What are the TV series you're enjoying, current or past?

It's staying awake for the start of the cricket that I'm going to find difficult.
The football is interesting enough considering how one sided it is.

 

It's already over, that was fun.
An hour before I thought.
Tampa won.
Seems like Tom Brady's got the Midas touch.

 

Had to giggle with all the talk of ''world champions''.
I must have missed all the international teams they beat.

 

As an American, this show comes in the basic cable package (on Syfy). The first episode, which I liked, was better than the 2nd. I'm not sure which way it'll go, but the slowing in Ep. #2, gave me time to think back on the premiere episode, and I realized that part of the central setup for this alien, murder-mystery, was not very-well thought out. Time to take on another poster--

Willing to accept the plot's conceit about a lone alien, on a mission to destroy mankind, what is disappointing is the mundane part of the plot-establishing, first episode-- If you haven't yet seen it, Rhetoric of Life, you might want to stop here; but, before you go, did you purposely come up with a name that made your initials T.R.O.L.?-- having a doctor stabbing his own neck to sh!t, trying to perform a self-tracheotomy. Even I think I know where that incision is supposed to go: in the little indentation at the bottom of the windpipe, just above the clavicle. So we have to imagine he was so affected by the poison that he would be that far off (the middle of the side of his neck).

I guess I won't know how unreasonable that is, unless I watch until the type of poison is revealed but, for that matter, what kind of autopsy doesn't take samples to check for poisoning, in the first place, in the case of a suspicious death? It just seems like a bit too much expedience, taking the quick way & sweating the details (that's the meaning of that expression, not the other way around). But I don't expect that will bother most people, so why not, right? It's just that I take it as a bad sign of things to come if the writers tip their laziness, right from the start.

It's that indication that caused me to stop watching a show that I'm gonna guess all of you loved, Game of Thrones, after the first scene. That idea was ripped straight out of the film Caligula, but was done in a campy way in Thrones, which deveined it of all the callousness it showed, in the original version (which was merely dramatizing an historical practice of the Romans).

So what did you think of episode 2, Lil' Mike?

 

I missed that line, but, I heard they beat Green Bay, WI on their way to win.
That's international enough.

 

Someone did give me a link to Resident Alien on a pirate site but I've not watched it yet.
I've never seen a single episode of Game of Thrones. I prefer my medieval drama series without giant flying reptiles. I bet they had those repeating trebuchets too.

 

If you can watch Super Bowls from back in the 80s, they are much better, generally-speaking, IMO. At some point, our football got really caught up in the players getting bigger, and the "skill" aspect began to suffer. You used to see all these great catches. Now even the top receivers drop balls regularly. When I used to complain about it, others would excuse the player for wanting to prepare for the jarring blow he was about to receive from the defender.

I only watched about a quarter of today's game. The only player that reminded me of the good ol' days was Gronkowski, a tight end for the Buccs. It turns out he had actually retired last year, but decided to come back for this season.

If you can get older games, there were a lot of players & teams worth watching. The Pittsburgh Steelers, back in the 70s, on their way to be the first team to win 4 Super Bowls, were very exciting to watch, at least as I recall. Terri Bradshaw, Lynn Swan, John Stalworth, Franco Harris, Rocky Blier, Mean Joe Green, L.C. Greenwood, Jack Ham-- a helluva team.

 

Funny you should say that about size. The main star of the first Superbowl I remember watching was a guy called The Refrigerator.
He was the size of a house and twice the weight.

 

I know that we go over-the-top with that, but if any truly international American football (except Canadian; more on this soon) team tried to play against even our worst NFL team this season, the Jaguars, the international team would lose something like 72 to 3 (or 72-0; I'd be acturally surprised if the other team managed to score a field goal). So, in the case of American football I do believe that we're justified in calling our champions, a world champion. There just isn't any competition of this level anywhere, in this sport. The closest thing, the Canadian Football League, plays under a slightly different set of rules but the talent among the players is much lower than in the NFL (often, players who don't make it in the NFL, go play for the CFL). Between 1950 and 1961, 7 games were played between an American team and a CFL team. American teams won 6. The only game ever won by a foreign team against a major league American team was a victory by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats against the Buffalo Bills, 38-21, in August 1961. Do notice that the NFL in its current format didn't even exist at the time. The Bills were a member of the AFL, at a time when the AFL (which later merged into the old NFL to become the AFC) was an upstart league with erratic level of quality. I don't think that these days, any CFL team would be able to beat an NFL team.

