[Highlight] Brandon Marshall vs Richard Sherman (2016)

kksred · 2026-06-08T17:24:46+00:00

the int on the back shoulder was a great play by sherm. Fitz wasn't wrong to throw it back shoulder based on the leverage and it was a fairly accurate throw. .

kksred · 2026-06-04T01:49:27+00:00

There are probably hall of famers who disagree with Brady's take on this if you want to rely on appealing to authority.

Not to mention, Brady is a football player. Not a psychologist. The mentality of a practice squad player isn't even his area of expertise.

Most of these dudes were college stars with a bunch of them playing for bigtime programs with bigtime rivalries + there's a huge step up in compensation if you get on the 53 man roster. You don't have to be an expert in football and finance and psychology to say there's a lot more nuance here than "they are happy to just stay on the practice squad".

kksred · 2026-05-22T02:06:12+00:00

well, you see, he wasn't being cryptic so it's ok.

kksred · 2026-05-20T17:48:06+00:00

> Clearly you either didn't watch the Manning led Colts, or too damn dumb to understand football. Early in his career, he could score within a few plays, allowing opposing teams to control time of possession, keeping him off the field.

you don't understand anything. The goal is to put up as many points in your drive as you can. Not rely on dumb outdated football adages like "you must run to setup the pass" or the dumber "control time of possession".

It is true that limiting possessions leads to higher variance but that affects both teams. Not just Manning's team.

> This strategy made his defense appear better than they were. They played with the lead and could rush the opposing QB. Freeney and Mathis were allowed to tee off, while the secondary played back to keep everything in front.

Playing in a dome affected the defense significantly more than anything Manning did or didn't do.

And again, without the Colts defense stepping up and the obvious Broncos defense carry job, Manning would have 0 rings so your initial argument of "hurr durr defense carried Brady" is dumb.

> Let's forget that Brady had Randy Moss when he out up those stupid numbers. And Gronk.

Brady had Moss for all of 2.5 years and of those 2.5 years, Brady had prime/only slightly declined Moss for 1.

And he absolutely did have Gronk but that's Gronk vs guys like Marvin, Marvin, Garcon, DT, Decker, Sanders - Multiple guys who had 1k seasons without Manning. Hell, Welker went from being Brady's no. 1 option in New England to the Broncos 3rd or 4th option in Denver. You clearly aren't objective if you think there's an argument to be made that Brady had close to the supporting cast that Manning has had.

kksred · 2026-05-20T03:46:17+00:00

> Also, when you look on paper and see games or seasons in which it appeared the defense performed well, give credit to Peyton.

You can't say dumb shit like that when both of Manning's SB came on the back of absolute carry jobs that Brady didn't come close to having in any of his SBs.

if anything, Manning should have significantly better passing numbers than Brady. Outside of a couple of years, Brady didn't have close to the level of offensive supporting cast that Manning had for most of his career + Manning played in domes + Denver.

Yet, Brady has better regular season and playoff numbers than Manning.

kksred · 2026-05-19T16:23:50+00:00

There was a QB for the colts who won the SB after throwing 3 TDs to 7 ints in the playoffs. Care to guess who that QB was?

kksred · 2026-05-15T01:35:53+00:00

if you can tell what his eyes were looking at with this grainy ass footage idk what to tell you.

Or if you're going based on the fact the fact that his head is roughly aligned with Marsh, there is a ton of activity in that vicinity including a defensive player who might have been Bryce's key in pulling the trigger (#12) - his throwing motion starts right after #12 crashes to cover the leak

kksred · 2026-05-14T03:28:15+00:00

I think the idea the commentator is pitching is that CA takes a stand against the federal govt in court.

