My favorite thing about ESPN Radio NFL spots (I don't have cable, not that I'd be watching anything NFL-related if I did, my IQ being above double digits & all) is how the announcers so often feel compelled to make reference to "the National Football League," rather than just "the NFL." It's as if they think their audience is so brain-dead that no one can remember from one minute to the next what the initials stand for. Which, come to think of it, is pretty likely the case.

People just don't get the Maginot Line. Tis a pity.

There is a down side to Favre losing ...

ESPN starts their 24/7 coverage of "Will Bret play in 2011?" two weeks earlier.

I think the only internet meme I ever started was the misspelling of hilarious as hilaripus.

That's the thing about GGC. He's not afraid to misspell words. That's what I admire most about him.

Heh. I think everyone gets the Maginot Line. What we don't get is, "Why didn't you extend it into Belgium through to the sea, you froggies you?"

That’s the thing about Maginot; he’s not afraid to leave his flanks exposed. That’s one of the things I most admire about him.

think the only internet meme I ever started was the misspelling of hilarious as hilaripus.

That was when I first came around here and the way it caught on was one of the reasons I stuck around. Kudos.

“That’s the thing about Bill Buckner. He’s not afraid to muff a grounder. That’s one of the things I most admire about him.”

While I know a joke this is not close to the comparison. If we did apply this to baseball it would be, That's the thing about "insert outfielder" he is not afraid to dive for the ball. That's one of the things I most admire about him.

Or

That's the thing about "guy who struck out expanding his zone (Think Vlad)" he is not afraid to swing at a ball he thinks he can hit hard. That's one of the things I most admire about him.

Joe Buck's verbal love letter to Favre last night was annoying. "Could the legend get any bigger?" What a dope.

That's the thing about Joe Buck; he's not afraid to indulge in some good old-fashioned asskissing. Gotta respect that.

That's the thing about "guy who struck out expanding his zone (Think Vlad)" he is not afraid to swing at a ball he thinks he can hit hard. That's one of the things I most admire about him.

I can think of another free swinging outfielder who would work better there for this audience.

That had to be one of the worst plays I've ever seen. While Aikman went easy on Favre, at least he had the presence of mind to say "that's one of the first things they teach not to do."

Heh. I think everyone gets the Maginot Line. What we don't get is, "Why didn't you extend it into Belgium through to the sea, you froggies you?"

It stopped at Belgium because Belgium was worried that if it did extend to the sea, France would not bother to defend them.

The big mistake was assuming that Hitler couldn't get through the Ardennes, so they left it essentially undefended.

While I know a joke this is not close to the comparison. If we did apply this to baseball it would be, That's the thing about "insert outfielder" he is not afraid to dive for the ball. That's one of the things I most admire about him.

Or

That's the thing about "guy who struck out expanding his zone (Think Vlad)" he is not afraid to swing at a ball he thinks he can hit hard. That's one of the things I most admire about him.

While the buckner comparison might be slightly off, I think you're giving Favre too much credit. It was just a boneheaded play -- akin to throwing to the wrong cutoff man or forgetting the number of outs.

While Aikman went easy on Favre, at least he had the presence of mind to say "that's one of the first things they teach not to do."

Apparently it's not of the first things they teach you not to do, since Favre has been doing it for his entire career. There have been all sorts of chances over the year to watch Favre throw a stupid interception late in the game, and those watching are always willing to haul out the "He's a gunslinger" line.

There have been all sorts of chances over the year to watch Favre throw a stupid interception late in the game, and those watching are always willing to haul out the "He's a gunslinger" line.

I wonder if Favre was still just having fun out there on that last pick.

a couple years ago when Vinny Testarverde was playing he threw the ball right into double coverage- picked off...

the very next offensive series he threw the ball into double coverage- should have been picked but the safety dropped the ball...

Announcer 1: "You have to love Vinny, he has no shame, picked off trying to make a play, he'll come back out with no hesitation and try to make the exact same play again"

Announcer 2: "You can't get gun shy out there, you have to admire his aggressiveness, you've got to make things happen, you can't be worried about getting picked all the time, you'll never move the ball...

While the buckner comparison might be slightly off, I think you're giving Favre too much credit. It was just a boneheaded play -- akin to throwing to the wrong cutoff man or forgetting the number of outs.

As a lifelong Bears fan I am GREATLY offended of being accused of giving Favre too much credit :)

The Ardennes was defended. Several reserve formations were in the immediate vicinity and contested the crossing of the Meuse, quite fiercely, as accounted on both sides.

The French can forestall a German invasion with the pre-invasion configuration. The Maginot Line prevents a Sedan like debacle on the eastern border and the mobie part of the French army would deploy into Belgium to defeat the impending German assault. The Ardennes gap was known and defensed.

The French lose because they have the worst command and control. The French also lose air superiority quickly and cannot regain it before June and the collapse. The French fight hard, but they do not react quick enough to the battlefield, while the Germans never lose the initiative.

