FORUM NFL DEATH POOL - Any Interest?

[IHateKeithSmart]

Hey all:

With all the fantasy and NFL talk, it's about time to kick up the death pools again. Wanted to see if there's any interest in a forum NFL death pool (all forums).

For those not familiar, it's very simple:

1) You pick 1 team each week.

2) You cannot pick that team again (i.e. pick Green Bay week one, can never pick them again).

3) If your team wins, you advance to the next week. If it loses or ties, you are out.

4) Picks must be in by Thursday of each week (to accomodate Thursday night games). I will post picks and results on the web.

5) Last person standing wins the entire pool - winner take all. If the pool lasts to the end of the season (unlikely), the pool is split amongst remaining players.

Entry fee is usually $10-$20 (we can come to some sort of consensus), and you can pick as many spots as you want (for example, you may want to 'play' 4 teams - pay 4 entries and you get 4 picks each week).

These can get pretty big - the office pool last year was over $5k.

If you are interested or have questions, please post back.

[Wes ManTooth]

Sounds good, definately interested.

I would be interested.

[SossMan]

i'm in.

[CollinEstes]

Yeah I'll throw my money in too.

[Sluss]

I could throw money at this

[meep_42]

Sure.

-d

[IHateKeithSmart]

Cool, if we can get at least 12-15 participants, I'll post an 'official' thread for signups. Also, keep in mind you can play multiple picks (I usually do 3).

[McGahee]

Definitely in - these are fun.
Just remind me to stay away from games involving the New York football Giants. They have screwed me over one way or the other for like the last 3 years.

[ QUOTE ]
I could throw money at this

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know I very well might be the only person who ever lost in the first week 3 years in a row. If you must know the picks in 2002 I took St Louis over Denver in week 1, in 2003 I took Miami over Houston and Last year I took Houston over San Diego. Man I suck at survivor.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could throw money at this

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know I very well might be the only person who ever lost in the first week 3 years in a row. If you must know the picks in 2002 I took St Louis over Denver in week 1, in 2003 I took Miami over Houston and Last year I took Houston over San Diego. Man I suck at survivor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's always a good idea to take a Mike Martz team on a grass field, outside on the road, in a tough stadium.

Is it still OK to brag about my 'Detroit over Arizona' pick 2 years ago when everyone got KO'd by Miami on opening day?
Of course - that was all for not because the Giants can never beat a Vickless Falcons team at home, but they roll over the Packers in Lambeau /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Yeah probably picking the Rams was a bad idea but remember this was the year after they lost in the Superbowl after destroying everyone whether on Turf of not. 2002 started there decline so it wasn't as terrible as a pick as it would be today.

[McGahee]

True - the Rams were really good then. The Patriots can win the next 100 SB's and it still won't change the fact that they were lucky as hell that particular year.

[TxSteve]

i'd be in.

i'll keep an eye peeled for the official sign ups

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

[lastsamurai]

$10 dolla to make you holla? ok im in.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
True - the Rams were really good then. The Patriots can win the next 100 SB's and it still won't change the fact that they were lucky as hell that particular year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? How were they lucky?

Lucky that Martz was soooooo clever, and used Faulk as a decoy?

Lucky that 95-yd fumble return by the Pats D was negated by a penalty?

[CD56]

in

[Clarkmeister]

I was excited until I saw that it didn't involve people having to leave the forum ala the WWE.

[youtalkfunny]

oh yeah, and count me in.

[Dudd]

Count me in.

[metsmaniac823]

I'd like in as well.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True - the Rams were really good then. The Patriots can win the next 100 SB's and it still won't change the fact that they were lucky as hell that particular year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? How were they lucky?

Lucky that Martz was soooooo clever, and used Faulk as a decoy?

Lucky that 95-yd fumble return by the Pats D was negated by a penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every GM in the league said after the game Faulk was being held the whole game. They were outgained in that game like 2-1. Brady engineerd 2 TD drives the entire postseason. The refs gave them the Oakland game; and also gave them a December game against a horrible Buffalo team when a fumble was not ruled a fumble in OT; which gave them a 1st round bye.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
I was excited until I saw that it didn't involve people having to leave the forum ala the WWE.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were like the WWE, nobody would actually leave though. I guess we could pretend.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True - the Rams were really good then. The Patriots can win the next 100 SB's and it still won't change the fact that they were lucky as hell that particular year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? How were they lucky?

Lucky that Martz was soooooo clever, and used Faulk as a decoy?

Lucky that 95-yd fumble return by the Pats D was negated by a penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every GM in the league said after the game Faulk was being held the whole game. They were outgained in that game like 2-1. Brady engineerd 2 TD drives the entire postseason. The refs made the correct call in the Oakland game; and also gave them a December game against a horrible Buffalo team when a fumble was not ruled a fumble in OT; which gave them a 1st round bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True - the Rams were really good then. The Patriots can win the next 100 SB's and it still won't change the fact that they were lucky as hell that particular year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? How were they lucky?

Lucky that Martz was soooooo clever, and used Faulk as a decoy?

Lucky that 95-yd fumble return by the Pats D was negated by a penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every GM in the league said after the game Faulk was being held the whole game. They were outgained in that game like 2-1. Brady engineerd 2 TD drives the entire postseason. The refs made an unprecedented call in the Oakland game which everybody outside of NE thought was bogus and even shocked Tom Brady, and then made the same ruling the following year in a few games so they wouldn't look like hypocrites; and also gave them a December game against a horrible Buffalo team when a fumble was not ruled a fumble in OT; which gave them a 1st round bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[kasey2004]

sweet im in

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Kasey /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[billyjex]

i would like to partake

[yoadrians]

I am DEF. in! For sure. These things are great!

