NFL 2023-2024 Season

[Bruce]

Most watched telecast in America since Apollo 11!

And now with the Chiefs at 3 wins, time for the haters to form and the doubters. Reid is nothing without Mahomes... Mahomes is nothing without Reid... I'm so tired of the Chiefs winning.

Based on a lot of the player’s age, this might go on for a few more years.

 

[Jimbo]

Most watched telecast in America since Apollo 11!

And now with the Chiefs at 3 wins, time for the haters to form and the doubters. Reid is nothing without Mahomes... Mahomes is nothing without Reid... I'm so tired of the Chiefs winning.

While I agree ...

How much was Bilichick with out Brady ???

You could say the same for both.

 

[Yespage]

While I agree ...

How much was Bilichick with out Brady ???

Where do you think I'm sourcing these future complaints from the future haters of the KC Chiefs?

Belichick? Seriously? Super Bowl XXXVI, that game was won on defense. The Rams were superior to the Patriots offensively, it wasn't remotely close. Much better receivers and running backs. Belichick devised the plan for how the Patriots were going to chokehold that offense to give the lesser Patriots offense the chance at winning.

The Patriots Defense would go on to be massively important in Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX.

Brady would be BRADY in the next 6 Super Bowl appearances. But Belichick's contribution there? Remember Super Bowl LIII when the Patriots were the second team in Super Bowl history to hold the opposing team to 3 points. That wasn't Brady.

Brady was huge (close to irreplaceable), but Belichick, his game theory, and defensive mindedness were also crucial.

 

[TRG]

Where do you think I'm sourcing these future complaints from the future haters of the KC Chiefs?

Belichick? Seriously? Super Bowl XXXVI, that game was won on defense. The Rams were superior to the Patriots offensively, it wasn't remotely close. Much better receivers and running backs. Belichick devised the plan for how the Patriots were going to chokehold that offense to give the lesser Patriots offense the chance at winning.

The Patriots Defense would go on to be massively important in Super Bowls XXXVIII and XXXIX.

Brady would be BRADY in the next 6 Super Bowl appearances. But Belichick's contribution there? Remember Super Bowl LIII when the Patriots were the second team in Super Bowl history to hold the opposing team to 3 points. That wasn't Brady.

Brady was huge (close to irreplaceable), but Belichick, his game theory, and defensive mindedness were also crucial.

They didn't do so great despite being favored in Super Bowl XLII and Super Bowl XLVI against a mediocre NY Giants team.

 

[Yespage]

Giants offense not good. Their defensive line was awesome. The Giants peaked late defensively, but they did peak.

Pats lost by a single possession in both games, and it took a helmet catch in XLII after Manning miraculously got out from a sack and then the missed INT by Samuel in XLVI which would have resulted in wins for the Pats. The Giants won the same way the Pats beat the Rams, they focused on a game plan that would work.

Patriots never cruised to a victory in any of their 6 Super Bowls (nor were the blown out in any of them). And they were victims of some of the best receptions in Super Bowl history, including the helmet catch (Giants), the bouncing ball reception while the receiver was on the ground (Seahawks), and Julio Jones' out of this world reception in what was probably the best throw to a perfectly covered player ever (Falcons).

The Pats are 6-3 in their dynasty run. 9 Super Bowl appearances in 19 years? That doesn't happen without great management, coaching, and at least one HoF QB.

 

[Howard Simmons]

Great interview, breakdown of the final play (a version of the power shovel that they scored 2 wide open TDs on against the Eagles) and a few other things.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK4_UOx4uyY

Hardman's version of events:


View: https://www.threads.net/@jimmykimmellive/post/C3R1Bv4OOo3

Flyover behind the scenes:


View: https://www.facebook.com/MotorRacingMedia247/videos/929488748875037/

Did they show they flyover on the Big Screen inside because if they didn't the only ones who saw it were the viewers on TV.

 

[Foxbat]

View: https://x.com/adamschefter/status/1757234061787951296?s=46&t=SgVmKWgotnunXTHuBagFSA

Considering the population of the United States last year was just over 333 million people and the population in 1969 was just under 203 million, the first manned lunar landing still wins by percentage of available viewers.

It’s like saying “Avatar” is the highest grossing movie when its tickets were $15 compared to “Gone with the Wind” and its ticket prices of $0.50. Those are not accurate prices, but just to prove the point that comparing an event that happens today to one that occurred 50 or 75 years ago is relatively pointless.

 

[Bruce]

Considering the population of the United States last year was just over 333 million people and the population in 1969 was just under 203 million, the first manned lunar landing still wins by percentage of available viewers.

But back then, there were not as many options ( none back then) for something else to watch, the lunar landing was on all 3 Networks at the time, not like many could change the channel to watch something else.

It’s like saying “Avatar” is the highest grossing movie when its tickets were $15 compared to “Gone with the Wind” and its ticket prices of $0.50. Those are not accurate prices, but just to prove the point that comparing an event that happens today to one that occurred 50 or 75 years ago is relatively pointless.

This part is correct, Adjusted Gross for Avatar makes it #15, GWTW is #1, Star Wars is #2.

Top Lifetime Adjusted Grosses

www.boxofficemojo.com

 

[Yespage]

Woah... The Sting cost $5.5 million to make and pulled in over $150 million in the US/Canada?! Those are unadjusted! Hollywood probably wants to figure out how to redo that. Of course, it'd cost $50 million just to get that cast again. But it isn't like those two were cheap in the day.

Regardless, being the most watched telecast since Apollo 11 isn't meant to be an objective finding, but a relative one indicating, this was one of the most watched programs ever.

 

[Bruce]

Woah... The Sting cost $5.5 million to make and pulled in over $150 million in the US/Canada?! Those are unadjusted! Hollywood probably wants to figure out how to redo that. Of course, it'd cost $50 million just to get that cast again. But it isn't like those two were cheap in the day.

Disney is trying, going to use the TV Crew to make The Mando/Grogu movie, keeping the budget under $100 Million ( which is a miracle for a Star Wars movie).

That is the plan for future Star Wars movies, since each episode was over $20 million to make, that budget is like 4-5 episodes.

Marvel budget pruning is next.

Regardless, being the most watched telecast since Apollo 11 isn't meant to be an objective finding, but a relative one indicating, this was one of the most watched programs ever.

And again, not much of a choice then, I wonder what the rating would have been if other programming was available on 2 of the 3 networks, while it would have still have been high, but still less.