Create Account

Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums The Gridiron The Home Team ESPN ranking Jaguars roster at the bottom 5 in the NFL

Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x


The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
ESPN ranking Jaguars roster at the bottom 5 in the NFL

  • Offline JaguarJosh05
    All Pro

  • ******
  • Posts: 9,698
    Threads: 6
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Reputation: 42
#61
06-10-2014, 04:14 PM

At least they spared me the emotional damage from watching the games this season. Now I can set the bar low enough to never be disappointed. 

No pain, no gain.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#62
06-10-2014, 04:46 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 04:49 PM by The Mad Dog.)

Quote:Appeal to the lowest common denominator, get better ratings, make more money.

 

I doubt anybody will say the quality of programming on networks like Bravo, History or TLC is better now than 10-20 years ago. But the ratings probably are.
 

Hell even the Weather Channel isn't as good as it used to be (for what it is supposed to be.)

 

All they do now is show stupid reality programs amid maybe 4 hours (out of 24 in a day) of actual weather content. If you are on the go looking to get a quick idea of whats going on with the weather, you're better off just logging onto the computer now to the local NWS site. 

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#63
06-10-2014, 05:47 PM

Nothing is as good as it used to be in your little Leave it to Beaver world. 

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#64
06-10-2014, 05:55 PM

Quote:Nothing is as good as it used to be in your little Leave it to Beaver world. 
 

 

[Image: wrigley-left-field2.jpg]
Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#65
06-10-2014, 06:04 PM

Quote:[Image: wrigley-left-field2.jpg]
Your point? 

 

I've been to Wrigley.  It's just as great as it has always been.  Not really sure what adding bleachers behind the stadium are doing to make things worse.  I see it as capitalism at its finest.  Someone saw a need, and found a way to capitalize.  I haven't heard a single person complain.  Heck, the area around Wrigley encourages it. 
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#66
06-10-2014, 06:06 PM

Woosh

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#67
06-10-2014, 06:08 PM

Quote:Woosh
 

Are you implying Wrigley is better?  That's the best you can come up with, Beav? 
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#68
06-10-2014, 06:10 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 06:12 PM by The Mad Dog.)

Quote:Are you implying Wrigley is better?  That's the best you can come up with, Beav? 
 

LOL....

 

Follow the progression of the thread up until your snarky comment, and then look at the visual I provided again....

 

Ask yourself what thats focusing on...

 

you'll get it eventually

 

 

 

I'm disappointed. You're usually not this slow, FBT. 

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#69
06-10-2014, 06:17 PM

Quote:LOL....

 

Follow the progression of the thread up until your snarky comment, and then look at the visual I provided again....

 

Ask yourself what thats focusing on...

 

you'll get it eventually

 

 

 

I'm disappointed. You're usually not this slow, FBT. 
 

It's not worth the effort.  Sorry. 
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#70
06-10-2014, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 06:19 PM by The Mad Dog.)

Quote:It's not worth the effort.  Sorry. 
 

Good Lord, FBT.....

 

Out of left field     re: your comment

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#71
06-10-2014, 06:21 PM

Quote:Good Lord, FBT.....

 

Out of left field     re: your comment
 

Really not that clever.  Sorry.

 

My comment wasn't out of left field.  You were complaining about Weather Channel not being as good as it used to be.  Your common mantra is how things were better in the good old days.  Your Wrigley picture response was a dud. 
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#72
06-10-2014, 06:30 PM

Well, my weather channel inclusion was an example driving the point home. We were just talking about, and in agreement that ESPN and MTV were better in the past, as was many other channels that started out as good ideas. Then all of a sudden you decided to throw one of your usual chippy comments my way, outta nowhere. Hence the left field visual. 

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#73
06-10-2014, 06:35 PM

Quote:Well, my weather channel inclusion was an example driving the point home. We were just talking about, and in agreement that ESPN and MTV were better in the past, as was many other channels that started out as good ideas. Then all of a sudden you decided to throw one of your usual chippy comments my way, outta nowhere. Hence the left field visual. 
 

Who watches the Weather Channel besides 80 year olds and people in hotel lobbies?  They dropped it from DirecTV and I was hard pressed to recall the last time I'd even gone there.  ESPN and MTV are iconic cable networks.  Weather Channel?  Notsomuch.

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#74
06-10-2014, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014, 06:41 PM by The Mad Dog.)

Quote:Who watches the Weather Channel besides 80 year olds and people in hotel lobbies?  They dropped it from DirecTV and I was hard pressed to recall the last time I'd even gone there.  ESPN and MTV are iconic cable networks.  Weather Channel?  Notsomuch.
 

Well, that was sorta the point. Even something like that had regressed from its original form. 

 

But to answer the question...the weather channel was useful whenever severe weather was a threat to the area.  

Reply

  • Offline FBT
    Behind the Curtain

  • *******
  • Posts: 65,876
    Threads: 220
    Joined: Aug 2001
    Reputation: 204
#75
06-10-2014, 06:41 PM

Quote:Well, that was sorta the point. Even something like that had regressed from its original form. 

 

But to answer the question...the weather channel was useful whenever severe weather was impacting my area. 
 

So are local weather reports, a computer, and apps on smart phones.  Nobody watches Weather Channel, gramps. 

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

  • Offline pirkster
    Hall of Famer

  • *******
  • Posts: 11,177
    Threads: 118
    Joined: May 2006
    Reputation: 74
#76
06-10-2014, 08:36 PM

He may have a point, FBT.

 

Heck... this board was waayyyy better prior to 10 January 2005.

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

  • Offline The Mad Dog
    Banned

  • Posts: 17,443
    Threads: 175
    Joined: Jan 2005
#77
06-10-2014, 08:44 PM

Quote:He may have a point, FBT.

 

Heck... this board was waayyyy better prior to 10 January 2005.
 

whats your problem now, pirk?.....what did I do now to tick you off, that you have to stalk me in several posts today?......
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


  • Offline Adam2012
    Veteran

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,886
    Threads: 8
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Reputation: -10
#78
06-10-2014, 09:12 PM

Ah, yes, another drift down the same old trail ... if it isn't how I remember it (and trust me, it's wasn't as good as you remember it) it has to be worse now. 

 

Some people have never heard The Times They Are A-Changin', I guess.

 

I think TMD will be shocked when he learns about color tv.

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.
Reply

  • Offline KFL
    Rookie

  • ***
  • Posts: 913
    Threads: 3
    Joined: Feb 2004
    Reputation: 2
#79
06-10-2014, 09:41 PM

This roster means nothing to me this year. It's all about the future
[Image: Brunell_sig_zps13c33193.jpg]
Reply

  • Offline ajagsfan
    Rookie

  • ***
  • Posts: 312
    Threads: 12
    Joined: Jan 2006
    Reputation: 1
#80
06-13-2014, 08:14 PM

Quote:Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think this roster is bottom 5 talent. It's largely unproven in many areas but while I think the roster 2 years ago may have been bottom 5, the job Caldwell has done has brought the team to a competitive level from a talent standpoint. Now we have to prove it.
No I agree with you and there is a difference between bad and young. Bad is just bad, but young and inexperienced leaves a lot of room for improvement. I also agree with The Mad Dog upper bottom third of the league, but not the bottom.
"If this team gets lessons from losing they should all be Einsteins by now."---Jaguarmvp

 

"Football is not played on paper, its played inside Televisions"---Random Poster BCC
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.

Forum software by © MyBB - Theme © iAndrew 2017

ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!