Apparently it's not of the first things they teach you not to do, since Favre has been doing it for his entire career. There have been all sorts of chances over the year to watch Favre throw a stupid interception late in the game, and those watching are always willing to haul out the "He's a gunslinger" line.

Would Brett Favre's legacy be different if, insted of the gunslinger tag, NFL announcers had described his style with the more accurate, "Well, that's just Brett. He's a drive-by shooter?"

The big mistake was assuming that Hitler couldn't get through the Ardennes, so they left it essentially undefended.

The big mistake was that the French thought the Maginot line was a substitute for having a mobile army.

The original idea of the Maginot Line was sound. It was a force multiplier, essentially allowing the French to leave the Alsace-Lorraine area mostly undefended and prepare defenses in depth in Belgium and northern France. The idea was to force the Germans to follow the same path they did in World War I, and run into a huge French army in the process.

But the French government took a hard left turn in the early to mid '30s, and the Maginot line became something that would allow the French to cut military spending, which was never the idea.

Even still, the French had the resources to beat the Germans in 1940. They had a larger army, more tanks, more planes, more everything. They just had no counter to the German offensive doctrine.

Apparently it's not of the first things they teach you not to do, since Favre has been doing it for his entire career. There have been all sorts of chances over the year to watch Favre throw a stupid interception late in the game, and those watching are always willing to haul out the "He's a gunslinger" line.

Yeah...I know. But at least Aikman wasn't fawning over him.

It sounded to me like Aikman wanted to jump on him but realized that it wasn't very professional. He submitted his criticism and let it go. You shouldn't, IMHO, continue to rag on guys anymore than you should praise every little thing. Critique the play and move on. I think Aikman is really good in the booth - enough so that he makes Buck almost tolerable. I wonder how Buck would fare in MLB if he had a really good partner.


As for the play, yes, Favre has been making that play for decades but I think a lot of it was his leg. I think he simply didn't want to run 10 more yards and get smacked, though if he does the Vikes are likely in the Super Bowl.

#20, a mobile army would have been nice. The sheer idiocy of the pre-war planning lay in not having any reserves (having sent basically everything that had any kind of mobility into Belgium).

In his war memoir "The Second World War", Churchill describes going over to France, as Prime Minister, to meet with the French political leadership and General Staff after having been told by his French counterpart that all was lost. At this meeting, he was shown where the Germans had broken through French lines. Churchill looked for the obvious operational answer: committing the forces held in reserve to block the German thrust. "Ou est la masse de manouvre, he demanded ("Where's the strategic reserve"), only to be glumly answered by the French Chief of General Staff, General Gamelin, "Aucune" ("There is none".).

The big mistake was that the French thought the Maginot line was a substitute for having a mobile army.

Yeah, the fall of the Third Republic is one of my favorite little historical questions. The trend throughout european warfare, really reaching back to the development of proper artillery, was toward mobility and speed. (Though Blitzkrieg was the high-water mark -- nuclear proliferation during the cold war shifted the entire calculation.) So it's an interesting little historical game to play w/r/t France and the Maginot Line. Were they fools for forgetting the lessons of the opening of WWI, or are we simply blessed with hindsight?

Aikman is really good in the booth - enough so that he makes Buck almost tolerable

Pretty much agree with first part but not with the second. I normally have Buck on mute for baseball but watched the game yesterday with a guy who likes the Saints (he has family in NO
--I got caught up in it and was pulling for the Saints as well) and wanted the sound up. Buck just strikes me as being smug and arrogant, which I suppose may be unfair. Aikman just seems like a regular guy, there to talk about the game and not promote himself.

Aikman made a comment earlier in the game suggesting that Favre could break out one of his 3-to-4 interception games at any moment. I don't remember exactly how he phrased it. Anyway, it was refreshing.

Well, that is more or less what I meant about tolerable. I'd rather not hear him, but I like Aikman, so I can deal with it. Sort of like if you had a good friend over who brought a casual acquaintance of his who was annoying. You deal with it. Aikman with someone else would be better.

But in baseball, when Buck shuts up and his partner talks, you get no reprieve. A bit like a casual acquaintance of yours who you don't much care for showing up for dinner with your worst enemy from grade school.

You live by the gun, you die by the gun. That's Bret Favre's entire career in a nutshell. He's the Reggie Jackson of quarterbacks.

While we are talking about WWII and the Vikings.....If Adrian Peterson flew the Enola Gay, the atomic bomb would have been dropped in the Sea of Japan.

So it's an interesting little historical game to play w/r/t France and the Maginot Line. Were they fools for forgetting the lessons of the opening of WWI, or are we simply blessed with hindsight?

They were foolish. They were essentially trying to play defense while allowing the enemy to pick the battlefield. This is something that Napoleon could have told them was a bad idea. The Germans had the initiative the entire campaign.

The Favre interception was obviously a nightmare for the Vikings, but it shouldn't be lost that Favre was forced into trying to make a play because the Vikings came out of a freaking timeout with 12 men in the huddle, in effect taking them out of field goal range. How does that happen?

Anyway, as to the interception, as Aikman pointed out, Favre would have been better off running it down the right sideline. I also noticed that there was a receiver who appeared to be open down there also.

