Le Batard "Sherman will call Patriots cheaters"

[ivotuk]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

 

[Reaneypark]

He's a lazy douche who thinks he's hilarious in his own mind and loves to give off an air of being above such things as actually doing any real research before opening his uninformed mouth. He's perfect for ESPN.

 

[LawlessHawk]

That dude's nothing but a local Miami sports shock jock that only got any kind of fame because 1/2 the media world was camped out in Miami for the last 4 years slobbering over anything "LeBron James" and since he was the local guy he had the inside scoop. Then I guess espn decided he was worth syndicating... his schtick gets old really quick.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The last 4 letters in his name says all you need to know about the guy.

 

[Scottemojo]

He is pretty bad. His co host, Stu Gotts, or however you spell it, tried to convince listeners that Haushka was offsides on the on sides kick, and it was a terrible onsides kick that somehow worked.

How the **** can a kicker be offsides on a kick?

 

[Laloosh]

He's got a hard on for trashing the hawks. Never understood it. Stopped watching his show after two episodes.

 

[huskylawyer]

He is pretty bad. His co host, Stu Gotts, or however you spell it, tried to convince listeners that Haushka was offsides on the on sides kick, and it was a terrible onsides kick that somehow worked.

How the **** can a kicker be offsides on a kick?

I was listening to that live and was just laughing at these clowns. Some guy pointed out that the rule states "the kicker may be beyond the line, provided that his kicking foot is not beyond that line." and Stu Gots says, 'I still think he was offside". I was like, is this guy high on cocaine or something? How is that even possible lol.

I listen to ESPN Radio non-stop, including these clowns. You can't take them seriously. Their celebrity interviews are funny (e.g., they asked Ghallager if he was high on weed and Ghallager says, "Yep!!". But their sports commentary is completely useless. Bomani Jones is the only dude worth a damn in that show. All the others - straight up clowns.

 

[Reaneypark]

East Coast schmucks in the bag for East Coast teams.

 

[PackerBacker19]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

Green Bay did kind of give the game away. You guys made all the plays you needed, but without the Packers not making several plays you still would have lost. In the end it doesn't matter much because you guys won.

Please read this if you will. http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/anatomy-of ... super-bowl

 

[bigtrain21]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

Green Bay did kind of give the game away. You guys made all the plays you needed, but without the Packers not making several plays you still would have lost. In the end it doesn't matter much because you guys won.

Please read this if you will. http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/anatomy-of ... super-bowl

We were giving the game away before that though. We had 5 turnovers is very uncharacteristic of our team.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Embrace the hate fellow Hawks' fans.

 

[Threedee]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

Green Bay did kind of give the game away. You guys made all the plays you needed, but without the Packers not making several plays you still would have lost. In the end it doesn't matter much because you guys won.

Please read this if you will. http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/anatomy-of ... super-bowl

Except you don't "make plays" against the Seattle defense. That's why next year the Legion of Boom will surpass the Purple People Eaters as the greatest sustained defensive unit of all-time. In order to beat the Seahawks, you have to stop our offense and special teams, which the Packers did for 55 minutes, and that still wasn't enough.

 

[PackerBacker19]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

Green Bay did kind of give the game away. You guys made all the plays you needed, but without the Packers not making several plays you still would have lost. In the end it doesn't matter much because you guys won.

Please read this if you will. http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/anatomy-of ... super-bowl

We were giving the game away before that though. We had 5 turnovers is very uncharacteristic of our team.

My only point is that those turnovers were forced errors. Things like Morgan Burnett not returning the pack and haha dropping another pick were unforced errors. What I'm trying to say is that while the Seahawks did come back the Packers could have shut the door on a few plays that had nothing to do with the Seahawks. The Packers errors on those two plays were unforced errors meaning on those two plays the Packers and no one else were to blame.

 

[AF_Hawk]

This guy is weird, he's obviously upset over the Packers loss, but his hatred for the Seahawks is unreasonable and unprofessional.

He said "the defense, Kam, and Wagner were trying to take credit for the turn around" and disagreed with that premise.

His guest kept trying to set him straight, telling him that Sherman was much quieter this year, to which he responded "but he did that thing with Baldwin and the cardboard cut out." To which his guest said "that was in support of Lynch, it wasn't about himself."

Then he and on trying to argue that Brady's arm strength was just fine, except for his inability to throw the deep ball and Seattle doesn't stand a chance. But again, his guest tried to write him up saying he didn't think the Pats could score enough points against the Seahawks defense.

Sucks one having one AM sports channel to listen to, I finally had to turn it off. Who the hell is this guy anyway?

