Calling all San Diego Trolls [Archive] - Page 2 - The Orange Mane

broncocalijohn

01-16-2007, 04:45 AM

The big issue for Chargers now is where they will play. Spanos has a ton of cap money but he is notoriously cheap. Chargers roster filled with players who are going to want more money. The fans will want FA to be signed but I doubt Chargers will do much of that. If Chargers don't get a new stadium then they wont be able to compete revenue wise with the rest of the big boys.
BS on that! They just jacked the face value on next year's season seats from $79 to $92 (Plaza level). Big increase for the same old, baseball stadium that the chargers play in.

I still think the Chargers are the team to beat next year. They screwed up big time but, as mentioned before, we did the same crap in 96. We will see if Marty Chokenheimer can pull his team together to make a run worthy of his team. If my Broncos are in it, as expected every year, I would like to see another '05 for the Chargers. Personally, it think they are on the rise and Broncos need to get this model in perfect tune.

boltaneer

01-16-2007, 04:46 AM

meh.......sounds like you discovered Prozac

Nope. Try again.

cutthemdown

01-16-2007, 04:54 AM

BS on that! They just jacked the face value on next year's season seats from $79 to $92 (Plaza level). Big increase for the same old, baseball stadium that the chargers play in.

I still think the Chargers are the team to beat next year. They screwed up big time but, as mentioned before, we did the same crap in 96. We will see if Marty Chokenheimer can pull his team together to make a run worthy of his team. If my Broncos are in it, as expected every year, I would like to see another '05 for the Chargers. Personally, it think they are on the rise and Broncos need to get this model in perfect tune.

Your wrong. The stadium is a huge issue for this franchise. You can jack the prices up but without the luxury boxes that owners pocket the cash from you won't make near as much money.

boltaneer

01-16-2007, 04:56 AM

The big issue for Chargers now is where they will play. Spanos has a ton of cap money but he is notoriously cheap. Chargers roster filled with players who are going to want more money. The fans will want FA to be signed but I doubt Chargers will do much of that. If Chargers don't get a new stadium then they wont be able to compete revenue wise with the rest of the big boys.

Alex Spanos had a reputation of being cheap but he doesn't run the team anymore, his son does. I don't know how you can call them cheap. They spend to the cap limit every year and have signed a number of players to big contracts recently. They've been frontloading the majority of contracts recently to use all the extra cap space that was available.

As long as there is a salary cap in the NFL, they'll be able to compete with those "big boys". However AJ Smith doesn't go for big name and overpaid free agents and instead likes to go for solid, middle-tier guys. Charger fans know how AJ Smith works and won't expect any top tier free agents to be signed.

broncocalijohn

01-16-2007, 05:16 AM

Your wrong. The stadium is a huge issue for this franchise. You can jack the prices up but without the luxury boxes that owners pocket the cash from you won't make near as much money.

I dont know what the stadium deal is but they do have luxury boxes. If he isnt getting the cash from that, he would already be out of that stadium. Broncos did it with Bowlen. Chargers arent the old Bengals where they were way under the cap limit. Chargers get there $ in there, they have just jacked prices up regardless of their record. They raised prices when they were one and fifteen. If the average raise in ticket cost is $10 and there are 73,000 seats, that is $730K per game times 10 games = $7.3 million more.

watermock

01-16-2007, 05:41 AM

Oh brother. This is comical.

Smiling Assassin27

01-16-2007, 10:23 AM

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:KV352SlOYxOZ2M:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png/222px-The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png

Best Division Round Loser EVER....

ever.

Odysseus

01-16-2007, 11:23 AM

I realize that. Kind of torn on that one. It's nice to see LT and Gates respected by other fans but it just feels weird to have rival fans rooting for your team.

Anyway, I'm taking this loss a lot better than I expected. Last night I was majorly disappointed but I'm over it today. Feels a lot better to have that bad feeling gone.

