PDA

View Full Version : Bill Simmon's New Column


diehardbroncosfan
09-17-2010, 10:48 AM
Ok, so I was reading Bill Simmon's picks for week 2 and I was confused by what he said:

"Congrats to Josh McDaniels for turning three No. 1 picks in 2009 and 2010 into a third-string tight end, backup QB and fourth-string receiver; I don't even think David Kahn could have pulled that off."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/picks100917

Does this make sense to anyone? By me reckoning with our 4 (not 3) first round picks we have got:

1. Knowshon Moreno (starting runningback)
2. Robert Ayers (starting OLB)
3. Demaryius Thomas (injured receiver who will play when he comes back)
4. Tim Tebow (#2 QB and QB of the future)

Where does he see a third string tight end or fourth string receiver in that group? Also, why does he ignore Moreno and Ayers? Does this make sense to anyone else?

PRBronco
09-17-2010, 10:51 AM
I think that's what the kids these days are calling an "epic fail".

Kaylore
09-17-2010, 10:57 AM
Yeah there is a lot of hate going around about our team. It's getting more and more ridiculous. What I don't understand is we lost on the road to a Florida team in September (we've never won these) by one score. We were a few mistakes from winning the thing too. Basically a fumble, holding call and foot placed in bounds from pulling off the win. But you read here and around the web and you'd think we got lit up by 40 points at home to the Browns. It's mind-boggling.

There are many times on this board I think I watched a different game. Now this guy is re-imagining our draft. I guess he's arguing Alphonso Smith = a backup tight end now. That was a first, traded for a second to draft Smith, traded for a backup TE. So I suppose it's right, but in his original post he says 3 firsts. As was mentioned our three firsts were Ayers, Moreno and Tebow. but really we turned our one first into to two firsts by trading down and then back up and taking two players, who admittedly are projects, but saying they are "back ups" is intellectually dishonest about the situation. You could say that for more than half the rookie first round picks this year. Ayers is playing great, and Moreno had a good game despite the idiots you talk to here.

It's just a reminder that after losses the Mane is awash in idiocy.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 10:57 AM
I think he means Thomas, tebow, and gronkowski. A fail either way

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 11:02 AM
Ok, so I was reading Bill Simmon's picks for week 2 and I was confused by what he said:

"Congrats to Josh McDaniels for turning three No. 1 picks in 2009 and 2010 into a third-string tight end, backup QB and fourth-string receiver; I don't even think David Kahn could have pulled that off."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/picks100917

Does this make sense to anyone? By me reckoning with our 4 (not 3) first round picks we have got:

1. Knowshon Moreno (starting runningback)
2. Robert Ayers (starting OLB)
3. Demaryius Thomas (injured receiver who will play when he comes back)
4. Tim Tebow (#2 QB and QB of the future)

Where does he see a third string tight end or fourth string receiver in that group? Also, why does he ignore Moreno and Ayers? Does this make sense to anyone else?

3rd string TE could be alluding to the trade of Smith to Detroit for a 3rd string TE. Maybe he thinks Thomas is a 4th string talent, right now Tebow is a BU QB so he is right on the money there.

While Ayers is starting to show flashes he hasn't been great in the past, Moreno is a starter but other than leading rookies last year with 900+ yards it will take a heck of a lot more yards to lead the league in rushing, I don't see him ever being anything more than a 1100 yard guy. Hope I am wrong though.

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 11:09 AM
DT is a fourth string receiver because he's been injured. Hello? Does this thing work?...

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 11:10 AM
Yeah there is a lot of hate going around about our team. It's getting more and more ridiculous. What I don't understand is we lost on the road to a Florida team in September (we've never won these) by one score. We were a few mistakes from winning the thing too. Basically a fumble, holding call and foot placed in bounds from pulling off the win. But you read here and around the web and you'd think we got lit up by 40 points at home to the Browns. It's mind-boggling.

.

I think some of the piling on comes from people looking ahead at our schedule and thinking we are going to be lucky to be 3-5 over the 1st 8 weeks so they are starting now so they can say they were right when we get pummeled by Ravens on the road again. If mCd beats the Ravens at home this year and we go 5-3 through the gauntlet then they will talk about what a great young genius mCd is and will gloss over all the bad things they said.

A team that had turned the corner might have minimized mistakes and might have walked out of Jacksonville with a win.

Popps
09-17-2010, 11:11 AM
Yeah there is a lot of hate going around about our team.

It's just a reminder that after losses the Mane is awash in idiocy.

Don't look for it to get any better this season, brother.

The truth is... we're going to have our ups and downs, but with a no Doom, a gimpy Clady, no Harris (probably) and a bunch of shot-nosed kids manning key positions, we're going to struggle.

If we finish 8-8 this year, I'll consider it a major achievement, considering the adversity we've faced.

So, by season's end, I expect this forum to be a total war zone. I expect the media to be awash in "McDaniels on Hotseat" stories.

But, at the end of the day... it's Bowlen's team and he's a patient man, and he believes in McDaniels. So, people can make all the noise they want... but McDaniels will be back next year and in my opinion, the Broncos will be better for it.

The process of building something takes time. (Ask the Texans and the Saints.) People these days don't have foresight or patience. It's all about agendas and instant gratification.

So, I'll be enjoying the games, rooting my ass of and looking forward to McDaniels building out a winning structure here over the next few seasons. All the rest is just noise.

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 11:12 AM
Don't look for it to get any better this season, brother.

The truth is... we're going to have our ups and downs, but with a no Doom, a gimpy Clady, no Harris (probably) and a bunch of shot-nosed kids manning key positions, we're going to struggle.

If we finish 8-8 this year, I'll consider it a major achievement, considering the adversity we've faced.

So, by season's end, I expect this forum to be a total war zone. I expect the media to be awash in "McDaniels on Hotseat" stories.

But, at the end of the day... it's Bowlen's team and he's a patient man, and he believes in McDaniels. So, people can make all the noise they want... but McDaniels will be back next year and in my opinion, the Broncos will be better for it.

The process of building something takes time. (Ask the Texans and the Saints.) People these days don't have foresight or patience. It's all about agendas and instant gratification.

So, I'll be enjoying the games, rooting my ass of and looking forward to McDaniels building out a winning structure here over the next few seasons. All the rest is just noise.

Just like I said in the WPR forum, we live in an age of extremism.

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 11:13 AM
DT is a fourth string receiver because he's been injured. Hello? Does this thing work?...

Not defending Simmions, but Thomas is not our starting WR, he is not our 2nd WR, he is not our Slot WR, I doubt he is even 4th on the depth chart right now so he is not that far off.

The stupid thing is that it is only week 1 we don't know yet where this team is going to endup 7-11-15 games from now. To take pot shots this early means he has nothing constructive to say.

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 11:15 AM
Not defending Simmions, but Thomas is not our starting WR, he is not our 2nd WR, he is not our Slot WR, I doubt he is even 4th on the depth chart right now so he is not that far off.

The stupid thing is that it is only week 1 we don't know yet where this team is going to endup 7-11-15 games from now. To take pot shots this early means he has nothing constructive to say.

Agreed. If DT is healthy through camp and preseason, who knows where he slots out? I don't. Neither does Simmons. I would call his assessment dishonest.

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 11:20 AM
Agreed. If DT is healthy through camp and preseason, who knows where he slots out? I don't. Neither does Simmons. I would call his assessment dishonest.

I agree it was crap.

Kaylore
09-17-2010, 11:23 AM
I get what you all are saying. I didn't consider the "we are going to start bad so I'll pile on early to look smart week 7" angle. I've never said we wouldn't struggle with our injuries, but this is a well-coached team that played at least decent on Sunday and people act like this is the worst Bronco team ever.

DeuceOfClub
09-17-2010, 11:26 AM
Bill Simmon's 'job' is to be amusing, not accurate.

Naggle Nole
09-17-2010, 11:26 AM
I actually like Bill Simmons, even though he is ridiculously homerish for Boston teams
I would have thought that if anyone would defend McDaniels, it would be him
In response, I submitted this to his column
We will see if that makes it into his mailbag, but I am not holding my breath ::)

"Hello Mr. Simmons,

As a follower of your column and a Broncos fan, it disappointed me to see the inaccuracy of your claim that Coach McDaniels turned "three No. 1 picks in 2009 and 2010 into a third-string tight end, backup QB and fourth-string receiver". Since I believe in your journalistic integrity, I thought I would try to educate you on the fallacies of your statement.
The three picks in question are #12 and #18 in the 2009 draft, as well as the #24 pick in the 2010 draft. In 2009, #12 became Knowshon Moreno and #18 became Robert Ayers. In other words, #12 became a starting RB with promising upside and #18 became a pass-rushing OLB who has really started to come into his own.
As for 2010, #24 was packaged along with a 4th round choice to become #22, which became Demaryius Thomas. I find it amusing that you claim he is a fourth-string receiver, as he has been injured and thus unable to play. I think that when he is able to do so, you will be eating a generous portion of crow.
As you can see, there is no mention of a QB or TE anywhere, because there were none selected. It is true that our "backup QB" Tim Tebow was selected with a first round selection, but that is due to the savvy packaging of 2nd round (#43), 3rd round (#70) and 4th round (#114) picks into the #25 pick. You have taken a commendable job of draft maneuvering by our front office and turned it into a misrepresentation of truth.
As for our "third-string tight end", Richard Quinn is in truth our second-string tight end and was selected in the 2nd round. He is the backup to a certain Daniel Graham, a player I am sure you are familiar with in Boston. His position on the depth chart is more of a reflection of Graham's ability than it is an indictment on Quinn's, but I digress.
What you have done is made a choice to cherry pick your argument in order to make our coach (and your former offensive coordinator) appear incompetent. Worse, you compare him in hyperbole to perhaps the most incompetent front office member in all of sports. The fact that you have done this while confusing/obscuring the facts makes your column as well as your reputation suffer for it.
I enjoy reading your Page 2 columns and listening to your podcasts. I hope that you issue a correction, but if not, I hope that you at least find this informative and refrain from making similar fabrications of truth in the future.

- Jerome Larson"

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 11:32 AM
I actually like Bill Simmons, even though he is ridiculously homerish for Boston teams
I would have thought that if anyone would defend McDaniels, it would be him
In response, I submitted this to his column
We will see if that makes it into his mailbag, but I am not holding my breath ::)

"Hello Mr. Simmons,

As a follower of your column and a Broncos fan, it disappointed me to see the inaccuracy of your claim that Coach McDaniels turned "three No. 1 picks in 2009 and 2010 into a third-string tight end, backup QB and fourth-string receiver". Since I believe in your journalistic integrity, I thought I would try to educate you on the fallacies of your statement.
The three picks in question are #12 and #18 in the 2009 draft, as well as the #24 pick in the 2010 draft. In 2009, #12 became Knowshon Moreno and #18 became Robert Ayers. In other words, #12 became a starting RB with promising upside and #18 became a pass-rushing OLB who has really started to come into his own.
As for 2010, #24 was packaged along with a 4th round choice to become #22, which became Demaryius Thomas. I find it amusing that you claim he is a fourth-string receiver, as he has been injured and thus unable to play. I think that when he is able to do so, you will be eating a generous portion of crow.
As you can see, there is no mention of a QB or TE anywhere, because there were none selected. It is true that our "backup QB" Tim Tebow was selected with a first round selection, but that is due to the savvy packaging of 2nd round (#43), 3rd round (#70) and 4th round (#114) picks into the #25 pick. You have taken a commendable job of draft maneuvering by our front office and turned it into a misrepresentation of truth.
As for our "third-string tight end", Richard Quinn is in truth our second-string tight end and was selected in the 2nd round. He is the backup to a certain Daniel Graham, a player I am sure you are familiar with in Boston. His position on the depth chart is more of a reflection of Graham's ability than it is an indictment on Quinn's, but I digress.
What you have done is made a choice to cherry pick your argument in order to make our coach (and your former offensive coordinator) appear incompetent. Worse, you compare him in hyperbole to perhaps the most incompetent front office member in all of sports. The fact that you have done this while confusing/obscuring the facts makes your column as well as your reputation suffer for it.
I enjoy reading your Page 2 columns and listening to your podcasts. I hope that you issue a correction, but if not, I hope that you at least find this informative and refrain from making similar fabrications of truth in the future.