You'd have a bigger case to make about our baseball World Series, given that there are good international teams (in Japan, the Dominican Republic, etc.) but American football? No way.

 

There was one, but after the game started, no one posted (except me).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nfl-2020-thread.578088/page-6#post-1072433319

 

Yeah, Refrigerator Perry, of the Chicago Bears. That was an odd year. Chicago had developed this swarming defense that nobody else could figure out how to handle, including their Super Bowl opponent, the New England Patriots; made for a lousy game.

 

It's the nerve of calling it a world championships when you are the only guys who play it that makes me smile.
It would be like Australia calling Aussie rules football the world cup.
I do like American football though, I'm not knocking the game.
Shame about baseball though, if it wasn't for the civil war you'd still be playing cricket.

 

No, we are not the only guys who play it. Far from it. There is an International Federation of American Football (with, you'll be surprised, 105 member nations) and they organize a World Championship for national teams. 5 tournaments have been played, every 4 years. The first two tournaments, Americans did not participate. Then, we joined. We won all subsequent three. And guess what? Players from the NFL are not allowed in our National Team, to try to make things a bit even. Not even college players are allowed. Just amateurs. Still, we win every time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_American_Football

Actually even you guys have a federation. Your national team is called The Great Britain Lions. Your national championship game is called the BritBowl. Your current champions are the London Warriors.

http://www.londonwarriorsafc.co.uk/

 

Fair enough, I didn't realise so many played it. Still doesn't make the SB the World Championships though. You can only have a world championships with national teams.

 

No, not at all. Aren't you following the currently happening, FIFA Club World Cup? Today, Tigres from Mexico beat Palmeiras from Brazil in the first semi. Tomorrow Bayern Munich plays against the Egyptian (African) champs in the other semi. The winner (likely to be Bayern) will play the final against Tigres. So, there are World Championships for clubs in several sports (volleyball is another one).

What I'm saying is that the superiority in American football is so huge that it would be laughable for one of our clubs to play against anybody else. Like I said, even when we send a national team made of amateurs, and we forbid any college player or NFL player from participating, we win every time.

A true professional NFL team would beat ANY team from ANYWHERE, EVERY time. So that's why it is not entirely far-fetched to call Tampa Bay, tonight, World Champions because they'd decimate ANY other club from ANY country that were silly enough to play agains them, by a minimum score of 72-0.

So, when you are the absolutely best in the world in your sport (like Tampa Bay is tonight) it is not that far-fetched to call them world champions.

If the IFAF organized a Club world championship, and as the American champions Tampa Bay got invited to represent us, they could send their third stringers; or even their practice squad, and they'd win the tournament very easily, by large scores every game.

Tampa Bay's first team (their starters)? Then it would be like a boxing match between Mike Tyson in his prime and a 5-year old skinny boy.

 

The biggest reason it was better, in the past was because there were fewer teams. The more teams, the more players; i.e., the more players who would not have made the cut, when there were fewer teams.

 

I bet you don't make a similar fuss over watching the Miss Universe contest.

 

Well of course I would never have watched such sexist objectification of birds but yes I did find the title funny.

 

http://www.londonwarriorsafc.co.uk/Join.html
Maybe I could start my career.

 

I think I'd support the Olympians, since they started in Streatham then moved to Crystal Palace (but then they moved to Greenwhich), but if I had to have a local, go Olympians!
https://www.londonolympians.com/

UK teams should try for the Super Bowl too in my opinion.

 

I think it's all that expensive kit that holds the game back.
All over the world kids can play soccer with just a ball and a couple of sweaters for goal posts. Even rugby doesn't need all the protective equipment you need to play American football.
It's one of the reasons baseball took over from cricket in America during the civil war. Baseball could be played on any surface with just a bat and a ball. Essential for highly mobile armies. By the time you'd prepared a flat pitch to play cricket on it was time to move on.
Instead they just adapted the English game of rounders and the rest is history.

 

2 things American Football's got going for it over rugby... That's the ability to pass forward; and all the protective kit.
...
If Tom Brady was British

 

Never, forward passing is just silly and I'm not convinced the protective equipment makes it any safer. Imagine the damage a helmet can do to your kneecaps in a tackle. It's akin to wearing a seatbelt making you drive faster because you feel safer. All the padding just makes the contact harder. I played rugby for years without ever getting a serious injury and the only protective equipment I used was a gumshield.

 

It's all about Premier League when it comes to national sport in this country.
That said, my local team still has its cheerleaders.


I thought every team had this, not just mine.

 

Sorry but you're wrong. Before the protective equipement existed, players regularly got killed. No kidding.