If I wethese Seahawks player, I would emulate Marshawn whenever ESPN interviewed me. Their quality control has really taken a hit lately with these lame "Green Bay gave the game away narratives."

Green Bay did kind of give the game away. You guys made all the plays you needed, but without the Packers not making several plays you still would have lost. In the end it doesn't matter much because you guys won.

Please read this if you will. http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/anatomy-of ... super-bowl

Without the Seahawks making several plays the Packers would have scored more. See, it works both ways.

 

[Nog]

OMG, his name is hilarious!!!! "Le Batard" :lol:

 

[AgentDib]

My only point is that those turnovers were forced errors. Things like Morgan Burnett not returning the pack and haha dropping another pick were unforced errors.

So your defense is responsible for all of the Seahawks mishaps and the Seahawks get no credit for the Packer mishaps. Does thinking that make you feel better about the loss somehow? The real reason that you remember the Packer mishaps is that they happened last. Your bias is confusing you on the rest.

 

[PackerBacker19]

My only point is that those turnovers were forced errors. Things like Morgan Burnett not returning the pack and haha dropping another pick were unforced errors.

So your defense is responsible for all of the Seahawks mishaps and the Seahawks get no credit for the Packer mishaps. Does thinking that make you feel better about the loss somehow? The real reason that you remember the Packer mishaps is that they happened last. Your bias is confusing you on the rest.

I understand that, and I realize the Seahawks D deserves a world of credit. After the first quarter the Packers offense was shut down by their D. The point I'm making is that at the end of the game it was Green Bay that lost it. They could have returned a pick, got another pick, and caught on onside kick. Those were all unforced errors. The Seahawks had nothing to do with those three plays at the end of the game, and if just one of those plays is made the Packers probably win. So, I'm not saying the Seahawks don't deserve credit, but I'm saying at the end of the game the Packers lost it. The Seahawks won it, but they only got that opportunity after the Packers gave them the opportunity by failing to make those 3 plays in particular. I never said the Seahawks didn't deserve any credit.

 

[Laloosh]

My only point is that those turnovers were forced errors. Things like Morgan Burnett not returning the pack and haha dropping another pick were unforced errors.

So your defense is responsible for all of the Seahawks mishaps and the Seahawks get no credit for the Packer mishaps. Does thinking that make you feel better about the loss somehow? The real reason that you remember the Packer mishaps is that they happened last. Your bias is confusing you on the rest.

I understand that, and I realize the Seahawks D deserves a world of credit. After the first quarter the Packers offense was shut down by their D. The point I'm making is that at the end of the game it was Green Bay that lost it. They could have returned a pick, got another pick, and caught on onside kick. Those were all unforced errors. The Seahawks had nothing to do with those three plays at the end of the game, and if just one of those plays is made the Packers probably win. So, I'm not saying the Seahawks don't deserve credit, but I'm saying at the end of the game the Packers lost it. The Seahawks won it, but they only got that opportunity after the Packers gave them the opportunity by failing to make those 3 plays in particular. I never said the Seahawks didn't deserve any credit.

As has been eluded to by others, you're failing to recognize that your team survived on missed opportunities by Seattle for three quarters. We realize that it helps you cope but it's pretty clear that it's about coping.

Enjoy your moral victory.

 

[Laloosh]

As has been eluded to by others.

In before Roland gets cancer.

Sue me, it is 5 am, Peaches.

 

[PackerBacker19]

My only point is that those turnovers were forced errors. Things like Morgan Burnett not returning the pack and haha dropping another pick were unforced errors.

So your defense is responsible for all of the Seahawks mishaps and the Seahawks get no credit for the Packer mishaps. Does thinking that make you feel better about the loss somehow? The real reason that you remember the Packer mishaps is that they happened last. Your bias is confusing you on the rest.

I understand that, and I realize the Seahawks D deserves a world of credit. After the first quarter the Packers offense was shut down by their D. The point I'm making is that at the end of the game it was Green Bay that lost it. They could have returned a pick, got another pick, and caught on onside kick. Those were all unforced errors. The Seahawks had nothing to do with those three plays at the end of the game, and if just one of those plays is made the Packers probably win. So, I'm not saying the Seahawks don't deserve credit, but I'm saying at the end of the game the Packers lost it. The Seahawks won it, but they only got that opportunity after the Packers gave them the opportunity by failing to make those 3 plays in particular. I never said the Seahawks didn't deserve any credit.

As has been eluded to by others, you're failing to recognize that your team survived on missed opportunities by Seattle for three quarters. We realize that it helps you cope but it's pretty clear that it's about coping.

Enjoy your moral victory.

The Packers survived for 3 quarters on missed opportunities by Seattle? The Packers didn't survive they outplayed Seattle for most of the game?