- Jerome Larson"

Well done. :thumbsup:

Kaylore
09-17-2010, 11:41 AM
The third string tight end thing refers to the Alphonse Smith debacle. Not Richard Quinn.

Naggle Nole
09-17-2010, 11:44 AM
The third string tight end thing refers to the Alphonse Smith debacle. Not Richard Quinn.

Ah, it didn't even occur to me that he was talking about Gronkowski

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 11:54 AM
I'd simply respond to him:

Congrats to the Pats on their 2006 draft, which netted them one kicker and nothing else.

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 11:55 AM
Don't look for it to get any better this season, brother.

The truth is... we're going to have our ups and downs, but with a no Doom, a gimpy Clady, no Harris (probably) and a bunch of shot-nosed kids manning key positions, we're going to struggle.

If we finish 8-8 this year, I'll consider it a major achievement, considering the adversity we've faced.

So, by season's end, I expect this forum to be a total war zone. I expect the media to be awash in "McDaniels on Hotseat" stories.

But, at the end of the day... it's Bowlen's team and he's a patient man, and he believes in McDaniels. So, people can make all the noise they want... but McDaniels will be back next year and in my opinion, the Broncos will be better for it.

The process of building something takes time. (Ask the Texans and the Saints.) People these days don't have foresight or patience. It's all about agendas and instant gratification.

So, I'll be enjoying the games, rooting my ass of and looking forward to McDaniels building out a winning structure here over the next few seasons. All the rest is just noise.

Popps,

I agree with you that 8-8 is going to be a major achievement but you can't blame it all on injuries.

How much better off would we be if 1 of our drafted OL is a starter this year rather than both picks being cut?

We are forced to trot out rookies on OL because last years picks aren't here anymore.

Sure we have had some tough injuries but mCd knew he wanted to run a power run game and didn't have the personnel to do it why didn't he get these guys sooner? I hope Walton and Beadles work out but when your draft picks get cut and you bring in depth FA's like Batiste your going to have depth issues.

Next years draft should be OL, DL then somemore OL and DL

Irish Stout
09-17-2010, 11:56 AM
Really, I don't disagree with his assessment, but what he has failed to also mention is that its only 3 of our 5 first round picks in the last 2 years. He also ignores the fact that DT is actually on the second string WRs unit and has been injured (which McD may desreve crap about going after injured dudes).

Alfonso Smith has actually turned into our second string TE now know as Gronkowski, Quinn is listed as 3rd string on depth chart.

Popps
09-17-2010, 11:57 AM
Just like I said in the WPR forum, we live in an age of extremism.

True, plus... the old "internet + anonymity + douchebag" theory weighs heavily in what you see a lot of around here.

colonelbeef
09-17-2010, 12:01 PM
Don't look for it to get any better this season, brother.

The truth is... we're going to have our ups and downs, but with a no Doom, a gimpy Clady, no Harris (probably) and a bunch of shot-nosed kids manning key positions, we're going to struggle.

If we finish 8-8 this year, I'll consider it a major achievement, considering the adversity we've faced.

So, by season's end, I expect this forum to be a total war zone. I expect the media to be awash in "McDaniels on Hotseat" stories.

But, at the end of the day... it's Bowlen's team and he's a patient man, and he believes in McDaniels. So, people can make all the noise they want... but McDaniels will be back next year and in my opinion, the Broncos will be better for it.

The process of building something takes time. (Ask the Texans and the Saints.) People these days don't have foresight or patience. It's all about agendas and instant gratification.

So, I'll be enjoying the games, rooting my ass of and looking forward to McDaniels building out a winning structure here over the next few seasons. All the rest is just noise.

More excuses. Pathetic.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 12:01 PM
I'd simply respond to him:

Congrats to the Pats on their 2006 draft, which netted them one kicker and nothing else.

Some might say there is a correlation betwen the amount of super bowls they have won and the quality of their drafts. As far as I can see the 2006, 2007 and 2008 drafts each yielded them exactly 1 player, that is not a winning formula.

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 12:02 PM
Popps,

I agree with you that 8-8 is going to be a major achievement but you can't blame it all on injuries.

How much better off would we be if 1 of our drafted OL is a starter this year rather than both picks being cut?

We are forced to trot out rookies on OL because last years picks aren't here anymore.

Sure we have had some tough injuries but mCd knew he wanted to run a power run game and didn't have the personnel to do it why didn't he get these guys sooner? I hope Walton and Beadles work out but when your draft picks get cut and you bring in depth FA's like Batiste your going to have depth issues.

Next years draft should be OL, DL then somemore OL and DL

Not to mention wasting three possible lineman picks on Tebow. ;D

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 12:12 PM
Don't look for it to get any better this season, brother.

The truth is... we're going to have our ups and downs, but with a no Doom, a gimpy Clady, no Harris (probably) and a bunch of shot-nosed kids manning key positions, we're going to struggle.

If we finish 8-8 this year, I'll consider it a major achievement, considering the adversity we've faced.

So, by season's end, I expect this forum to be a total war zone. I expect the media to be awash in "McDaniels on Hotseat" stories.

But, at the end of the day... it's Bowlen's team and he's a patient man, and he believes in McDaniels. So, people can make all the noise they want... but McDaniels will be back next year and in my opinion, the Broncos will be better for it.

The process of building something takes time. (Ask the Texans and the Saints.) People these days don't have foresight or patience. It's all about agendas and instant gratification.

So, I'll be enjoying the games, rooting my ass of and looking forward to McDaniels building out a winning structure here over the next few seasons. All the rest is just noise.

How is it a major achievement for a team that has finished .500 the last 4 years to finish 8-8?

We finished 8-8 with a phone salesman running the football 2 years ago, we finished 8-8 last year, how is 8-8 a major accomplishment this year?

The Texans and Saints both improved in their first year.

Payton took over a 3-13 team and in his first season they went 10-6 and went to the NFCCG, since then they have been 8-8, 7-9 and won a super bowl going 13-3, that is not slow. That is a 7 win improvement in year 1, an average of 6 wins per year improvement over the first 2 years and 2 conference chamionships games in 4 years, that is not slow.

Kubiak took over a team that in its first 4 years won 4.5 games per year on average and never made it to 8-8, Kubiak took a 2-14 team to 6-10 in his first year (4 win improvement), 8-8 in his 2nd year (6 win improvement) and average of 7.75 wins per year in his first 4 including 3 seasons of 8-8 or better. That is not slow.

Mcdaniels took a team that was 8-8 on average the 3 years before him (better than 8-8 if you take the 4 years before him), to 8-8 in year 1 and now you want to tell me it is an accomplishment to go 8-8 in year 2?

You really want to say that no improvement over 2 years compares to coaches who made huge improvements over 2 years?

8-8 this year would be exactly wht 8-8 was last year and what it was the 3 years before that, not good enough.

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 12:19 PM
Wow.

Say Peyton Manning goes down with a season ending injury this year. Using your "logic", gyldenlove, if the Colts had the same record this year as last, that would not be a major achievement.

Got ya.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 12:31 PM
Wow.

Say Peyton Manning goes down with a season ending injury this year. Using your "logic", gyldenlove, if the Colts had the same record this year as last, that would not be a major achievement.

Got ya.

Tom Brady went down with an injury, didn't stop the Patriots from being disappointed with an 11-5 finish and no playoffs.

So the injuries we had last year were? nonexistant?

The injuries we had in 2008 when Shanahan got fired for going 8-8 were?

Injuries are not an excuse, ask Mcdaniels himself if you don't believe me. Every single team has injuries or players missing. Do you think the Chargers will accept 8-8 even though they are without their top WR and starting LT?

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 12:35 PM
Tom Brady went down with an injury, didn't stop the Patriots from being disappointed with an 11-5 finish and no playoffs.


Terrible example.

16-0 regular season and SB appearance to 11-5 and no playoffs is not even close to the example I gave.

Try again.

Popps
09-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Do you think the Chargers will accept 8-8 even though they are without their top WR and starting LT?

The Chargers just lost to the Kansas City Chiefs.


Remove your best players... and lose games.


Are there exceptions like Brister winning games with the 98 Broncos? Sure.

As a rule? No.

Popps
09-17-2010, 12:38 PM
How is it a major achievement for a team that has finished .500 the last 4 years to finish 8-8?


I didn't say last year was a major achievement.


Boy, you're so hurting for attention... you can't even read posts correctly.

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 12:40 PM
So the injuries we had last year were? nonexistant?

Not comparable IMO. In the grand scheme of things, we were pretty healthy last year....especially compared to this year. It's really not even close.

The injuries we had in 2008 when Shanahan got fired for going 8-8 were?

How were injuries responsible there? We had a rash of injuries among the RBs, but that was really it. And the running game was extremely productive despite the injuries, so that wasn't it.

Injuries are not an excuse, ask Mcdaniels himself if you don't believe me. Every single team has injuries or players missing. Do you think the Chargers will accept 8-8 even though they are without their top WR and starting LT?

Of course that's what they're going to say. It's the "right thing" to say, but it's not true. By definition, if a team loses a bunch of starters things don't get easier and the talent level isn't the same....it's worse.

And that is just one variable. Strength of schedule, weather, when you play a certain team (Florida in week one), etc. So much goes into each record that you can't simply say 8-8 in 2009 = 8-8 in 2010. There's just so much more to it than that. I can't believe you can't see or acknowledge that.

Br0nc0Buster
09-17-2010, 12:40 PM
Tom Brady went down with an injury, didn't stop the Patriots from being disappointed with an 11-5 finish and no playoffs.

So the injuries we had last year were? nonexistant?

The injuries we had in 2008 when Shanahan got fired for going 8-8 were?

Injuries are not an excuse, ask Mcdaniels himself if you don't believe me. Every single team has injuries or players missing. Do you think the Chargers will accept 8-8 even though they are without their top WR and starting LT?

yeah your examples are comparing teams that had great records
we are an average team, 8-8 is not a few a steps down for us, it is what we are used to
11-5 was a step down for New England
also SD went 13-3 last year, 8-8 for them would be a big step down and is much more devastating than 8-8 is for us

The Joker
09-17-2010, 12:43 PM
The Chargers just lost to the Kansas City Chiefs.


Remove your best players... and lose games.


Are there exceptions like Brister winning games with the 98 Broncos? Sure.

As a rule? No.

Oh dear Popps, what have you done?!

There are a few posters on here who are going to lose an entire decades worth of period blood when they read this.

Popps
09-17-2010, 12:44 PM
Popps,

I agree with you that 8-8 is going to be a major achievement but you can't blame it all on injuries.

How much better off would we be if 1 of our drafted OL is a starter this year rather than both picks being cut?

You can't fix a decade of problems with one draft.

Certainly, a guy like Olsen becoming a starter would have been nice... though he'd still be in his first year as a starter, anyway.