My favorite was Francesa on tv last night: "Favre has now thrown game-ending picks in his last two playoff games, going back to the 2007 conference game against the Giants." Huh? Did last week's game not count?

It sounded to me like Aikman wanted to jump on him but realized that it wasn't very professional. He submitted his criticism and let it go. You shouldn't, IMHO, continue to rag on guys anymore than you should praise every little thing. Critique the play and move on. I think Aikman is really good in the booth - enough so that he makes Buck almost tolerable. I wonder how Buck would fare in MLB if he had a really good partner.

Agreed, and I think Aikman handled it exactly right.

I understand completely that it's personal, but I'd rather read 1000 more steroid threads than one more WWII post.

And since when is a 52 yard FG a chip shot. At least that was the yardage they were saying in the booth afterwards. The play started on the 38 yd line, so that would have been a 55-56 yard try. I know that Longwell is good, but saying it was a chip shot is going too far.

My favorite was Francesa on tv last night: "Favre has now thrown game-ending picks in his last two playoff games, going back to the 2007 conference game against the Giants." Huh? Did last week's game not count?

He meant Favre has thrown game-ending picks in the last two playoff games that were ended by Brett Favre interceptions.

My favorite was Francesa on tv last night: "Favre has now thrown game-ending picks in his last two playoff games, going back to the 2007 conference game against the Giants." Huh? Did last week's game not count?

I have to ask - given that, by all accounts, Francesa is elite-tier stupid, and given that you seem to hate almost everything he says and does, why do you keep watching and listening to him?

JPWF13, what did you think of the Jets game? Obviously they played well at the start, but eventually the Colts' offense was too good for them. Sanchez played really well. I thought the Jets needed to be more aggressive on offense down the stretch; I know it's not what they do well, but once they fell behind they needed to attack to stay in the game. That's always the problem with a team that doesn't have much of a vertical offense, though, again, Sanchez did impress and connect on a couple of those.

And since when is a 52 yard FG a chip shot. At least that was the yardage they were saying in the booth afterwards. The play started on the 38 yd line, so that would have been a 55-56 yard try. I know that Longwell is good, but saying it was a chip shot is going too far.

Definitely not a chip shot. But if he runs it down to, say, the 28, that makes it more like a 45 yarder. Which still isn't a chip shot but is a very makable FG.

Funny thing-Watching the game, the quote that came to mind was Shelby Foote's comment that "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Robert E. Lee as commander."

I thought the Jets needed to be more aggressive on offense down the stretch.

From the perspective of someone who watches football but couldn't point out who the halfback is or what teams yesterday were in the AFC or NFC, it really did look like the Jets finally just tired out and got overrun. On top of that, the Colts were simply a better team. It was a great run by the Jets, and not only that, it was a great two and a half quarters. They just didn't seem to have anything left in them after that.

Even still, the French had the resources to beat the Germans in 1940. They had a larger army, more tanks, more planes, more everything.

Not quite true. They had a smaller army. That was the real reasoning behind the Maginot Line. France simply didn't have the population to compete on an equal basis with Germany. The Maginot Line was designed to replace manpower with concrete and fortifications, leveling the playing field.

The French didn't have more modern planes than the Germans, and a lot of their airframes were grounded due to maintenance problems, lack of spare parts, etc. By the time the problems were ironed out, it was too late. Nevertheless, they did cause the Germans a lot of losses.

The big mistake was that the French thought the Maginot line was a substitute for having a mobile army.

The original idea of the Maginot Line was sound. It was a force multiplier, essentially allowing the French to leave the Alsace-Lorraine area mostly undefended and prepare defenses in depth in Belgium and northern France. The idea was to force the Germans to follow the same path they did in World War I, and run into a huge French army in the process.

But the French government took a hard left turn in the early to mid '30s, and the Maginot line became something that would allow the French to cut military spending, which was never the idea.

Even still, the French had the resources to beat the Germans in 1940. They had a larger army, more tanks, more planes, more everything. They just had no counter to the German offensive doctrine.


The French did not think the Maginot Line was a substitute for a mobile army.

The Maginot line was not extended up to the sea for two reasons. One was politcal and the other was because the French planned on fighting the Germans in Belgium. By building the Maginot Line they were deciding where the battlefield would be. They also thought that Belgium's own defenses would hold up the Germans for awhile allowing the French to take to the field and attack.

The French had as many tanks as the Germans and they were by and large better than the German's tanks. The French by building the line were really no different than almost any other European country from the same time period. Even the Germans committed vast amounts of precious resources building defensive lines in both the East and the West before the war.

Their failure, as you note, was largely due to the Generals and their inability to fight a war.

I can't believe how poorly the Vikes handled their last possessions of regulation. It seemed very similar to the end of their week 17 game last season against the Giants. They seemed perfectly happy to try a 50 yard FG or so to win the game. I know it's indoors, but that's no easy kick.

