'Super' markets do, and are in my opinion, of better quality.

I go to Chinatown (I work 2 blocks away) to "Big Wang's Meat' and get frest meats at half the price of Safeway, with no added 'pump'. ('Pump' is the colloquial term for injected or otherwise added filler, usually soy protein and it's ilk. Maple Leaf sells 'pre-cooked Roast Chicken and beef, with the 'pump quotient' for the Chicken at 21% and the roast beef at 23%! Imagine buying a meat product that is almost 1/4 'not meat'! Same goes for the ads Maple Leaf Prime Chicken ran, "We don't add water!" True, they add 'pump' instead, and having tried it once I will never buy it again.) Chinatown in Calgary also has a 'Dim Sum' place that I go to for frozen, prepared meals and appetizers that are restaurant quality at wholesale prices, made right there. Cheap and way better quality than any supermar=ket apps you will ever buy.

The 'Habib-mart' and the local Farmer's markets also sell produce of often better quality, a way bigger size (some apples and green/red peppers I have bought there are half the size of your noggin!), for usually less than half the price at Safeway.

I love sports, but hate 'professional sports'.

Regardless, this is a political forum, and the moderator was been asked in the past to introduce an 'off-topic forum' The answer has always been 'no'. If you want to talk about Maury Povich or NFL football, go elswhere. Unless, of course, there is some sort of political bent to the story, which here, there obviously isn't one. Anyway, glad I could drift this bit into something more interesting than who ran over whom while holding some little football.

[geoffrey]

As to Music, I listen to public stations such as CKUA or the local UofC station, CJSW (if only those kids would learn how to shut up and play music!)

No kidding.

[ft.niagara]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN...UE&SECTION=HOME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nmZBUzrSdQ

By DON BABWIN

Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) -- Sunday's Super Bowl has triggered questions that haven't been asked here in years. Like, if the Chicago Bears were 14 inches tall would they still win? And would a big bus loaded with Bears cross the finish line first in the Indianapolis 500?

If you know the answers - yes and yes - you probably remember Bill Swerski's Super Fans on "Saturday Night Live" in the early 1990s. Knocking back beers, they took turns extolling the virtues of "a certain team from a certain Midwestern town that starts with a C, ends with an O and in the middle is HICAG."

But even those who don't recall the beefy guys - made so by a diet of beer, ribs and Polish sausage - can't escape their rallying cry of "Da Bears."

In Chicago and around the country, "Da Bears" are everywhere. Radio hosts can't stop talking about "Da Bears." The words "Da Bears" are irresistible to newspaper and Web site headline writers from all over the United States and even the frozen north of Canada.

[Remiel]

Will you quit it already? We don't need you to keep bumping a completely off topic thread. Let it die.

[kimmy]

I think the original point of the thread was to point out that NFL football is immensely popular in Canadal, and to question whether the Globe and Mail's decision to omit coverage of it from their sports section may have had more to do with a nationalistic editorial bias than with the interest of NFL to the typical reader of a newspaper sports section.

The NFL's popularity among Canadians is affirmed by the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement:

http://www.bbm.ca/en/nat01152007.pdf

More people watched the Colts beat the Patriots than watched the Hockey Night In Canada prime-time game featuring the Toronto Maple Leafs taking on Wonder-boy Sidney Crosby. Of course, I can understand why Maple Leafs fans may not have watched that game, as their team was getting beaten to a bloody pulp, but the fact of the NFL's popularity in Canada is undeniable, and the decision to omit NFL coverage from the G'n'M is therefore quite puzzling.

-kimmy

{pulling hard for the Colts this weekend! }

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I think the original point of the thread was to point out that NFL football is immensely popular in Canadal, and to question whether the Globe and Mail's decision to omit coverage of it from their sports section may have had more to do with a nationalistic editorial bias than with the interest of NFL to the typical reader of a newspaper sports section.

Indeed that was the point. I am not familiar with the Globe&Mail, so I cannot really say if this omission was unusual or not. I would expect though, that if a paper were trying to cater to a 'higher-brow' of clientele, then this omission would not be unusual. Perhaps they felt that NFL coverage would be best left to some tawdry publication like the Sun, which actually caters to the knuckle-walking crowd. "Read the Sun Today! A Large-Breasted, Bikini-Clad Tart in Every Issue! Full Colour Comics that won't make you think! Large, easy to read type with no big words! Gooooo (local sports/college team)!!!

tfb {pulling hard for the sniper, and pulling on a 'super bowl' of my own}

[ft.niagara]

Will you quit it already? We don't need you to keep bumping a completely off topic thread. Let it die.

Off topic??? Die??? The SuperBowl is coming. The SuperBowl is coming. After Monday or Turesday it can die. Until then, go study a political book.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Will you quit it already? We don't need you to keep bumping a completely off topic thread. Let it die.

Off topic??? Die??? The SuperBowl is coming. The SuperBowl is coming. After Monday or Turesday it can die. Until then, go study a political book.

Peyton is going to mop the floor with the Chi D. He is on a mission - he know's he's got one chance to get it done.

