The Syndicate

Thoughts on the Super Bowl?

I'd love to see Mahomes win, but I feel like San Francisco is a more complete team.

Go Chiefs. The 49ers are easily my least-favorite NFC team.

I do think SF is better put-together. If Mahomes plays well though it equalizes everything else.

I kinda want Jimmy Garoppolo to win a Super Bowl. I’d laugh.

My problem is that the 49ers just aren’t on my radar. They had a good season, but I just didn’t hear much about them all season. Perhaps it’s East Coast bias, but I just don’t know enough about them to say that I like or dislike them. In the absence of that, I default to the Chiefs because Mahomes is a thrill to watch when he’s on top of his game.

Also, this somehow feels like an underwhelming match-up from a casual fan perspective. Like, if this isn’t an amazing game, it will be one of those Super Bowls that gets forgotten about. Does anyone else feel that way?

Mahomes is a thrill to watch I agree but I'm a John Lynch fan girl - totally great guy, he was a hero when he played here - so I'm torn. Maybe I won't pick a team and just watch it hoping for a good game.

Mahomes is cool but one player isn't a whole team.

I think this is a classic super bowl matchup because it features two really good teams without featuring the Patriots (perennially boring) or the heavy favorites (Ravens). Should be a great game.

I guess I just don't know what the story lines are for this Super Bowl outside of Mahomes vs. Brady's former understudy. Maybe it's the underwhelming way the Chiefs got to the Super Bowl by not having to go through Baltimore. And maybe it's just that San Francisco feels underwhelming to me despite being a #1 seed. East Coast bias- I don't pay much attention to West Coast teams.

I just kind of like Andy Reid and hope his team wins.

I loathe "story lines" in sports, so that makes this a pretty splendid matchup. I hate SF, so I'd prefer they not participate. I'll take it though.

I get what you mean about not liking story lines, but I at least like some kind of tension for the event. These teams are not rivals and cannot be construed as such. I think the fact that there were three or four strong teams in the NFC this year makes San Francisco seem unimpressive. There's a name recognition bias to that though, as the other teams had more name recognition- Green Bay, New Orleans, Seattle. Sure, San Fran is supposedly a "classic franchise" but their best years were the 80s and early 90s. Sure, they made it to the Super Bowl a few years ago, but who honestly remembers much from the Ravens-49ers Super Bowl aside from the fact that the lights went out and Beyonce performed?

Both teams can lean on the history angle- San Fran hasn't won since 1995. Kansas City hasn't won since 1970. But they both won before, so there's no first-time champ feel-good story. The 49ers are going for their 6th, which would be a more impressive quest if they New England hadn't already become the 2nd team to reach that mark. Kansas City is going for their second, so *yawn* there too.

For Kansas City, you've got the Andy Reid angle. He's been in the league forever and seeing him win it all would be nice. So, Reid and Mahomes are the compelling reasons to watch the Chiefs.

What are the compelling reasons to watch the 49ers? East Coast Bias- I don't know. Yes, 49ers fans have been through a championship drought, but they won five already, so those tears don't move me. Plus, I'm a Dolphins fan who hasn't seen my team make it since I started watching football. California is hardly starved for sports championships too.

Can anyone explain what is compelling about the 49ers aside from Brady's former understudy? From what I hear, they're running game is formidable but Jimmy G isn't poised under pressure.

I don't want the Super Bowl to be just a battle between two really good teams. Otherwise, let's just call it the Really Good Bowl. It's not usually the most impressive game of the playoffs, but I always hope for it to be.

SF is a nicely run-driven offense and defensive powerhouse in a league that is largely dominated by absurd passing numbers (Jameis Winston threw for 5,000 yards FFS). I appreciate that they show the old school winning formula still has a place in the league.

And I hope they lose.

I actually like shanahan more than Andy reid and what San Francisco accomplished this season is arguably more impressive

G-Man wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:55 pm My problem is that the 49ers just aren’t on my radar. They had a good season, but I just didn’t hear much about them all season. Perhaps it’s East Coast bias, but I just don’t know enough about them to say that I like or dislike them. In the absence of that, I default to the Chiefs because Mahomes is a thrill to watch when he’s on top of his game.

Agreed. I don’t really pay as close attention to the NFC during the season and don’t feel that strongly about most of the teams.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:04 pm I just kind of like Andy Reid and hope his team wins.

Agreed. I like Andy a lot, I like Mahomes, the fanbase hasn’t won anything in half a century, and I can’t root for Kyle Shanahan after his brilliant choke job gave New England ring no. 5, or for a dynasty that has a bajillion championships already ... go Chiefs.

This hasn’t been the most exciting game. The Super Bowl usually isn’t. Still a lot of time left for something interesting to happen.

JLo was exciting.

Halftime show was good but too much lip syncing.

And now the game is exciting. Also I didn't mind a little lip synching because of the dancing. But where was Pit Bull...?

Bit of controversy with the go-ahead touchdown and the delay of game that wasn’t called that could have kept the 49ers alive.

I'm satisfied.

Agreeable result.

Sorry [mention]MacDougall[/mention]. Your team is loaded and could get back in the near future.

*grumbles*

So nobody has anything to say about Brady jumping ship to become a pirate?

My interest in the entire league is lessened at the moment. I think there's a very real chance there won't even be a 2020 NFL season. Fans in the stands are almost definitely out.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:06 am My interest in the entire league is lessened at the moment. I think there's a very real chance there won't even be a 2020 NFL season. Fans in the stands are almost definitely out.

Don't tell that to our fans in Tampa -

And one more thing to celebrate in Tampa - Rob Gronkowski! Sure hope we have a season even if we're all watching from home.

juliets wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:45 pm And one more thing to celebrate in Tampa - Rob Gronkowski! Sure hope we have a season even if we're all watching from home.