I checked the PBP to make sure I had everything right. Vikes get a first down at the NO 33. Saints call a TO with 1:06 left. So you have 66 seconds, 2 timeouts, and you are at the other team's 33. If you don't gain any more yardage, you're talking a 51 yard FG. So they just run the ball twice, letting the clock run all the way down to 19 seconds before calling the a TO. They seemed happy to just try a FG from that far; what are they thinking? Then, the debacle with having 12 men in the huddle AFTER you call a time out. How does that happen? And then the pick. Just terrible.

My favorite thing about ESPN Radio NFL spots (I don't have cable, not that I'd be watching anything NFL-related if I did, my IQ being above double digits & all) is how the announcers so often feel compelled to make reference to "the National Football League," rather than just "the NFL." It's as if they think their audience is so brain-dead that no one can remember from one minute to the next what the initials stand for. Which, come to think of it, is pretty likely the case.

That, alas, is ESPN style -- think of "the Big House" and "the Horseshoe" for Michigan and Ohio stadiums. Bunch of clowns.

As for Favre, quarterbacks don't win or lose games -- teams do. Unless we return to the days of two-way football in the Sammy Baugh era (people forget Baugh was also an outstanding punter and collected many interceptions while on defense), the quarterbacks' won-loss record is the biggest piece of garbage in pro sports. But the storyline is easier if it's defined by a quarterback; it's easier than actually thinking.

the Vikings came out of a freaking timeout with 12 men in the huddle, in effect taking them out of field goal range. How does that happen?

You didn't see the Grey Cup this year did you.

So it's an interesting little historical game to play w/r/t France and the Maginot Line. Were they fools for forgetting the lessons of the opening of WWI, or are we simply blessed with hindsight?

Forgetting what lesson to open WWI?
They launched an offensive which failed miserably
They finally stopped the German offensive during the battle of Marne, pushed them back, and the western front ossified into years of trench warfare.

The idea was to have a fixed "trench line" pre-prepared, but the border rather than running through France- and to essentially re-fight the Battle of the Marne- but in Belgium rather than outside Paris.

What they forgot was not the beginning of WWI but the END- both sides had been developing tactics and weapons to overcome fixed fortifications and regain mobility.
In any event, with better command and control, as Greg notes, the Germans could have been stopped.

What is surprising about the Blitzkrieg through France:

1: The French had more tanks
2: The German tanks were not all that, the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II tanks had not yet even been conceived, The Panzer IIIs and IVs were supposed to be the main tanks but had not yet been built or deployed in numbers- the Germans had a couple hundred Panzer Is (crap, no better than Italian Tanks, meant for training, but were use din combat anyway, no cannon armed with MGs), a thousand or so Panzer IIs (20mm guns, thin armor, outgunned by most French and British Tanks), a few hundred Czech Tanks (most functionally equivalent to the Vickers 6 ton, Polish 7TP or Russian T-26- IOW obsolete)...
3. German infantry wasn't all that either- they didn't have automatic weapons in great numbers, most infantry men had bolt action rifles (no assault rifles- yet), they didn't have portable hand held anti-tank weapons (yet)- man for man they hadn't really outfought the Poles either...

BUT German command and control was so much better, armour was deployed in armored divisions, every tank was connected to the lead tank by 2 way radio, they fought as a cohesive unified force. French and British tanks were SUPPOSED to have radios, but they weren't always installed- they weren't considered that important, no specialized armoured divisions were fielded, tank forces were not concentrated.

French senior military leadership was criminally incompetent/stupid, literally, even when they knew the Germans had breached their lines and moved 20 miles in 10 hours, they would redeploy expecting the Germans to only advance another 10 miles in 20 hours- would be shocked when the Germans moved 40 - and this would be repeated- that's what I mean by stupid- Individual French generals appeared utterly incapable of learning from experience- the Germans would do A B & C, but certain Generals refused to believe that the Germans could do it again... tactics didn't improve until field commanders were replaced- but by that time it was too late.

Command & Control- French high command field HQ did not have any direct electronic communication with units at the front...

When French units/divisions did meet German ones on equal terms, they fought well (contrary to popular opinion here after the war), the problem was that the Germans were able to concentrate their forces seemingly at will, if both the French and Germans had 5 divisions and 100 tanks, the Germans would find a way to send 2 divisions and all 100 tanks up against one French Division with 20 tanks, overwhelm that division, split the remaining 4 division and cut off at least half of their lines of supply/communication/retreat- this happened repeatedly, on small scale and large- and the French High Command seemed paralyzed to react or adjust.

AirForces: The French airforce literally panicked when the Germans started attacking airfields, instead of counterattacking they literally bugged out and moved stuff willy nilly to the rear- all organizational cohesiveness was lost- they lost more aircraft to organizational incompetence than to battle- if 20 bombers/fighters were flown west to avoid luftwaffe attacks, those 20 were out of the war, they'd land somewhere, but their support crews (ground crew, mechanics, etc., fuel), would never be reunited with the aircraft/pilots - French Aircraft were not as good o average as the German ones- but the gap wasn't THAT great- the french airforce literally took itself out of the war- and was never able to re-engage- when the armistice was called they still had almost all their hardware- planes, refueling trucks, spare parts, etc., but it was all scattered seeming;y at random, unusable.