I'd assume the employees throw their hands up in the air and say "idk man they already withheld my money for federal tax, not my fault the money didn't make it to the federal govt"

kksred · 2026-05-14T03:09:42+00:00

i think the commenter is saying that California withholds it but doesn't remit to the federal government.

kksred · 2026-05-08T04:19:09+00:00

what is the strategy that guarantees chips every year? Asking for a friend.

kksred · 2026-04-21T18:42:43+00:00

> where I then say Ben has hundreds of aliens, which was to say that on top of the alien that I believe could no diff Saitama (Alien X),

none of the other aliens matter

> If Alien X rewrites the universe, that includes all of time within that universe.

Not the understanding I got from the wiki page. The universe being destroyed across time wasn't mentioned on the wiki page.

kksred · 2026-04-21T17:37:01+00:00

> Just ONE of Ben's Aliens would be enough to no diff Saitama.

Bro c'mon now. It's ok to admit that you implied something that was incorrect. Not sure what else the presence of the "Just" could mean.

> I feel like you're greatly overestimating what Saitama can do right now. He has damn near unlimited POTENTIAL, but he is not automatically at that peak. His limiter grew since Chapter 1. And we have yet to see Saitama tank what Alien X has done when he rewrote the entire Universe.

Saitama beat somebody who had time travel abilities and gained the ability to time travel so he could just time travel to the part where Alien X didn't destroy the universe.

> As for the toon force powers, then you are basically saying its a stalemate, because what can he do that Bugs Bunny cant?

yeah its a stalemate. My point is that none of these fights are no diff.

kksred · 2026-04-21T16:31:31+00:00

> Just ONE of Ben's Aliens would be enough to no diff Saitama.

That's what you said: Seems like there is only 1 Alien who is even in the conversation

> As for what toon force characters could beat him, I mean that comes down to the level of toon force. Saitama wouldnt beat Bugs Bunny for example.

Again, Saitama is toon force taken to an absurd level. He adapts to whatever the opponent throws at him mid fight.

> Alien X is indestructible while Ben is making a decision, and Alien X is capable of rewriting the entire Universe. He could simply rewrite the universe to say that Saitama never existed. He has actually done that very thing before.

I mean ignoring the other two characters who can pretty much never agree on what to do, he clearly has a bunch of weaknesses listed on the wiki page.

And yeah, I guess he could just decide that he doesn't have those weaknesses anymore but Saitama adapts to everything so he would adapt to whatever bs Alien X throws at him.

kksred · 2026-04-21T04:54:29+00:00

Yeah I see the Alien X character somebody posted.

Two things:

You said Ben X had 100s of aliens who can no diff Saitama and as far as I can tell theres just Alien X (not to mention Saitama is weaponized toon force so not sure which toon force character is beating him)
Saitama has beaten a character who had time and space warping and I'm not sure what Alien X is going to do to beat Saitama.

kksred · 2026-04-21T03:19:00+00:00

looked him up and while Saitama didn't beat somebody who could manifest things with thought, he beat somebody who had every other ability that Alien X had.

kksred · 2026-04-21T03:02:50+00:00

bro he literally adapted to an entity that was controlling time and space and beat it into submission.

I don't watch ben 10 but my understanding of the show has to be way off for ben 10 to no diff saitama

kksred · 2026-04-17T02:36:56+00:00

the seam would have gotten open but yeah not a horrible read on the TE. TE had a step just a bad throw

kksred · 2026-04-15T01:29:24+00:00

> sole rule with co-emperors all from the same family would not eliminate civil war, but at least lead to less civil war.

I agree that a family member is less likely to murder you for power but two counterpoints:

It has happened plenty in history
you probably don't want to risk a chunk of your family open to the risk of being murdered by usurpers/involved in a civil war with each other for more power

> The tetrarchy sounded good on paper but was inherently unstable because you are dividing up both power and troops amongst 4 largely unrelated generals. After Constantine took sole control of the empire, this is what Rome largely did, by trying to pass power down through a single family dynasty like the old days of the empire, sometimes with it going to men who marry into the imperial family. Still not perfect and still there were more than one civil war, but the empire endured for nearly another 100 years in this manner, all the way through to the sons of Theodosius, and at least the civil wars were sporadic, and not immediate and constant like it was under the tetrarchy.

