Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by yentl911, Sep 20, 2017.
Uh, think I'll pass on showing you. Please continue to pay your respects to Gimme, don't mind me.
I will, with zero shame.
Game respects game- @GimmeTheBall!
Here to the rescue:
Corso, I dinna wha to say, lad. I don't want to come between you and bat. Bat is a man of accomplishment and dignity. So much as he cuts a classical look hanging upside down under the bridge. I will walk away and be free of both of yew.
I would have thought the Trouty triple hammer was a bong hit, a shot and a beer chaser,,,
17 pages....I vote to keep her
Let's not be too hasty, there, ruffian and window contractor.
Let us pray, thence.
Let's list the qualifications here:
1. Provides the female role for balance that is a model for other successful radio and TV shows? Check.
2. Can attract Hispanic viewers/listeners which are a large part of the Cowboys fan base? Check.
3. Is nice to look at? Check.
4. Helps generate profit for her company by meeting above qualifications? Check.
5. Has approval of fat white guys on Cowboys message board?
Well, 4 out of 5 ain't bad...
Isn't there just one venue....one activity.....just one single weekly event where men don't have to walk on an eggshell when it comes to women's issues and sexual diversity and inclusion and all the mean, awful, rotten, selfish, things we men force on poor society?
I want football! Pure violent no holds barred football. And I want to argue. I want to harrass. I want to demean any fan of another NFL team that dares to inault my team.
I meam, there has to be that one subject in which men don"t have to be logical, thoufhtful, diplomatic......sensitive.
Can't a man just be a jerk for three hours a week?
When I watch the game, talking is prohibited. I want to hear the opinion of the announcers. But it's pretty embarressing when that analyst ends up being Valley Girl Bigtits. She don't know krap or at least more than the beer swilling best friend on my right or the irritating annoying relative in law on my left.
Get rid of women during football unless they are aware of the degree to which they earned the right to be there. That means, some of them are "one of the guys" if all their focus is on the game and they can contribute in a worthy fashion.
Otherwise, make the cheese dip, be available for a halftime quickie, and console me after a loss in the usual manner.
Political correctness is closed during a game.
plasric man are the suk
Scratching my head trying to figure out what you are saying here. Broaddus may present his information in an unpalatable way, but for the most part his analysis is 100% on point. As far as I'm concerned that is the number one thing you want for any radio show discussing any specific topic. The idea that he shouldn't get a pass for language skills and knowledge, which should be by far and away the most important skills for someone on radio makes little sense to me.
It would be great if they could get hosts with Broaddus' language skills and knowledge without the self important delivery (Dane Brugler as I mentioned earlier in the thread would be great), but he's the best they've got at this point by a long way.
Sorry, inherent male behavior is no longer socially acceptable. Your reprogramming will continue until all traces have been eliminated.
Two words: Joey Bosa.
Two more: Myles Jack.
Two more: Jaylon Smith.
Two more: Jon Lotulelei.
Joey Bosa was the DRotY and BB didn't have him in his top 15. He justified it by the shallowest of shallow good not great analysis.
Myles Jack was the highest rated player on his board and after disappointing rookie year, he is an adequate LB at best.
Jaylon Smith was likely to never play according to BB then he was not going to be ready for TC, then he was unlikely to be ready for the season, and then he wasn't going to be able to play more than 20 or so snaps.
Jon Lotulelei was supposed to have an inside track for a roster spot after minicamps yet did not even make the 3rd preseason game.
That is just off the top of my head. @xwalker and others can expound on his BS better than I.
What BB does is he makes people feel comfortable and plays unthreatening. He does it by repeatedly telling us that he is not that smart typically with a comment about his LSU education or admit that he failed as a scout. He speaks at a very simple level avoiding multisyllables like the plague. He then flatters the people he is interacting with constantly.
It is an absolute con in the truest sense of the word: he gains people's trust by lying to them. He claims that he is not that smart and humble yet he will sit there and argue a point as if he is disrespected any time someone disagrees with his takes. He milks that he was a former scout to the nth degree as he is introduced as a scout or by the title of the articles that Helman has to write for him. It's a con demonstrated through action.
If you like him then great; a lot of other people do too, but I for one do not buy what he is selling for what I feel are very good reason.
Men martyring their gender is so rich in vitamin I. Frankly you should take it up with the NFL because they have been trying extremely hard to court women to their audience for 5 years now.
The loss of privilege is often mistaken for oppression. Respecting others and their wishes as well as empathy is not an issue of political correctness; it's called being civilized. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right.
Seems to me like you have an axe to grind. The idea that because he whiffed on a couple guys in the draft, and not everything he says is 100% correct he's some kind of fraud... that's an agenda being voiced AFAIC.
I take what he says at face value, is the information he is delivering accurate and on point? For the most part it is. It's very easy to never be wrong when you don't have the football knowledge to ever put forth any kind of detailed analysis in presenting your opinion (pretty much every other host on the Cowboys radio shows, not that it stops of lot of them making stupid incorrect points). So I'm not going to permanently color my opinion of what he delivers to each show because he misses with some of his predictions. Because he contributes a hell of a lot more information of value than everyone else they have on their shows. That doesn't mean he doesn't have his flaws. Broaddus is a knoweldgeable football analyst who delivers with an annoying self importance that rightly riles plenty of people. He's also a person that gets things wrong, just like every other football analyst in the world, and shows up as overly prideful in defense of his opinion sometimes. That's what he is, there's no need to spin it into some ridiculous machiavellian conspiracy.
Picking at instances where he's wrong headed/incorrect while ignoring what he does contribute, which is pretty significant, in an effort to say he's a fraud IMO is silly. But to each their own.
You said he was 100% accurate. I was just pointing out that is not the case.
You really are not arguing anything I say and only talk around it. I feel I have demonstrated very clearly how his language skills are below average and how he says stupid things regularly with specific examples. Frankly unless he is talking about OL he is pretty worthless to listen to. He does understand line technique and will talk about footwork and the like but I have yet to hear him describe the hand and footwork used by other positions.
BB is cultivating confidence through deception. I have clearly laid out what he lied about and demonstrated how it was false. If you would like to argue my points then great but you do little more than characterize and then blanket dismiss. He does say and do the things I have laid out.
I said he makes a lot of points that are 100% on the money. That's very different from saying he's 100% accurate in everything he says.
You want me to wade through your machiavellian consipiracy spin. You draw presumptive conclusions you cannot prove through observation of a specific incident. The incident might be correct, it doesn't mean the conclusion is also. Then with spin typical of people whom are utterly convinced of their opinion you use language like "they always/constantly/repeatedly do this" so as to drum it in. I don't 'constantly' hear him mention pretty much any of the things you say he constantly does. Maybe we have different definitions of the word constantly. I therefore can't argue your points, because they are not really provable statements that I can argue without it going round and round in circles. I've seen enough of these types of arguments on the web based on presumptive statements to know that it becomes a circular argument that doesn't ever go anywhere. Unlike a true football related argument, there aren't really any stats to reference to provide a baseline either.
The only point worth harping on is that there is plenty of value in the information that Broaddus provides that is correct and true, which you seem to want to ignore. In my opinion it significantly outweighs what he contributes that is incorrect or out of line.
I'm not the one who said others were not focused. You did. I just pointed out that you also lost focus