JPWF13, what did you think of the Jets game?

I think that this was a very satisfying SEASON.

Sanchez threw the ball better than I had seen from him before.

Other than that, we need another corner, and another speed WR...

And the Colts were a better team.

If the French command was capable of being somewhat competent the Germans would have been screwed. The Germans at that point didn't have the economy or the resources to fight a protracted battle in France. In a war of attrition the Germans were going to lose the resources first.

The Allies should never have left Poland high and dry.

The Allies should never have left Poland high and dry.

Neville Chamberlain should have never written that book.

That's the thing about Primer, they're not afraid to nitpick a joke.

The Allies should never have left Poland high and dry.

This. If the French had attacked immediately in August of '39 they could have easily crossed the Rhine, occupied the Ruhr and basically ended the war.

The German Army was already looking for an excuse to topple Hitler, and that sort of setback would have been it. Hitler didn't gain the confidence of any signifigant portion of the army until the smashing success in France in 1940.

The Allies should never have left <strike>Poland</strike> Czechoslovakia high and dry.

The time to put their foot down was 1938, not 1939. The Czech army was superior to the German one in 1938, and they would have been defending behind an impressive array of mountain fortresses. They could have held out for months, years probably, while France would have been able to stroll into the Ruhr literally unopposed.

The Jets stopped playing well when they stopped getting pressure on Manning. On the first two drives they were right in his face. Giving him even a quarter-second more than that was too much.

The time to put their foot down was 1938, not 1939. The Czech army was superior to the German one in 1938, and they would have been defending behind an impressive array of mountain fortresses. They could have held out for months, years probably, while France would have been able to stroll into the Ruhr literally unopposed.

I read von Manstein's account of the war - OKH was absolutely terrified of war breaking out in 1938. They firmly believed that Hitler was absolutely wrong, that the Allies would declare war on Germany over Czechoslovakia and absolutely crush them. They were stunned when the Allies did nothing.

I pointed out last night that Favre has thrown an interception with his last legal forward pass the last three seasons. The Giants interception, the interception last night, and last year in his last game with the Jets -- his last pass was an illegal forward pass, the last pass before that was an interception.

The time to put their foot down was 1938, not 1939. The Czech army was superior to the German one in 1938, and they would have been defending behind an impressive array of mountain fortresses. They could have held out for months, years probably, while France would have been able to stroll into the Ruhr literally unopposed.

Czech yourself before you...no, even I can't pull that one off.

"Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Robert E. Lee as commander."

Lee made his share of mistakes, to be sure, but ultimately Richard Ewell's failure to press the advantage of the first day's battle and take Cemetery Hill was probably most to blame for the South losing at Gettysburg.

Also re the end of the Vikings game (yes, I hate the overtime rules in the NFL), the Vikings also got screwed on that pass interference call. I do think the ball was probably catchable, but I don't see where the pass interference came from. There was barely if any contact with the receiver.

Then there were two questionable spots that the Saints got. On the fourth down dive by Pierre Thomas, Thomas initially had the first down but then the ball got knocked loose by the helmet of the Vikings player, and by the time Thomas regained control he no longer had the first down...

The Allies should never have left Poland high and dry.

Neville Chamberlain should have never written that book.

Yeah, but that's the thing about Neville Chamberlain. He's not afraid to hand over central Europe to the Nazis.

John Madden said Peyton Manning told him the key to the Colts' success in the second half yesterday was the simplicity of their offensive formations. Supposedly, by halftime, Peyton had seen every look the Jets defense had to offer and was ready to get started picking it apart.

Also re the end of the Vikings game (yes, I hate the overtime rules in the NFL), the Vikings also got screwed on that pass interference call. I do think the ball was probably catchable, but I don't see where the pass interference came from. There was barely if any contact with the receiver.

The weirdest call (non-call) of the game was when Brett Favre got his legs chopped out from under him, on the play he got injured, and nothing was called. You're not allowed to go low on a QB anymore. I guess it was a makeup for the ticky-tack roughing the passer called earlier on that drive.

Derek Jeter would have made that throw...

I would like to see the NFL adopt a rule that if the receiving team in OT scores without relinquishing possession on their first drive, the kicking team in OT has to be given one possession to tie (or lead). That would stop silly nonsense like pulling up at the 30 to kick a FG on the opening drive - you'd be much better served to try to score a TD.

I think Good Face wins it with 59. Nicely done.

Aikman is really good in the booth - enough so that he makes Buck almost tolerable

I especially enjoyed the discussion of one of the Saint's roughing the QB calls, the one where Favre was wrapped up and tackled. It was funny listening to Joe Buck, who probably quit playing organized sports in fifth grade, telling a former NFL quarterback that his opinion about what constitutes roughing was incorrect.

Yeah, but that's the thing about Neville Chamberlain. He's not afraid to hand over central Europe to the Nazis.