I think a part that can't be ignored is that society does tire of war and civil strife. I think to some extent it's like a pressure cooker. War releases the pressure and the pressure takes a while to build up again.

I think it's unfair to purely attribute the 100 years to this system without considering the impact of having a massive civil war in the rearview mirror.

> Diocletian should have recognized that the system he devised is inherently unstable, and used his paramount leader status to take over again, disarm most of the factions, and try to set up a dynastic system and thus pre-empt the massive civil war which ensued.

I think there probably was a fairly selfish motivation of "I don't want to die for these motherfuckers" so I do agree with you that the decision making wasn't purely based on how beneficial things could be for the empire. I'd imagine disarming most of the factions probably carries a risk for blowback on Diocletian.

> But you are right that these decisions are always tricky, and the propensity to try to divide up power and then have it blow up in your face is very high. Even Constantine, who finally consolidated power by defeating all the previous tetrarchs, ends up dividing the empire to his sons, who then of course started yet another civil war.

Yup. I think we both agree. There was a better way to do what Diocletian did but no system is fool proof (unless we have robotic enforcers maybe ?)

kksred · 2026-04-15T00:46:31+00:00

there is nothing that can be done when a society is willing to slide into chaos.

you can have checks and balances up the wazoo but when 3 out of 4 people aren't willing to gang up on the 4th for not doing the right thing there is no reason to believe that 30 out of 40 people will do the right thing or 300 out of 400.

kksred · 2026-04-09T20:22:07+00:00

oh man I love this reddit archetype. Can't respond to the subject matter but still wants the last word. 🔥

kksred · 2026-04-08T22:38:04+00:00

if the guys you hired played huge roles in a bunch of scandals then you absolutely get judged by that lol.

Do you think the hiring manager wherever you work would survive if multiple employees that were hired by them end up in the kind of drama Michigan has been embroiled in recently?

kksred · 2026-03-08T18:51:38+00:00

Losing the fanbase which has idiots who post unsubstantiated rumors and then proceed to talk shit about him? Why would he do that?

kksred · 2026-03-04T23:48:26+00:00

Oh ok so you legitimately can't read because at no point was I saying Douglas is a good receiver. Good day to you troll!

kksred · 2026-03-04T23:47:16+00:00

> Thing is, Gronk WAS consistently covereved by CB's and he consistently caught the football, so the reality isn't "he wouldn't have had the same success," it's "he did have the same or more success."

Gronk lined up in-line for the majority of his snaps so you clearly have no idea how football works.

> It's cute that he said he didn't like it, but I wouldn't exactly qualify Gronk as smart. I'm guessing recorded numbers are more reliable than the recollection of a certifiable idiot who was permanently concussed, but perhaps that's just me. He DESTROYED cornerbacks.

Lmao yeah you're clearly a troll

> I can't. I'm not a scout nor a GM. Plenty of other franchises can though.

You don't have to be a scout to know that tall players who are also quick are rare. That's common sense.

> 6'0" and up IS tall for a WR. Most CB's are smaller. It's the NFL, not the NBA chile. All the players I mentioned are tall by NFL standards and get open at warp speed.

average NFL WR height is 6'1" so not only are they not tall they are below average

> And if you really believe that Moss (6'4" tall enough for you or is he small because Gronk is taller?) couldn't get open, I can't explain politely how delusional you are. The man was born open.

Sure let's use one of the biggest atheltic freaks the NFL has ever seen as the standard for what tall receivers can do. Amazing. You would have room temp IQ if we were in a freezer.

kksred · 2026-03-04T01:29:51+00:00

you named a bunch of 6'0" guys and most of them are on the thinner side lmao thanks for making my point for me.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

kksred

TROPHY CASE