Either way, no team has enough "depth" to lose their start LT, their starting RT in the midst of a line philosophy transition... and keep moving along like nothing happened.


I think it's obvious that we could have done some things better in the draft last year, and even free agency. But, we did a lot of good things, as well. It's simply too soon to start making definitive judgments about where we are, particularly missing several of our best and most key players.

jhns
09-17-2010, 12:51 PM
How were injuries responsible there? We had a rash of injuries among the RBs, but that was really it.

Wow, that is about the most uninformed load of crap posted today.

Every starting LB was injured at some point that season. We went multiple games with no starting LBs. One corner was hurt bad and the other played with injuries. We had a safety out. We had a starting d lineman that never even got to play. These are just the injuries to the starting defense.

Injuries are not an excuse.

Kaylore
09-17-2010, 12:58 PM
I see both sides of this argument.

First of all, a lot of people point to Shanahan's '08 season as being injury riddled. It was at the half back position, but not on defense. That defense, with that coordinator that he barfed on the field was all Shanny. He hand picked those guys right down the coaches and assistants. He extended Jamie Winborn. He signed every one of those awful safeties, and linebackers. We also has the fourth easiest schedule in the NFL that season. I am totally convinced that had we played more good teams that we would have had more games like the MNF debacle in Gillette. Last year was much more difficult. The defenses we faced were better and everyone was learning a new offense with a new QB. Despite this we had a relatively decent season, though losing the last 4 games in a row is not acceptable.

This year we start the season with our two best players on either side of the ball injured in Clady and Dumervil. The rest of the team looks like a Mash unit. Unlike Broncostein, I think Clady is playing decently and will get better as he gets back into footballs shape and I expect both lines to get better as players get healthy and the rookies get more experience.

Having said that, I don't believe another season 7-9 or 8-8-ish is going to cut it. I agree with gylden that we didn't fire Shanahan to go from 8-8 to 8-8.

I remember with Taco in '08 he made a comment where he said something to the effect of "we should expect to lose every game. We're in a re-build!" I ripped him for that and I'll rip it here too from the other side. Dumervil is a major loss, but we will get people healthier as the season goes on and the schedule gets easier. We should have at least a winning record by a few games at home this year and at least be near .500 on the road. Looking at this team I think it can be done. I'm not expecting world beaters or division championships, but I am expecting us to improve and Gylden saying he wants to see improvement is not off the wall or unrealistic.

We need to win games. I look at this team and I think they can. I don't understand the negativity and I don't understand the early apologies, which IMO are just as bad as predicting losses.

If we go 8-8 again, or thereabouts, I think McDaniels should be on the hotseat for next season.

NFLBRONCO
09-17-2010, 01:03 PM
If those picks fail they fail but, I think a columist could give them 4 years before they say failure.

jhns
09-17-2010, 01:04 PM
First of all, a lot of people point to Shanahan's '08 season as being injury riddled. It was at the half back position, but not on defense.

Does no one here actually watch Bronco games? Is it just that you have to lie to yourselves and others in order to back McDaniels? I don't get it.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 01:08 PM
I didn't say last year was a major achievement.


Boy, you're so hurting for attention... you can't even read posts correctly.

When did I say last year was a big achievement? I said last year wasn't good enough, which you will find on closer inspection to mean the opposite of major achievement.

I said 8-8 THIS YEAR! would not be a major achievement given that our record over the last 4 seasons have been 32-32.

Damn you need to learn to read dude.

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 01:08 PM
Wow, that is about the most uninformed load of crap posted today.

Every starting LB was injured at some point that season.

Sorry, DJ hurt for 5 games and Nate freakin Webster missing 3 games is nowhere near as damaging as losing Dumervil for a whole season. It's not even close.

One corner was hurt bad and the other played with injuries. We had a safety out. We had a starting d lineman that never even got to play. These are just the injuries to the starting defense.


Names please. I am talking about "quality" injuries. Not injuries to guys that aren't starting in the NFL today.

These are just the injuries to the starting defense.


Because basically, aside from RB (which had zero effect on the running game), the offense remained intact all season. It's convenient that you'd try to gloss over that.

Injuries are not an excuse.

They most certainly can be. There is a potential point for every team where they simply can't be overcome.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 01:09 PM
Does no one here actually watch Bronco games? Is it just that you have to lie to yourselves and others in order to back McDaniels? I don't get it.

Uh, the only one who doesnt watch Broncos games is you, because they dont always show them in your area, as you admitted last week.

The Joker
09-17-2010, 01:09 PM
There were injuries to starters on defense that year to be fair. Champ missed some time, as did DJ Williams.

That defense was so bad that the injuries actually helped though, if I recall.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 01:13 PM
There were injuries to starters on defense that year to be fair. Champ missed some time, as did DJ Williams.

That defense was so bad that the injuries actually helped though, if I recall.

Are we talking 08? That defense was SO historically bad that against carolina we came out in a 4-4. A FOUR ****ING FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I played that defense in HIGH SCHOOL. What's it say about a D when you suddenly switch schemes entirely from week to week? It says you suck. And we SUCKED.

jhns
09-17-2010, 01:14 PM
Nice spins Bean. They almost make the conversation interesting. You are still posting wrong information though. You are a waste of time. It is pretty pathetic that you think McDaniels deserves excuses more than Shanahan did. How is it that Bronco fans don't have a clue what happened on the Broncos?

Oh, right, you are all just McDaniels fans. You didn't care about this team before last year. It is the only explanation for the hate of Shanahan that is seen around here. The guy that actually has done something for this organization.

outdoor_miner
09-17-2010, 01:15 PM
Having said that, I don't believe another season 7-9 or 8-8-ish is going to cut it. I agree with gylden that we didn't fire Shanahan to go from 8-8 to 8-8.

We need to win games. I look at this team and I think they can. I don't understand the negativity and I don't understand the early apologies, which IMO are just as bad as predicting losses.

If we go 8-8 again, or thereabouts, I think McDaniels should be on the hotseat for next season.

I completely, 100% agree with this stuff. Injuries are not an excuse in this league. Every team has them. Yes, Doom's injury is big. But, I expected playoffs with him, and I expect playoffs without him. Our schedule is easy.

Let me preface this by saying I am a big McD supporter. I like him and believe in his philosophies. However, if we are 8-8 this year (or God forbid, worse), then I would consider McD on "the hot seat". That is not to say he should be fired immediately. But his 3rd year would have to produce a contender. If not, he has failed in my book. 3 years is plenty of time.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 01:16 PM
I see both sides of this argument.

First of all, a lot of people point to Shanahan's '08 season as being injury riddled. It was at the half back position, but not on defense. That defense, with that coordinator that he barfed on the field was all Shanny. He hand picked those guys right down the coaches and assistants. He extended Jamie Winborn. He signed every one of those awful safeties, and linebackers. We also has the fourth easiest schedule in the NFL that season. I am totally convinced that had we played more good teams that we would have had more games like the MNF debacle in Gillette. Last year was much more difficult. The defenses we faced were better and everyone was learning a new offense with a new QB. Despite this we had a relatively decent season, though losing the last 4 games in a row is not acceptable.

This year we start the season with our two best players on either side of the ball injured in Clady and Dumervil. The rest of the team looks like a Mash unit. Unlike Broncostein, I think Clady is playing decently and will get better as he gets back into footballs shape and I expect both lines to get better as players get healthy and the rookies get more experience.

Having said that, I don't believe another season 7-9 or 8-8-ish is going to cut it. I agree with gylden that we didn't fire Shanahan to go from 8-8 to 8-8.

I remember with Taco in '08 he made a comment where he said something to the effect of "we should expect to lose every game. We're in a re-build!" I ripped him for that and I'll rip it here too from the other side. Dumervil is a major loss, but we will get people healthier as the season goes on and the schedule gets easier. We should have at least a winning record by a few games at home this year and at least be near .500 on the road. Looking at this team I think it can be done. I'm not expecting world beaters or division championships, but I am expecting us to improve and Gylden saying he wants to see improvement is not off the wall or unrealistic.

We need to win games. I look at this team and I think they can. I don't understand the negativity and I don't understand the early apologies, which IMO are just as bad as predicting losses.

If we go 8-8 again, or thereabouts, I think McDaniels should be on the hotseat for next season.

There was no discernible difference in strength of schedule from 08 to 09. :thumbsup:

Br0nc0Buster
09-17-2010, 01:17 PM
Are we talking 08? That defense was SO historically bad that against carolina we came out in a 4-4. A FOUR ****ING FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I played that defense in HIGH SCHOOL. What's it say about a D when you suddenly switch schemes entirely from week to week? It says you suck. And we SUCKED.

better than Slowicks attempt at a 3-4 we tried against Kansas City
Larry Johnson had 200 yards rushing I think and we got stomped

No one in the FO had a clue about defense that year

jhns
09-17-2010, 01:17 PM
Uh, the only one who doesnt watch Broncos games is you, because they dont always show them in your area, as you admitted last week.

Ummm, no I didn't admit that. I watch every game. I even watched last weeks game twice already.

What I did do was laugh at your inability to read.

The Joker
09-17-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't think McDaniels is going anywhere for at least the next three years unless he posts a 2-14 season or something like that.

Bowlen will give him the chance to win with Tebow, and rightfully so IMO.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 01:27 PM
Not comparable IMO. In the grand scheme of things, we were pretty healthy last year....especially compared to this year. It's really not even close.

And that is just one variable. Strength of schedule, weather, when you play a certain team (Florida in week one), etc. So much goes into each record that you can't simply say 8-8 in 2009 = 8-8 in 2010. There's just so much more to it than that. I can't believe you can't see or acknowledge that.


You are right, we had a tougher schedule last year than we do this year, so 8-8 last year was harder to achieve than it will be this year. The NFC West is a huge pile of stink, the AFC West looks no better than it was last year if even that good and thankfully we are not facing the Patriots and Colts as our conference placement opponents.


How were injuries responsible there? We had a rash of injuries among the RBs, but that was really it. And the running game was extremely productive despite the injuries, so that wasn't it.


So injuries are only important when they serve your argument?

Marshall missed the entire offseason with a hand injury that limited him during the season as well, very reminiscent of Cladys injury this year.

Champ Bailey missed 7 games with injury, our best defensive player.

6 RBs went down, we managed to have the top rusher in 4 of 16 games that year and one of them was Eddie Royal.

DJ Williams missed 5 games.


Of course that's what they're going to say. It's the "right thing" to say, but it's not true. By definition, if a team loses a bunch of starters things don't get easier and the talent level isn't the same....it's worse.

That is why the invented free agency and the draft so you could improve your team, that way when injuries happen and they inevitably do, the team can perform.

We lose starters every single year, Orton playing with broken fingers last year, Harris missing time, the RG position never finding a permanent occupant.

Dumervil is out and of course that is a loss, but does that somehow mean that the team is free to suck? of course not, there is not going to be an asterisk next to the losses we get the season saying we played without Dumervil so they don't really count.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 01:36 PM
Ummm, no I didn't admit that. I watch every game. I even watched last weeks game twice already.

What I did do was laugh at your inability to read.