Knowing where the trap is - that is the first step in evading it. This is like single combat, Son, only on a larger scale - a meme within a meme within a meme... seemingly without end.

-Duke Leto Estrada

I"m just glad the Saints won. I don't have the patience in withstand the media onslaught of a Farve/Manning SB. I would have been forced to miss the SB for the first time in my life (since I was old enough to remember).

John Madden said Peyton Manning told him the key to the Colts' success in the second half yesterday was the simplicity of their offensive formations. Supposedly, by halftime, Peyton had seen every look the Jets defense had to offer and was ready to get started picking it apart.

I believe this, the Jets got 0 pressure on Manning starting at the 2 min mark in the 1st half. The Colts really packed it in, ran just 2-3 receiver routes, and the o-line/RBs blocked exceptionally in the 2nd half. I kept waiting for Simms/Nance to mention the adjustment in pass protection being the key for the Colts finally able to put points on the board, but they had more important things to talk about.

Yeah, but that's the thing about Neville Chamberlain. He's not afraid to hand over central Europe to the Nazis.

One thing that I never learned in school until I watched actual film taken at the time, is that his infamous "peace in our time" quote was
1: possibly misquoted
2: definitely taken out of context

as to 1:- in the audio it sounds like he said "peace for our time", not peace in out time, but that's not the big thing, the big thing, are what he said immediately beforehand (and the tone of voice and the look on his face): when he first said the phrase he said it may not be fair or just, bit for now it is peace, a sort of peace for out time" He looked like he was going to be ill.

The second time was after he arrived back home, the British public was ecstatic, the crowds cheered him, one of his political advisors urged him to address the crowd and tell them we have "peace in our time" (The misquote having taken hold), Chamberlain then addressed teh corwd as follows:

My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds.

Again, he looked like he was ill when saying that (the crowd loved it, but Neville knew what he was saying was all a lie, what he'd done was essentially dishonorable- and "peace" wouldn't last)

The time to put their foot down was 1938, not 1939. The Czech army was superior to the German one in 1938, and they would have been defending behind an impressive array of mountain fortresses. They could have held out for months, years probably, while France would have been able to stroll into the Ruhr literally unopposed.

Sure, but you have to take the moral cowardice of the British/French governments as a given. Churchill wasn't PM. They were not going to start a shooting war until ever last bit of appeasement had failed.

However, once a shooting war actually happened, it's not too much to ask to attack your enemy when you have a 10:1 superiority on the Western Front, b/c his whole army is busy invading Poland.

I'll stick up for Tom Jackson a little bit; I think there's a small grain of truth in “That’s the thing about Brett Favre; he’s not afraid to throw an interception. That’s one of the things I most admire about him.”

Granting that yesterday's throw was awful and inexcusable, overall you're better off with a QB who sometimes tries to do a little too much but at least is trying to make plays and does things to help you win, than you are with someone who absolutely refuses to throw the ball more than five yards past the line of scrimmage unless his guy is wide open. Call the second guy "Jason Campbell".

The baseball analog might be something like “That’s the thing about Jim Thome; he’s not afraid to strike out. That’s one of the things I most admire about him.” Strikeouts are bad, but the best hitters don't go to the plate with the idea that they absolutely will not strike out.

I thought the pass interference call against the Vikings at the end of the game was a bit of a make up call for the pass interference in the endzone call against the Saints, which I thought was unwarranted and ticky-tacky.

I would like to see the NFL adopt a rule that if the receiving team in OT scores without relinquishing possession on their first drive, the kicking team in OT has to be given one possession to tie (or lead). That would stop silly nonsense like pulling up at the 30 to kick a FG on the opening drive - you'd be much better served to try to score a TD.

Agreed, Bunyon. Something like this would be a lot better. Yes, I know people are now going to tell me that the team that gets the ball first in OT only wins 53% of the time or whatever. But so what? That's still an advantage that had absolutely nothing to do with the team that got it. And if the difference is so meaningless, why do coaches choose the ball instead of the field 99.99% of the time?

The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the Green Bay Packers was an interception.
The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the New York Jets was an interception.
The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the Minnesota Vikings was an interception.

the Vikings came out of a freaking timeout with 12 men in the huddle, in effect taking them out of field goal range. How does that happen?

You didn't see the Grey Cup this year did you.

Twelve men in the huddle shouldn't be a problem in the Grey Cup.

The weirdest call (non-call) of the game was when Brett Favre got his legs chopped out from under him, on the play he got injured, and nothing was called. You're not allowed to go low on a QB anymore. I guess it was a makeup for the ticky-tack roughing the passer called earlier on that drive.

It was a defensible noncall, as the defender who hit Farve low was pushed in the shoulders toward the ground by the OL he beat on the play. You could make the case that contact made him go low.

I thought the pass interference call against the Vikings at the end of the game was a bit of a make up call for the pass interference in the endzone call against the Saints, which I thought was unwarranted and ticky-tacky.