You shouldn't let that bad feelling go. Let it burn. Your team destroyed a beautiful season by losing to a team on your own mistakes and stupidity. The entire AFCW is filled with one and done teams this past year. I was hoping the Chargers would bring some respect to this division with the Raiders being a laugher and Chiefs embracing Herm. Marty did nothing for his reputation and despite building a decent team got exposed. I was hoping the Chargers pulled it off but the Patriots were the better team.

I might end up rooting for the NFC this year. We'll have to see.

400HZ

01-16-2007, 11:46 AM

I'm pulling for the Saints until next year.

boltaneer

01-16-2007, 12:52 PM

You shouldn't let that bad feelling go. Let it burn. Your team destroyed a beautiful season by losing to a team on your own mistakes and stupidity. The entire AFCW is filled with one and done teams this past year. I was hoping the Chargers would bring some respect to this division with the Raiders being a laugher and Chiefs embracing Herm. Marty did nothing for his reputation and despite building a decent team got exposed. I was hoping the Chargers pulled it off but the Patriots were the better team.

I might end up rooting for the NFC this year. We'll have to see.

Heh, the Patriots weren't the better team. The Chargers handed the game to them on a silver platter. But it's not like our window has closed on them like the aging Chiefs and the pathetic Raiders.

Anyway, I've been rooting for Brees and the Saints the entire year. I'll just have to continue rooting for them in the Super Bowl now, providing they get past Chicago.

The entire country outside of Chicago will be pulling for the Saints anyway.

Tredici

01-16-2007, 12:56 PM

I'm pulling for the Saints until next year.

Ahh. Apparently you aren't in the Drew Brees bashing camp. I think out of the teams left I prefer NO but not sure I can take all relentless "Let's win one for the Katrina kids" hype. The networks will be sure to take that angle over the top.

San Diego fans aren't in dire straights. There is a great young core of players on that team. Certainly wouldn't expect any sudden swan dives.

freak6

01-16-2007, 01:07 PM

"The Chargers are challenging whether the player was down by contact on the fumble"

cutthemdown

01-16-2007, 01:09 PM

The Broncos make about 40 million more a year then the Bolts because of the new stadium. I didn't know SD has luxury boxes but even if they do Spanos doesn't make near what Bowlen makes. Another fan said Spanos spends all the money under the cap. That may be true but wee all know that bonuses are what get the players and for upfront money you have to have alot of liquid cash on hand. It's no coinicendence that owners are making new stadiums one of the main goals of most teams that don't yet have one. There is alot to do in SD and the fans may not want to pay for it. Don't be suprised to see Chargers try and move if SD doesn't build them new digs.

zdoor

01-16-2007, 01:11 PM

I'm pulling for the Saints until next year.

Me too. Aside for the sympathy for the area, I'm a Reggie fan, and now that Brees doesn't play for a division rival it's hard not to root for the guy...

400HZ

01-16-2007, 01:55 PM

Ahh. Apparently you aren't in the Drew Brees bashing camp. I think out of the teams left I prefer NO but not sure I can take all relentless "Let's win one for the Katrina kids" hype. The networks will be sure to take that angle over the top.

San Diego fans aren't in dire straights. There is a great young core of players on that team. Certainly wouldn't expect any sudden swan dives.

Ya I still really like Brees. That doesn't mean that I wish he was back and Rivers was out, but Brees is still a great player and a great guy.

As for the Chargers next season, they'll be back. So long as they use some of that $25 million or whatever they have in caproom to re sign Dielman, they'll have all the players back too. In addition, I'm sure AJ will draft a couple studs again like he always does. Another year of experience should really help all our young guys, too.

BigBad

01-16-2007, 03:22 PM

boltaneer

01-16-2007, 04:34 PM

I now see why you guys bash Charger fans.

The guys on here seem like oh well maybe next year. Ill just cheer for Brees.