Please PM me with the cost and who to pay and where ... but yes, I'm in!

I also know that 'jacki' will be in, too...

[jstnrgrs]

If you play multiple teams, do you have to declare which team makes which pick? I would think so.

[IHateKeithSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
If you play multiple teams, do you have to declare which team makes which pick? I would think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you'll have to declare which team each pick is for.

[IHateKeithSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
I am DEF. in! For sure. These things are great!

Please PM me with the cost and who to pay and where ... but yes, I'm in!

I also know that 'jacki' will be in, too...

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. It is going to be a $10 pool (multiple entries allowed). I am going to post an *official* thread tomorrow with all the details, schedule, etc.

[Edginator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The refs made an unprecedented call in the Oakland game which everybody outside of NE thought was bogus and even shocked Tom Brady, and then made the same ruling the following year in a few games so they wouldn't look like hypocrites...

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood anyone who has a problem with that call.

The rulebook describes precisely when it should be called, and Brady did precisely what the rulebook described.

What, the refs should ignore the rules that YOU have never heard of?

Don't be embarrassed that there are rules you've never heard of. At the time, I had never heard of that rule. I was working in a sportsbook, part of a crew of guys who had, combined, about 200 years of experience booking the NFL--we were all at least 30 years old, and had watched the sport passionately for our whole lives--and none of us had ever heard of it.

But this is the league that changes ten rules per year, on average. That's hundreds of rules in my lifetime. I openly laugh at anyone who confidently boasts, "I know the rules!"

I don't think the players know the rules.
I don't think the coaches know the rules.
I *know* the announcers don't know the rules.

But I'm reasonably confident that the officials know the rules.

One last thing: if the officials were trying to "hand that game to the Patriots", couldn't they have helped the offense get a little closer on that final drive, so Adam Vinatieri didn't need to come up with THE GREATEST KICK IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME?

[McGahee]

I don't remember claiming to be the guru of NFL rules, nor do I recall saying that the game was fixed.

It was not enforced in the spirit of the "rule" - which was why nobody expected the ruling - because it had never been made before.
Obscure rules are obscure rules because they aren't enforced in such common situations. You don't find it the least bit strange that these obscure rules are discovered ONLY during Patriots games? If there are "10 rule changes every year" and "nobody but the refs know the rules" - then surely these kind of shocking obscure rulings that nobody other than the refs know about could/should happen every week. Why don't they?
If those games weren't fixed (I don't think they were) then the Patriots were just lucky as hell. I mean - you won the last 2 SB's in dominating fashion - congratulations - I can give you that. The refusal to admit the painfully obvious fact that they were lucky as hell in 2001 is just mind-bogglingly stubborn homerism.

[junkmail3]

If I didn't do this, I'd just burn my money. So, I'm in.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember claiming to be the guru of NFL rules, nor do I recall saying that the game was fixed.

It was not enforced in the spirit of the "rule" - which was why nobody expected the ruling - because it had never been made before.
Obscure rules are obscure rules because they aren't enforced in such common situations. You don't find it the least bit strange that these obscure rules are discovered ONLY during Patriots games? If there are "10 rule changes every year" and "nobody but the refs know the rules" - then surely these kind of shocking obscure rulings that nobody other than the refs know about could/should happen every week. Why don't they?
If those games weren't fixed (I don't think they were) then the Patriots were just lucky as hell. I mean - you won the last 2 SB's in dominating fashion - congratulations - I can give you that. The refusal to admit the painfully obvious fact that they were lucky as hell in 2001 is just mind-bogglingly stubborn homerism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need stop posting about this and start thinking it thru a bit.

[McGahee]

Yeah, I never thought about it till I started posting in this thread /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Actually - the real irony is that Instant Replay only existed becuase of a gift-wrapped game given to the Pats in 1998 - known as the "just give it to 'em" game when Shaan Jefferson caught a 4th down pass out of bounds a yard short of the 1st down marker in the closing seconds of a game.
IR gets reinstated and they win a SB because of it 3 yrs later. That's the biggest luckbox organization in sports, it's not close, and it's the end of thread.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I never understood anyone who has a problem with that call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I grew up a Broncos fan, hating the Raiders. But I thought the call was retarded. I honestly don't think there was anyone who had ever played football who didn't think that was a fumble. I don't know how long that rule had been in the rule book, or why that apparently was the first time it had ever come up, but I think it was idiocy that it was enforced. If it was a new rule, was was the purpose of the rule? Why was it needed?

[TheJunkyardGod]

Allright, count me in. I love pools.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how long that rule had been in the rule book, or why that apparently was the first time it had ever come up, but I think it was idiocy that it was enforced. If it was a new rule, was was the purpose of the rule? Why was it needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently it had been on the books for a few years. It was put in place so a ref would not have to decide if it was a pump fake or a pass. The idea is as long as the quarterbacks arm is moving it is a pass. The reason why you don't see it that often is normally the quarterback tries to make it look like a pass, Brady for some unknown reason tried to bring it back. Not that bright of a move by a bright QB.

[Dominic]

I'm in...let me know how and when.

[IHateKeithSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...let me know how and when.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Dominic:

The official rules/info have been posted in this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3179293&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1) thread.

Thanks,
Jason