Well that just puts an asterisk on any success Brady has in Tampa. Gronk is hard to defend. He was Brady’s crutch in the past and it may be that way again.

I think they’re both well over the hill.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:11 pm I think they’re both well over the hill.

Going to FL to retire as rich elderly people are wont to do.

I hope Tom isn't kissing his children on the mouth down there. He's in the at-risk population.

It is Joe Burrow day.

One hour until Joe Burrow’s future goes belly up.

I can't wait til Bill waits until day 3 of the draft to pick up a quarterback no one's paying attention to.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:43 pm I can't wait til Bill waits until day 3 of the draft to pick up a quarterback no one's paying attention to.

We'll give you #33 and Andy Dalton for #23.

Nah, that pick needs to go to a lineman of some sort or a defensive back.

I fell asleep before it ended but got a kick out of Jeudy and Ruggs going before Lamb.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:43 pm I can't wait til Bill waits until day 3 of the draft to pick up a quarterback no one's paying attention to.

You can have Jake Fromm if you want him — I'll get on the phone with Brandon Beane and sort it all out ...

I would have been on board with that a week ago. I'll stick with stidham.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 2:22 pm I would have been on board with that a week ago. I'll stick with stidham.

I'd be a lot more upset about the developments in New England's QB room if I thought there was still going to be a full season.

You gotta love the NFL’s optimism though, right?

Looks like the Redskins name is being retired. I didn’t expect them to be the first domino to fall.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/294 ... me-changed

Long overdue, frankly.

Now what about the Kansas City Chiefs?

Names like the Chiefs/Braves/Blackhawks do not bother me because they’re respectful, tasteful, celebrations of positive aspects of Native American iconography (if not also culture. Idk what the relationship is like between any of these franchises and the local Native American communities). “Redskins” is at best a distasteful informal term of mild mockery. At worst, it’s... much worse than that.

The Cleveland Indians are the real tricky one to me, and they’re apparently moving toward a name change as well. “Indian”, while a pretty ludicrous name for these particular people etymologically speaking, is not necessarily divisive today. But the franchise’s depiction and implementation of the imagery has historically been not-good, and the name as a sort of blunt and vague descriptor isn’t really drawing any positive inspiration from the source.

Chiefs is not really a slur or derogatory nickname like Redskin or Indian, ditto with Braves, so I think they stay at least for now. At the very least though they should stop using Native imagery without cooperation with a local tribe and disallow fans from it too.

My favorite name for the team is the Warthogs or the Pigskins as a nod to their history, but I also wouldn’t ever for them to win a single game again so I don’t care.

There's a lot of momentum headed in the direction of "Redwolves"

[VOTE: Washington Redwolves] aubergine

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:18 am There's a lot of momentum headed in the direction of "Redwolves"

[VOTE: Washington Redwolves] aubergine

Yeah I like that. Apparently the name they want is tied up in trademarks, which points to either that or the Washington Warriors (which I think it will be, since Rivera and reporters keep mentioning “tribute to the military”).

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:43 pm Names like the Chiefs/Braves/Blackhawks do not bother me because they’re respectful, tasteful, celebrations of positive aspects of Native American iconography (if not also culture. Idk what the relationship is like between any of these franchises and the local Native American communities). “Redskins” is at best a distasteful informal term of mild mockery. At worst, it’s... much worse than that.

The Cleveland Indians are the real tricky one to me, and they’re apparently moving toward a name change as well. “Indian”, while a pretty ludicrous name for these particular people etymologically speaking, is not necessarily divisive today. But the franchise’s depiction and implementation of the imagery has historically been not-good, and the name as a sort of blunt and vague descriptor isn’t really drawing any positive inspiration from the source.

I can't speak for everyone, but I live in an area with a high Native American population (and I have Native American blood on both sides of my family). So many of them are Washington Redskins or KC Chiefs fans, but mostly Washington fans (including my uncle). My neighbor up the street is Native American and he has a huge Washington Redskins banner hanging over his garage (next to a Philadelphia Eagles banner- his wife's team of choice).

I'm sure there are Native Americans who don't like the name, but I can't think of ever meeting one in person who ever made that opinion known to me.

Epignosis wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:50 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:43 pm Names like the Chiefs/Braves/Blackhawks do not bother me because they’re respectful, tasteful, celebrations of positive aspects of Native American iconography (if not also culture. Idk what the relationship is like between any of these franchises and the local Native American communities). “Redskins” is at best a distasteful informal term of mild mockery. At worst, it’s... much worse than that.

The Cleveland Indians are the real tricky one to me, and they’re apparently moving toward a name change as well. “Indian”, while a pretty ludicrous name for these particular people etymologically speaking, is not necessarily divisive today. But the franchise’s depiction and implementation of the imagery has historically been not-good, and the name as a sort of blunt and vague descriptor isn’t really drawing any positive inspiration from the source.

I can't speak for everyone, but I live in an area with a high Native American population (and I have Native American blood on both sides of my family). So many of them are Washington Redskins or KC Chiefs fans, but mostly Washington fans (including my uncle). My neighbor up the street is Native American and he has a huge Washington Redskins banner hanging over his garage (next to a Philadelphia Eagles banner- his wife's team of choice).

I'm sure there are Native Americans who don't like the name, but I can't think of ever meeting one in person who ever made that opinion known to me.

There is a fairly new (Feb. 2020) poll out from UC Berkely and the University of Michigan that disputes The Washington Post poll from 2016 which said that relatively few Native Americans take offense to the name. The new poll is described in the attached article but its bottom line was over half of 1000 Native Americans surveyed take offense to the name and other caricatures (tomahawk chop of the KS Chiefs for example) of their culture. Here is the article:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/na ... ts-survey/

Cam Newton has COVID