Well screw next year and screw Brees. He isnt a Charger anymore so I dont give a crap.

Maybe its because Im no longer in SoCal so I lost the whole its cool not to care crap.

Who doesn't care?

I have no problems liking players who aren't Chargers if they are exciting players to watch. There are fans like that everywhere, for every team.

A lot of San Diego fans have been cheering for the Saints because of the Brees/Bush San Diego connection. Not to mention that they're the cinderella team this year.

What's wrong with cheering for Drew Brees anyway? He was a good player for us and wanted to remain a Charger. He never badmouthed the orginzation and still has ties here in San Diego. And a lot of fans didn't want him to leave last year.

When your team is out of the playoffs, either you don't care for any of the teams left of you might have a team that you still like and are willing to root for. This has nothing to do with an attitude problem.

Sassy

01-16-2007, 04:40 PM

"The Chargers are challenging whether the player was down by contact on the fumble"

Ha! Gee, and maybe if they had had another timeout left...they could have gotten closer and at least had a fg to tie the game ;D Guess Marty wanted to play Marty Ball ...

Tredici

01-16-2007, 05:20 PM

Ha! Gee, and maybe if they had had another timeout left...they could have gotten closer and at least had a fg to tie the game ;D Guess Marty wanted to play Marty Ball ...

But that's the strange thing. He didn't play Marty Ball. He didn't put the ball in LT's hands which 9 times out of 10 will get positive yardage. Instead, an incomplete pass to receivers who had managed to drop the ball all game long.

I dunno. You hate to expound on the Marty Mystique, but at what point doesn't that get into people's head? Too conservative. Try something daring. And even for the players. They are aware of Marty's playoff woes. Maybe it gets in their heads, too. While Marty might not put any pressure on them at all, they are aware of the situation and might put pressure on themselves - to get the jinx off their coach's back. There were a lot of untypical type things players did during that game. Who knows? But now it's become like the elephant in the room. Even if no one mentions it, it's all anybody can see.

bloodsunday

01-16-2007, 05:21 PM

I don't know if it was a Marty choke , as much as it was just another day at the office for the Pats .......... Same ole Pats , hang around late , find away to win ....I didn't buy that line of crap about the Chargers being best team in the NFL , I still say the Steelers were a much better team in Brady's 1 st year , the pats beat them ,I knew the pats beat the Chargers .......... only thing that did take me by surprise is Brady being off target so much .........

The Pats were awful in that game. Their YPA was terrible. LT ran all over them. they turned the ball over 4 times. San Diego was just flat out worse. It was a poorly played game by both teams. No one deserved to win but I am glad that San Diego lost after all their trash.

theAPAOps5

01-16-2007, 05:39 PM

Brady looked completely rattled that game from the highlights I saw and from what they were saying on the radio. San Diego was definately the better team. But how many times to we see the better team lose in the playoffs as well. San Diego, as a team, crumbled under the pressure and made dumb mistakes. I like the way the AFC West is shaping up for next year. San Diego and Denver, heck maybe even the Chefs are solid teams and we all get to beat on the Faiders!

Jetmeck

01-16-2007, 07:19 PM

BS on that! They just jacked the face value on next year's season seats from $79 to $92 (Plaza level). Big increase for the same old, baseball stadium that the chargers play in.

I still think the Chargers are the team to beat next year. They screwed up big time but, as mentioned before, we did the same crap in 96. We will see if Marty Chokenheimer can pull his team together to make a run worthy of his team. If my Broncos are in it, as expected every year, I would like to see another '05 for the Chargers. Personally, it think they are on the rise and Broncos need to get this model in perfect tune.

07 Chuggers will be playing a first place schedule. Likely another year of the best team to not make the playoffs !

Jetmeck

01-16-2007, 07:23 PM

Heh, the Patriots weren't the better team. The Chargers handed the game to them on a silver platter. But it's not like our window has closed on them like the aging Chiefs and the pathetic Raiders.

