Which was worse?
- Thread starter Sharky1203
- Start date
Nice try. I'm not a fan of either team. I just wanted a competitive game. Even on a sports thread you have a hard time not projecting on a post.
Josh Sweat beat that ass. Mahomes looked like a lost puppy last night. It was beautiful.
He probably thought the fans were booing Cooper too. Watching the Chiefs get destroyed was a very cleansing experience since they’ve been getting the 50/50 calls for years. Halftime show was good but not great….
Couldn't agree more. Eagles were focused and Kansas City looked like they hadn't practiced since August. Sucked for someone who doesn't follow Pro Football and wanted a competitive game to watch with friends.
Trying to think/remember a commercial I liked.
Can't remember it this morning.
Can't remember it this morning.
The halftime show used to be age neutral. They didn't want to only target a certain age group. It was a person or group that everyone watching knew some of their songs. Last night was anything but that. There are 100's of millions of people who watch it, to only play to 1/5 of the crowd isn't a good thing. JMO
Well that may be, but at the bar I was at last night, (ruffly 80-100) people (young to old) the overwhelming thought it sucked and no one understood what he sang.
Rest assured there were other bars with other people that didnt have such a strong and uniform reaction to a show.
It's a big place out there.
Amazing how the usual clowns think because that halftime show sucked ass that something something racism maga. Lol, what losers
This is 100% false. Trotting the Who out there way, way, way past their prime for example I don’t think appealed to anybody.
I did make the comment in the 3rd quarter that they Chiefs should call BF to come up with some offensive ideas.
Came for Hedley Lamarr....
Left disappointed...
Left disappointed...
I just had to endure an argument between my daughter and my wife about how good/crappy the halftime show was.
I keep having to remind my wife that we're now old people who just don't get it. Just like our parents when we were young.
Some people liked it, evidently. I think it failed, although I appreciate what they tried to do. The numbers were large so they would be easier to see. The problem is they didn't give them a background. Anything written on a background that isn't a consistent color is harder to read, especially when the background is moving and changing colors. And this was doubly true for the stats they presented which were in a smaller font (to the left and right of the scores). I think most of my issues with it would have been corrected if they shaded the background in the same way they shaded the background for the clock. I probably would still think it was kind of boring, but it's a scorebug, it's not supposed to be the feature attraction on the screen and it would have served its purpose.