IIRC, The pass interference call on the Saints in the endzone was "face guarding" right? You can't face guard in the NFL, if you don't look back for the ball, it's ALWAYS going to be a flag. IMO, the PI call on the Vikes in OT was very questionable, but was borderline enough to go either way. No matter the call/no call on that play, someone would have been justifiably upset.

I'm not sure how they didn't call a PI on the VIkings on the 3rd down play before the FG in OT. Where the LB tackled the TE (Thomas) behind the line when he was going for the ball.

Twelve men in the huddle shouldn't be a problem in the Grey Cup.

It is when the thirteenth man was standing in the endzone, waiting for the kick.

And the one coach who did choose to kick was lampooned even though all 40-some points in the game were scored with the wind at the offense's back. It is tough to devise an OT system for football but I think a one possession minimum is a good place to start.

Neville Chamberlain didn't give "Central Europe" to the Nazis. Britain declared war on Germany as soon as Germany invaded Poland.

Lee made his share of mistakes, to be sure, but ultimately Richard Ewell's failure to press the advantage of the first day's battle and take Cemetery Hill was probably most to blame for the South losing at Gettysburg.

False. That is a myth created by Jubal Early and the other Lost Causers trying to deflect criticism away from Lee for the defeat at Gettysburg.

Ewell's corps was worn out and disorganized after smashing the Federals north of Gettysburg, and he had been giving warnings from Lee to avoid bringing on a general engagement (nobody knew how many Federals they were facing, and Lee didn't have Longstreet or all of Hill and Ewell's troops up yet). His only fresh division, Johnson, was on the Chambersburg Pike coming up behind Hill's corps. There were reports of a force on the York Pike on his left flank, so he had to send men up that way.

Even had Ewell attacked, taking Culps Hill (attacking Cemetery Hill would have been suicide) was no easy thing. Scouts had said there was nobody up there, but that was untrue -- Hancock had sent the remnants of the Iron Brigade up there by that point, and that would likely have been enough to hold the hill.

The Confederates lost at Gettysburg because they fought at Gettysburg. Their last realistic opportunity to win there went away when Howard and Hancock rallied the troops on Cemetery Hill. Everything else is Lost Cause mythology.

IIRC, The pass interference call on the Saints in the endzone was "face guarding" right? You can't face guard in the NFL, if you don't look back for the ball, it's ALWAYS going to be a flag. IMO, the PI call on the Vikes in OT was very questionable, but was borderline enough to go either way. No matter the call/no call on that play, someone would have been justifiably upset.

Maybe I have this wrong, but it looked like the Vikings receiver initiated the contact when he reached for the ball.

the Vikings came out of a freaking timeout with 12 men in the huddle, in effect taking them out of field goal range. How does that happen?

Before the penalty, and without gaining another yard is was going to be a 50+ yarder. I'm not sure why they were so contention wasting 2 downs running the ball and 1 min of the clock for a chance at a 50+ yarder to begin with. Now the 12-men flag was just an inexcusable mental mistake, topped only by Farve's mental error the next play, but it's not like that flag cost them the game. They were still pinning their hopes on a long FG.

Maybe I have this wrong, but it looked like the Vikings receiver initiated the contact when he reached for the ball.

I'd have to watch it again on the DVR to make sure, but in my experience watching the National Football League it doesn't matter if S Rice initiated the contact. IIRC, the saints defender never turned for the ball, that's always going to be called on the defense.

I understand completely that it's personal, but I'd rather read 1000 more steroid threads than one more WWII post.

My modest proposal is that all off-topic threads/comments be incorporated in the NBA thread.

My modest proposal

Ohhh yes, perfect!

is that all off-topic threads/comments be incorporated in the NBA thread.

FAIL!

Neville Chamberlain didn't give "Central Europe" to the Nazis. Britain declared war on Germany as soon as Germany invaded Poland.

And then promptly did nothing for the next 8 months or so.

Well, that isn't true completely. The British thought their strategic bombing and the French's armored attack would crush the Germans quickly. They were both wrong. The British discovered that daylight bombing was close to suicidal and hardly did any damage at all despite what everybody thought during the interwar years and the French discovered that fixed defenses were still deadly and almost impregnable.

False. That is a myth created by Jubal Early

Another thing, the man who virtually started the lost cause" mythology, Jubal Early was a total piece of #### scumbag, and the world would have been better off if he'd been killed during the war. His post war fabrications were causing harm in the country for decades.

Short form Jubal Early:

1: The South was good and right
2: The North was wrong
3: The blacks were better off as slaves
4: Despite the North's huge manpower and industrial edge the South still would have won if not for critical military leadership failures- the individuals responsible for such failures DURING THE WAR were any officers who POST war became Republicans or urged rapprochement with the north.
5: The South's leaders were better and more noble human beings that the North's {What is really notable, is that aside from a few military leaders, and Jefferson Davis, the South's leaders, especially the fireaters, were SCUM, as close as this country has ever had to having real nazi type personalities in positions of power and authority, these were not good and noble people even by the standards of their time, these were people who somehow derailed southern political culture and sent it below the sewer sometime between 1830 and 1860.