I agree to all of that but keep in mind you'll be playing a first place schedule and wouldn't be the first to go back into the dumpster.

OrangeShadow

01-16-2007, 07:28 PM

i think BigBad needs to add to his sig

RIVERS one year as starter:
14-2
1 AFC West Title
2-0 vs Denver
#1 seed in AFC
0-1 in playoffs

Hilarious!

400HZ

01-16-2007, 07:29 PM

07 Chuggers will be playing a first place schedule. Likely another year of the best team to not make the playoffs !

San Diego's not missing the playoffs next year. Garenteed :thumbsup:

The Chargers are still way better than any other team in our division. Including your team. :thumbsup:

400HZ

01-16-2007, 07:32 PM

OrangeShadow

01-16-2007, 07:44 PM

San Diego's not missing the playoffs next year. Garenteed :thumbsup:

The Chargers are still way better than any other team in our division. Including your team. :thumbsup:

well lets see,the two areas that matter the most
quarterback play and coaching im very confident that cutler can outplay rivers and shanahan is 10 times the coach marty could ever be. !Booya!

400HZ

01-16-2007, 09:03 PM

well lets see,the two areas that matter the most
quarterback play and coaching im very confident that cutler can outplay rivers and shanahan is 10 times the coach marty could ever be. !Booya!

We'll see. Marty outcoached Shanahan this year, and Rivers played better than Cutler. We're also better in virtually every other area of the game. Like I said, we'll see :-*

Northman

01-16-2007, 09:17 PM

Crying about its going to change the outcome? Don't get me wrong, I couldn't sleep at all on Sunday night. I'm not gonna let it ruin my life though. We're still gonna have more talent than any team in the NFL next year with another year of experience added. We'll win it all next year :)

Not with your current head coach you wont. You do have a great team but your coach just cant get over the hump.

OrangeShadow

01-16-2007, 09:26 PM

We'll see. Marty outcoached Shanahan this year, and Rivers played better than Cutler. We're also better in virtually every other area of the game. Like I said, we'll see :-*

4th and 11 in the first half
handing it off to LT 7 times in the second half
challenging the fumble on the INT

yeah marty is a hell of a coach. and this was rivers 3rd year. if he couldnt out play a rookie playing 6 games he doesnt belong in football.

theAPAOps5

01-16-2007, 10:20 PM

Good luck with that schedule next year. We'll see what happens. You can't compare Rivers to Cutler yet and say he is better. Cutler played 1/4 of a season. Rivers has been in the leauge 3 years and started a whole season. I happen to think Cutler will be better than Rivers in the end. Of course know one know for sure. I will talke Shannahan over Marty any day.

I don't think you miss the playoffs next year. You guys get the Wild Card after we win the division : )

Inkana7

01-16-2007, 10:36 PM

Yes, I'm very impressed by Marty's 5-13 playoff record and River's astounding .9 yards per attempt against the blitz.

400HZ

01-16-2007, 11:29 PM

BigBad

01-17-2007, 12:21 AM

Actually the schedule is not that bad.

Three of the four 1st place teams(Indy, Balt, Chicago) are in S.D. Only N.E. is away.

BigBad

01-17-2007, 12:22 AM

BTW if you guys dont improve your O-line Cutler wont reach his potential anyway.

cutthemdown

01-17-2007, 12:38 AM

BTW if you guys dont improve your O-line Cutler wont reach his potential anyway.

hearing that from a Charger fan is like being thrust into BIZZARO world. Sad thing is he is right SD is better on the oline then Broncos right now. It's been a long time since this was the case.

69bronco

01-17-2007, 12:41 AM

We'll see. Marty outcoached Shanahan this year, and Rivers played better than Cutler. We're also better in virtually every other area of the game. Like I said, we'll see :-*

Javon>Kennan mcardell, Vincent Jackson, Eric parker Hilarious!