Your insults don't even make sense. Last week, I asked how you watched the Bears game while it was on at the same time as the broncos game. You claimed that the broncos weren't on in your area. Now perhaps you went back and watched it on NFL.com or whatever, but this has nothing to do with my "inability to read." But keep enjoying being a miserable asshole. it suits you well.

pdaddy
09-17-2010, 01:39 PM
Ok, so I was reading Bill Simmon's picks for week 2 and I was confused by what he said:

"Congrats to Josh McDaniels for turning three No. 1 picks in 2009 and 2010 into a third-string tight end, backup QB and fourth-string receiver; I don't even think David Kahn could have pulled that off."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnfl2010/picks100917

Does this make sense to anyone? By me reckoning with our 4 (not 3) first round picks we have got:

1. Knowshon Moreno (starting runningback)
2. Robert Ayers (starting OLB)
3. Demaryius Thomas (injured receiver who will play when he comes back)
4. Tim Tebow (#2 QB and QB of the future)

Where does he see a third string tight end or fourth string receiver in that group? Also, why does he ignore Moreno and Ayers? Does this make sense to anyone else?

His comment is confusing, I agree. It appears he is referring to the 2010 1st that Broncos used on Alphonso Smith (which turned into Gronkowski plus a late round pick - doesn't mention the late round pick, but ok); the 2010 1st that Broncos used on DT (who he says is now a 4th string receiver - which is a total load of bull***t); and the 2010 1st that Broncos used on Tebow (who is indeed a back-up QB, but really the 1st round pick came after a bunch of pretty crafty trades to get 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks that were used to trade up for the first - no mention of that). So where does 2009 come in at all?!!! He's not referring to Moreno or Ayers at all, so I don't get it.

With that said, I love the DT pick, but think he's pretty much right on the other 2. The Al Smith move doesn't bother me as much as the Tebow move. Trading those 3 picks in one of the best drafts in recent history to trade up and take a big question mark was tough to swallow. If the Broncos don't do well this year, McDaniels deserves to be on the hot seat.

jhns
09-17-2010, 01:45 PM
Your insults don't even make sense. Last week, I asked how you watched the Bears game while it was on at the same time as the broncos game. You claimed that the broncos weren't on in your area. Now perhaps you went back and watched it on NFL.com or whatever, but this has nothing to do with my "inability to read." But keep enjoying being a miserable a-hole. it suits you well.

That isn't at all what happened. I said I watched the Bears game. You responded with: "you watched the Bears instead of the Broncos. Why are you here?". I responded with: "who said instead and I wonder what you would say to those in my area without Sunday ticker, who had to do this."

Again, this is just your inability to read. I watched the Broncos live. I rewatched them on my dvr.

colonelbeef
09-17-2010, 01:47 PM
gyldenlove wins the thread, game over.

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2010, 01:52 PM
You are right, we had a tougher schedule last year than we do this year, so 8-8 last year was harder to achieve than it will be this year.

It's scary how people can already determine strength of schedule after week one. It's also scary how people can't understand the difference between things like say.....facing the Jaguars in Florida in September vs. December. Or how timely injuries, bye weeks or short weeks or say....travelling to Europe.... completely change the difficulty of individual games or how they plan their season.




So injuries are only important when they serve your argument?

Marshall missed the entire offseason with a hand injury that limited him during the season as well, very reminiscent of Cladys injury this year.

My argument?

I think it's fair to say that Clady's injury has been hampering him a lot more than Marshall's affected him....but it's still early. We'll see how he bounces back with time.

Champ Bailey missed 7 games with injury, our best defensive player.

Yup, and our best defensive player this year is missing 16 games. And it's only week one. Who knows what else the football gods have in store.

6 RBs went down, we managed to have the top rusher in 4 of 16 games that year and one of them was Eddie Royal.

Yup, like I said. The injuries at RB weren't a factor. Why? The starting OLine was healthy and intact all season long. At least 9 times out of 10, the health and cohesion of the OLine is far more important than the guys actually running the ball IMO. Would you disagree?

DJ Williams missed 5 games.

Like I said.....




That is why the invented free agency and the draft so you could improve your team, that way when injuries happen and they inevitably do, the team can perform.

Ummm, ok....not sure what this proves. By definition, who is better: the starter or the backup?

We lose starters every single year, Orton playing with broken fingers last year, Harris missing time, the RG position never finding a permanent occupant.

Yup. None of this disproves anything I wrote.

Dumervil is out and of course that is a loss, but does that somehow mean that the team is free to suck? of course not, there is not going to be an asterisk next to the losses we get the season saying we played without Dumervil so they don't really count.

Again. Nothing I didn't acknowledge. I think you are not understanding my point. Injuries were just one of several variables I was discussing.

Strength of schedule
When you face certain teams (both in terms of the calendar and how healthy THEY are....are you facing the Steelers with or without Big Ben for example...are you facing the Colts in week 17 when they benched all their starters...etc. - THESE THINGS MATTER)
The weather
The bye-weeks
The list goes on

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 01:55 PM
That isn't at all what happened. I said I watched the Bears game. You responded with: "you watched the Bears instead of the Broncos. Why are you here?". I responded with: "who said instead and I wonder what you would say to those in my area without Sunday ticker, who had to do this."

Again, this is just your inability to read. I watched the Broncos live. I rewatched them on my dvr.

I swear to ****ing god its people like you who make me weep for ****ing humanity. Seriously.

Rohirrim
09-17-2010, 01:57 PM
The collapse at the end of '08 was historical. In other words, it was so bad that it made NFL history. In the future, collapses will be measured against the '08 Broncos. And people want Josh to field a winning team right now? Go back to Madden.

Kaylore
09-17-2010, 02:13 PM
There was no discernible difference in strength of schedule from 08 to 09. :thumbsup:

False.

jhns
09-17-2010, 02:23 PM
I swear to ****ing god its people like you who make me weep for ****ing humanity. Seriously.

Why? Because you talk **** after misreading something? The thread was bumped today. It is on the front page. It was in the thread about the 5 game losing streak. Go check it out. It shows you putting words in my mouth in order to talk **** about something I never said.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 02:42 PM
It's scary how people can already determine strength of schedule after week one. It's also scary how people can't understand the difference between things like say.....facing the Jaguars in Florida in September vs. December. Or how timely injuries, bye weeks or short weeks or say....travelling to Europe.... completely change the difficulty of individual games or how they plan their season.

I think it's fair to say that Clady's injury has been hampering him a lot more than Marshall's affected him....but it's still early. We'll see how he bounces back with time.

Yup, and our best defensive player this year is missing 16 games. And it's only week one. Who knows what else the football gods have in store.

Yup, like I said. The injuries at RB weren't a factor. Why? The starting OLine was healthy and intact all season long. At least 9 times out of 10, the health and cohesion of the OLine is far more important than the guys actually running the ball IMO. Would you disagree?

Ummm, ok....not sure what this proves. By definition, who is better: the starter or the backup?

Strength of schedule
When you face certain teams (both in terms of the calendar and how healthy THEY are....are you facing the Steelers with or without Big Ben for example...are you facing the Colts in week 17 when they benched all their starters...etc. - THESE THINGS MATTER)
The weather
The bye-weeks
The list goes on

Here is the deal, Jacksonville played the same game we did, they played in the same temperature we did, if a professional team who play games every single year in Florida can not prepare for it, especially considering how many of our players have spend years playing football in places like Floriday, Georgia, Texas all places where it gets very hot then we do not belong in the NFL.

As long as we are not playing a European team in Europe then flying there makes no difference, the other team had to fly there as well.

Unless for some reason one team can control the weather so that only the opposing team plays in bad weather then the weather is really a non-factor. Both teams play in the same conditions.

There are always reasons for losses, except good teams somehow find ways around that. If you can not find a way to eliminate the influence of the weather or travelling or injuries, then you are not as good as the teams who can eliminate those factors.

I don't see how a knee injury to a left tackle is going to affect him more than a hand injury to a reciever.

The backup can be better than the starter, that is how Tom Brady got started, by being better. Often times that won't be the case, but if your backup is so bad that one injury is going to make a difference between a good or a bad team then your team isn't very good, you just have a really good player.

In 2008 our 2 best defensive players missed 15 games between them, in 2010 it looks like our best defensive player will miss 16 games, not much of a difference there, especially considering that the 2010 unit does not have Bob Slow-wit calling plays.

I will disagree, Vikings were not in the top half for rushing in 2006, in 2007 there were number 1 by a large margin, reason: Adrian Peterson.
2008 - Titans were not a top 5 rushing team, 2009 they were number 2, reason: Chris Johnson.
2007 - Chargers top 10 rushing, 2008: bottom half of the league, reason: Tomlinson.
In fact the Chargers rushing rank correlates very well with when Tomlinson was on top and when he started falling off, despite returning the same o-line.
The o-line is obviously important to the rush offense, but a good RB will be good with a mediocre line, a bad RB will be mediocre at best with a good line.

At the end of the day, good teams win games and bad teams don't, people can chalk it up to circumstances or magic if they want to, but fact is that good teams tend to win and bad teams not so much.

Really what you are talking about is excuses, explanations for failure. Unfortunately it is very difficult to hide behind those, they tend to be very transparent to the trained eye. Is it realistic to expect 16-0 and super bowl victory from this team? no, not even close. Is it realistic to expect them to perform better than last year? yes, in fact that is what the whole organization is trying to do, so is acceptable if the team does not live up to expectations? no, it never is.

gyldenlove
09-17-2010, 02:43 PM
The collapse at the end of '08 was historical. In other words, it was so bad that it made NFL history. In the future, collapses will be measured against the '08 Broncos. And people want Josh to field a winning team right now? Go back to Madden.

You don't want the Broncos to win?

SonOfLe-loLang
09-17-2010, 02:59 PM
Why? Because you talk **** after misreading something? The thread was bumped today. It is on the front page. It was in the thread about the 5 game losing streak. Go check it out. It shows you putting words in my mouth in order to talk **** about something I never said.

Perhaps I inferred wrong, but there's nothing from what you wrote that was specific either way. Work on it.

Missouribronc
09-17-2010, 03:10 PM
I think it was a joke.

The internets are amazing places.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 03:11 PM
False.

Not false at all...

The majority of the strength of schedule difference that you see was the improvement in KC and SD. Take the rest of our division out of the equation (also amusing to your point was that every team in the division either maintained their record or improved against such a "difficult schedule") and it's 2-3 games difference... an insanely neglible amount over that volume of games.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 03:35 PM
False.

Broke it down in some good detail for you:

2009
Cin 10-6
Cle 5-11
Oak 5-11
Dal 11-5
NE 10-6
SD 13-3
Balt 9-7
Pitt 9-7
Wash 4-12
SD 13-3
NYG 8-8
KC 4-12
IND 14-2
Oak 5-11
Phi 11-5
KC 4-12

Total 135-121
AFCW Opponents 44-52
Outside Div 91-69

2008:
Oak 5-11
SD 8-8
NO 8-8
KC 2-14
TB 9-7
Jax 5-11
NE 11-5
MIA 11-5
Cle 4-12
ATL 11-5
Oak 5-11
NYJ 9-7
KC 2-14
CAR 12-4
Buff 7-9
SD 8-8

Total 117-139
AFCW Opponents 30-66
Outside Div 87-73

Like I said... no discernible difference.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 03:38 PM
I'd like to advise you against trying to argue that the schedule was significantly harder last year because the rest of the AFCW improved in that schedule as it's completely counter-productive to the point you're trying to make.

broncosteven
09-17-2010, 04:22 PM
The collapse at the end of '08 was historical. In other words, it was so bad that it made NFL history. In the future, collapses will be measured against the '08 Broncos. And people want Josh to field a winning team right now? Go back to Madden.

Actually I thought last year was the worst collapse I have seen since the Raiders started out 7-1 or what ever it was then didn't make the playoffs.

PRBronco
09-17-2010, 04:25 PM
Actually I thought last year was the worst collapse I have seen since the Raiders started out 7-1 or what ever it was then didn't make the playoffs.