As a "historian" Jubal Early had no compunction about spinning facts, and when facts couldn't be spun he simply lied, but incredibly a generation of historians in this country picked up and regurgitated a lot of his stuff and schoolchildren for decades were being forced to read it. He is one of this country's greatest forgotten villains.

the Vikings came out of a freaking timeout with 12 men in the huddle, in effect taking them out of field goal range. How does that happen?

You didn't see the Grey Cup this year did you.

As a Saskatchewan Roughrider fan and Vikings fan the similarities resonated very quickly last night. The conclusion to the Grey Cup was eliminated from my mind for a month and a half. It came back to haunt me again last night.

The Favre interception kept replaying in my mind last night similar to the image of Peter Brady's basketball pounding on Mrs. Brady's vase - happening repeatedly.

The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the Green Bay Packers was an interception.
The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the New York Jets was an interception.
The last throw that Brett Favre attempted for the Minnesota Vikings was an interception.

Since he threw 2 picks in 4 attempts as a Falcon, there's a good chance you could add to that list.

One thing I always wondered about was what would have happened if the Western Allies had declared war on Russia after they rolled into Eastern Europe or once they attacked Finland. Does Hitler still go through with his invasion of Russia? If he does what do the western Allies do? So on and so on.

The British discovered that daylight bombing was close to suicidal and hardly did any damage at all

Or as Janes once said about the Fairey Battle, RAF men shuddered for years when that plane was mentioned. What the English public saw/said, "dive bombers! where are our dive bombers? where are our stukas?" What the RAF said privately, "dive bombers? if we sent out dive bombers the Luftwaffe would cut them to pieces, there is not way they can get through fighter defenses"

In 1940 attacking Fairey Battles were wholly ineffective, cut down in droves, barely able to dump their bombloads (any where, usually well short of the target) and escape... Of course a few months later the "invincible" Stukas were being hacked out of the skies in a similar fashion.

I had no idea Jubal Early (from Firefly) was named after a real person. This thread got very confusing for a minute.

The Favre interception kept replaying in my mind last night similar to the image of Peter Brady's basketball pounding on Mrs. Brady's vase - happening repeatedly.

As soon as I saw it I immediately recalled virtually every single Bears game I watched this year. I think it was the first time I ever thought Brett Favre was just like a Bears quarterback.

The Confederates lost at Gettysburg because they fought at Gettysburg.

If Pope was commanding the North would have lost at Gettysburg, if Hooker hadn't been relieved...

Actually Hooker wasn't as bad as the disaster at Chancellorsville would seem to indicate, his seconds (men he didn't want) were both incompetent and insubordinate, at battle before and after Hooker was almost a reasonable battlefield commander... well he wasn't as bad as Pope.

After the war Lee said the best battlefield commander he faced was McClellan, which is both odd, and not as crazy as would seem- its not crazy because Lee faced men like Pope and Hooker who were clearly WORSE than McClellan, it's odd because Meade was clearly better than McClellan- take the battle of Gettysburg-
McClellan would have evacuated before day 3, he would have surrendered the field, moved his base,and sent 20 telegrams a day to Washington saying he was outnumbered and demanding reinforcements. Pickett's charge wouldn't have happened, it wouldn't needed to have happened- Lee would still have retreated- eventually, but he would have done so as "victor", with his army in better shape than was the case in the real world.

Even still, the French had the resources to beat the Germans in 1940. They had a larger army, more tanks, more planes, more everything. They just had no counter to the German offensive doctrine.

You forgot that the Germans had chemistry in 1940. As we all know, chemistry goes a long way.

Another thing, the man who virtually started the lost cause" mythology, Jubal Early was a total piece of #### scumbag, and the world would have been better off if he'd been killed during the war. His post war fabrications were causing harm in the country for decades.

Causing harm for the United States after the war was Early's goal -- for him, the war never ended. While it can be easily argued that Early was indeed a "total piece of ####" scumbag, he was certainly a morbidly fascinating character in the annals of history.

Lee needed to destroy the Union army if he and the South ever hoped to win the war. McClellan was simply never going to let him do that while he was in charge of the main army. By being the cautious general he passed up chances to destroy the confederate army but really that doesn't mean as much as people make it out to be since the North was going to win that war the longer it went on. The only hope for the South with the way the war was being fought was some kind of political disaster during the election and since that didn't happen they were doomed. Nor do I really know what kind of victory would a democrac victory create for the South. Parties like to say one thing to get into power but it becomes awfully hard to actually do what they said they would when faced with the reality of the situation.

Why do you guys always argue about WWII? More than any other regular tangent the WWII stuff seems to always be about measuring your dicks. All of these discussions start with some stupid throwaway reference and then the next comment is 500 words beginning with, "Actually, that's a common misconception." And then it's on.

double.

#87, you're forgetting the Longstreet exception. In particular the myths of day two.

Early wasn't too big on trying to hang the failure to win at Gettysburg on day one because of Gordon's version of the end of day 1. Which has Ewell dithering and Early arguing against trying to take Culp's Hill. (With Gordon pleading to be allowed to attack)