Champ>Florence, Jammer, cromartie

The bolts are better in a lot of catagories but virtually every is a joke, it seems like you base your assumtions on pro bowl selections which is stupid cause clearly brady is better than rivers.

broncos_mtnman

01-17-2007, 12:44 AM

Check out the sig Charger fans...

:rofl:

theAPAOps5

01-17-2007, 12:54 AM

Rivers lead his team to a 14-2 record and was a probowler in his first season as a starter. Cutler won what, 2 games out of 5? I'm not saying that Cutler doesn't have the potential to be better than Rivers down the road. We'll see. Right now, he's not as good as Rivers though. It will be interesting to see which QB developes into the better QB. You can't compare them right now, though.

You say it as if Rivers won most of his games. That is a joke. Rivers had the best player in football to hand off to. LT was the reason they were so good. That and your defense was pretty stout as well. I will go on the record and say that Rivers was a by-product of the cast around him.

Now lets look at Cutler. First, he came in with 5 games left after taking roughly 20% of practice snaps. Second, he was playing with an offensive line that was flawed with injuries and Foster. Third, and the real reason Denver took a step backward, was the Defense. With the injuries on that side it was impossible to go where we expected them. Cutler still won inspite of that and looked better with each game. Cutler will be the better QB and Rivers will be average at best! :thumbs:

400HZ

01-17-2007, 01:20 AM

You say it as if Rivers won most of his games. That is a joke. Rivers had the best player in football to hand off to. LT was the reason they were so good. That and your defense was pretty stout as well. I will go on the record and say that Rivers was a by-product of the cast around him.

Now lets look at Cutler. First, he came in with 5 games left after taking roughly 20% of practice snaps. Second, he was playing with an offensive line that was flawed with injuries and Foster. Third, and the real reason Denver took a step backward, was the Defense. With the injuries on that side it was impossible to go where we expected them. Cutler still won inspite of that and looked better with each game. Cutler will be the better QB and Rivers will be average at best! :thumbs:

I'd say that the Chargers have big advantages over Denver in the QB, RB, TE, OL, DL, LB, and special teams departments. I don't think that there are any areas where Denver has a big edge over SD. I know Champ>anyone, and Javon Walker is better than any SD receiver, but I don't think that your overall DB and WR groups are anything to brag about.

broncocalijohn

01-17-2007, 02:29 AM

Amazing how us Denver fans all of a sudden think we are better than the Chargers after we got our A$$ kicked in SD and lost at home vs SD. There hasnt been any free agency signings yet, we have holes including losing our CB by lead poisoning and we just lost to the 49ers to finish 9 and 7. And yet we have homers here thinking we just finished the season in first place. Marty sucks in playoffs but he got them to a 14 and 2 record in regular season. We need to beat them then to worry about playoffs. 1st place schedules vs 2nd or 3rd place could be over rated. Only two games, one at home and one on road is figured out after the season. The other 14 games have been decided for at least 3 years. Chargers were embarrassed in January, we were embarrassed at the end of December. Amazing how some of you Broncos fans are thinking. We have nothing to be proud of if you are lambasting the Chargers season.

Blueflame

01-17-2007, 02:33 AM

I'd say that the Chargers have big advantages over Denver in the QB, RB, TE, OL, DL, LB, and special teams departments. I don't think that there are any areas where Denver has a big edge over SD. I know Champ>anyone, and Javon Walker is better than any SD receiver, but I don't think that your overall DB and WR groups are anything to brag about.

You'd say this because you are a homer. And not a particularly knowledgeable homer at that. ROFL!

boltaneer

01-17-2007, 02:49 AM

Most of you are underestimating Rivers.

Rivers and Cutler seem to be the future for the AFC West. It's Oakland and Kansas City who look to have quarterback problems.

watermock

01-17-2007, 03:00 AM

Cutler is bigger, stronger, faster and has a whole crew of young targets that have gotten experience. He also has a much better delivery.