You didn't think we were playing way over our heads at 6 and 0? I'd call it coming back down to earth.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 04:31 PM
Broke it down in some good detail for you:

2009
Cin 10-6
Cle 5-11
Oak 5-11
Dal 11-5
NE 10-6
SD 13-3
Balt 9-7
Pitt 9-7
Wash 4-12
SD 13-3
NYG 8-8
KC 4-12
IND 14-2
Oak 5-11
Phi 11-5
KC 4-12

Total 135-121
AFCW Opponents 44-52
Outside Div 91-69

2008:
Oak 5-11
SD 8-8
NO 8-8
KC 2-14
TB 9-7
Jax 5-11
NE 11-5
MIA 11-5
Cle 4-12
ATL 11-5
Oak 5-11
NYJ 9-7
KC 2-14
CAR 12-4
Buff 7-9
SD 8-8

Total 117-139
AFCW Opponents 30-66
Outside Div 87-73

Like I said... no discernible difference.


In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 04:35 PM
Oh, and in 2008 we played 7 teams with a losing record.

In 2009 we played 6 teams with a losing record.


lol @ all that useless math going to waste.

Not surprised when you look to the left and see the user name is

TheReverend
42.7% of all statistics..

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:08 PM
In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif

And 2 of those in both columns are San Diego... who dramatically improved against this "significantly tougher schedule".

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:14 PM
And 2 of those in both columns are San Diego... who dramatically improved against this "significantly tougher schedule".



You'd really have to break down every single team for this to be a legitimate point. Otherwise, you're just trying to twist this **** into stats of your favor.

What you're trying to say is, Chargers of 2009 is really not better than Chargers of 2008... it's just that they had an easier schedule.

:spit:^^^

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:16 PM
Keep going Rev, keep twisting **** and reaching further.

Just take your hit and move on man, you're a ****ing moron whose vision has been slanted by stupidity.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:18 PM
You'd really have to break down every single team for this to be a legitimate point. Otherwise, you're just trying to twist this **** into stats of your favor.

What you're trying to say is, Chargers of 2009 is really not better than Chargers of 2008... it's just that they had an easier schedule.

:spit:^^^

Ummm, no, I didn't say that at all. There's a decent point though. The 2009 Chargers lost immediately to the Jets in the play offs while the 2008 Chargers beat the perennial contender Colts before losing to Pittsburgh (that year's superbowl champions), so, meh.

Would you like to try sounding smart to have every example shoved down your stupid, tiny mouth some more?

:spit:^^^

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:28 PM
Ummm, no, I didn't say that at all. There's a decent point though. The 2009 Chargers lost immediately to the Jets in the play offs while the 2008 Chargers beat the perennial contender Colts before losing to Pittsburgh (that year's superbowl champions), so, meh.

Would you like to try sounding smart to have every example shoved down your stupid, tiny mouth some more?

:spit:^^^

Did I say you said that?

Face it, you really have nothing to rebuttal with. Telling me about another team's schedule is really throwing **** at the wall. Like I said, you'd have to go look at every single team's schedule to make this a valid point.

Back to the relevant facts:

In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.


Oh, and in 2008 we played 7 teams with a losing record.

In 2009 we played 6 teams with a losing record.


http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/07/Antoine-Dodson-Dumb.gif

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:31 PM
You're point isn't really going to go far, it's like sitting here saying the sole reason Chris Johnson or TD getting 2000 yards is because they didn't play many good defenses, so therefore their accomplishments don't mean as much as someone getting 1500 yards against better defenses.

You can take this as far as you want, but I hope you realize at this point you're full of ****.

Keep throwing **** at the wall buddy, it'll eventually stick.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:31 PM
Did I say you said that?

Face it, you really have nothing to rebuttal with. Telling me about another team's schedule is really throwing **** at the wall. Like I said, you'd have to go look at every single team's schedule to make this a valid point.

Back to the relevant facts:

OMFG...

You don't even know how scheduling works do you?

You are way dumber than I thought...

Here's what happens:

A specific division will play one in conference division and one out of conference division along with their 6 games against division opponents. The remaining two games will be against the other in conference division teams with their similar ranking in division.

Two games were different between Denver, SD, KC and Oakland last year, just like the year before, just like this year, etc.

Now can I ask you a very serious question?

What's it like to be blown over by even a small gust of wind?

misturanderson
09-17-2010, 05:32 PM
And 2 of those in both columns are San Diego... who dramatically improved against this "significantly tougher schedule".
You know damn well that SD's out of conference schedule was easier than ours was last year. They got Tennessee and Miami to our Indy and New England. They also played Pitt without Polamalu whereas we were one of the few teams he actually played against last year.

The Chargers were a better team than us last year and the year before. That's why their record was better than ours. Having an easier schedule magnified the discrepancy.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:32 PM
You're point isn't really going to go far, it's like sitting here saying the sole reason Chris Johnson or TD getting 2000 yards is because they didn't play many good defenses, so therefore their accomplishments don't mean as much as someone getting 1500 yards against better defenses.

You can take this as far as you want, but I hope you realize at this point you're full of ****.

Keep throwing **** at the wall buddy, it'll eventually stick.

That is the single worst analogy ever. In fact, I'm arguing the opposite since I'm the one arguing against the "OMG STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE" illusion. You're really quite stupid.

baja
09-17-2010, 05:33 PM
I could never understand why anyone would want shiit to stick on their wall.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:33 PM
You know damn well that SD's out of conference schedule was easier than ours was last year. They got Tennessee and Miami to our Indy and New England. They also played Pitt without Polamalu whereas we were one of the few teams he actually played against last year.

The Chargers were a better team than us last year and the year before. That's why their record was better than ours. Having an easier schedule magnified the discrepancy.

I do agree... but two moderately easier games hardly cover that discrepancy bro.

Also, their record reflected they were a better team in 2009, but it didn't in 2008... until you go into tie-breakers. We were both 8-8.

misturanderson
09-17-2010, 05:38 PM
I do agree... but two moderately easier games hardly cover that discrepancy bro.
It makes up 2 of the wins potentially. I also wouldn't say that facing the AFC East and South Division winners versus 3rd place teams in those divisions is only a "moderate" difference in difficulty.
Also, their record reflected they were a better team in 2009, but it didn't in 2008... until you go into tie-breakers. We were both 8-8.
They were a better team in 2008 than their record indicated. I have no idea why they lost so many games that year, but they were not an 8-8 team. Proof is not only in the playoff run that you so eloquently alluded to earlier, but the fact that they dominated our asses (an 8-8 team) in the final game of the season when the playoffs were on the line. Bro. They weren't necessarily a 13-3 team, but they definitely should have won 11.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:39 PM
That is the single worst analogy ever. In fact, I'm arguing the opposite since I'm the one arguing against the "OMG STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE" illusion. You're really quite stupid.

I'm the one arguing FOR the strength of schedule illusion...:welcome:

You tried to point out that the 2008 and 2009 schedule was not that much of difference because of San Diego's record/schedule skewed it.

Am I correct?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:46 PM
It makes up 2 of the wins potentially.

They were a better team in 2008 than their record indicated. I have no idea why they lost so many games that year, but they were not an 8-8 team. Proof is not only in the playoff run that you so eloquently alluded to earlier, but the fact that they dominated our asses (an 8-8 team) in the final game of the season when the playoffs were on the line. Bro.

Then you'd agree that's exactly why the strength of schedule is a lot more accurate when you pull the div out of it.

Let's even spot those 2 games to be generous. Now our opponents were 6 games more difficult in 09 out ONE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO.

I repeat... neglible

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 05:47 PM
I'm the one arguing FOR the strength of schedule illusion...:welcome:

You tried to point out that the 2008 and 2009 schedule was not that much of difference because of San Diego's record/schedule skewed it.

Am I correct?

no you're not. its pointless talking to you because youre too stupid to follow a conversation. btw, your time would be better spent eating little guy.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 05:53 PM
no you're not. its pointless talking to you because youre too stupid to follow a conversation. btw, your time would be better spent eating little guy.

lol... I'd easily beat your ass going off those pics you posted online last year. Unless you have some highly advanced fight training, I'd easily break your jaw.

:afro:

Anyways, if I'm not correct with what I said above... then you obviously aren't being clear.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:00 PM
Let me also add, that we played 4 playoff teams in 2008 and 7 playoff teams in 2009.

REV =DUMBASS.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:00 PM
lol... I'd easily beat your ass going off those pics you posted online last year. Unless you have some highly advanced fight training, I'd easily break your jaw.

:afro:

Anyways, if I'm not correct with what I said above... then you obviously aren't being clear.

Sure you would.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:03 PM
Sure you would.

I'm sure.. I would. You stuck on me being a certain weight YEARS ago? Right, I know it might not be common for you, but people move forward and advance.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:05 PM
Rev, I'd suggest you go to more football games, maybe some college, maybe some HS you might actually learn how to watch live games. Keep up with the stats on a pad so you can verify what you saw.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:06 PM
I'm sure.. I would. You stuck on me being a certain weight YEARS ago? Right, I know it might not be common for you, but people move forward and advance.

Sure thing, big guy. I'm sure you've gone from a 120lb frame to enormous after your teens. That happens all the time.

Please refrain from interjecting yourself ("butting in" since you're a ****ing idiot) into a conversation I'm having with someone else, since you hi-jack EVERY conversation and thread you get involved with on the entire message board. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love hearing opinions from a 120 lb "full grown" man that has never played a down of football in his life, but as fun as that is, there's a limit to how much facepalming I can handle in one day, cool?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:11 PM
Sure thing, big guy. I'm sure you've gone from a 120lb frame to enormous after your teens. That happens all the time.

Please refrain from interjecting yourself ("butting in" since you're a ****ing idiot) into a conversation I'm having with someone else, since you hi-jack EVERY conversation and thread you get involved with on the entire message board. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love hearing opinions from a 120 lb "full grown" man that has never played a down of football in his life, but as fun as that is, there's a limit to how much facepalming I can handle in one day, cool?

Check that post again and check what YEAR it was from and then come talk to me and try and call me out on some bull****. I gained a lot of weight -- what's the big deal? I never called myself enormous - either.

Transformations happen all the time buddy, just because YOU'RE not familiar with it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The fact that you keep diverging form ALL my comments on football that are RIGHT IN LINE with what you're saying, lets me know you're a ****in idiot.

And calling me out for not playing a down of football is quite bull**** too... when you have to get personal and diverge from the actual point - quite clearly I won, you lost.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:15 PM
Check that post again and check what YEAR it was from and then come talk to me and try and call me out on some bull****. I gained a lot of weight -- what's the big deal? I never called myself enormous - either.

Transformations happen all the time buddy, just because YOU'RE not familiar with it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The fact that you keep diverging form ALL my comments on football that are RIGHT IN LINE with what you're saying, lets me know you're a ****in idiot.

And calling me out for not playing a down of football is quite bull**** too... when you have to get personal and diverge from the actual point - quite clearly I won, you lost.

Ummmm, I made my point and it's quite clear. You on the other hand, have no point.

It's cool though, the world needs people like you.

And by "people like you" I mean "Wigger John Claytons"

Sup Cryptkeeper?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:17 PM
In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.


Oh, and in 2008 we played 7 teams with a losing record.

In 2009 we played 6 teams with a losing record.

Let me also add, that we played 4 playoff teams in 2008 and 7 playoff teams in 2009.


There was no discernible difference in strength of schedule from 08 to 09.


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg298/ImperialKing1/colbert.gif

Durango
09-17-2010, 06:18 PM
Ummmm, I made my point and it's quite clear. You on the other hand, have no point.