There is no way Rex Grossman outshines Peyton in this one.

Indy 23

Chi 13

My two cents.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Peyton is going to mop the floor with the Chi D. He is on a mission - he know's he's got one chance to get it done.

There is no way Rex Grossman outshines Peyton in this one.

Indy 23

Chi 13

My two cents.

Of course Grossman doesn't outshine Manning. But if the Bears defence outshines the Colts, stops any big plays by Manning et. al, and forces a couple turnovers. Hester scores one on special teams.

Just seems like Manning is a little ill-fated.

My guess is

Da Bears 19

Colts 13

Choke Peyton Choke!

[theloniusfleabag]

Off topic??? Die??? The SuperBowl is coming. The SuperBowl is coming.

Yes, Die Superbowl, Die! (Not meant to be read by Germans) Perhaps there is a forum at 'MeLikeFootball.com' or something where the bulk of this thread might be appropriate. Besides, all the hype and no substance leads me to believe that the next 'world tiddlywinks competition' would likely be more entertaining. However, even speculating who might win that competiton would have no place on a political forum.

[ft.niagara]

Yes, Die Superbowl, Die!

Oh go fondle your member. You talk as if the Superbowl is keeping people's attention away from you. Well Good. What possible of interest could come from an old stinky flea bag.

[ft.niagara]

The Super Bowl Theory says the S&P 500 should rise in 2007 no matter who wins.

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/conte...week+exclusives

[ft.niagara]

http://youtube.com/superbowl

Superbowl Commercials.

[ft.niagara]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...i-sportstop-hed

David Haugh

Gunslinger Grossman shoots his team in foot

Published February 5, 2007

MIAMI -- While the Indianapolis Colts began celebrating their 29-17 Super Bowl XLI victory Sunday night over the Bears, Rex Grossman navigated his way off the field after shaking hands with one Colts player and quickly headed down the tunnel.

This week of Grossman's life couldn't end fast enough for him.

He knew. The Colts knew. Everybody watching the game in the rain at Dolphin Stadium and most people in the TV audience of 1 billion knew.

"We missed some crucial plays, and that's the difference in the Super Bowl," Grossman said.

But more than any other play, one throw cost the Bears their shot at glory. One throw robbed Chicago of its chance of finally putting memories of the 1985 Bears on a shelf for posterity.

Sure, the Bears had issues against the Colts with their run defense, problems with the offensive line and breakdowns in the secondary. But all of those contributing factors to the loss might have been moot if not for one Grossman pass with 11 minutes 59 seconds left in the game.

Grossman's decision to attempt such a throw given the situation could be described best as reckless. Ill-advised. Even ignorant, to use the word Grossman himself introduced into Super Bowl week.

The sideline pass Grossman floated to Muhsin Muhammad in the fourth quarter changed the Super Bowl more than any other play. Muhammad wasn't that open, and the Bears didn't really need to take such a risk at the time. It turned out they couldn't afford one either.

It's one thing for Grossman to be a gunslinger, but not if he is going to shoot himself and his team in the foot.

[kimmy]

That's actually a really dumb article. Grossman didn't blow the game with 1 bad pass. He blew the game by earning no confidence from his own team. (the 2 fumbles and 2 interceptions didn't help much, mind you.)

Lovie Smith went in to the game with the strategy of treating Grossman like a toddler riding a bike with training wheels. Keep the training wheels on and he won't fall down. Rely on the running backs to move the ball. Rely on the defense to keep Manning off the field.

Except that the Chicago running backs couldn't move the ball. Everybody knew that the Bears weren't going to be throwing anything risky so it allowed the Colts defense to key on the running backs. Why would the Colts believe Grossman was a threat when throwing, when Grossman's own coach didn't even believe that? Aside from the one long run by Jones, the Bears running attack was pop-gun and led to the continual 3 and outs. Which led to the defense getting completely gassed. Which led to the Colts being able to run the ball. Which is what buried the Bears. The adage is that defense wins championships, but I think the adage should have an asterisk that says your defense can't win you a championship if your offense isn't good enough to give your defense any time to rest.

What was the first half time of possession, something like 22 minutes to 8 minutes? That's what killed the Bears. The Bears defense got gassed even worse and far sooner than the Patriots defense got gassed, and the Patriots defense got gassed bad in the second half of the AFC championship game. The Bears defense was gassed badly in both halfs. Manning didn't even half to throw the ball in the 2nd half, because the Bears defense was completely exhausted. The Chicago offense's inability to earn any 1st downs is what cost them the game, and the root of that problem was that everybody knew that Coach Smith wasn't going to let Grossman throw the ball.

I can almost picture the conversation at the start of the 4th quarter...

Coach Smith: "The running attack isn't working, and we need to move the ball. We need to put the ball in the air. It's up to you, Rex!"

Grossman: "Awwwwwright. It's tiiiime for the Air Show."

(throws 2 interceptions resulting in the Colts' game-clinching touchdown.)

Grossman: "Awwwwwright. The Air Show is over."