Jetmeck

01-17-2007, 03:16 AM

San Diego's not missing the playoffs next year. Garenteed :thumbsup:

The Chargers are still way better than any other team in our division. Including your team. :thumbsup:

No way in hell you lose at home to the PATS either, huh ?
:rofl:

Tredici

01-17-2007, 11:15 AM

Unfortunately you can't "garentee" anything 400HZ. There is every reason to be optimistic but no one here anticipated his own team mate rolling up the back of Terrell's leg and effectively ending his career.

Next season someone else comes along who has a brilliant season and he isn't wearing a Charger uniform.

Bad game plan here or there.

Players self inflict stupidity and are suspended.

The unthinkable happens and a player is gone forever.

The one sure thing about the NFL is you can never guarantee anything.

Master___Pain

01-17-2007, 11:25 AM

Cutler is bigger, stronger, faster and has a whole crew of young targets that have gotten experience. He also has a much better delivery.

Just to clarify, Rivers is bigger than Cutler.....

crazyhorse

01-17-2007, 02:19 PM

theAPAOps5

01-17-2007, 03:13 PM

Broncos fans sure have a great team to only be in 3rd place in the division.

Listen folks.....those new starters that will be on offense next season have never done anything in the NFL. Hell, I remember someone telling me the other day that Sheffler was a better TE than Gonzo. You Donk fans have no business debating talent with anyone making comments like that.

You talk as if the Chiefs were so much better. They backed into the playoffs thanks to other teams losing. The Chargers are a great team and will be the odds on favorite to win the division again next year. But there is enough talent on Denvers side and young prospects that one can't help but get excited. Its not like we are KC or the Raiders who have aging vets, no real future at QB and a real direction to build on.

crazyhorse

01-17-2007, 03:38 PM

You talk as if the Chiefs were so much better. They backed into the playoffs thanks to other teams losing. The Chargers are a great team and will be the odds on favorite to win the division again next year. But there is enough talent on Denvers side and young prospects that one can't help but get excited. Its not like we are KC or the Raiders who have aging vets, no real future at QB and a real direction to build on.

There is no reason that KC shouldn't be just as optimistic about thier young defense as Denver about thier young players. Difference being that by the end of the season, the Chiefs were winning games while the Broncos were losing them.

To say that KC backed in by winning is inaccurate. You back in by losing and still making it into the playoffs. Let me give you an example:

Had Denver made the playoffs, they would have done it backing in. As it was, Denver backed out of the playoffs with that fabulous new cast of great players.

It's not rocket science. If you lose 5 of your last 7 you are not even a mediocre football team.

KCs "young" defense is definately something to build on. After all, you guys know that defense wins Championships.

Finally, I never said that KC was so great. I said, you folks have no business debating talent.

theAPAOps5

01-17-2007, 04:03 PM

We also were dessimated by injuries on both sides of the ball. Injuries always ruin seasons. You are right your defense is heading in the right direction but its your offense that is showing age minus LJ. SD is not a juggernaut like people want to make them out to be. Denver is not anywhere near elite. We have a chance to make moves to become that but we're not there yet.

I think its backing into the playoffs when you have to rely on 4 teams to lose to get in. Regardless of if you won or not. Denver backed into the playoffs I will admit that and we had the same result your team had.

Sassy

01-17-2007, 04:10 PM

crazyhorse

01-17-2007, 04:37 PM

Had Denver made the playoffs, they would have done it backing in. As it was, Denver backed out of the playoffs with that fabulous new cast of great players.

Backed in? We win our game and we're in...you had to have the Broncos lose in order to get in. The Broncos didn't have to rely on anyone but themselves...your team did.

My point is, you would have backed in because you were losing more than winning but still would have made the playoffs. Anyone that ends the season the way the Broncos did and still make the playoffs would have been backing in. The Chiefs were winning. That's the difference.

