Jump to content

Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)

HUDDLER
  • Posts

    6,197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)

  1. Both shows appealed to the masses, clearly. No one is special for liking the wire.

    I thought breaking bad was way better.

    I can't understand the love for GOT for people 25+, it's awful.

     

    There are very few people I know that didn't like GOT, and none of them liked LotR either.

     

    Just out of curiosity, does that stand for you as well? Just the fantasy thing that doesn't get you into it, or is it something else?

  2. Still don't get all the hype behind BB. It was just so "meh" to me most of the time, and I felt like I was just pushing through because I expected it to get better. I was waiting for it to live up to all of its hype, but it never did for me.

     

    I finally watched the entirety of The Wire, and holy sh*t if it didn't take me the entirety of God knows how long... 8 months maybe? I'll tell you what though, as difficult as it was to get through, I still think it is the greatest TV show of all time (until GOT finishes).

     

    There has never been a social commentary nearly as great as The Wire. It breaks down inner city America to its absolute core: the streets, the drugs, the violence, the police work, the bureaucracy, the politics, the corruption, the school system, the laborers and the everyday man, the media, etc. It's just so incredibly real.

     

    The characters in The Wire are better than any TV show I've ever seen, again arguably barring GOT, and it's just... I dunno, it's hard to explain, but it is the ultimate social commentary.

     

    What really solidified it as an all-time classic is its realism, which I will continue with under the spoiler tag...

     

    When characters die, no matter how big or small the character, they just die. It doesn't become some huge spectacle, they don't build it up forever or linger on it forever. It just happens and that's that. Life goes on.

     

    I know I wasn't the only one that was so confused at the first real big death (I wont count Wallace because of how early that was, but I loved Wallace) when DeAngelo was strangled in jail. I sat there thinking ".... That's it? He can't be dead, can he?" But he was. That was that.

     

    Same happened with Stringer, and don't even get me started with Omar. They killed off television's greatest character in the most anti-climactic way of all time, because that's how life works. He was just dead, all of the sudden, and only mentioned as a f*cking afterthought posthumously. Even his identity tag at the morgue was accidentally on the wrong person, and it was such a nonchalant thing. And the kid that killed him? Kenard, the SAME damn kid that made just one appearance Season 3, where he and some of his friends were seen acting out a shootout in which Kenard was telling his friends that he was pretending to be Omar.

     

    The final thing, which is so subtly brilliant, is when Dookie, a bright, driven student that was in an awful situation ended up as a homeless heroin addict whilst Namond, the asshole, lazy, undetermined, f*ckboy son of Wee-Bey ends up getting adopted by a wealthy family and having his life turned around. That's just how the system works. The kids that are deemed as less troublesome are left out to dry and fend for themselves, whilst the troublemakers and jerkoffs are given a support system to try to keep them from being total f*ckups.

     

    The good guys don't win in The Wire. Wallace dies, despite him being the smart, kind, and caring kid of season 1. Dookie ends up as a heroin fiend, despite him being Wallace 2.0. DeAngelo is killed despite his respectable character. Bodie dies once you start to really like him. Colvin gets f*cked despite trying to do the right thing. McNulty gets f*cked for the same reason. The list goes on and on.

     

    The Wire is so ridiculously real, it just can't be topped by Breaking Bad IMO, especially coming from someone who has intently studied race in relation to space and the urban structure. But then again, I hold just one opinion in a sea of millions.

    • Pie 2
  3. Vet minimum is higher than a rookie deal, and is fully guaranteed.  Not to mention, neither of them play ST's.

     

     

    There is no "boom" in either of them anymore.

     

     

    We aren't in cap hell any longer, and we can afford better players than either of the ones you are talking about.

     

    Vet minimum is obviously higher than a rookie deal, hence the "vet" part. I'm not dumb. And you can cut the guys whenever you want without any real consequence, ala Jason Avant.

     

    There is "boom" in both of those guys. Hakeem is just 27 and put up 405 and 4 TDs as the #3 receiver. Our #3 put up 296 and 2 TDs. Hakeem is one year out of a 900 yard season, but when lined up with Hilton and Wayne, you can understand why he wasn't the first target on that squad.

     

    Kenny Britt is even younger at 26 and put up 750 and was the leading receiver on a Rams team with an absolutely dreadful passing game, despite the carousel they had going between the top 3-4 receivers or so.

     

    Cobb is great, but 1,300 yards with Rodgers at QB and in a pass-heavy offense almost surely won't translate to 1,300 yards with Cam and our offense. I'd rather spend less money on two guys and a rookie and use the rest of the money to mend our many other holes than spending top dollar on one guy.

    • Pie 1
  4. Yes, I do disagree.

     

     

    There is almost no reason to bring in a player like Nicks.  We do need a vet, but not one with motivational issues, who just got paid over 3M.

     

    Hence the vet minimum. You can cut the guy whenever you please, which we wouldn't do because he'd be the 2nd best wideout on our team.

     

    What's your grand old plan if not drafting a guy in the 2nd and taking chances with boom or bust free agents like Britt and Nicks?

×
×
  • Create New...