It's cool though, the world needs people like you.

And by "people like you" I mean "Wigger John Claytons"

Sup Cryptkeeper?

..and you just can't argue with Mr. Simpson, Reverend.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:18 PM
Ummmm, I made my point and it's quite clear. You on the other hand, have no point.

It's cool though, the world needs people like you.

And by "people like you" I mean "Wigger John Claytons"

Sup Cryptkeeper?

you mind as well use the word gay in its original meaning from 1960.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:18 PM
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg298/ImperialKing1/colbert.gif

4 games out of 160 = no discernible difference.

Nice try, Calista Flockheart.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:21 PM
4 games out of 160 = no discernible difference.

Nice try, Calista Flockheart.

In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.


Oh, and in 2008 we played 7 teams with a losing record.

In 2009 we played 6 teams with a losing record.

Let me also add, that we played 4 playoff teams in 2008 and 7 playoff teams in 2009.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:22 PM
In 2008 we played 4 teams with double digit wins, and 6 teams with winning records.

In 2009 we played 7 teams with double digit wins, and 9 teams with a winning records.


Oh, and in 2008 we played 7 teams with a losing record.

In 2009 we played 6 teams with a losing record.

Let me also add, that we played 4 playoff teams in 2008 and 7 playoff teams in 2009.

Once again, 2 of those in both columns were SD alone.

Got any more invalid points, Fiona Apple?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:27 PM
Keep trying to use amount of wins as a point though.

8-8 and 10-6 is a huge difference. That's only 2 games though.

When you use statistics in the way you're using them, as in counting all the games...

a 2-14 team really skews the stats, because say a 5-11 team is almost just as bad. However it's a 3 game difference which is HUGE. And in ORDER to really make your statistics work, you have to break down every schedule for every team to really make a valid point. What is considered a really EASY schedule or what is considered a really HARD schedule? Do you know a what points or total wins on schedule you can consider that?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:28 PM
Keep trying to use amount of wins as a point though.

8-8 and 10-6 is a huge difference. That's only 2 games though.

When you use statistics in the way you're using them, as in counting all the games...

a 2-14 team really skews the stats, because say a 5-11 team is almost just as bad. However it's a 3 game difference which is HUGE. And in ORDER to really make your statistics work, you have to break down every schedule for every team to really make a valid point. What is considered a really EASY schedule or what is considered a really HARD schedule? Do you know a what points or total wins on schedule you can consider that?

Dear Orangemane's Mary Kate Olsen,

Sorry to bring that bad news and I hate to break it to you, but strength of schedule is measured in wins...

Sincerely,
TheReverend

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:29 PM
Once again, 2 of those in both columns were SD alone.

Got any more invalid points, Fiona Apple?

Ok... 2 of the games are with SD... your point?

(obviously the 1st time around you didn't agree with what I said, so explain it)

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:30 PM
Dear Orangemane's Mary Kate Olsen,

Sorry to bring that bad news and I hate to break it to you, but strength of schedule is measured in wins...

Sincerely,
TheReverend

OK, and in 2009 we played opponents with more wins.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:32 PM
OK, and in 2009 we played opponents with more wins.

Yes, Tara Reid, 4 more. Out 160 games. Which is why I said "Negligible".

neg·li·gi·ble
adj \ˈne-gli-jə-bəl\
Definition of NEGLIGIBLE
: so small or unimportant or of so little consequence as to warrant little or no attention : trifling <a negligible error

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:45 PM
And yes - it's pretty common knowledge to measure "strength of schedule" by wins...

Let's face the facts

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

SD accounts for 2 games in #1, #2, and 1 game in #3 (however #3 would still have the same difference). So what I'm assuming you're saying, again, is that our out of division opponents were almost equal because they only won 4 more games (out of 160).

What I'm saying is, you have to literally break out every single team and go in depth to know what these 4 games mean. These 4 games could equate to 2 more wins (and 2 less losses) to two teams who are 8-8, which would turn them to 10-6 turning into a playoff caliber team. 2 teams out of 10 (not counting the divisional games), is pretty huge. You take out 2 losing teams or average teams and turn them into winning/playoff caliber teams, that's a HUGE effect on the schedule, taking momentum and everything into account.

(or these 4 games could mean 4 8-8 teams turn into 4 9-7 teams...or these 4 games could represent a difference of 4 teams who were 3-13 but really could have ben 4-12... not a big difference here)

So the bottom line, these statistics would mean more if you REALLY broke EVERYTHING down. Just breaking it down partially and throwing **** at the wall pretty much, doesn't mean ****. You have to take into account the TRUE value of each game, not the fact that the game is just 1/160. That's being vague and not specific. You have to KNOW what is a difficult schedule, what is a easy schedule, and how HUGE 4 games, 5 games, 2 games are.

I've made my points, and we're going in circles at this point. You're not really aware of how these numbers or statistics work.

That's why I'm using general and basic statements like my 3 facts above, for a conversation/argument that should be general and basic to begin with.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 06:55 PM
Let me give an example:
team records in schedule

schedule 1

14-2
14-2
14-2
5-11
5-11
5-11
5-11
8-8
8-8
2-14

schedule 2

11-5
11-5
11-5
11-5
9-7
9-7
8-8
8-8
1-15
1-15


What do you think is a tougher schedule? Both schedules have the same amount of wins. So by Rev's logic, the strength of these schedules are the same... is that an accurate statement?

So I avoided all the math and just took winning teams/losing teams and playoff teams. Because 2 included SD, I am not sure what Rev is trying to prove... it can be a)SD was much better than 8-8 in 2008 or b) SD's schedule in 2009 was easier than 2008 so their record skewed it.

I don't know, Rev. Maybe because I'm not smart enough, but you really haven't made it clear what your point about SD is unless I just read passed it.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 06:58 PM
And yes - it's pretty common knowledge to measure "strength of schedule" by wins...

Let's face the facts

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

SD accounts for 2 games in #1, #2, and 1 game in #3 (however #3 would still have the same difference). So what I'm assuming you're saying, again, is that our out of division opponents were almost equal because they only won 4 more games (out of 160).

What I'm saying is, you have to literally break out every single team and go in depth to know what these 4 games mean. These 4 games could equate to 2 more wins (and 2 less losses) to two teams who are 8-8, which would turn them to 10-6 turning into a playoff caliber team. 2 teams out of 10 (not counting the divisional games), is pretty huge. You take out 2 losing teams or average teams and turn them into winning/playoff caliber teams, that's a HUGE effect on the schedule, taking momentum and everything into account.

(or these 4 games could mean 4 8-8 teams turn into 4 9-7 teams...or these 4 games could represent a difference of 4 teams who were 3-13 but really could have ben 4-12... not a big difference here)

So the bottom line, these statistics would mean more if you REALLY broke EVERYTHING down. Just breaking it down partially and throwing **** at the wall pretty much, doesn't mean ****.

I've made my points, and we're going in circles at this point. You're not really aware of how these numbers or statistics work.

That's why I'm using general and basic statements like my 3 facts above, for a conversation/argument that should be general and basic to begin with.

Sorry young Joan Rivers, you're still not grasping it. I'm done with this. Perhaps when you're older you'll have a clearer understanding of simple concepts. I doubt it though. Your napoleon complex will probably never fade away.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:00 PM
Sorry young Joan Rivers, you're still not grasping it. I'm done with this. Perhaps when you're older you'll have a clearer understanding of simple concepts. I doubt it though. Your napoleon complex will probably never fade away.

I've taken more statistics classes than to my liking. (I am in college)

Cool story though, bro.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:01 PM
Let me give an example:
team records in schedule

schedule 1

14-2
14-2
14-2
5-11
5-11
5-11
5-11
8-8
8-8
2-14

schedule 2

11-5
11-5
11-5
11-5
9-7
9-7
8-8
8-8
1-15
1-15


What do you think is a tougher schedule? Both schedules have the same amount of wins. So by Rev's logic, the strength of these schedules are the same... is that an accurate statement?

So I avoided all the math and just took winning teams/losing teams and playoff teams. Because 2 included SD, I am not sure what Rev is trying to prove... it can be a)SD was much better than 8-8 in 2008 or b) SD's schedule in 2009 was easier than 2008 so their record skewed it.

I don't know, Rev. Maybe because I'm not smart enough, but you really haven't made it clear what your point about SD is unless I just read passed it.

You realize your example schedule 2 completely favors my point? It's more quality opponents, versus one like Indy that skews the numbers when in reality they were comparable schedules?

Are you TRYING to look as dumb as possible?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:03 PM
I've taken more statistics classes than to my liking. (I am in college)

Cool story though, bro.

Wow. You are the only person to ever attend college or attend a statistics course. We're so proud of you, Tracy Gold. Definitely a good idea to focus up since you'll never have an opportunity to excel in athletics.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:06 PM
You realize your example schedule 2 completely favors my point? It's more quality opponents, versus one like Indy that skews the numbers when in reality they were comparable schedules?


And I agree with you! However from everything you've said to this point you haven't been specific about it.

However you said that 2008 and 2009 weren't much different in strength/toughness, and then I broke out

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)


So if you were in agreement about the quality of opponents, you'd agree with the above... which is why I am STILL confused why you're talking about SD. Are you saying that in 2008 they were better than their 8-8 record? That's all I can really infer at this point if everything you said in the last post is true.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:09 PM
You realize your example schedule 2 completely favors my point? It's more quality opponents, versus one like Indy that skews the numbers when in reality they were comparable schedules?


And if you really were trying to make this point,

why did you post up a schedule and then point out the TOTAL win's and losses of opponents when that completely screws up QUALITY of opponents and consistently talk about a 4 game difference?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:14 PM
And I agree with you! However from everything you've said to this point you haven't been specific about it.

However you said that 2008 and 2009 weren't much different in strength/toughness, and then I broke out



So if you were in agreement about the quality of opponents, you'd agree with the above... which is why I am STILL confused why you're talking about SD. Are you saying that in 2008 they were better than their 8-8 record? That's all I can really infer at this point if everything you said in the last post is true.

No, Karen Carpenter, that's not how it works. In this extremely superficial example you have going, you're not crediting someone like the 11-5 New England Patriots, or the Jets who were on their playoff streak atop the AFC until we knocked the **** out them or even teams like Tampa and New Orleans who played in the most competitive division in football that season.

You can look at ANY of these from 100 different angles... THAT is why ONE standard is used. I'm not skewing this standard to make it say one thing or another. Anyone can twist the **** around in 30 different directions. I'm not even whining about a 14-2 Indy skewing the balance more considering we lost to them anyways. In the end, this is all that matters:

2009: 91-69
2008: 87-73
Difference: Negligible

Got that yet, Terri Schiavo?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:15 PM
And if you really were trying to make this point,

why did you post up a schedule and then point out the TOTAL win's and losses of opponents when that completely screws up QUALITY of opponents and consistently talk about a 4 game difference?

You cannot be this ****ing dumb, Justine Bateman...

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:26 PM
I can tell you're quite confused at this point. Because if it were true that your point is about quality opponents, you wouldn't be using total wins.

You're sitting here pounding the table, about how dumb I am, but yet you're not able to bring many points to prove your statement or argument. You keep referring back to TOTAL wins, which KILLS the whole "quality" of opponents concept that you had supposedly agreed with.

In this extremely superficial example you have going, you're not crediting someone like the 11-5 New England Patriots, or the Jets who were on their playoff streak atop the AFC until we knocked the **** out them or even teams like Tampa and New Orleans who played in the most competitive division in football that season.