Slice it how it suits you. That fact is still the same. The Chiefs were winning, the Donks were losing, and the Chiefs made the playoffs. If that means we backed in because you couldn't get it done....then thanks.

I would still rather "back in" winning, then "back out" losing.

Spider

01-17-2007, 04:39 PM

My point is, you would have backed in because you were losing more than winning but still would have made the playoffs. Anyone that ends the season the way the Broncos did and still make the playoffs would have been backing in. The Chiefs were winning. That's the difference.

Slice it how it suits you. That fact is still the same. The Chiefs were winning, the Donks were losing, and the Chiefs made the playoffs. If that means we backed in because you couldn't get it done....then thanks.

I would still rather "back in" winning, then "back out" losing.
your nuts ...........

Sassy

01-17-2007, 04:44 PM

broncocalijohn

01-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Chiefs didnt back in. I think Crazy Horse is right on if you win and other teams lose, you did your job. It wasnt like they lost and then waited for teams to lose to get them to back in. Also, if a team is ahead of other teams before the last game, they didnt back in to their position. Giants, this year, would have been the exception to this rule.

crazyhorse

01-17-2007, 04:59 PM

Hmmm...so did we "back" in in 97 too...we lost a few games in a row and then went on a revenge tour...it all comes down to winning the right games at the right time.

We agree here.

400HZ

01-17-2007, 07:35 PM

You'd say this because you are a homer. And not a particularly knowledgeable homer at that. ROFL!

Specifics, please. I stand by everything I said.

Blueflame

01-17-2007, 08:24 PM

Specifics, please. I stand by everything I said.

What you posted were opinions.... biased ones... and not facts.

OrangeShadow

01-17-2007, 08:28 PM

rivers carried the chargers? please you had the MVP of the NFL. HE lead that team not rivers.

400HZ

01-18-2007, 02:18 AM

What you posted were opinions.... biased ones... and not facts.

They are basically facts. An unbiased person would agree.

Tredici

01-18-2007, 02:32 AM

There is no reason that KC shouldn't be just as optimistic about thier young defense as Denver about thier young players. Difference being that by the end of the season, the Chiefs were winning games while the Broncos were losing them.

To say that KC backed in by winning is inaccurate. You back in by losing and still making it into the playoffs. Let me give you an example:

Had Denver made the playoffs, they would have done it backing in. As it was, Denver backed out of the playoffs with that fabulous new cast of great players.

It's not rocket science. If you lose 5 of your last 7 you are not even a mediocre football team.

KCs "young" defense is definately something to build on. After all, you guys know that defense wins Championships.

Finally, I never said that KC was so great. I said, you folks have no business debating talent.

But we could debate who stands to lose good young defensemen in free agency. And a capable QB who knows the system.

And I don't think you are the authority when it comes to assigning topics of debate. Then again, somehow the manner is which a team loses 7 games in a season seems to have significance to you. 9 -7 is 9-7. Hold tight to losing in the right order.

Ha!

Blueflame

01-18-2007, 02:35 AM

They are basically facts. An unbiased person would agree.

No... but a San Diego homer would.

crazyhorse

01-18-2007, 07:47 AM

But we could debate who stands to lose good young defensemen in free agency. And a capable QB who knows the system.

And I don't think you are the authority when it comes to assigning topics of debate. Then again, somehow the manner is which a team loses 7 games in a season seems to have significance to you. 9 -7 is 9-7. Hold tight to losing in the right order.

Ha!

You're reaching.

Of course how a team wins and loses is a direct reflection of where they are as a team. For example:

A team that starts the season at 7-2 is not the same team that finishes 2-5. A record of 9-7 doesn't tell the story of the season. In your post you say that basically a team can start 9-0 and lose 7 in a row and be the same as one that starts 0-7 but finishes 9-0. That's a desperate attemt to elude reality at best. I don't belive for one second you're that stupid. You're just desperate.