Jump to content

Survivor: Game Changers


Recommended Posts

He is. You and Grant continue to prove this. Grant thinks a guy that has NEVER WON is the second best player ever. If that's not the definition of overrated I don't know what is.

Is Dan Marino not one of the top 5 greatest QB's of all time? If you want to keep using sports references. Is Dan Marino overrated too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not just the "bitter" part that corrupts the jury. Juries have been influenced in the past by a person's financial status, or what they might do with the money, etc.

 

Again part of the game. Juries have also been influenced by other jurors making pleas for one contestant or another. Doesn't matter to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the most recent winners and say thats wrong...

 

I'm not denying it's wrong. I'm saying it's a serious flaw of the game/show.

 

Just tonight, Sarah says she wouldn't have voted for Brad if he'd taken Tai instead of her, simply out of anger at him. That's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy and Grant are making my case for me again and again. Russell is extremely overrated. Guy never won. There is no debating that...

What part of he never won because it was a bitter jury is so hard to comprehend? He deserved to win. Russell Hantz is the '07 Patriots. Both would be viewed as the greatest ever in their respective professions if they would have won one game against a inferior opponent. Doesn't mean the inferior opponent is all of the sudden better, it just means Russell Hantz had a bitter jury and the David Tyree had stick-em on top of his helmet. It happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The social part plays the biggest role, according to BGP.

 

I think it is, does and should. It's not a pure competition show, that's an aspect. But you go into it knowing that there are social aspects you have to take into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of he never won because it was a bitter jury is so hard to comprehend? He deserved to win. Russell Hantz is the '07 Patriots. Both would be viewed as the greatest ever in their respective professions if they would have won one game against a inferior opponent. Doesn't mean the inferior opponent is all of the sudden better, it just means Russell Hantz had a bitter jury and the David Tyree had stick-em on top of his helmet. It happens.

 

He had three chances. Give it up. Dude can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.