So now, you're just twisting the 2008 schedule to make it seem as if it was even HARDER than it really was. You really deviating from the original point, you're going into when we beat teams and how they were doing at time, and once again, ad now you talking about how tampa and NO was in the toughest division? You're going into matters that are completely far from your original point.

You're using TOTAL wins yet you're saying you agree that it's about QUALITY of opponents.

You seem quite confused.

If we're going by THAT standard of total wins, the fact STILL is

2009 opponents
Total 135-121

2008 opponents
Total 117-139

Tell me, Rev, how can you sit here and say you care about QUALITY of opponents when you're using TOTAL wins as a marker?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:27 PM
I've brought you more than enough proof/examples to validate my point, and I'm pretty sure I've made it clear. The only thing you've made clear is that the only response you have to me is calling me white (which I'm not) and anemic (which I'm not either).

oh and that 4 games out of 160 BS.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:29 PM
And still TO THIS post, you STILL haven't explained yourself about what your point is about San Diego...

For the 100th time:

If you care about quality of opponents (in a very basic and general sense)

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

If you want to use WINS as a marker for strength of schedule:

2009 opponents
Total 135-121

2008 opponents
Total 117-139

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:37 PM
Since you've completely missed the point several times over, I might as well just have some fun.

Let's play a game...

What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

The average 8th grade boy

?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:38 PM
What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

Justin Beiber

?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:40 PM
What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

The starting offense's football helmets combined

?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:43 PM
What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

An artic wolf

?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:45 PM
What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

Katie Holmes

?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:45 PM
A specific division will play one in conference division and one out of conference division along with their 6 games against division opponents. The remaining two games will be against the other in conference division teams with their similar ranking in division.


Ok, so 2 "other" games we played in 2009 was the Colts and Patriots with 14 and 10 wins, respectively (total of 24 wins)

The other 2 "other" games we played in 2008 was Jaguars and Browns with 5 and 4 wins respectively (total of 9)

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:48 PM
Ok, so 2 "other" games we played in 2009 was the Colts and Patriots with 14 and 10 wins, respectively (total of 24 wins)

The other 2 "other" games we played in 2008 was Jaguars and Browns with 5 and 4 wins respectively (total of 9)

What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

An average adult midget

?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:53 PM
Rev, the time you stopped responding with football content and spent more energy with fantasizing how you wish I looked content...

You lost.

my friend:

Ronnie Coleman
http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/body_builder_21sfw.gif

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:55 PM
Rev, the time you stopped responding with football content and spent more energy with fantasizing how you wish I looked content...

You lost.

my friend:

Ronnie Coleman
[IMG]http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/body_builder_21sfw.gif[IMG]

Creepy, also weird that you're friends with Ronnie Coleman when he lives across the country from you.

What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

A small bale of hay

?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:56 PM
I'll continue:

Whose smarter Vince Young or Rev?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:57 PM
Who has more brain cells right now

Gary Coleman or Rev?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 07:57 PM
I'll continue:

Whose smarter Vince Young or Rev?

Feelings hurt? Ha!

What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

A teenage girl

?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:58 PM
Who wants the cock from Tim Tebow more:

Single girls from Florida or Rev?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 07:59 PM
Whose easier to piss off and laugh at due to stupidity?

Floyd Mayweather or Rev?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:00 PM
Who can watch a live football and come away with an accurate analysis?

Rev or the employees in the team store?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:01 PM
Who has a bigger forehead:

Rev or Rihanna?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:02 PM
Whose easier to piss off and laugh at due to stupidity?

Floyd Mayweather or Rev?

How could I possibly get mad? It's like when a child tries to do something they can't handle yet. It's a little amusing and you definitely can't get mad at them... they just don't know any better.

What weighs more:

The MV"Playa"

or

A bucket of ****

?

Trick question: Same thing

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:03 PM
Who has a bigger forehead:

Rev or Rihanna?

See... now you're just making things up. Mine are funny because it's accurate. You weigh roughly as much as a handful of snowflakes.

Keep trying though. You might hit something worthwhile eventually.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:04 PM
Who actually knows what he's talking about:

jhns or rev?

Trick question: they're both dumb as a pile of rocks in KC.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:05 PM
See... now you're just making things up. Mine are funny because it's accurate. You weigh roughly as much as a handful of snowflakes.

Keep trying though. You might hit something worthwhile eventually.

omgg I'm going to eat my crow for McDaniels, everyone TAKE MY PICTURE AND PHOTOSHOP IT to make me look like his bitch
:spit:

Dagmar
09-17-2010, 08:06 PM
http://ragerage.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/raaaage1.jpg

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:06 PM
Who actually knows what he's talking about:

jhns or rev?

Trick question: they're both dumb as a pile of rocks in KC.

You're blatantly ripping off my formats.

Originality is funny... what you're doing is sad. I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery though.

Want me to write you some new material through PM?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:07 PM
When Rev sleeps with his big ass forehead does he have:

A) Dreams
B) Movies
C) Full season of Mad Men in one sleep

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:08 PM
Trick question from above: he dreams about tim tebow penetrating him while rev uses his teeth to rip out the laces of a football.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:09 PM
omgg I'm going to eat my crow for McDaniels, everyone TAKE MY PICTURE AND PHOTOSHOP IT to make me look like his b****
:spit:

Little boy, you're mistaking me for someone who cares. People had a blast with that thread and still have fun with everything that came from it. When people whip some of the pictures out to reshop or make fun of me with, it's usually hilarious. Which was the intention of the thread. Once again, too slow to understand that.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:09 PM
Who can bring a better conversation about the Broncos?

A) randomly chosen member at DB.com
B) Rev

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:09 PM
Trick question from above: he dreams about tim tebow penetrating him while rev uses his teeth to rip out the laces of a football.

Gay jokes with Tebow?

Is that really the best you've got?

I'll give you a few more minutes to do better before this starts to get flat out sad.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:10 PM
Little boy, you're mistaking me for someone who cares. People had a blast with that thread and still have fun with everything that came from it. When people whip some of the pictures out to reshop or make fun of me with, it's usually hilarious. Which was the intention of the thread. Once again, too slow to understand that.

Whose got a bigger forehead:

Kobe Bryant or the Rev?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:11 PM
Who is dumb enough to post a picture online of himself in a homosexual position asking to get owned:

a) a gay porn star
b) rev

(I bet you don't ever do that **** again, dumbass LMAO)

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:14 PM
Who is dumb enough to post a picture online of himself in a homosexual position asking to get owned:

a) a gay porn star
b) rev

(I bet you don't ever do that **** again, dumbass LMAO)

Yawn.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vQb6rxVWf_4/S_NARW4ay-I/AAAAAAAAACs/bYErrTE7b_Y/s1600/clock_ticking.jpg

Lev Vyvanse
09-17-2010, 08:14 PM
Gay jokes with Tebow?

Is that really the best you've got?

I'll give you a few more minutes to do better before this starts to get flat out sad.

Too late.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:15 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=3340&dateline=1256099663&type=profile

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ahcuue.gif

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:18 PM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=3340&dateline=1256099663&type=profile

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ahcuue.gif

Keep tryin.

Want some new material? Here's a pretty gay one from my best friend's wedding a month or so ago.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs313.snc4/41002_419205538154_515728154_4891205_6599173_n.jpg

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:21 PM
This one's a little far away, otherwise it'd be a great candidate for a gay photo. I'm the Greenman naturally (thanks again Son of Lelo, I wear it WAYYYYY too often)

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs154.ash2/41017_644917443845_73404003_37670264_1151686_n.jpg

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:21 PM
Whose trying to play off the fact that he's a ****ing dumbass by posting more pictures of himself in an online forum:

a)rev
b)all of the above

who has a bigger forehead:

a)rev
b)jimmy neutron

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:23 PM
who includes women in every picture in attempt to distract from the fact that they're a fagggot?

a)rev
b)men who are still in the closet

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:23 PM
Whose trying to play off the fact that he's a ****ing dumbass by posting more pictures of himself in an online forum:

a)rev
b)all of the above

who has a bigger forehead:

a)rev
b)jimmy neutron

What's stupid about it? Just because you're a massive pussy and don't want to the enormous volume of fodder a picture of you would naturally bring, doesn't mean it bothers anyone else.

I'm guessing you look like a more feminine Jane Fonda.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:24 PM
who includes women in every picture in attempt to distract from the fact that they're a fagggot?

a)rev
b)men who are still in the closet

Hmmm... that might hold SOME ground if I weren't RIDING A GUY in that photo...

Seriously, are you even trying?

ANYONE would've hit SOMETHING funny by now.

Why not hit 4chan and have them come up with something clever for you, scrub?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:25 PM
I'm guessing you look like a more feminine Jane Fonda.

Who here is desperately wondering what I look like?

a)rev
b)the rest of the mane

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:26 PM
Who looks more like a "douche bag":

a)rev
b)dude from Jersey shore

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:27 PM
Who here is desperately wondering what I look like?

a)rev
b)the rest of the mane

Well, duh. You're 120 lbs and more of a woman than anyone else here. Of course I wanna see if I'd hit it or not.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:28 PM
Are there more white women in:

A)Mad Men
B)Rev's scrapbook of fagggotlicious pictures

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:29 PM
Who likes to pose with their mouth in position for a monster cock and getting ready to deep throat:

a)rev
b)porn screen caps

Naggle Nole
09-17-2010, 08:30 PM
I am curious how far this will go until someone locks the thread
:Takes notes: :articles:

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:31 PM
Are there more white women in:

A)Mad Men
B)Rev's scrapbook of fagggotlicious pictures

How is that ******licious if there are a lot of white women in them?

I mean... really.. did you go to the Carlos Mencia school of comedy or something?

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:32 PM
I am curious how far this will go until someone locks the thread
:Takes notes: :articles:

****ty end to a thread with a ****ty article to begin it.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:35 PM
How is that ******licious if there are a lot of white women in them?

I mean... really.. did you go to the Carlos Mencia school of comedy or something?

The fact that Rev is forgetting that gay men have more female friends than straight men:

A) it means he's gay
B) it means he's a dumbass
C) it means he's still in the closet
D) it means he acts gay to make people think he's not gay, when he really is, gay.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:36 PM
Here's some more ammo in HOPES you can do something funny... but you can only recycle other peoples jokes and post gifs you stole from other forums, huh?

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs296.snc3/28441_400438938154_515728154_4417997_130350_n.jpg

Brainstorm. Dig deep. You can do it.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:36 PM
To everyone reading, let me say that I have no issues with homosexual people.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:38 PM
To everyone reading, let me say that I have no issues with homosexual people.

Clearly.

Now focus up.

REALLLLLLLLLLLLY try and get me just once before this thread ends.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:38 PM
Wow man, you pretty much owned yourself with that picture.

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1021627/50-cent-o.gif

rbackfactory80
09-17-2010, 08:38 PM
You two really love each other, don't you.

Lev Vyvanse
09-17-2010, 08:40 PM
I am curious how far this will go until someone locks the thread
:Takes notes: :articles:

I wondered who started the flame war. If you go back and look, it's surprise The MVParisHilton

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:41 PM
Wow man, you pretty much owned yourself with that picture.

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1021627/50-cent-o.gif

Do you want me to do this for you? You're really disappointing. Not quite as disappointing as reading your horrible football "analysis", but still very disappointing.

Here's how I would do it:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs118.snc1/4736_86383908154_515728154_1972043_7406575_n.jpg

"Rev dragging some poor drunk guy home to take advantage of"

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:42 PM
damn Rev, why the **** did you have to post that picture. DAMN MAN, **** ain't even fun anymore now that you just shot yourself in the leg.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:43 PM
I wondered who started the flame war. If you go back and look, it's surprise The MVParisHilton

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Go back and look at who STAYED on topic and who diverged from football discussion.