I'm sure that Grossman will probably be a good quarterback some day, but he was utterly not ready for the big-time. People might have thought that the Bears could win in spite of Grossman because the rest of their team is strong, but having such an inept boob at quarterback is such a huge barrier. It would have really destroyed my faith in the entire sport if the Bears could have won with that hapless peon at quarterback.

-k

{yay for Peyton!}

[ft.niagara]

I'm sure that Grossman will probably be a good quarterback some day, but he was utterly not ready for the big-time. People might have thought that the Bears could win in spite of Grossman because the rest of their team is strong, but having such an inept boob at quarterback is such a huge barrier. It would have really destroyed my faith in the entire sport if the Bears could have won with that hapless peon at quarterback.

I think it is quite likely that the Chargers and Patriiots could also have beaten the Bears. In general, I think the AFC has the superior quarterbacks and teams.

It definately was quite a show. Having a Super Bowl in a rain storm, together with that half time show in a rainstorm, was quite a sight. I don't think the rain made a difference in the outcome of the game, except for the number of turnovers. I wonder what they would have done if there were a tornado or a really bad rainstorm.

[ft.niagara]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....&src=rss&rpc=22

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Indianapolis Colts' rain-swept victory over the Chicago Bears averaged more than 93 million viewers on Sunday, making it the second most-watched Super Bowl and third most-watched U.S. telecast ever, Nielsen Media Research reported.

The 3 1/2-hour CBS broadcast of the National Football League championship from Dolphin Stadium in Miami drew nearly 2.5 million more viewers than last year's Super Bowl matchup, in which the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Seattle Seahawks, Nielsen said on Monday.

In terms of Super Bowl games, only the 1996 Dallas Cowboys' victory over Pittsburgh posted a bigger TV audience, averaging 94.8 million viewers to rank as the second most-watched U.S. TV broadcast in history.

The February 1983 finale to the long-running CBS sitcom "M*A*S*H" still ranks as the most watched American telecast ever, averaging nearly 106 million viewers.

[blackascoal]

And the MVP is ... Prince.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a1AegGKjY0...related&search=

[ft.niagara]

And the MVP for ads is Snickers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2pcGABklyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOSlesmeMMQ

[guyser]

And the MVP for ads is Snickers:

The Snickers add...you mean the one that is never to be aired again by Snickers? Sad that is, I thought it funny.

[ft.niagara]

And the MVP for ads is Snickers:

The Snickers add...you mean the one that is never to be aired again by Snickers? Sad that is, I thought it funny.

The Snickers ads are slightly politically incorrect. Remember the Snickers bar floating in the swimming pool to the Jaws sound, with everyone running for their lives, then someone takes a bite out of it.

[ft.niagara]

I was just thinking about the issue of the name of football teams. I still think of the Colts as the Baltimore Colts, and it was Indy which should have had to find a new name. The Browns name was grandfathered to Cleveland, but the Cardnals name went to Arizona where there is probably no Cardinals (birds). The Rams should be the LA Rams, not the St. Louis Rams.

This leads me to the thought of if Toronto were in the NFL, what would be its name. I suggest not the Argonauts. I get the thought of deep sea divers. I suggest something like the Toronto Exchange. But then they would be nicknamed the Exchanges which would not do. Cardinals and BlueJays names are taken, as well as Black Hawks and Ravens and Seahawks. The name should rhyme with Toronto. The name Toronto is similar to Chicago, both ending in o. The Toronto PolarBears. the Toronto Moose, the Toronto Express. Indian names are politically incorrect. Ah shucks, probably Argonauts is the best fit after all.

Just thinking outloud on the keyboard.

[guyser]

I was just thinking about the issue of the name of football teams. I still think of the Colts as the Baltimore Colts, and it was Indy which should have had to find a new name.

This leads me to the thought of if Toronto were in the NFL, what would be its name. I suggest not the Argonauts. I get the thought of deep sea divers. I

pretty sure that the owners of said teams own the name so if they move it they can keep it.

Frankly IF TO got a team in the NFL, then I would hope it is argonauts. None other would suffice, but I imagine there would be a stink raise then.

Oh and the chocolate bar in the pool...that was from Caddyshack, not a commercial

[ft.niagara]

pretty sure that the owners of said teams own the name so if they move it they can keep it.

Frankly IF TO got a team in the NFL, then I would hope it is argonauts. None other would suffice, but I imagine there would be a stink raise then.

Oh and the chocolate bar in the pool...that was from Caddyshack, not a commercial

You are probably right about the owner owning the name, as well as the team, but should they? Owners come and go, and sometimes move their team, but the history of a team is tied to a city, more than an owner. That history is tied to its name.

The argonauts name is something you have grown up with. Is it some mythological figure? Kind of like the Canisius, even those who go to the school, do not seem to know what it is. (without doing a google search)

On second thought you are right about Snickers and Caddyshack, thanks.

[ft.niagara]

For those who might like commercials.

http://www.giantmag.com/2006/12/tv/by-popu...0s-commercials/

http://www.giantmag.com/2006/12/tv/the-50-...s-of-the-80s/2/

Here are 100 commercials from the 80s.