Jamalisms

You want me to admit it exists or that it's worth discussing? It exists. I've acknowledged that. I also think it's a pathetic discussion solely engaged in by whiny bitch losers doing a jealous ex-girlfriend impression. So I'm not going to "admit" something I disagree with. They beat the teams in front of them and they're in the Super Bowl year 1 with starters largely built from scratch. It's something that coaching staff and front office deserve praise for. Sour grapes losers can't help themselves, though. Cry more about it, I guess.

Talking to you, sweetheart. You just don't like that I think talking about the schedule is hilariously stupid when they're in the Super Bowl year 1 (it is hilariously stupid). I'll continue mocking you for it as long as you keep "conversing."

"My teacher tells me beauty is on the inside." "That's just something ugly people say." Liar Liar 1997 ... "If it wasn't a tough schedule, I get to discount the success." "That's just something losers say." TR 2026

Schedule was easy. No control over that and they did well with it. It's the lowest bar for a complaint. "You did everything possible but weren't challenged!" Ok, cool. Now they're in the playoffs. We'll see the failures now! Oh, they beat the Chargers? Damn. Ok, the Texans will stomp them. They put CJ Stroud into implode mode and dominated easily? Fuck. At least the Broncos lost their QB so you can get back to whining about the schedule. Again, they're in the fucking Super Bowl. Year 1. With a staff of coaches people write articles to brag about. And a roster rebuilt almost entirely in a single year. Time to give up the ghost you loser, jealous bitches. It's embarrassing.

I'm old enough to remember when Houston was going to blow them off the field. Now they're just more evidence of how unfairly lucky Vrabel is. They're in the Super Bowl. Game over. Vrabel won. You guys are stuck doing the equivalent of debating whether the QB threw a clean enough spiral on the game winning TD, as of it matters.

Dumbass conspiracy that a pizza parlor hosted a pedo ring, implicating dems? Of course danny-bot was all over it. Actual pedo as president? Eh, he's fine. No need to discuss it.

You skipped experienced, quality staff and a full roster remake between the draft and FA in a single year.

I've just got the F-150 (would have preferred a Toyota but that's not what I found priced well at the time) to tow the camper and provide various house project utility.

This is supposed to be a pickup line: "How do you like your eggs in the morning? Fried, scrambled ... fertilized?"

Suggestion: Read more books. I'm perhaps too gleefully willing to talk down to you. But I'm not dumbing it down for you.

"Distract! Distract! Propaganda! Random bullshit - GOOOOOOO!!!" - the dumbest motherfucker.

You're given two resumes. One guy has been working a job for a few years. So has the other guy. Same dept. Same job title. Which one should be promoted? I'm going to suggest the possibility that you should consider promoting the guy who is excelling, who has made a name for himself amongst his peers, who people are familiar with because of exposure stemming from the quality of work he's been doing. I'm going to suggest that you should consider promoting the guy who has the demeanor and presence suited for the new role. I'm going to suggest the possibility that there's a reason Holz's name wasn't put forward by essentially anyone for any related job. I'm going to suggest the possibility that if the only person who thinks he should be promoted is the guy who's been his good friend outside of work for a few decades, that's probably not a good sign he's qualified.

I used to find this sort of response rather perplexing but I've realized some (many and maybe most) of you are just broken. And, frankly, with this team's history, that should be almost expected. The fact that, even in hindsight, some people are only capable of analyzing from a perspective of failure instead of trying to succeed is telling. Was hiring Holz the biggest reason they failed? I don't give a shit and neither should you. At the end of the day, you're not even asking the right question. Did hiring that dude improve the odds of success? Did it move the team forward? Did it capitalize on the opportunity? Even beyond that - Just because something isn't the biggest factor in failure doesn't mean that a smaller factor failing isn't a problem. Hell, a non-playcalling OC / DC isn't even a small factor. Filling the OC role with an underqualified, unheralded highschool buddy was always a warning sign and the problems it hinted at absolutely proved out over time. The fact that some of you still can't acknowledge that without prevaricating is sad. No longer perplexing. Just sad.

It's an inevitable evolution. The only defense against the cognitive dissonance.

That's what they all say

You'll accept anything if the headline sounds good. But if it sounds bad, we just need more information. ... almost like you're a brainless fuckwad bot who's only here to sow doubt and spread propaganda and misinformation.

Not the action I was expecting but...

I called it out as a warning sign. People like to deny reality, though.

It came from rationalizing the Holz hire. So I refuse to stop calling it out.

Don't need one. Saleh is the DC.

That's low.

I wouldn't touch either one but I'd avoid the Cardinals much more steadfastly.

Until the NFL says or does something about it (they won't), doesn't seem to matter much to me.

It's a few pages old but I'll just give my impression that justafan isn't a Republican, however the views he expresses have always struck me as more truly conservative than almost anyone. The difference between him and Republicans is that he doesn't put party over country and God and doesn't seem to wave in the breeze of whatever "conservative" media says and so modern Republicans (the cult of Trump) aren't really all that similar in many cases. It actually reminds me a lot of the difference between some of my friends and the nature of their Christianity. For lack of a desire to explain in depth, the best brief way I can articulate it is that for some of the most zealous self-described Christians I know ... their church is their God. Other friends have a strong faith in Christ and their church is not their culture, is not their guide but is a place they worship. There is a significant difference between these two groups in terms of their conduct and relationship with others, their depth of understanding and the steadfastness of particular beliefs. Church Christians, in my experience, are more likely to be motivated by the most recent guidance they've received in church. They're relatively unmoored and adrift in the sea of the church. Followers of Christ return to the example like a lodenstone, like an anchor. And their beliefs, even if I disagree at times, are genuine and thoughtful and arise from something internal as opposed to external.

Totally shocked.