GTFOH with your dumbass.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:44 PM
Do you want me to do this for you? You're really disappointing. Not quite as disappointing as reading your horrible football "analysis", but still very disappointing.

Here's how I would do it:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs118.snc1/4736_86383908154_515728154_1972043_7406575_n.jpg

"Rev dragging some poor drunk guy home to take advantage of"

Yeah, that was hilarious. I am dying of laughter.

http://i54.tinypic.com/23l03eo.jpg

Lev Vyvanse
09-17-2010, 08:47 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Go back and look at who STAYED on topic and who diverged from football discussion.

GTFOH with your dumbass.

Here is your first post in this thread
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2937782&postcount=70
Cliffs:
You being a douchebag.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:48 PM
Here's some more ammo in HOPES you can do something funny... but you can only recycle other peoples jokes and post gifs you stole from other forums, huh?

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs296.snc3/28441_400438938154_515728154_4417997_130350_n.jpg

Brainstorm. Dig deep. You can do it.

as Rev would say:

"Rev getting ready to take a shot in the face"

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:49 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Go back and look at who STAYED on topic and who diverged from football discussion.

GTFOH with your dumbass.

You're really oblivious. To the point where it's pathetic.

Listen, in my time here, I've had animated football arguments with EVERY regular on this board. I've also had animated insult swaps with almost all of them too. That qualifies me to let you know you don't stack up... at all. You're not clever. Your analysis sucks more dick than Perez Hilton in a bathhouse and all you do is derail threads in a completely unfunny way, add nothing to any discussion and troll the board.

I'm not telling you this to say "gtfo", but you really should pay more attention. Try and learn from the other people that know SO SO SO SOOOOO much more than you do.

Your football takes are embarrassing. Your attempts to put someone down are terrible (and I mean I really tried to give you something to go after post after post... you couldn't even step up to the plate it was so bad). And that's exactly why no one even wants to have a discussion with you.

You're an annoying little troll at this point. Fix your ****.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:51 PM
as Rev would say:

"Rev getting ready to take a shot in the face"

Says the guy who posted a picture of a black guy in a thong...

(see that's how you do it, junior)

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:52 PM
Here is your first post in this thread
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2937782&postcount=70
Cliffs:
You being a douchebag.

Yeah, so therefore I STARTED the flamewar right? Because I was a "douche"? We don't want to talk about the numerous posts Rev tries and get at me for.

We're not taking into account the last few posts in this thread that have to do with football - no name calling by me.

GTFOH out of here with your bull****.

Durango
09-17-2010, 08:53 PM
Yeah, so therefore I STARTED the flamewar right? Because I was a "douche"? We don't want to talk about the numerous posts Rev tries and get at me for.

We're not taking into account the last few posts in this thread that have to do with football - no name calling by me.

GTFOH out of here with your bull****.

Jesus man, you're a Bizzaro World Watermock

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:55 PM
I'm not telling you this to say "gtfo", but you really should pay more attention. Try and learn from the other people that know SO SO SO SOOOOO much more than you do.


The fact is that you don't, I've brought 100x examples the prove my point and broken everything down, and STILL to THIS point you still haven't explained yourself about bringing up SD.

I've CLEARLY stated all my points and facts, and the fact that you can't even RESPOND to them with anything but insults tells it all.

I mean how in the blue hell are you going to say you care about quality of opponents and use WIN TOTALS?

I mean, do you realize the fact that you ADDED up all the wins takes AWAY the whole factor of QUALITY of opponents?

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:55 PM
Jesus man, you're a Bizzaro World Watermock

I think he's just young.

At least I HOPE that's it.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 08:56 PM
The fact is that you don't, I've brought 100x examples the prove my point and broken everything down, and STILL to THIS point you still haven't explained yourself about bringing up SD.

I've CLEARLY stated all my points and facts, and the fact that you can't even RESPOND to them with anything but insults tells it all.

I mean how in the blue hell are you going to say you care about quality of opponents and use WIN TOTALS?

I mean, do you realize the fact that you ADDED up all the wins takes AWAY the whole factor of QUALITY of opponents?

Ya... pretty sure you got that backwards little guy.

Seriously, just take a break. Hit some other topics and practice NOT trolling them. Let me know how it goes. We can work on this.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:56 PM
Says the guy who posted a picture of a black guy in a thong...

(see that's how you do it, junior)

This is called ignorance.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 08:59 PM
Ya... pretty sure you got that backwards little guy.

Seriously, just take a break. Hit some other topics and practice NOT trolling them. Let me know how it goes. We can work on this.

I can tell you're quite confused at this point. Because if it were true that your point is about quality opponents, you wouldn't be using total wins.

You're sitting here pounding the table, about how dumb I am, but yet you're not able to bring many points to prove your statement or argument. You keep referring back to TOTAL wins, which KILLS the whole "quality" of opponents concept that you had supposedly agreed with.

In this extremely superficial example you have going, you're not crediting someone like the 11-5 New England Patriots, or the Jets who were on their playoff streak atop the AFC until we knocked the **** out them or even teams like Tampa and New Orleans who played in the most competitive division in football that season.

So now, you're just twisting the 2008 schedule to make it seem as if it was even HARDER than it really was. You really deviating from the original point, you're going into when we beat teams and how they were doing at time, and once again, ad now you talking about how tampa and NO was in the toughest division? You're going into matters that are completely far from your original point.

You're using TOTAL wins yet you're saying you agree that it's about QUALITY of opponents.

You seem quite confused.

If we're going by THAT standard of total wins, the fact STILL is

2009 opponents
Total 135-121

2008 opponents
Total 117-139

Tell me, Rev, how can you sit here and say you care about QUALITY of opponents when you're using TOTAL wins as a marker?

I've brought you more than enough proof/examples to validate my point, and I'm pretty sure I've made it clear. The only thing you've made clear is that the only response you have to me is calling me white (which I'm not) and anemic (which I'm not either).

oh and that 4 games out of 160 BS.

And still TO THIS post, you STILL haven't explained yourself about what your point is about San Diego...

For the 100th time:

If you care about quality of opponents (in a very basic and general sense)

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

If you want to use WINS as a marker for strength of schedule:

2009 opponents
Total 135-121

2008 opponents
Total 117-139

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 09:00 PM
A specific division will play one in conference division and one out of conference division along with their 6 games against division opponents. The remaining two games will be against the other in conference division teams with their similar ranking in division.


Ok, so 2 "other" games we played in 2009 was the Colts and Patriots with 14 and 10 wins, respectively (total of 24 wins)

The other 2 "other" games we played in 2008 was Jaguars and Browns with 5 and 4 wins respectively (total of 9)

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 09:01 PM
And yes - it's pretty common knowledge to measure "strength of schedule" by wins...

Let's face the facts

1. We played more double digit win teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

2. We played more winning teams in 2009 than 2008. (9 vs 6)

3. We played more playoff teams in 2009 than 2008. (7 vs 4)

SD accounts for 2 games in #1, #2, and 1 game in #3 (however #3 would still have the same difference). So what I'm assuming you're saying, again, is that our out of division opponents were almost equal because they only won 4 more games (out of 160).

What I'm saying is, you have to literally break out every single team and go in depth to know what these 4 games mean. These 4 games could equate to 2 more wins (and 2 less losses) to two teams who are 8-8, which would turn them to 10-6 turning into a playoff caliber team. 2 teams out of 10 (not counting the divisional games), is pretty huge. You take out 2 losing teams or average teams and turn them into winning/playoff caliber teams, that's a HUGE effect on the schedule, taking momentum and everything into account.

(or these 4 games could mean 4 8-8 teams turn into 4 9-7 teams...or these 4 games could represent a difference of 4 teams who were 3-13 but really could have ben 4-12... not a big difference here)

So the bottom line, these statistics would mean more if you REALLY broke EVERYTHING down. Just breaking it down partially and throwing **** at the wall pretty much, doesn't mean ****. You have to take into account the TRUE value of each game, not the fact that the game is just 1/160. That's being vague and not specific. You have to KNOW how many games is a difficult schedule, what is a easy schedule, and how HUGE 4 games, 5 games, 2 games are.

I've made my points, and we're going in circles at this point. You're not really aware of how these numbers or statistics work.

That's why I'm using general and basic statements like my 3 facts above, for a conversation/argument that should be general and basic to begin with.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 09:02 PM
Rev, 75% of the content in your posts consists of insults and contradiction (in this thread).

I tried to have a decent discussion as the above posts show.

TheReverend
09-17-2010, 09:03 PM
It's like banging your head into a wall...

I'm done with this dude. You don't listen. You only want to repeat yourself over and over while making no point or blatantly skewing the past.

That's fine. You can continue being a laughable forum troll.

The MVPlaya
09-17-2010, 09:06 PM
It's like banging your head into a wall...

I'm done with this dude. You don't listen. You only want to repeat yourself over and over while making no point or blatantly skewing the past.

That's fine. You can continue being a laughable forum troll.

You haven't said a damn thing about football, like I said.

The only thing you have contributed to support yourself is:

TOTAL wins from opponents in both seasons (which CONTRADICTS what you said you agree with)

and San Diego (which still to THIS post, you still haven't clearly explained)

You're calling ME a troll when you're sitting here posting pictures of yourself and consistently name calling?

I already told you, and as you saw, I was straight to have a football discussion but clearly, you're stuck on some other ****.

Cito Pelon
09-18-2010, 09:42 AM
Yeah there is a lot of hate going around about our team. It's getting more and more ridiculous. What I don't understand is we lost on the road to a Florida team in September (we've never won these) by one score. We were a few mistakes from winning the thing too. Basically a fumble, holding call and foot placed in bounds from pulling off the win. But you read here and around the web and you'd think we got lit up by 40 points at home to the Browns. It's mind-boggling.

There are many times on this board I think I watched a different game. Now this guy is re-imagining our draft. I guess he's arguing Alphonso Smith = a backup tight end now. That was a first, traded for a second to draft Smith, traded for a backup TE. So I suppose it's right, but in his original post he says 3 firsts. As was mentioned our three firsts were Ayers, Moreno and Tebow. but really we turned our one first into to two firsts by trading down and then back up and taking two players, who admittedly are projects, but saying they are "back ups" is intellectually dishonest about the situation. You could say that for more than half the rookie first round picks this year. Ayers is playing great, and Moreno had a good game despite the idiots you talk to here.

It's just a reminder that after losses the Mane is awash in idiocy.

No kidding. The team barely loses on the road in the season opener, despite playing in that suffocating, debilitating, drop-like-flies heat and humindity.

And suddenly, it's a hangover from the 2-8 finish from last season. Now, it's 2-9! Oh...my...god. Absolute embarrassing.

gyldenlove
09-18-2010, 10:21 AM
No kidding. The team barely loses on the road in the season opener, despite playing in that suffocating, debilitating, drop-like-flies heat and humindity.

And suddenly, it's a hangover from the 2-8 finish from last season. Now, it's 2-9! Oh...my...god. Absolute embarrassing.

Honestly though, we knew that would be the case, a loss would pretty much always end like that.

Good thing we get to go 1-1 tomorrow and reset this whole thing, maybe even get to talk a little about football again up in this bitch.

Steve Sewell
09-18-2010, 10:57 AM
It's just a reminder that after losses the Mane is awash in idiocy.

The funny thing is that we're gonna beat Indy this year. Can't wait to see what this forum will be like after that.